Didn't he already do that when he told the people still chanting "lock her up!" he didn't need them anymore?
Trumps new travel ban already blocked by federal judge in Hawaii.
It's hilarious because he pretty much screwed it all up himself. He can write the most neutral EO possible in order to ban people from various countries with majority Muslims and say it isn't a "Muslim Ban", but when your own campaign website says this, the obvious intent is there. You can't hide that now by being careful with your words, it's all in the open, so any ban you draft is going to be challenged.
It's hilarious because he pretty much screwed it all up himself. He can write the most neutral EO possible in order to ban people from various countries with majority Muslims and say it isn't a "Muslim Ban", but when your own campaign website says this, the obvious intent is there. You can't hide that now by being careful with your words, it's all in the open, so any ban you draft is going to be challenged.
His surrogates were practically orgasmic in declaring it a ban. Especially Rudy.
Great, but how does that work in dollars for each? A 9% increase to defense may completely wipe out every other cut on there for all I know.
According to Dave's article, and using the calculator built into windows, Trump's budget is -7.7 billion under last year's spending, even with the increase in defense spending.
That said, nothing binds congress to using these numbers at all. Trump's "budget" is more of a recommendation or wishlist.
That said, nothing binds congress to using these numbers at all. Trump's "budget" is more of a recommendation or wishlist.
GasBandit
Staff member
That can't be Tucker Carlson, he's not wearing a bow tie.
FAKE NEWS[DOUBLEPOST=1489677693,1489677643][/DOUBLEPOST]
FAKE NEWS[DOUBLEPOST=1489677693,1489677643][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ya durn tootin.
What does throwing buckets of money at weapons systems that are neither needed nor wanted at the expense of... everything else, have to do with promoting the general welfare or securing the blessings of Liberty?[DOUBLEPOST=1489678214,1489678097][/DOUBLEPOST]
This is "you only have the right to the health care you can afford" made policy.
Technically he just said that there was no more need to "Lock her up" coz they won...
And lets be honest, the vast majority of people chanting that where also using it just for political gain, which is why they stopped demanding anything about it.
Great, now you're going to be protected from all those outsiders, and all you have to worry about is all the pollution and uneducated, lead poisoned population...
"easily controlled masses".
I don't know. If the environment tanks soon enough to affect the food supply, that schedule may get accelerated.
--Patrick
Lolno
Republicans* believe that Socialism would mean having to start caring about people that aren't Republican, and the fewer of those, the better.
--Patrick
*as the term has come to mean, today.
I'm not going to speak to the republican party, as I'm not in the USA, but for many conservatives, that isn't the government's responsibility, but rather everybody's. Charity is a duty of the individual, not the state. Thus wealth transfer is something done voluntarily, not under the coercion (and distribution) of the state. See a social problem? Then either volunteer or send money (or both) to organizations addressing them directly. Food banks, shelters, etc. Giving it to the government will likely waste the majority of it, rather than going to help people.
You might identify that as more libertarian than conservative down there. I dunno. But it's an explanation. I'm also deliberately exaggerating the view, but it does make certain moves make more sense from some individuals.
To simplify even further: the government should only do what it must to serve the country, not everything that it possibly can.
Unless the Republicans throw Trump to the wolves after he is no longer useful.
figmentPez
Staff member
Moreover, many religious groups promote the idea that the government aiding people encourages bad behavior, while their church helping people makes them better people. (see objections to health clinics as promoting abortion, claiming food stamps enable drug usage, etc.)
Necronic
Staff member
The problem with the "cut all the things" attitude is that there's a lot of government spending that is actually a net positive for the country. Some are obvious, things like infrastructure spending. Same with (most) education spending. Every dollar we spend in those things serves to strengthen our country, and can even pay us back.
Similar points can be made about other services. Poison Control Centers substantially reduce costs at emergency rooms. Homeless services and drug rehab facilities/programs and reduce costs with crime.
So there is a good argument for a fiscal conservative to support many types of government spending. The funny thing is lots of so-called "conservatives" (read: social conservatives and tea party hacks) don't actually think this way.
Anyways, to the issue at hand. Meals on Wheels, regardless of how noble an endeavor it is, doesn't fit this criteria imho. The elderly and infirm have pretty much zero potential to return to being economically valuable to society in any way, and these elderly, by their very nature of having to rely on a service to feed them, probably don't even have family that would gain a tangential benefit from seeing them taken care of.
In fact, if we're being ruthlessly utilitarian, which I would argue is the baseline of fiscal conservatism, I would argue that keeping these people alive only serves to bring further harm to our finances. The sooner they die the sooner we can remove them from the Medicare/Medicaid rolls.
So from a brutally fiscally conservative viewpoint I would say Meals on Wheels is absolutely a program that should be cut.
However when you consider that our presidents extravagant vacationing and maintenance of his family at Trump Tower has already wasted more money than was even being supplied to meals on Wheels in the first place then I would further articulate this entire argument as a steaming pile of horseshit from cruel idiots who have no idea how to manage money and very little concept of humanity.
Similar points can be made about other services. Poison Control Centers substantially reduce costs at emergency rooms. Homeless services and drug rehab facilities/programs and reduce costs with crime.
So there is a good argument for a fiscal conservative to support many types of government spending. The funny thing is lots of so-called "conservatives" (read: social conservatives and tea party hacks) don't actually think this way.
Anyways, to the issue at hand. Meals on Wheels, regardless of how noble an endeavor it is, doesn't fit this criteria imho. The elderly and infirm have pretty much zero potential to return to being economically valuable to society in any way, and these elderly, by their very nature of having to rely on a service to feed them, probably don't even have family that would gain a tangential benefit from seeing them taken care of.
In fact, if we're being ruthlessly utilitarian, which I would argue is the baseline of fiscal conservatism, I would argue that keeping these people alive only serves to bring further harm to our finances. The sooner they die the sooner we can remove them from the Medicare/Medicaid rolls.
So from a brutally fiscally conservative viewpoint I would say Meals on Wheels is absolutely a program that should be cut.
However when you consider that our presidents extravagant vacationing and maintenance of his family at Trump Tower has already wasted more money than was even being supplied to meals on Wheels in the first place then I would further articulate this entire argument as a steaming pile of horseshit from cruel idiots who have no idea how to manage money and very little concept of humanity.
Last edited:
Funny, i seems to remember it being "WE, the people", not "WE, the government".
If it actually worked that way, communism would have succeeded by now...
Maybe if your government isn't being held responsible because the population doesn't really care...
And if they don't care enough to keep the government honest, no way they would car enough to keep religious or private charities honest... and the Vatican isn't chock-full of art and treasure because they where helping the poor.[DOUBLEPOST=1489707680,1489707579][/DOUBLEPOST]
I don't know, i hear lead poisoning isn't exactly a peaceful condition.[DOUBLEPOST=1489707813][/DOUBLEPOST]
I don't know if showing people that, once they get too old, they'll be left in the dust, and thus have nothing to lose when that time nears, is a good idea for a society...
GasBandit
Staff member
It worked when they originally pitched Social Security, with the original retirement age (65) being 4 years past what was then the average life expectancy...
Now that the average life expectancy is only a few months short of 79, the money's running out, even though they've pushed the retirement age back to 67.
I can only imagine what would happen if they told people the new retirement age is 83.
If taking care of the poor is supposed to be my responsibility, I'd like some funding to help with that--say, the chunk of my every paycheck that gets sucked up by the government.
Uh, virtually every implementation of communism that we've seen thus far on earth has tried to take massively from the populace, and (often) re-distribute it. It was not a "thou must givest 70% of your money to charity a year" it was "give all to us, we'll give back what we say you need." Or are you about to argue the old cliche that none of them have done communism "right" yet? Hell, the only places that approach something resembling Marx's ideal societies are the usually one-generational religious communes/utopias. And they don't work once their children decide "fuck it, we don't want this." At the end of a gun is the only way "communism" in any form lasts longer than a generation with extremely few exceptions.
I don't know if you're being flippant or not, but that's exactly the idea. Government doesn't need the money, so you're using it to help those around you.
The thing is: many are greedy. THAT was the message of "The Widow's Mite" lesson, on the poor widow giving a huge amount of what she had, though it was almost nothing, because she had almost nothing, while criticizing the rich for giving what they didn't care about, even if it was greater per person. Charity is a duty. But it's also voluntary. Say what you will about "eternal consequences" but it's not coerced under penalty of jail from your local government like taxes are.
Of course I'm being flippant. You think I enjoy my taxes going to nonsense like a navy ship too expensive to risk putting in the water? Thing is, nobody gets their groin tickled at the government taking their money, but if it's going to happen anyway, I'd like it to go to a good purpose.
Nearly half of the voters wanted it.