Trump's cabinet

[zoogs]

To echo on to what Moiraine is saying, you can't seriously believe that the U.S spends zero dollars to help people who are struggling and poor in our own country.

 

In fact, such expenditures comprise an enormous percentage of the federal government's spending, so the mathematical inaccuracy is something fierce.

 

It is possible (and necessary) to do both.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

 

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedmans February 2016 column, titled End the Two-State Narrative, argues that the two-state solution has always been a con. The Palestinian Authority, he argues, have tricked Israelis and Americans into believing that they want an independent state in order to extract cash payments from the Americans. The US government goes along with this, he implies, because it is institutionally anti-Semitic.

 

The US State Department with a hundred-year history of anti-Semitism promotes the payoff of corrupt Palestinians in exchange for their completely duplicitous agreement to support a two-state solution, Friedman writes. US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinians, he concludes, are a discussion of an illusory solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Jesus.

Trump's picks are a bunch of liars and morons. Ya, Palestine is tricking the US and Israel and reaping the rewards!!!!!1one

 

 

 

So by my rudimentary math skills, we have 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries, but ZERO dollars to help people who are struggling/poor in our own country.

 

WTGDHFSIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

How many people in this country could we help with 10 BILLION dollars a year?

 

(And yes, that question is 100% rhetorical.)

We spend $ to help the poor in our country (see stamps/medicaid) but the Right does everything they can to fight against it.

 

Also, I'm okay with us helping some countries defend themselves. E.g. Georgia, Ukraine and any other country that borders Russia who isn't powerful enough to defend themselves. I'm not against us helping Israel. Iran leaders have flat out said they want to destroy Israel.

I am okay with us helping other people in other countries also...but only if we've taken care of our own population first.

 

A lot of what we do internationally helps defend us.

 

However that brings up something that baffles me. I don't know why people are so supportive of high defensive spending that they think it's more important than basic necessities like universal health care. Which brings up the fact Trump wants to increase/improve our nuclear arsenal. The U.S. won't worth defending if we screw ourselves economically to make more nukes that we don't need. Honestly he's starting to sound like Kim Jong-Un.

 

 

Trump is a tiny-hands, hair-piece wearing, garden gnome looking, nazi sympathizing, fascist.

 

He's not "starting" to sound like Kim Jong-Un, he's already a monster like him. He's always been a fascist, hate-monger. Running for President, and being to elected to, merely brought out his worst beliefs and attributes to the fore front.

[Making Chimichangas]

To echo on to what Moiraine is saying, you can't seriously believe that the U.S spends zero dollars to help people who are struggling and poor in our own country.

 

In fact, such expenditures comprise an enormous percentage of the federal government's spending, so the mathematical inaccuracy is something fierce.

 

It is possible (and necessary) to do both.

 

And to reiterate what I am saying...

 

We shouldn't export a penny abroad until every single US citizen has all the basic necessities she/he/they/ze need.

[zoogs]

I can hardly express how much I disagree with that. It's not zero sum and also, there would never be enough money spent. We can't pretend the United States exists singularly in the world; we're a part of it -- a big part -- and that comes with responsibilities both foreign and domestic.

[Moiraine]

There has to be a middle ground with it.

 

If you only spend money domestically, all foreign countries will see you as the "Other" and will be less likely to assist you in times of need (e.g. all the countries that help us with anti-terrorism). They will also be less likely to do what you ask or tell them to do. They will be less likely to make trade agreements that are beneficial to the U.S. as well.

 

Conversely, if you spend all your money on defense and let those in poverty (e.g. many of the disabled) die from not having basic needs met, then you're defending something that's not very worthy of defense.

 

 

The conversation that we spend too much on foreign countries is a good one to have but pulling it all would be really stupid. If that had been our attitude 50-100 years ago the world would be a hell of a lot worse place right now. Just one example - we helped Japan rebuild and they agreed not to be militaristic ever again. We helped loads of other countries not get run over by Russia.

[Making Chimichangas]

I can hardly express how much I disagree with that. It's not zero sum and also, there would never be enough money spent. We can't pretend the United States exists singularly in the world; we're a part of it -- a big part -- and that comes with responsibilities both foreign and domestic.

 

I am in no way denying what you are saying.

 

What I am saying, is that at minimum we are sending 10 billion abroad when at least 4-5 billion could (and should) be spent here at home first.

 

So, ironically, I am in agreement with Trump and his "America First" mantra.

 

I just wince, cringe, and eschew the white nationalist, racist, kkk, nazi, aspects of this.

[zoogs]

How much do you think is being spent here at home?

[Moiraine]

 

 

I can hardly express how much I disagree with that. It's not zero sum and also, there would never be enough money spent. We can't pretend the United States exists singularly in the world; we're a part of it -- a big part -- and that comes with responsibilities both foreign and domestic.

I am in no way denying what you are saying.

 

What I am saying, is that at minimum we are sending 10 billion abroad when at least 4-5 billion could (and should) be spent here at home first.

 

So, ironically, I am in agreement with Trump and his "America First" mantra.

 

I just wince, cringe, and eschew the white nationalist, racist, kkk, nazi, aspects of this.

Gonna answer zoogs' question.

 

 

We spent $30 billion on foreign aid last year.

 

We spent $550 billion on medicaid and $70 billion on food stamps.

 

Haven't looked up disability.

 

 

What we should be allocating to universal health care is some of the defense budget. But not soldiers' pay. Foreign aid should continue about the way it is imo.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

I can hardly express how much I disagree with that. It's not zero sum and also, there would never be enough money spent. We can't pretend the United States exists singularly in the world; we're a part of it -- a big part -- and that comes with responsibilities both foreign and domestic.

I am in no way denying what you are saying.

 

What I am saying, is that at minimum we are sending 10 billion abroad when at least 4-5 billion could (and should) be spent here at home first.

 

So, ironically, I am in agreement with Trump and his "America First" mantra.

 

I just wince, cringe, and eschew the white nationalist, racist, kkk, nazi, aspects of this.

Gonna answer zoogs' question.

 

 

We spent $30 billion on foreign aid last year.

 

We spent $550 billion on medicaid and $70 billion on food stamps.

 

Haven't looked up disability.

 

 

What we should be allocating to universal bealth care is some of the defense budget. But not soldiers' pay. Foreign aid should continue about the way it is imo.

 

 

550 billion on Medicaid and 70 billion on food stamps?????????

 

I have not looked up those numbers or figures...

 

But those numbers seem high.

 

If we're legit spending that much on those programs, and we still have the inequality, then perhaps we need to re-evaluate how we spend our tax dollars.

[zoogs]

Do they really seem high?

 

I think you need to get a sense of the scale of some of these numbers. 30 billion is paltry at the national, not individual level. And yeah, we could use some more tax revenue and larger programs, in my opinion

[Making Chimichangas]

Do they really seem high?

 

I think you need to get a sense of the scale of some of these numbers. 30 billion is paltry at the national, not individual level. And yeah, we could use some more tax revenue and larger programs, in my opinion

 

I can't fathom these numbers.

 

I can't imagine how we're spending (according to Moiranes's post) 70 BILLION dollars a year on food stamps and children in this country still go to bed at night hungry

[zoogs]

Well, some simple math:

 

70 * 10^9 / (45 * 10^6) equals roughly 1560 USD per food stamp recipient per year, or $130 a month, before what should be a fairly safe 15-20% in administrative costs or so; I don't have a great sense there exactly.

 

$100/mo. isn't a lot for food. There are a lot of needy people.

 

As a percentage of spending, which is around 350-400 trillion, it's somewhere below 2%. Not trivial, by any means. But not overwhelming.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Do they really seem high?

 

I think you need to get a sense of the scale of some of these numbers. 30 billion is paltry at the national, not individual level. And yeah, we could use some more tax revenue and larger programs, in my opinion

I can't fathom these numbers.

 

I can't imagine how we're spending (according to Moiranes's post) 70 BILLION dollars a year on food stamps and children in this country still go to bed at night hungry

 

It's $233 per U.S. citizen per year.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Do they really seem high?

 

I think you need to get a sense of the scale of some of these numbers. 30 billion is paltry at the national, not individual level. And yeah, we could use some more tax revenue and larger programs, in my opinion

I can't fathom these numbers.

 

I can't imagine how we're spending (according to Moiranes's post) 70 BILLION dollars a year on food stamps and children in this country still go to bed at night hungry

 

It's $233 per U.S. citizen per year.

 

 

 

That is an incredibly disheartening and low number.

 

However, that figure (unless I am missing something) also assumes (I think) that all 350+ million Americans need/receive/get assistance.

 

In reality, there are probably 35-40 million people nationally who actually need financial assistance.

 

So if we take that 70 billion and readjust it to 40 million people in need, that's 1,750 dollars per person.

 

Now I am not sure about these numbers being for the year or monthly...

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Do they really seem high?

 

I think you need to get a sense of the scale of some of these numbers. 30 billion is paltry at the national, not individual level. And yeah, we could use some more tax revenue and larger programs, in my opinion

I can't fathom these numbers.

 

I can't imagine how we're spending (according to Moiranes's post) 70 BILLION dollars a year on food stamps and children in this country still go to bed at night hungry

It's $233 per U.S. citizen per year.

 

 

 

That is an incredibly disheartening and low number.

 

However, that figure (unless I am missing something) also assumes (I think) that all 350+ million Americans need/receive/get assistance.

 

In reality, there are probably 35-40 million people nationally who actually need financial assistance.

 

So if we take that 70 billion and readjust it to 40 million people in need, that's 1,750 dollars per person.

 

Now I am not sure about these numbers being for the year or monthly...

 

I wasn't clear.

 

I'm saying Food Stamps cost U.S. citizens $233/year on average, whether they receive them or not.