American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.

However coming in and cutting everything at least is a genuine budget cut over "finding efficiencies" that the right normally trots around. The contraction of government services will cut costs and identify what was needed.

So is it the best way to go about these things? No, but the effects of this will be clearly felt which should get a reaction from voters and in turn change the government going forward. And when the next government / house restores funding and scope to some of these agencies the end result will be improved efficiency and lower cost.

The human cost of these changes suck but it won't be all negative.

I'd buy that argument, if he was cutting things that are actually bloated and inefficient and wasteful. Like, say, defence. Burning all the agencies to the ground, then having to rebuild them in 4 years isn't efficient, and will not save costs. Cutting funding to places like the NIH will do real, tangible harm to Americans, and sick people around the world. Sorry, but there is nothing good here. This is some grade A level poor decision making.

[photon]

"The poor you will always have with you, you can eliminate their programs to fund military buildup whenever you want."

The public will be ok with this, it's right there in the Bible...

[DuffMan]

here's some cuts, that are well worth it for more weapons.

- Trump would eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which helps almost 2 million people a year. The agency helps poor people find lawyers to resolve housing cases and navigate bankruptcy, and helps victims of domestic violence get protective court orders.

-- Trump would get rid of $11 million in what it calls "unproven" training grants doled out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which regulates safety in the workplace.

-- The budget would eliminate $434 million for a Labor Department program that aims to help poor senior citizens find jobs. The administration says the program is ineffective: A third of participants don't complete it, and only half of those who do complete it move into unsubsidized jobs.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news...ans/index.html

[GirlySports]

Meals on Wheels. They want to cut Meals on Wheels.

Those senior citizens are just going to die from lack of healthcare, so they won't be needed meals anymore.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

here's some cuts, that are well worth it for more weapons.

- Trump would eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which helps almost 2 million people a year. The agency helps poor people find lawyers to resolve housing cases and navigate bankruptcy, and helps victims of domestic violence get protective court orders.

-- Trump would get rid of $11 million in what it calls "unproven" training grants doled out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which regulates safety in the workplace.

-- The budget would eliminate $434 million for a Labor Department program that aims to help poor senior citizens find jobs. The administration says the program is ineffective: A third of participants don't complete it, and only half of those who do complete it move into unsubsidized jobs.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/16/news...ans/index.html

Hey man, you do what you gotta do to keep brown people and Mexicans out.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Okay, which one is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course the black and the dark brown one...

[Azure]

It is unsustainable to keep spending like the US has. At some point someone will have to cut something.

The problem is that they are not reducing military spending. Should be 15% cut there too.

The EPA should get more funding, but other than that I'm not sure I really disagree with the cuts. The US has been spending beyond its means for years. Time to cut back and force the agencies to operate more efficiently.

If they started collecting taxes like they should the US could easily balance the budget.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Of course the black and the dark brown one...

Pretty much the conversation at break by the microwaves--

Trump supporter to other Trump supporter,,"Why are you putting that in the black microwave? Use the white one."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.

However coming in and cutting everything at least is a genuine budget cut over "finding efficiencies" that the right normally trots around. The contraction of government services will cut costs and identify what was needed.

Sorry dude, there is no credit to be had here. Not buying groceries for a month to see what you missed most is not an effective way to trim your monthly expenses. It's idiotic. It's flat out idiotic.

So is it the best way to go about these things? No, but the effects of this will be clearly felt which should get a reaction from voters and in turn change the government going forward. And when the next government / house restores funding and scope to some of these agencies the end result will be improved efficiency and lower cost.

Have we still not moved beyond the reality here that people as a collective can't outsmart the bombardment of information they receive? Starting and stopping entire government agencies is not cost effective, it is ludicrously expensive and so inefficient as to directly impact the efficiency of other government agencies and institutions.

If the US ever pulls out of this spiral, and I don't think they will, it will take decades to reintroduce the necessary funding and personnel these programs require with potentially an entire generation bearing the brunt of the lack of services.

The human cost of these changes suck but it won't be all negative.

Yes, this is entirely negative. It has no tangible positive impact on US trade imbalances, budget deficits or long term economic productivity.

It's going to lead to hundreds of thousands, millions?, of jobs lost.

The harm of these cuts simply cannot be understated. The entire apparatus of the federal government is being systematically undercut and sabotaged. This is freakin' catastrophic.

from that washington post article,

Also missing from the discussion, at least for the moment, are scientists in political positions within the Trump administration. The administration needs to fill 46 science and technology positions that require Senate confirmation. So far Trump has nominated a single person, for the top job at the Food and Drug Administration.

Trump has yet to put forward a name for the top jobs at NASA, NOAA, the White House Council on Environmental Quality or the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy — the latter position known informally as the president’s science adviser.

The abject disaster this administration has been is unprecedented.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by troutman

Confusion Abounds as Multiple International SXSW Artists Denied Entry Into U.S.

Soviet Soviet, Yussef Kamaal, Massive Scar Era, ELOQ, Trementina, and Yung Beef all claim they have been blocked from our shores

http://pitchfork.com/news/72233-conf...ocial_facebook

Trump Proposes Eliminating National Endowment for the Arts

Proposal calls to end funding to both the NEA and the NEH

http://pitchfork.com/news/71828-trum...ocial_facebook

No art or music allowed in Trump's America. Jesus, that's depressing.

[DuffMan]

If Trump wins a second term and his budgets are approved, there will be more "military jobs, border police and ICE agents" than private citizens, in America

[photon]

Whaaaa?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

Whaaaa?

I had been reading about things. I read in -- I think it was January 20th, a New York Times article where they were talking about military type jobs. There was an article, I think they used that exact term. I read other things. I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous, where he was talking about certain, very complex sets of things happening, and military jobs. I said "Wait a minute, there's a lot of military jobs being talked about." I have been seeing a lot of things.

He mentioned it, and other people mentioned it, but if you take a look at some of the things written about military jobs and private jobs -- and don't forget, when I say "military jobs," those words were in quotes. That really covers -- because military jobs are pretty old-fashioned stuff, but that really covers border security and ICE and many other things, and nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, that's a very important thing. But military jobs covers a lot of different things, I think you are going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Meals on Wheels. They want to cut Meals on Wheels.

Those senior citizens are just going to die from lack of healthcare, so they won't be needed meals anymore.

killing their voter base. Good long term strategy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

killing their voter base. Good long term strategy.

They control the mechanisms of elections. It's a great strategy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sorry dude, there is no credit to be had here. Not buying groceries for a month to see what you missed most is not an effective way to trim your monthly expenses. It's idiotic. It's flat out idiotic.



Have we still not moved beyond the reality here that people as a collective can't outsmart the bombardment of information they receive? Starting and stopping entire government agencies is not cost effective, it is ludicrously expensive and so inefficient as to directly impact the efficiency of other government agencies and institutions.

If the US ever pulls out of this spiral, and I don't think they will, it will take decades to reintroduce the necessary funding and personnel these programs require with potentially an entire generation bearing the brunt of the lack of services.


Yes, this is entirely negative. It has no tangible positive impact on US trade imbalances, budget deficits or long term economic productivity.

It's going to lead to hundreds of thousands, millions?, of jobs lost.

The harm of these cuts simply cannot be understated. The entire apparatus of the federal government is being systematically undercut and sabotaged. This is freakin' catastrophic.

from that washington post article,

The abject disaster this administration has been is unprecedented.

This comes from a mind set that all of these services are required, and that these services should be funded through the federal government. Take meals on wheels for example, I don't see any reason that a specific meals on wheels program would be funded by the federal government. This does not make sense. The federal government should not be part of deciding which direct services get funded and which don't. Give that money to the states for them do with as required.

All of the pork payments for various initiatives in the US from the federal level to direct services are being allocated at the wrong level. So for me cutting funding to meals on wheels at the federal level is the correct thing to do. Now the money saved should be transferred to the states and not spent on military funding but in general the elimination of federal funding programs which should be funded at the state or local level is a good start to unraveling the mess that is the US budget.

[aaronck]

Deep State!

https://vid.me/ORDT

Sorry, can't figure out how to embed...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

This comes from a mind set that all of these services are required, and that these services should be funded through the federal government. Take meals on wheels for example, I don't see any reason that a specific meals on wheels program would be funded by the federal government. This does not make sense. The federal government should not be part of deciding which direct services get funded and which don't. Give that money to the states for them do with as required.

All of the pork payments for various initiatives in the US from the federal level to direct services are being allocated at the wrong level. So for me cutting funding to meals on wheels at the federal level is the correct thing to do. Now the money saved should be transferred to the states and not spent on military funding but in general the elimination of federal funding programs which should be funded at the state or local level is a good start to unraveling the mess that is the US budget.

Read your post again.

It would be good if the money was being transferred to the states to take up those programs. But that isn't happening, therefore the cuts are....?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

OK, I wasn't really accusing you of being brainwashed, I was using that as a nice segue to that clip of crazy Jimmy Inhofe, who was head of the EPA.

I know.

Anyways, I think maybe your trust of the manufacturing sector policing themselves for pollution etc. may be slightly justified, but I don't think that works at all in the O&G and mining sectors. Why do you think Trump is scrapping all the water protection acts? He's not doing it because he thinks the industries that are in positions to pollute them won't, because it's the right thing to do.

No doubt O&G and mining is an issue. But I will say this out of all the industries they are already the problem. They simply ignore regulations in these parts. Now they get to do so legally. The EPA stuff really isn't even the big thing for them...it's the elimination of the Chemical Safety Control board. Those are the guys that investigate the accidents and determine "fault".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GGG

In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.

However coming in and cutting everything at least is a genuine budget cut over "finding efficiencies" that the right normally trots around. The contraction of government services will cut costs and identify what was needed.

So is it the best way to go about these things? No, but the effects of this will be clearly felt which should get a reaction from voters and in turn change the government going forward. And when the next government / house restores funding and scope to some of these agencies the end result will be improved efficiency and lower cost.

The human cost of these changes suck but it won't be all negative.

Originally Posted by calf

So, basically, Trump is going full Oiler.

"You have to learn how to lose life before you can restore it"