brandymac27

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

Recommended Posts

he does so much that even with all the threads so much gets through without comment, and any one of them would sink obama to the bottom of the sea...

 

so trump has been telling people at campaign speeches and his rallies for a few years now, including the recent one, about him winning a "michigan man of the year" award about 5-6 years ago....he does a big showy set-up on it, and what a huge honor it was but with this phony "oh, gee, shucks, golly" tone and how it came as such a surprise to him and he didn't even know about it until years later (like that makes sense)...anyhow, someone decided to check on it and not only did he never win such a thing but the award's never even existed....:ols: 

 

anderson cooper had a loop of him doing this big set-up time after time over three years and then cooper cuts in at the end of all that with "only it was never real...it never happened...the award doesn't even exist...he just made it up out of nothing and repeated it over and over so we called  called the part-time wh press shop that seems to only be open from about noon to two pm two days a week  but we got no reply, as usual"........:ols:

 

 

every day there's at least one deal that would sink any other potus but we don't even have the storage space to acknowledge them

 

i need to see more coverage on that one of trump trying to smooch the girl

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Which ones?

 

 

Well, what I mean on the economics is that his policies are more in line with what I’m in favor of. Abolishing the minimum wage, getting rid of unions, and low tax rates, although on the last part I am warming to the idea of a wealth tax.

 

If the taxes were going toward education and not welfare/social security programs I would be more in favor of higher taxes.... 

 

I’m also fine with him lobbying the fed for lower interest rates, his reasoning makes good sense to me.

 

Personally, I think he is handling the China, North Korea, and Iran at least as good as any other president. China, maybe better.

 

On illegal immigration, I don’t feel a lot of pity for people who are breaking the law to enter are country... but I’m not a fan of concentration camps where we are treating people like dogs... 

 

 

So those are are the things I agree with him on, but that’s about it.

He had an opportunity to do something special on guns and did nothing.

 

He has framed the debate on the border as the Brown Menace who are invading us, resulting in violence and making it impossible for people who are not racist to work with him on the immigration problem.

 

He wants to roll back decided law on abortion, gay rights, transgenders, ect.  It’s a States rights issue, your a conservative, let the states do as they please. Any criminal reform he has done is all show. He’s done nothing on healthcare. 

 

There are too many negatives.  Warren or Harris will be respectable leaders, and that’s enough for me.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Well, what I mean on the economics is that his policies are more in line with what I’m in favor of. Abolishing the minimum wage, getting rid of unions, and low tax rates, although on the last part I am warming to the idea of a wealth tax.

 

If the taxes were going toward education and not welfare/social security programs I would be more in favor of higher taxes....

What’s your plan to help people get ahead? No welfare programs, no minimum wage... if somebody is willing to work 40 hours a week in the wealthiest nation in history (by far), I don’t see why they should be poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the Mooch made a lot of good points in this interview:

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/anthony-scaramucci-interview-trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What’s your plan to help people get ahead? No welfare programs, no minimum wage... if somebody is willing to work 40 hours a week in the wealthiest nation in history (by far), I don’t see why they should be poor.

 

Education, that would be my plan. Free college is OK, but i think they should let highscools direct people into trade school or college and stop pretending everyone has the same skill set. Some people are supposed to be lawyers and some people are supposed to be carpenters, it’s how they are wired. We should encourage people to learn what they are good at, instead of aspire to be something they aren’t.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Education, that would be my plan. Free college is OK, but i think they should let highscools direct people into trade school or college and stop pretending everyone has the same skill set. Some people are supposed to be lawyers and some people are supposed to be carpenters, it’s how they are wired. We should encourage people to learn what they are good at, instead of aspire to be something they aren’t.

Ok. I mentored a young man who is a recent college graduate (so, he’s educated). He had to take a job for under $40k in northern Virginia (I.e. he can’t afford to live in northern Virginia). Dad died when he was 11. Mom is a non-functioning alcoholic. The kid works more than 40 hours a week and rents a room, has no health insurance, and has debt.

 

Let’s say he gets Into a car accident tomorrow...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Ok. I mentored a young man who is a recent college graduate (so, he’s educated). He had to take a job for under $40k in northern Virginia (I.e. he can’t afford to live in northern Virginia). Dad died when he was 11. Mom is a non-functioning alcoholic. The kid works more than 40 hours a week and rents a room, has no health insurance, and has debt.

 

Let’s say he gets Into a car accident tomorrow...

 

 

I’m not a fan of guaranteeing results.  And I’m not sure how a high minimum wage will help him. I didn’t say no social security/welfare programs. I said stop putting more tax money into them. 

 

 

Maybe he should have went to technical school instead of college... 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m not a fan of guaranteeing results.

I am. I’m a huge fan of guaranteed results. Especially if the results are something like people not dying from treatable diseases Or human beings not going to bed hungry.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

“I didn’t say no to welfare.  I said stop putting more tax money into them.” is an all-time classic.

 

Raising taxes to put more money into programs that don’t work..

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I am. I’m a huge fan of guaranteed results. Especially if the results are something like people not dying from treatable diseases Or human beings not going to bed hungry.

 

Good luck with your endeavors... that’s not the scenerio you laid out..

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Raising taxes to put more money into programs that don’t work..

 

1

 

Define "don't work".  SNAP and WIC don't solve everything, but imagine our country without it...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Define "don't work".  SNAP and WIC don't solve everything, but imagine our country without it...

 

 

They certainly haven’t met @Sacks 'n' Stuff admirable goal of making sure every American get treated for curable deceases and no American goes to bed hungry...  the main goal of social welfare should be to get people off social welfare.... education...  

 

 

just so so we are clear, when I’m talking about welfare I’m referring to a monthly check someone gets for breathing.  I wouldn’t consider universal healthcare to be a “welfare” program in that way because at least in the way Obama invisioned it most people had to pay into it. 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

They certainly haven’t met @Sacks 'n' Stuff admirable goal of making sure every American get treated for curable deceases and no American goes to bed hungry...  the main goal of social welfare should be to get people off social welfare.... education...  

 

 

just so so we are clear, when I’m talking about welfare I’m referring to a monthly check someone gets for breathing.  I wouldn’t consider universal healthcare to be a “welfare” program in that way because at least in the way Obama invisioned it most people had to pay into it. 

 

You ever tried to study hungry?  I have, it sucks.  I can also tell you'd I'd be in a much different situation concerning my mental health now if I could afford health care in my early 20s.  In many respects, bodies are just like cars, an ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure.  Are we sure it will really cost more to try to keep people from getting sick in the first place then waiting for them to file bankruptcy, or are we just asking missing the point of the question?

 

Nobody gets a check for breathing, even Social Security is a composite of money collected throughout your career that you don't get until you either can't work anymore or shouldn't be working anymore.  Food programs are based on income and you get more depending on your dependents and income because its meant to supplement your income and ensure your kids don't starve, waaay before they are old enough to get jobs to take care of themselves.  I asked about it once and the only reason they denied me was because at the time I couldn't verify my address with an actual lease while I was renting a room, they didn't want to give free food to a college student just trying to get by (there's a difference between preventing fraud and acting like an insurance company trying to give as few benefits as possible when **** finally hits the fan).  I really dislike some of the crap I've seen people go through to get social security.

 

You can tell they've edited the government pages for their definitions of welfare, on one page it classifies Medicaid and CHIP as technically welfare, then on another it says the point of TANF is to help prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock kids.  I can understand your confusion, they're moving the goal post.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I suspect we're seeing here is a manifestation of something I've seen referenced in lots of articles about the people who support Trump.  

 

How do people mentally justify supporting Trump and the GOP, where a major part of their latform is to cut taxes in the ultra rich, and then demand that the only way to deal with the resulting deficit is to demand massive cuts to welfare, when a very large chunk of his supporters are on welfare?  

 

The answer I've seen is that a great many GOP supporters have created an article of faith that well, the food stamps I'm getting is just a temporary thing to get by, since the coal mine left the county.  But that "those other people" (guess what their mental picture of "those other people" is.) are simply sitting around collecting money cause they're too lazy to work, and they just spend their days sitting around getting fat, and having more kids.  (Because we all know that when someone who's on welfare has another kid, their standard of living goes up.)  

 

The person who's been on food stamps for 15 years (but it's only temporary) is willing to vote Republican, believing that well, if might hurt him, but it will hurt that imaginary other person who's just too lazy to work (and who's on welfare permanently) worse.  

 

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

They certainly haven’t met @Sacks 'n' Stuff admirable goal of making sure every American get treated for curable deceases and no American goes to bed hungry...  the main goal of social welfare should be to get people off social welfare

 

My county sheriff has not eliminated all crime in the county.  I think we should end law enforcement.  Stop pouring more money every year into a program that doesn't work.  

 

Edited by Larry
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

What I suspect we're seeing here is a manifestation of something I've seen referenced in lots of articles about the people who support Trump.  

 

How do people mentally justify supporting Trump and the GOP, where a major part of their latform is to cut taxes in the ultra rich, and then demand that the only way to deal with the resulting deficit is to demand massive cuts to welfare, when a very large chunk of his supporters are on welfare?  

 

The answer I've seen is that a great many GOP supporters have created an article of faith that well, the food stamps I'm getting is just a temporary thing to get by, since the coal mine left the county.  But that "those other people" (guess what their mental picture of "those other people" is.) are simply sitting around collecting money cause they're too lazy to work, and they just spend their days sitting around getting fat, and having more kids.  (Because we all know that when someone who's on welfare has another kid, their standard of living goes up.)  

 

The person who's been on food stamps for 15 years (but it's only temporary) is willing to vote Republican, believing that well, if might hurt him, but it will hurt that imaginary other person who's just too lazy to work (and who's on welfare permanently) worse.  

 

So we are in agreement that welfare as you are discussing is a waste of time? If you are on welfare for 15 years you are not a productive member of society.

 

I do agree with you that they are a lot of trump supporters who are on welfare long-term.

 

Quote

 

 

My county sheriff has not eliminated all crime in the county.  I think we should end law enforcement.  Stop pouring more money every year into a program that doesn't work.  

 

 

 

How’s the war on drugs working out? You still do law enforcement. You change the strategy.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don’t get it... I mean, I’m down with tax cuts, even for the wealthy and corporations. I just don’t understand the mindset where you look at all the spending that could be reduced in our government and your brain automatically goes to cutting the programs that help our most vulnerable citizens. How about an America where the really, really rich can still be really, really rich AND we also help the poor?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I just don’t get it... I mean, I’m down with tax cuts, even for the wealthy and corporations. I just don’t understand the mindset where you look at all the spending that could be reduced in our government and your brain automatically goes to cutting the programs that help our most vulnerable citizens. How about an America where the really, really rich can still be really, really rich AND we also help the poor?

 

This conversation is just absolutely f'n ridiculous when you start putting all the numbers on the table.  

 

For example, total federal money allocated for WIC last year was about $5.3 billion

 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/wic-program/

 

You know how much spent on Fossil Fuel Subsidies from the state and federal level alone?  $20 billion, nearly four times that

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, at least depending on how you measure it, social spending / welfare / whatever you choose to call it certainly is a big chunk of the money flowing outward from Washington.  

 

Although I have to point at "depending on how you measure it".  I'm pretty sure the biggest single expense in Fed spending is Social Security spending.  (I'm certain it's one of the top 3.)  But, Social Security also has a dedicated tax.  And the tax brings in more money than SS pays out.  (Although more so in the past than at present.)  SS has been bringing in more than it pays out for decades, and that money (by law) is invested in US Treasury bills.  (SS was passed after the Great Depression, so the idea of the government investing SS money in the stock market was considered just too insane.)  SS has entered a phase where the SS tax no longer covers SS spending.  But it's still in the state where SS's "bank balance" is going up, because of the interest SS is making on their savings.  

 

So, I suppose it's not a gigantic stretch to think of SS as a seperate entity, paid for with it's own revenue.  (That's not the way I think of it, just saying I wouldn't consider it 100% wrong.)  

 

And it's absolutely a fact that SS is not responsible for one dime of the accumulated national debt.  Despite the GOP's decades-long attempt to try to paint it as such, so that they can cut it's spending (while keeping it's taxes the same.)  

 

I've read things that at least imply that the same is true of Medicare Part A.  (That it's paid for by it's own dedicated tax).  But i've also seen things that say otherwise.  So I don't know.  

 

And it's absolutely true that Medicaid is a huge contributor to the deficit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone just call for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies for the needy?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 11:26 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Well, what I mean on the economics is that his policies are more in line with what I’m in favor of. Abolishing the minimum wage, getting rid of unions, and low tax rates, although on the last part I am warming to the idea of a wealth tax.

 

If the taxes were going toward education and not welfare/social security programs I would be more in favor of higher taxes.... 

 

I’m also fine with him lobbying the fed for lower interest rates, his reasoning makes good sense to me.

 

Personally, I think he is handling the China, North Korea, and Iran at least as good as any other president. China, maybe better.

 

On illegal immigration, I don’t feel a lot of pity for people who are breaking the law to enter are country... but I’m not a fan of concentration camps where we are treating people like dogs... 

 

 

So those are are the things I agree with him on, but that’s about it.

He had an opportunity to do something special on guns and did nothing.

 

He has framed the debate on the border as the Brown Menace who are invading us, resulting in violence and making it impossible for people who are not racist to work with him on the immigration problem.

 

He wants to roll back decided law on abortion, gay rights, transgenders, ect.  It’s a States rights issue, your a conservative, let the states do as they please. Any criminal reform he has done is all show. He’s done nothing on healthcare. 

 

There are too many negatives.  Warren or Harris will be respectable leaders, and that’s enough for me.

Warren,Harris,  Sanders and even Biden won't be doing anything you like about Trump and in fact will reverse it.

 

China doesn't have to do anything until after the election. All Trump's tarrifs us doing, is hurting the people he claims it will help.

 

North Korea.  Kim jung un or whatever his name us, has won. His nukes aren't going anywhere and he's got Trump under his thumb.

 

Iran. The deal was working. Iranians aren't the type of people who will fall for Trump.

 

You should just admit, you love what Trump is doing and you want to support him. You aren't going get alot of what you want from Trump.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas, before Trump decided that he knew more about trade wars than his generals, I would have bet that Republicans were overwhelmingly the Free Trade Party. While the Dems were too beholden to the Unions to be so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.