Trump Administration Meltdown Thread...

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:34 am

more cuts

- 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.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:39 am

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.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:54 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote: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.

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.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:00 pm

degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.

Shall we make a wager on whether the money saved will be transferred to the states?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:00 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote: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.

People who worked their whole lives and paid into the system. What a savage, inhumane government.

duff · Post by **duff** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:04 pm

States will never see any of the money taken out of the budget from other departments. All of it is going to defense and 'The Wall'.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:28 pm

degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.

and then allow states to cut funding for Meals on Wheels?

come on man

Post by **brian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:50 pm

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:57 pm

To be fair to Trump, and as pointed out later in that thread, Linda McMahon's was much worse.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:59 pm

Yeah and look what shitty post she got

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:30 pm

sancarlos wrote:
degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.
Shall we make a wager on whether the money saved will be transferred to the states?

definitely not. i'm just saying the idea of cutting the program is not bad, but using the money to fund military spending is awful.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:47 pm

They're going to lower unemployment by cutting these safety agencies. Don't need to create jobs when people die at work and someone who is unemployed can fill the opening.

duff · Post by **duff** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:53 pm

Cutting these agencies will also increase unemployment. Can't work if you don't get paid.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:02 pm

The answer is Social Security. So easy and NO ONE will even bring it up.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:38 pm

HaulCitgo wrote:The answer is Social Security. So easy and NO ONE will even bring it up.

You misspelled "defense spending."

ETA: Cutting Social Security is a terrible idea. The program's long term fiscal outlook is far better than people realize. But that's because people like Paul Ryan totally distort the issue because their goal is to kill off or privatize Social Security so that their heroes on Wall Street can make even more money by charging transaction fees on everyone's retirement assets.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:50 pm

Almost getting to the point where all of these savings have to go to security systems to keep dirty poors from breaking in through your windows.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:58 pm

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:39 pm

Don;t mean to offend any of you guys (and certainly this won't bug Jerloma...) but every single one of these assholes identifies themselves as being "Christian."

It's a rhetorical and almost silly question, but didn't Jesus believe in charity and the golden rule?

You cut funding for meals to debilitated seniors and sick people, you are killing them.

But safe borders...

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:44 pm

Pruitt wrote:You cut funding for meals to debilitated seniors and sick people, you are killing them.

But safe borders...

Pretend safe borders. That's the real crime.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:14 pm

White House Says Cutting Meals on Wheels Is ‘Compassionate’

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:18 pm

sancarlos wrote:White House Says Cutting Meals on Wheels Is ‘Compassionate’

I have now officially heard everything.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:50 pm

Pruitt wrote:Don;t mean to offend any of you guys (and certainly this won't bug Jerloma...) but every single one of these assholes identifies themselves as being "Christian."

It's a rhetorical and almost silly question, but didn't Jesus believe in charity and the golden rule?

You cut funding for meals to debilitated seniors and sick people, you are killing them.

But safe borders...

My parents are pretty observant Catholics, and they would certainly agree with your reaction to how Christians should view politics. They are reliable Democratic voters and have been for as long as I've been alive, with social justice issues being the driving factor in their politics. However, as someone who was raised religious, I will say that a significant number of U.S. Christians genuinely do view opposition to abortion as the single most important moral issue. To the extent that they will reflexively vote GOP despite all its efforts to starve the poor. I don't know that they think GOP economic policies are right or moral, they just think abortion outweighs everything else. The other point is that Christianity has been perverted by the so-called "prosperity gospel" and used as a tool for saying that the rich deserve it, because if you're good, God will make you rich. Obviously that's an extremely convoluted reading if the New Testament, but the proliferation of very wealthy mega church pastors has contributed to that view.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:58 pm

I'm not a pious person, but the higher principles of Judaism and Christianity are what humans who want to live in a civil society should aspire to. Take God and Jesus and the hocus-pocus away. You are left with morality, charity and ideas on how to organize human beings in a way that is humane.

What I see coming from these assholes is closer to the principles of evil. Pulling money from social welfare organizations to fund the military?

I don;t expect that the afterlife is much to write home about, but those who preach the "prosperity gospel" should rot for all eternity.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:26 pm

It's arguably prevalent these days, really. People think Jesus loved to kick ass at business.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:30 am

Gunpowder wrote:It's arguably prevalent these days, really. People think Jesus loved to kick ass at business.

What a joke - guy had to go into his father's business to make a name for himself.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:30 am

degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.

I think this is so wrong. States suck at efficient management. As Dennis Miller said back before he became conservative, "States can't pave fucking roads." Plus, it can't possibly make sense to have fifty different state entities funding Meals on Wheels programs - especially since a lot of those programs are actually operated by groups that work in several states.

And in addition to being inefficient, many states are assholes to large parts of their own population. Hell, some of these states even started a war to keep large swathes of their populations in slavery. We really want to rely on them to take care of people in need?

But more fundamentally, the benefit of a national economy is that even though one region may be in an economic downturn, other regions are not. Coal Country is suffering while Silicon Valley is booming. If social programs are funded on the state level, then those programs in Coal Country will suffer also - and those programs are more critical in suffering areas. But if the programs are funded on the federal level, the increased tax receipts from Silicon Valley can be used to fund social programs where they are needed.

Pretty much every a politician or pundit argues that programs should be funded by states, they really mean that funding should be cut. It's always bullshit. Anything in our national interest should be funded at the federal level.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:18 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.
I think this is so wrong. States suck at efficient management. As Dennis Miller said back before he became conservative, "States can't pave fucking roads." Plus, it can't possibly make sense to have fifty different state entities funding Meals on Wheels programs - especially since a lot of those programs are actually operated by groups that work in several states.

And in addition to being inefficient, many states are assholes to large parts of their own population. Hell, some of these states even started a war to keep large swathes of their populations in slavery. We really want to rely on them to take care of people in need?

But more fundamentally, the benefit of a national economy is that even though one region may be in an economic downturn, other regions are not. Coal Country is suffering while Silicon Valley is booming. If social programs are funded on the state level, then those programs in Coal Country will suffer also - and those programs are more critical in suffering areas. But if the programs are funded on the federal level, the increased tax receipts from Silicon Valley can be used to fund social programs where they are needed.

Pretty much every a politician or pundit argues that programs should be funded by states, they really mean that funding should be cut. It's always bullshit. Anything in our national interest should be funded at the federal level.

Plus even liberal states that would otherwise be supportive of programs like this are required by law to have a balanced budget. The federal government isn't. Nor should it necessarily even aspire to be balanced if the tradeoff is imposing hardship on the elderly or the disabled.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:26 am

It would be nice if the Dems could collectively work up like 1/4 the public outrage for these cuts, even if they're just on paper, that the Republicans would if Obama had enacted a policy that would raised taxes by $30K per year on earners over $7MM.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:08 am

Pruitt wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:It's arguably prevalent these days, really. People think Jesus loved to kick ass at business.
What a joke - guy had to go into his father's business to make a name for himself.

I prefer my saviors not crucified.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:58 am

mister d wrote:It would be nice if the Dems could collectively work up like 1/4 the public outrage for these cuts, even if they're just on paper, that the Republicans would if Obama had enacted a policy that would raised taxes by $30K per year on earners over $7MM.

The problem is that the Dems have largely bought into the GOP's framing of social welfare issues in terms of whether "we can afford them," instead of focusing on the good that the program does. Just look at our defense budget: we can afford whatever the fuck we want to do, including every single "unrealistic" proposal that Bernie Sanders put forward. It's just a question of whether we'd rather prioritize bombing the Middle East and building fighter jets, or building a more just society. Anyone who claims to care about the debt but isn't calling for huge reductions in defense spending is really just trying to gash social welfare programs and redistribute wealth upwards.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:58 am

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:00 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
degenerasian wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote: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.
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.
I think this is so wrong. States suck at efficient management. As Dennis Miller said back before he became conservative, "States can't pave fucking roads." Plus, it can't possibly make sense to have fifty different state entities funding Meals on Wheels programs - especially since a lot of those programs are actually operated by groups that work in several states.

And in addition to being inefficient, many states are assholes to large parts of their own population. Hell, some of these states even started a war to keep large swathes of their populations in slavery. We really want to rely on them to take care of people in need?

But more fundamentally, the benefit of a national economy is that even though one region may be in an economic downturn, other regions are not. Coal Country is suffering while Silicon Valley is booming. If social programs are funded on the state level, then those programs in Coal Country will suffer also - and those programs are more critical in suffering areas. But if the programs are funded on the federal level, the increased tax receipts from Silicon Valley can be used to fund social programs where they are needed.

Pretty much every a politician or pundit argues that programs should be funded by states, they really mean that funding should be cut. It's always bullshit. Anything in our national interest should be funded at the federal level.

That's interesting. Perhaps I don't understand since I'm in Canada. Provinces run everything here. Health and Education being the top 2. There are transfer payments from one province to another to offset the discrepancies you're talking about between Silicon Valley and Coal Country. Ontario is starting to receive transfer payments from Newfoundland!

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/e ... of-powers/

Provincial legislatures have jurisdiction, among other things, over their internal constitutions, as well as direct taxation for provincial purposes, municipalities, school boards, hospitals, property and civil rights (their largest area of responsibility), administration of civil and criminal justice, penalties for infraction of provincial statutes, prisons, celebration of marriage, provincial civil service, local works and corporations with provincial objectives.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:02 pm

Joe K wrote:
mister d wrote:It would be nice if the Dems could collectively work up like 1/4 the public outrage for these cuts, even if they're just on paper, that the Republicans would if Obama had enacted a policy that would raised taxes by $30K per year on earners over $7MM.
The problem is that the Dems have largely bought into the GOP's framing of social welfare issues in terms of whether "we can afford them," instead of focusing on the good that the program does. ...

I don't know what Dems you are following, but I am seeing all kinds of people talk about how horrible the Trump proposed budget is because of the spending cuts we are talking about.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:11 pm

P.D.X. wrote:
Pruitt wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:It's arguably prevalent these days, really. People think Jesus loved to kick ass at business.
What a joke - guy had to go into his father's business to make a name for himself.
I prefer my saviors not crucified.

Well played.

It seems the latest talking point response to why Jesus would support cutting funding to feed the poor is the Bible preached individuals choosing to help the poor, not governments forcing everyone to feed the poor. A nice spin is forced charity is meaningless in the eyes of God.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:19 pm

The Sybian wrote:It seems the latest talking point response to why Jesus would support cutting funding to feed the poor is the Bible preached individuals choosing to help the poor, not governments forcing everyone to feed the poor. A nice spin is forced charity is meaningless in the eyes of God.

That's been the justification for years, going back at least to Newt Gingrich. And in theory I can agree with this. The problem is that relying on private charity is not enough, so the question becomes, is it better to let people live in squalor, spend their lives hungry, and die of treatable diseases? Or is it better that a multimillionaire get to buy his 22d yacht?

Jesus, being a well-known fishing enthusiast, apparently votes for the yacht.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:23 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
The Sybian wrote:It seems the latest talking point response to why Jesus would support cutting funding to feed the poor is the Bible preached individuals choosing to help the poor, not governments forcing everyone to feed the poor. A nice spin is forced charity is meaningless in the eyes of God.
That's been the justification for years, going back at least to Newt Gingrich. And in theory I can agree with this. The problem is that relying on private charity is not enough, so the question becomes, is it better to let people live in squalor, spend their lives hungry, and die of treatable diseases? Or is it better that a multimillionaire get to buy his 22d yacht?

Jesus, being a well-known fishing enthusiast, apparently votes for the yacht.

Think of the poor children who have to face the summer being in the same model yacht as last year.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:26 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Joe K wrote:
mister d wrote:It would be nice if the Dems could collectively work up like 1/4 the public outrage for these cuts, even if they're just on paper, that the Republicans would if Obama had enacted a policy that would raised taxes by $30K per year on earners over $7MM.
The problem is that the Dems have largely bought into the GOP's framing of social welfare issues in terms of whether "we can afford them," instead of focusing on the good that the program does. ...
I don't know what Dems you are following, but I am seeing all kinds of people talk about how horrible the Trump proposed budget is because of the spending cuts we are talking about.

I'm talking as a general matter, not specific to the Trump budget. What was one of Bill Clinton's signature policy "accomplishments"? Welfare reform, which involved significant cuts to social services in the name of austerity. Similarly, Obama tried to work towards a "Grand Bargain," with the GOP, which would've involved substantial cuts to Social Security and/or Medicare. Fortunately the Congressional GOP was too dumb to take him up on that offer. I'm sure I could find similar examples from HRC and many other prominent Dems.

Post by **Sabo** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:56 pm

Umm, any computer security person will tell you the last place to leave a laptop is in a car. Idiot.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:00 pm

Sabo wrote:Umm, any computer security person will tell you the last place to leave a laptop is in a car. Idiot.

Yeah, I can vouch for that. As an idiot who left his laptop in his unlocked car overnight.

Oops.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:02 pm

Jeff needs to lay off the #'s.