The Trump Presidency

cajunrevenge said:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5746142-Jussie-Smollett-bond-proffer.html


The prosecutors case against Smollett. He deserves to go to prison. Something stinks here.
Click to expand...

Reading that report, holy ****, that sounds like a coverup. I mean one would have to assume Smollett is that dumb but the largess of information gathered in under a month?It smells off. Not saying that it is, but it sets the hair on my neck up that they have that amount of information. Seems more and more likely than ever that they could have just roughed up a confession from the brothers.
 
cajunrevenge said:
That argument might work on me if we werent 10 trillion dollars in debt.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the Military Spending is the entirety of that. People like to point to "welfare services" but most mandatory spending should be at a net 0. We the people pay payroll taxes which fund Social Security, Medicare, etc. If we reduce our Military Spending from 600 billion a year to 400 billion a year, we would be able to whittle that dept down a whole lot faster than cutting funding to the special Olympics. Republicans like to look at these small services costing us a hundred million or a billion and don't look at the stuff costing us have a Trillion Dollars.
 
zitothebrave said:
FWIW, the Military Spending is the entirety of that. People like to point to "welfare services" but most mandatory spending should be at a net 0. We the people pay payroll taxes which fund Social Security, Medicare, etc. If we reduce our Military Spending from 600 billion a year to 400 billion a year, we would be able to whittle that dept down a whole lot faster than cutting funding to the special Olympics. Republicans like to look at these small services costing us a hundred million or a billion and don't look at the stuff costing us have a Trillion Dollars.
Click to expand...

So reducing the defense budget by 200B will get rid of our $1.2T deficit?

That's some AOC level math.

Our budget problems are defense, SS, Medicare, and interest.

But the moment we try to address, you get the sob stories.
 
Serious question sturg? Can you read?

"If we reduce our Military Spending from 600 billion a year to 400 billion a year, we would be able to whittle that dept down a whole lot faster than cutting funding to the special Olympics"

How does that equate to

"So reducing the defense budget by 200B will get rid of our $1.2T deficit?"

FWIW no one is willing to do the work to wipe out the deficit. You know why? Because we have to raise taxes to do that reasonably, and no one wants that. Even if you cut all our discretionary spending, that doesn't wipe out the funding. THe issue is that we have a deficiency in our mandatory spending because of failures of previous governments, who robbed that to pay for other projects.
 
zitothebrave said:
Serious question sturg? Can you read?

"If we reduce our Military Spending from 600 billion a year to 400 billion a year, we would be able to whittle that dept down a whole lot faster than cutting funding to the special Olympics"

How does that equate to

"So reducing the defense budget by 200B will get rid of our $1.2T deficit?"
Click to expand...

Yes. I can read. Perhaps you should look at what you said again:

FWIW, the Military Spending is the entirety of that.
Click to expand...

This was a response about how much debt we are in.

so, first of all... you are extremely wrong. The military spending is not, in fact, the entirety of that.

You then go on to say we can cut $200B to whittle that down.

To your earlier wrong comment, you're gonna need to go much further than that, which is why I brought up medicare, SS, and interest.

---------------------------------------------


zitothebrave said:
FWIW no one is willing to do the work to wipe out the deficit. You know why? Because we have to raise taxes to do that reasonably, and no one wants that.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The problem is the spending. No reasonable amount of taxation can fix this. For example, if we doubled everyone's tax rates, that would come up short in closing our deficit (not debt - deficit)

We have to cut spending. Nobody is willing to do it.
 
sturg33 said:
so, first of all... you are extremely wrong. The military spending is not, in fact, the entirety of that.

You then go on to say we can cut $200B to whittle that down.
Click to expand...

it mainly is. I'm not talking about one year of military spending. Since 2001, we've spent about 10 trillion dollars on military spending. The current deficit is 779B 1.25 Trillion if you will is a number factoring in expected need to borrow. Again what I'm talking about is chipping away at a huge chunk of that. The rest needs to come from increased revenue and other strategic cuts. reality is that we have money coming in to cover the things that "need to be cut" like you say medicare and SS. They just need a few things between better running of the programs and an increase in revenue to cover the Reagan era borrowing against those systems.
 
zitothebrave said:
it mainly is. I'm not talking about one year of military spending. Since 2001, we've spent about 10 trillion dollars on military spending. The current deficit is 779B 1.25 Trillion if you will is a number factoring in expected need to borrow. Again what I'm talking about is chipping away at a huge chunk of that. The rest needs to come from increased revenue and other strategic cuts. reality is that we have money coming in to cover the things that "need to be cut" like you say medicare and SS. They just need a few things between better running of the programs and an increase in revenue to cover the Reagan era borrowing against those systems.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to cut military spending.

I'd cut 25% indiscriminately across the board. This will never happen though because 57 will tell us about some grandma that Trump is shooting in the head
 
sturg33 said:
I'd be happy to cut military spending.

I'd cut 25% indiscriminately across the board. This will never happen though because 57 will tell us about some grandma that Trump is shooting in the head
Click to expand...

25% is pretty hard to pull off indiscriminately. You have to do any spending cuts as stepping stones. Mainly do things like give departments time to find ways to cut costs and incentivize them to do so. Maybe say we're going to cut your spending by 15% next year unless you find a way to cut your spending by 10% before hand. Some services are 100% necessary to keep the economy running and need to be treated as such. Even the military spending is important for the economy. But it can be done much better.
 
zitothebrave said:
25% is pretty hard to pull off indiscriminately. You have to do any spending cuts as stepping stones. Mainly do things like give departments time to find ways to cut costs and incentivize them to do so. Maybe say we're going to cut your spending by 15% next year unless you find a way to cut your spending by 10% before hand. Some services are 100% necessary to keep the economy running and need to be treated as such. Even the military spending is important for the economy. But it can be done much better.
Click to expand...

I would support this approach.

This is much better, and more effective, than raising taxes, which won't do the trick.
 
[tw]1110880405140504577[/tw]

HATE CRIMES ARE ON THE RISE!!!!

You guys are the most gullible group of fools around. Just regurgitating anything the powerful want you to think.
 
Individual-1 said:
Weird you'd post something from the Free Beacon, considering they're the ones who first funded the Dossier.
Click to expand...

I dont care about sources. I care about news and what they are reporting is obviously truth.

And opposition research is standard. Funnelling through the fbi and starting a coup is whats been the buggest scandal in our nations history.
 
cajunrevenge said:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5746142-Jussie-Smollett-bond-proffer.html


The prosecutors case against Smollett. He deserves to go to prison. Something stinks here.
Click to expand...

To be fair, people file false police reports on a daily basis and literally nothing happens to probably 90+ percent of these individuals. This one is obviously more high profile, money was exchanged, and more police resources were involved, but still my point remains. People seem to be way over-reacting here. The biggest offense seems to be felony filing of a false police report, which is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.
 
thethe said:
I dont care about sources. I care about news and what they are reporting is obviously truth.
Click to expand...

Cool, so there’s no problem with anything being discussed in your article, since the only concern they’re bringing up is the source of the hate crime data. Glad we had this talk.
 
mqt said:
Cool, so there’s no problem with anything being discussed in your article, since the only concern they’re bringing up is the source of the hate crime data. Glad we had this talk.
Click to expand...

The argument has been "look at the increase in hate crimes during Trump. This must be because of him"

The only reason this happening is because fake reports and a purposeful movement to get more reporting. So in reality there is no increase.
 
thethe said:
The argument has been "look at the increase in hate crimes during Trump. This must be because of him"

The only reason this happening is because fake reports and a purposeful movement to get more reporting. So in reality there is no increase.
Click to expand...

Your article does not prove nor even actually claim this. While it briefly mentions a rise in hate crime hoaxes, it doesn’t provide any specifics on the actual project it’s discussing.
 
thethe said:
The argument has been "look at the increase in hate crimes during Trump. This must be because of him"

The only reason this happening is because fake reports and a purposeful movement to get more reporting. So in reality there is no increase.
Click to expand...

Wooo yet another logical fallacy.

If some instances of reporting are false, then all instances of reporting must be false.

It's like people forget that Unite the Right even existed as a large scale protest. Before Trump gave power to the alt-Right the racisty types if they wanted to be in public had to do it via Tea Party as a guise of hating taxes. Now they can just be out in the open. Racism hasn't increased under Trump, it's just become more mainstream.
 
mqt said:
Your article does not prove nor even actually claim this. While it briefly mentions a rise in hate crime hoaxes, it doesn’t provide any specifics on the actual project it’s discussing.
Click to expand...

Theyve spent millions of dollars to increase reporting after trump got elected. Thats what the 'rise' is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top