Trump budget plan slashes food stamps, healthcare for poor

[riclag]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Kill the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Yes, he really is a republican! 

He didn't run on such policies. What do you expect from a notorious con man? 

 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Kill the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Yes, he really is a republican! 

He didn't run on such policies. What do you expect from a notorious con man? 

 

6 hours ago, puck2 said:

Trump vehemently kicks his foot into the @r... of those (poor) people in the rust belt who decided the US election 2016.

Having a pity? No. Already in the election campaign it was obvious that this characterless dummy was an extreme liar and denier of facts. You get what you deserve. Of course, I have a pity with those who didn't elect him. And that was not the majority of the US voters.

But that is another problem in the so called US-democracy.

Don't believe everything you read into. The truly disadvantaged will and have been taken care over the years.Trump said he inherited a mess from past administrations (Gop and Dem's together ).In the year 2000 the debt was $5.6 trillion. In 2017 over $20 trillion. Government spending is the first place to go to be fiscally responsible. I like the fact that Mr. Trump's campaign promise and still is according to him and Mullvaney that they aren't cutting Social Security .According to this article,Presidential budgets are often ignored by the U.S. Congress, which controls federal purse strings. Lawmakers are expected to shy away from at least some of the many politically sensitive cuts proposed by Trump. During Every election cycle the Gop says cut down spending and government  and the Dem's say raise taxes and grow government .

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-scary-us-debt-facts/

Edited May 23, 2017 by riclag

[Jingthing]

No. It was a bad bet.

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. It was a bad bet.

 

You're thinking in the short term, and it looks pretty bleak.  But whether HRC was going to allow her sponsors to bleed the country dry over 8 years, or Trump runs the car into a wall tomorrow, in 2024 we'd be in exactly the same spot.  Broke and enslaved to the 1% who will own 90% of the nation's wealth instead of just 50% like they do today.

 

Who knows, things may get bad enough that some folks will read the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart again...  Good stuff there.  And as relevant today as it was 240 years ago. 

 

With HRC, we'd just be boiled frogs by 2024.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by impulse

[riclag]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

What if there are no jobs. What if you have a low paying job and bills like mortgages, fuel costs etc. take up all the money?

 Not all but many people have several jobs . Many people still live with their parent's.It all  revolves around you and what your priorities are.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

 

Don't believe everything you read into. The truly disadvantaged will and have been taken care over the years.Trump said he inherited a mess from past administrations (Gop and Dem's together ).In the year 2000 the debt was $5.6 trillion. In 2017 over $20 trillion. Government spending is the first place to go to be fiscally responsible. I like the fact that Mr. Trump's campaign promise and still is according to him and Mullvaney that they aren't cutting Social Security .According to this article,Presidential budgets are often ignored by the U.S. Congress, which controls federal purse strings. Lawmakers are expected to shy away from at least some of the many politically sensitive cuts proposed by Trump. During Every election cycle the Gop says cut down spending and government  and the Dem's say raise taxes and grow government .

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-scary-us-debt-facts/

Sure he wants to slash Medicaid by 880 billion over 10 years. He promised not to cut Medicaid. That cut is to pay for eliminating the surtax on people earning over 200,000 dollars per hear.  CBO says that will result in 10 million people losing coverage.

And fiscally responsible?  Really? Even conservative tax experts say Trump's massive proposed tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy will result in trillions added to the deficit.  

During every election cycle republicans say slash taxes and the increased economic growth will mean government revenue won't suffer. When has that ever worked? Where is even the evidence for increased economic growth?

[riclag]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Sure he wants to slash Medicaid by 880 billion over 10 years. He promised not to cut Medicaid. That cut is to pay for eliminating the surtax on people earning over 200,000 dollars per hear.  CBO says that will result in 10 million people losing coverage.

And fiscally responsible?  Really? Even conservative tax experts say Trump's massive proposed tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy will result in trillions added to the deficit.  

During every election cycle republicans say slash taxes and the increased economic growth will mean government revenue won't suffer. When has that ever worked? Where is even the evidence for increased economic growth?

According to this article,"Presidential budgets are often ignored by the U.S. Congress, which controls federal purse strings. Lawmakers are expected to shy away from at least some of the many politically sensitive cuts proposed by Trump".

The CBO has it's share of critics,  http://blog.acton.org/archives/92493-5-facts-about-the-congressional-budget-office-cbo.html

Edited May 23, 2017 by riclag

[impulse]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

During every election cycle republicans say slash taxes and the increased economic growth will mean government revenue won't suffer. When has that ever worked? Where is even the evidence for increased economic growth?

 

Interesting that the top tax rate during America's Golden Years ( WWII thru 1963) was 91% and the country thrived.

 

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

 

Then Kennedy got assassinated and it went down to 70% (Hmmmmm?)  through 1980 and yet we still had middle class wage growth in real terms.  

 

Then came Reagan's trickle down economics and a lower top tax rate and real (real = inflation adjusted) wage growth has been negative ever since.

 

Capital gains tax rates followed the same general trend, being highest when the country was thriving...  I wonder what that's telling us.

 

For a good wingnut lecture, get a hold of Richard Wolff's "Capitalism Hits the Fan" on audio or video from YouTube. He's a little animated for my taste, but he explains it perfectly...

 

Edit:  Remember, it was FDR, from one of the wealthiest families in the US, who raised the top tax rate from 25% eventually to 90+% to make the rich pay for the damage they had done leading to the Great Depression, then to pay for WWII.  And that was a compromise after he called all his rich buddies in for a scolding and told them he'd go to 100% if they tried to fight him on the increase.  He knew it was the rich that brought on the depression, and he made them pay for the damages.  I was hoping Trump would step up and make the guilty pay for the damages from 2008.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by impulse

[Jingthing]

 
You're thinking in the short term, and it looks pretty bleak.  But whether HRC was going to allow her sponsors to bleed the country dry over 8 years, or Trump runs the car into a wall tomorrow, in 2024 we'd be in exactly the same spot.  Broke and enslaved to the 1% who will own 90% of the nation's wealth instead of just 50% like they do today.
 
Who knows, things may get bad enough that some folks will read the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart again...  Good stuff there.  And as relevant today as it was 240 years ago. 
 
With HRC, we'd just be boiled frogs by 2024.
 

I passionately oppose your POV. Hillary Clinton was not ideal but she was OK. trump was never OK. So in irrational quest for the pure you chose a demagogic con man. All the Bernie or bust crowd are in that same boat.

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I passionately oppose your POV. Hillary Clinton was not ideal but she was OK. trump was never OK. So in irrational quest for the pure you chose a demagogic con man. All the Bernie or bust crowd are in that same boat.

 

I wasn't as opposed to HRC herself as to the machine that she represents that sells us out to corporations in return for political donations that keep them in power and $600,000 speaking fees that keep her at their beck and call.

 

Democracy in the USA is broken.  Electing the next automaton in the Demican or Republicrat pecking order isn't going to fix it, nor shake up the status quo enough to keep us from boiling as they slowly take more and more away from us.  Our freedoms, the nation's wealth, our very dreams. 

 

Trump was a long shot, but he was the only real possibility for change.  Mark Cuban had the perfect description:  the chemotherapy president.  A last resort.  He may kill us, but we were dying anyway.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by impulse

[Jingthing]

You've distorted Cuban's meaning.

Your wonderful long game even with trump Pence in for only 4 years may mean a permanent shift to Christian theocracy via the Supreme court. The election is over. Too late but to defend supporting trump out of some irrational hope that he would miraculously be something different than the bizarre autocrat that he told us he was is repulsive.

 

 

Well at least you admitted he hasn't lived up to your hopes. Credit for that at least. That beats still blindly backing the clown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, iReason said:

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base

Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most. (sub-title)

 

"Even as congressional Republicans mobilize for a new drive to retrench federal anti-poverty efforts, whites without a college degree—the cornerstone of the modern GOP electoral coalition—have emerged as principal beneficiaries of those programs, according to a study released Thursday morning."

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

 

Then, according to you, this is where the massive fraud lies. With the Trumpeteers.

Well, if that study is true the Republican base will be very upset. I have a feeling that the Republican base will not be mad and this study is total crap. Just a feeling.

[louse1953]

That's how Nth Korea does it

[WaywardWind]

10 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Last trip home I learned my sister got food stamps. She has a well paid job, owned a home and has a tenant paying rent for her back yard cottage. 

 

Obama got everyone on the dole. Time to toss out the leaches(love you sis)

Is your sister married?  Any kids? What state does she live in?

 

And do you have any estimates of her income from her job and from the tenant?

Edited May 23, 2017 by WaywardWind

[impulse]

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You've distorted Cuban's meaning.

Your wonderful long game even with trump Pence in for only 4 years may mean a permanent shift to Christian theocracy via the Supreme court. The election is over. Too late but to defend supporting trump out of some irrational hope that he would miraculously be something different than the bizarre autocrat that he told us he was is repulsive.

 

Well at least you admitted he hasn't lived up to your hopes. Credit for that at least. That beats still blindly backing the clown.

 

I'm not defending Trump the man.  I've never been a fan.  I'm defending the desperate people who took a risk to vote for him, if only as a protest against business as usual in the halls of power.

 

I will defend the concept of a citizen president (or any politician) coming to Washington to serve his country and then going home to live in the world he created.  Not the ones that go to Washington, plug themselves into the trough and never have to live under the conditions they cast off for the rest of us.

 

I wish it were someone else.  Maybe it will be in 2020.  If so, it will only be because Trump opened the door.  That's about the extent of my favorable comments about the guy (1).  But not for the voters who are so disgruntled that they voted for him.  If nothing else, they have put both sides of the aisle on notice- your jobs, your political empires are at risk.

 

And I think I got Cuban's characterization right.

 

(1) Correction- I have said (on several occasions) that Trump would be a better trade negotiator to send to China than the ones who have been schnookerd again and again since Nixon.  But that's not high praise given the low bar.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by impulse

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not defending Trump the man.  I've never been a fan.  I'm defending the desperate people who took a risk to vote for him, if only as a protest against business as usual in the halls of power.

 

I will defend the concept of a citizen president (or any politician) coming to Washington to serve his country and then going home to live in the world he created.  Not the ones that go to Washington, plug themselves into the trough and never have to live under the conditions they cast off for the rest of us.

 

I wish it were someone else.  Maybe it will be in 2020.  If so, it will only be because Trump opened the door.  That's about the extent of my favorable comments about the guy.  But not for the voters who are so disgruntled that they voted for him.  If nothing else, they have put both sides of the aisle on notice- your jobs, your political empires are at risk.

 

And I think I got Cuban's characterization right.

 

I think your defending a minority of disgruntled voters. Can you google "poll would you vote for trump again".Many people voted for him because they didn't trust HRC and various other reasons like his policies .It's apparent most would still vote for him again.Most of his supporters don't read into all negative news  that's dividing American's.We see the applause he get's from leaders in other countries instead of the negative views in my country, to reassure us that he is not a clown but patriot for America

Edited May 23, 2017 by riclag

[rgraham]

Finally, put an end to entitlements!

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, rgraham said:

Finally, put an end to entitlements!

Can you explain yourself?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

.We see the applause he get's from leaders in other countries instead of the negative views in my country, to reassure us that he is not a clown but patriot for America

Well, that's an interesting way to judge whether America's interests are being well served. By the applause from foreign leaders. Because they will definitely put America's interests ahead of their own.  It does accord in a way with Trump's thinking. Trump once said about Putin "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him." 

[Credo]

9 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

You'd report your own sister to the police?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I certainly wouldn't post her antics on public forum and use it as an example of fraud unless I was prepared to report it.   

 

The poster doesn't seem to understand that his sister, if she in fact has committed these actions, has violated some pretty major laws in signing documents that are untrue and she could end up doing a long stretch in penal facility.   

 

Many people believe that these gov't handouts are perfectly OK for me and my kind, but they shouldn't be given to those who happen to be of a different religion or race.   

[baboon]

10 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

You'd report your own sister to the police?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Indeed, given it was Obama's fault in the first place that any well to do person would choose to defraud the taxpayer. Obviously he should be the one on trial...

[Jingthing]

trump's budget. 

Cruel and unusual.

Kind of like his wig.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/economy/trump-budget-gift-to-rich/index.html?iid=surge-stack-intl

Quote

 

Trump eliminates "all of the domestic discretionary funding where you genuinely invest in the future: education and basic research," says Holtz-Eakin.

The budget so far is shaping up as good for the wealthy, terrible for the poor and a question mark for the middle class.

 

No, he won't get all of that.

But the fact that he wants all of that basically draws the lines.

trump is a radical in a horrible, regressive, murderous way.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Jingthing

[funandsuninbangkok]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

trump's budget. 

Cruel and unusual.

Kind of like his wig.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/economy/trump-budget-gift-to-rich/index.html?iid=surge-stack-intl

No, he won't get all of that.

But the fact that he wants all of that basically draws the lines.

trump is a radical in a horrible, regressive, murderous way.

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/trumps-budget-tells-the-truth-and-you-cant-handle-the-truth-commentary.html

 

 

[anon4546543]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Simple answer, yes. If you believe that everyone on food assistance in the USA is hungry then you are someone that knows nothing about the massive fraud that occurs throughout this system.

And you happen to know of this fraud? And what of the legitimate people who are doing it tough.

The judicial system is designed to prosecute fraud. 

[Jingthing]

Divide and conquer?

 

Quote

The White House justifies its savage budget with a divisive lie

In making these arguments, the administration is playing on an extremely common bias. It says that the government programs I avail myself of either aren’t government programs at all, or are things I deserve because of my virtue, while the government programs you use are only for freeloaders.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/23/the-white-house-justifies-its-savage-budget-with-a-divisive-lie

Edited May 23, 2017 by Jingthing

[selftaopath]

When will working Americans realize Republicans and Trump are not interested in them? Democrats are the only ones who support helping those less fortunate than Republicans rich class.

[selftaopath]

19 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Starve the poor,and the ill,but cut Corporation tax,give more perks

for the rich,thats immoral.

regards Worgeordie

I recently heard someone on Real Time ....."Under Trump America is in a Spiritual BLACKOUT." I agree. Greed is at the Republican/Trump core.

[habanero]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You are wrong about disability. 

"Disability Insurance is funded by payroll tax contributions from workers and their employers. Workers currently pay a tax of 0.9 percent of their wages up to $113,700, and their employers pay an equal amount. These tax contributions go into the Disability Insurance trust fund."

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2013/05/30/64681/the-facts-on-social-security-disability-insurance-and-supplemental-security-income-for-workers-with-disabilities/

Exactly. So why am I wrong. It comes from Federal Payroll deductions. Not Social Security withdrawals. How do I know this? I ran my own business for a very long time.  I had to match social security payments. I never had to match SSDI. I comes out of the Federal withholding tax.

[selftaopath]

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

He also proposed massive cuts to disability which is part of Social Security.  Despite his promise not to touch Social Security.

Trump is a pathological LIAR. He can not be trusted with ANYTHING. When will people understand? His agenda is all about GREED and gaining more and more wealth. Republicans do NOT help the working class Americans. Look at the facts America.

[WaywardWind]

7 minutes ago, habanero said:

Exactly. So why am I wrong. It comes from Federal Payroll deductions. Not Social Security withdrawals. How do I know this? I ran my own business for a very long time.  I had to match social security payments. I never had to match SSDI. I comes out of the Federal withholding tax.

It appears that you are wrong again.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA)

FICA stands for “Federal Insurance Contributions Act”. FICA taxes are payroll taxes originally part of the Social Security program but made part of the Internal Revenue Code in 1939. This is the tax that pays for Social Security Disability, Social Security retirement and Medicare benefits. Therefore, to be eligible for Social Security Disability benefits you are required to have contributed to the Social Security fund and paid a minimum amount of FICA taxes, which varies by age.

Both employees and employers pay FICA funding Social Security Disability and retirement benefits through payroll deductions on income up to $118,500 per year. (bold added)

http://www.disability-benefits-help.org/glossary/federal-insurance-contributions-act-fica

 

 

 

[selftaopath]

12 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Not really fair. The Democrats had abandoned one component of their traditional base, the white, working class and courted the Wall Street fat-cats instead.

They already knew that HRC was never going to actually fight for their interests, just mouth platitudes. Business as usual.

They voted for Trump because he promised them jobs and "tremendous" health care. Or, they voted for him to throw a spanner in the works; revenge for all the inaction that they could see in their unchanging situation.

The Democrats created the conditions that allowed Trump to win the Republican nomination.

I believe the democrats initiated much to help Americans, e.g. higher minimum wages but the Republicans were always blocking anything remotely considered "Obama."