Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump budget keeps pledges: Cuts for poor, more for military

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump budget keeps pledges: Cuts for poor, more for military

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump fulfilled a major campaign promise Tuesday, proposing a $4.1 trillion budget plan that would upend Washington in a big way. But he drew rebukes, even from some Republican allies, for the plan’s jarring, politically unrealistic cuts to the social safety net for the poor and a broad swath of other domestic programs.

    The budget, Trump’s first as president, combines his spending plan for the upcoming 2018 fiscal year with a promise to balance government books after a decade, relying on aggressive cuts, a surge in economic growth — and a $2 trillion-plus accounting gimmick.

    “Through streamlined government, we will drive an economic boom that raises incomes and expands job opportunities for all Americans,” Trump declared in his budget message.

    “Basically dead on arrival,” opined the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn of Texas.
    AP - Full Article

  • #2
    ... jarring, politically unrealistic cuts to the social safety net for the poor...
    Jarring to the Left I suppose...

    Why are these cuts "politically unrealistic?" The "poor," that is those on welfare, food stamps, etc., are like reliable voters. If anything, most wouldn't vote without being herded through the entire process by someone.
    Now, I could see it being "politically unrealistic" to Democrats in particular from the point of view of their politicians that inner city districts or ones that are exceptionally poor.

    What I'm seeing here is a pattern in Congress where even Republicans are unwilling to do anything to slow the runaway train of government spending and expansion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Jarring to the Left I suppose...

      Why are these cuts "politically unrealistic?" The "poor," that is those on welfare, food stamps, etc., are like reliable voters. If anything, most wouldn't vote without being herded through the entire process by someone.
      Now, I could see it being "politically unrealistic" to Democrats in particular from the point of view of their politicians that inner city districts or ones that are exceptionally poor.

      What I'm seeing here is a pattern in Congress where even Republicans are unwilling to do anything to slow the runaway train of government spending and expansion.
      Haven't you picked up on that before? Republicans have been big spenders for generations - they're big government buddies of the Democrats. The two of them bicker over a few percentage points here and there, but they (and thus by extension their supporters) have been fighting for a statist view for America for a very, very long time.

      Which is why it's always been so amusing whenever Republicans claim themselves to be in favor of "small government". Their party, like the Dems, depends on spending public money to purchase votes. Cutting spending on the programs you hate to give that money to the programs you love doesn't count as a small government ideology. Republicans, Dems... they're both two-sides of the same coin.

      And both of them will happily spend the country into the ground if it keeps them in power.

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought I'd point it out again to fend off some of the more Progressive posters here badgering me about what a Scrooge I am for not caring about "the poor."

        Comment


        • #5
          We're confusing "the poor" with "the truly needy". Welfare recipients with satellite TV and fancy cars are not "the poor", whether they live in the inner city or not.

          Time to cut Welfare back to those it was intended to help - not everyone who doesn't feel like working.

          There are far too many able-bodied people on "welfare" who do not need to be.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            I thought I'd point it out again to fend off some of the more Progressive posters here badgering me about what a Scrooge I am for not caring about "the poor."
            Of course they do care - that's why they refuse to totally abolish those programs, much to the apparent chagrin of some of their supporters. They recognize that the GOP cannot actually follow its actual rhetoric or it would commit political suicide.

            Hell, there are a number of Dem strategists right now who are licking their lips at what Trump has already accomplished. A bit premature to be sure, but the GOP has always struggled to make a comprehensive response to the age-old observation that the GOP feels no responsibility towards the poor. They usually mention things like "charity" and how private donations will totally make up for it, but the Dems can usually exploit those convenient lies with their own brand of utter nonsense meant to reinforce their message.

            They'll end up bickering over the same ground as before (Republicans hate the poor; Democrats are soft on defense) all while the nation slides further into debt.

            But damn if it doesn't make for entertaining television!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              Of course they do care - that's why they refuse to totally abolish those programs, much to the apparent chagrin of some of their supporters. They recognize that the GOP cannot actually follow its actual rhetoric or it would commit political suicide.

              Hell, there are a number of Dem strategists right now who are licking their lips at what Trump has already accomplished. A bit premature to be sure, but the GOP has always struggled to make a comprehensive response to the age-old observation that the GOP feels no responsibility towards the poor. They usually mention things like "charity" and how private donations will totally make up for it, but the Dems can usually exploit those convenient lies with their own brand of utter nonsense meant to reinforce their message.

              They'll end up bickering over the same ground as before (Republicans hate the poor; Democrats are soft on defense) all while the nation slides further into debt.

              But damn if it doesn't make for entertaining television!
              Only to those with low IQ's who are easily amused.

              Democrats are soft on defense? Since when? Democrats have put America into more wars than the Republicans. They just don't like paying for it.

              http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/...dents-who.html
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Democrats generally blunder their way into war while the Republicans usually either have little choice or do it deliberately.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Dems should consider doing what they did a few years ago. Just abstain and let the Republicans decide if they want to actually pass their own budget.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Only to those with low IQ's who are easily amused.


                    Don't try to be clever - it doesn't suit you.

                    Democrats are soft on defense? Since when? Democrats have put America into more wars than the Republicans. They just don't like paying for it.

                    http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/...dents-who.html
                    Have you never paid attention to Republican campaigning? It is almost a right of passage to hear the GOP talking about how the Democrats hate our military, our veterans, and are seeking to gut the military to fund their welfare programs.

                    The Dems in turn talk about war-hungry conservatives who don't care about our veterans (both sides love that line) or our children by wasting billions on unnecessary military equipment rather than on treatment for our vets and textbooks for our kids (just insert social cause of choice here, really).

                    The idea that Dems are pinko-commie-cowards ain't new. I'm really surprised you've never heard Republicans use that argument against the Dems before.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                      The Dems should consider doing what they did a few years ago. Just abstain and let the Republicans decide if they want to actually pass their own budget.
                      That's a very risky move for the Dems.

                      The Dems may benefit in that if it implodes, it will be all on the heads of the GOP, but it also gives the GOP the initiative to do what they want with less resistance - and they'll use it.

                      About the only way that works for the Dems is if they're certain the GOP are facing a disaster, and considering how desperate they are to believe Trump is about to fall - and how much premature speculation they've gotten up to in just five months - I'm not confident they can judge the situation accurately at all.

                      The Dems need to restore confidence in their party after the thorough thumping they took in '16. They can't do that by lifting their noses and refusing to mingle with those uncouth Republicans.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        First error: the cuts will not impact the poor, since the current spending does not impact the poor. They will impact criminal practitioners of fraud.

                        Secondly, a balanced budget and reduced debt are good things. This sort of action is the only hope the young have left.

                        The mistakes being made these last eight years, especially by the DNC, are going to come home to roost.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          The Dems need to restore confidence in their party after the thorough thumping they took in '16.
                          No, they don't. They need to blindly stay the course.

                          They could really screw themselves over, and we should encourage that at every turn.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            First error: the cuts will not impact the poor, since the current spending does not impact the poor. They will impact criminal practitioners of fraud.

                            Secondly, a balanced budget and reduced debt are good things. This sort of action is the only hope the young have left.

                            The mistakes being made these last eight years, especially by the DNC, are going to come home to roost.
                            Are the criminal practitioners of the sort of fraud targeted by these cuts wealthy?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              No, they don't. They need to blindly stay the course.

                              They could really screw themselves over, and we should encourage that at every turn.
                              No, you want them to do that because it would benefit you more. That is a different concept from what would benefit the Democratic Party. One must be able to pace oneself within the view of a third-party if one wishes to properly understand their goals and discern what their optimal path would be.

                              It is also objectively false to say so, since what they really need to do is give me all their campaign funds and volunteer for wage-free service at my behalf. But since Americans have yet to embrace the obvious benefits of a DoDacracy, I usually let that self-evident fact slide.

                              For now.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X