Trump Admin orders CEA to cook the books...

[cooks1]

Not if you add in his proposed to cut to global warming initiatives


Donald Trump to sign executive order to dramatically reduce funding of United Nations

Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B

I agree that overall his rhetoric seems to be geared toward blowing up the deficit -- however, as of today, in actual announced plans -- there has been more cuts than spending. Whether that will last is doubtful.

LOL. Annual cost of being in UN- About 8 Billion. Less than the wall would cost.

And the 100 Billion in 'climate spending reductions' is over 8 years, so about 12.5 Billion a year. A drop in the bucket. Did you even read that article? Most of that money is technology R/D in the DOE (a good use of money IMO) and the rest is discretionary spending to monitor and make sure companies adhere to chemical and emission standards. Ending that does not really save money. It just changes where it is spent. A large chunk of that 'savings' would simply move over to increased healthcare costs as more and more people deal with chemical and emission exposure.

Once again- If you are not going to deal with Healthcare costs, Military spending, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, you will not change spending in a meaningful way. It's impossible.

You must understand that Trump knows nothing about the departments he wants to cut. NOTHING!!!!!!!! One of Trumps ofen publicly touted money saving plans is to simply eliminate the Dept. Of Energy. Not having the vaguest clue that 2/3 of their $30 billion annual budget is spent maintaining the nations nuclear arsenal. I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we just completely stop looking after over 4000 nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

cooks1 is owning the shit out of this thread

But yeah, someone brought up the point that conservatives don't care about policy. They're concerned with their feels so if there's a thread about some dude in a Youtube video claiming he's a 7-year-old girl, they'll be all over it and that thread will have 500 posts.

Policy, spending? Who cares?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

LOL. Annual cost of being in UN- About 8 Billion. Less than the wall would cost.

And the 100 Billion in 'climate spending reductions' is over 8 years, so about 12.5 Billion a year. A drop in the bucket. Did you even read that article? Most of that money is technology R/D in the DOE (a good use of money IMO) and the rest is discretionary spending to monitor and make sure companies adhere to chemical and emission standards. Ending that does not really save money. It just changes where it is spent. A large chunk of that 'savings' would simply move over to increased healthcare costs as more and more people deal with chemical and emission exposure.

Once again- If you are not going to deal with Healthcare costs, Military spending, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, you will not change spending in a meaningful way. It's impossible.

You must understand that Trump knows nothing about the departments he wants to cut. NOTHING!!!!!!!! One of Trumps ofen publicly touted money saving plans is to simply eliminate the Dept. Of Energy. Not having the vaguest clue that 2/3 of their $30 billion annual budget is spend maintaining the nations nuclear arsenal. I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we just completely stop looking after over 4000 nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?

But 2 years of that would in theory, pay for the wall -- so no, the wall is not a larger expenditure than all his proposed cuts, thus far.. AND, again, i am not now, nor have i said that Trump will cut spending dramatically -- JUST that thus far, as of feb 21 2017, he has leaned towards more cuts than spending -- that will obviously change AND there is nothing currently that will drastically reduce spending -- BUT as of right now, he has geared more plans toward cuts than spending.

That will probably change when the budget is released. We have no taxation plan, we have no spending plan. All we have thus far is announced intentions to cut, no matter how small you may view them

You are trying to detail out things that have not been released yet -- speculation and you may be right. I'm just going by what has been released or announced. I'm not arguing the effects or viability of it.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

What is the defense for cutting programs like these?????

Office of Violence Against Women

• Budget: $480 million
• Cost per American: $1.48

The OVW runs 25 grant programs created through the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, in an effort to reduce domestic violence, sexual assault and dating violence. The police department and city government of Andalusia, Ala., for instance, received a $450,000 grant over three years that will cover domestic violence training for officers as well as the hiring of three additional police officers.

Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department

• Budget: $156 million
• Cost per American: $0.48

The Civil Rights Division, a part of the Justice Department that employs 750 positions, works to fight discrimination and protect Americans' voting rights. Recently a Civil Rights Division investigation of the Chicago Police Department found that "CPD officers’ practices unnecessarily endanger themselves and result in unnecessary and avoidable uses of force." The city of Chicago and the Justice Department reached an agreement to improve the city's policing practices.

It's going to cost $183M a year just for security at Trump Tower. Got to pay for it somehow.....

 

[Huked on foniks]

cooks1 is owning the shit out of this thread

But yeah, someone brought up the point that conservatives don't care about policy. They're concerned with their feels so if there's a thread about some dude in a Youtube video claiming he's a 7-year-old girl, they'll be all over it and that thread will have 500 posts.

Policy, spending? Who cares?

Lol. A fat leftist talking conservatives caring strictly about their feelings. Priceless.

Edit. I meant "far" leftist not fat, though you probably are.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Not really. People don't leak with their names attached, but reporters and editors know their identities and their reputations are on the line. Protected sources are as old as journalism itself. Expecting name attribution is just a way to discredit any news you don't like. Trump's official responses have named attached and they lie.

It's tragic that you even have to explain this to these low-information, political cro-mags.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's going to cost $183M a year just for security at Trump Tower. Got to pay for it somehow.....

To say nothing of the "necessary" weekend trips and stays at Mar-A-Lago.

It's beyond extraordinary what the "conservatives" in Washington and the electorate are allowing this scum bag to get away with.

Trump's blatant, unapologetic exploitation of the tax payer makes the EBT card abuse at Walmart look like nickel and dime kid stuff.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's going to cost $183M a year just for security at Trump Tower. Got to pay for it somehow.....

everyone on sesame street has to live in Oscar's trash can now.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If Republicans manage to allow this, the deficit will balloon, and the income disparity at the end of his term will make the current disparity look like communism by comparison.

Cooks1 getting it exactly right! Broken clock syndrome on full display.

 

[cooks1]

But 2 years of that would in theory, pay for the wall -- so no, the wall is not a larger expenditure than all his proposed cuts, thus far.. AND, again, i am not now, nor have i said that Trump will cut spending dramatically -- JUST that thus far, as of feb 21 2017, he has leaned towards more cuts than spending -- that will obviously change AND there is nothing currently that will drastically reduce spending -- BUT as of right now, he has geared more plans toward cuts than spending.

That will probably change when the budget is released. We have no taxation plan, we have no spending plan. All we have thus far is announced intentions to cut, no matter how small you may view them

You realize he has not cut anything yet, right?

None of the things he has announced to cut, he has actually cut. They are just things he might like to do. And we won't know if he actually does them until he presents a budget to Congress. And we will know at the exact same time what his military build up, and infrastructure investment plans are. And should find out about taxes shortly thereafter.

You are simply choosing to only pay attention to the things he has said he would like to cut, and not pay attention to any of the spending he has said he would like to do. If you want to look at things in a vacuum, that's fine. He has not actually cut any of this yet. He has only talked about doing it. Just as he has only talked about building the wall, and he has only talked about a huge military build up, and he has only talked about a trillion $ infrastructure investment, and only talked about huge tax cuts.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You realize he has not cut anything yet, right?

None of the things he has announced to cut, he has actually cut. They are just things he might like to do. And we won't know if he actually does them until he presents a budget to Congress. And we will know at the exact same time what his military build up, and infrastructure investment plans are. And should find out about taxes shortly thereafter.

You are simply choosing to only pay attention to the things he has said he would like to cut, and not pay attention to any of the spending he has said he would like to do. If you want to look at things in a vacuum, that's fine. He has not actually cut any of this yet. He has only talked about doing it. Just as he has only talked about building the wall, and he has only talked about a huge military build up, and he has only talked about a trillion $ infrastructure investment, and only talked about huge tax cuts.

Thats why i said announced -- so far as of today his announcements have been geared more toward cuts. Since he has been in office, what have been the announced spending statements (outside of the wall)? He hasnt talked about taxes yet. He has announced any real ideas for infrastructure. Again, as of today, the vast majority of verbiage coming out of the white house has been geared towards minor to mild cuts -- about 20 specific things. If we are going by campaign speak -- yes, there will be a huge deficit from revenue cuts to new spending. But, thus far in his presidency, he hasn't really talked or put specifics to anything. His cut speak has been to specific programs. It is all probably lipstick on the pig to appease conservative base BUT THUS far more announced policy has been geared to specific cuts.

Im totally with you on the deficit divide will be larger once his budget and tax plans are released but i am merely speaking for what specific policies / programs he has officially mention thus far. Not sure why you cant see that.

 

[Rod1]

Not if you add in his proposed to cut to global warming initiatives


Donald Trump to sign executive order to dramatically reduce funding of United Nations

Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B

I agree that overall his rhetoric seems to be geared toward blowing up the deficit -- however, as of today, in actual announced plans -- there has been more cuts than spending. Whether that will last is doubtful.

Considering the 100 million costs in security that his trips to Florida has been costing plus the projected hundreds of millions to secure Trump Tower because the wife doesnt wants to live with the husband plus whatever its costing for his other sons, he has already covered those cuts.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Considering the 100 million costs in security that his trips to Florida has been costing plus the projected hundreds of millions to secure Trump Tower because the wife doesnt wants to live with the husband plus whatever its costing for his other sons, he has already covered those cuts.

well no -- but i see the point you're making.

 

[Rod1]

well no -- but i see the point you're making.

The point is that cutting peanuts isnt being fiscally responsible.

Its all speculation but soon the budget is going to be discussed.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The point is that cutting peanuts isnt being fiscally responsible.

Its all speculation but soon the budget is going to be discussed.

My point is simply that thus far he has geared more verbiage in office to specific cuts -- not spending. I agree its lipstick on the pig -- but its not untrue. And, yes speculation until the budget is released. I fully expect it to be a major deficit (depends if they go after SS and health) But we could say as of this moment things like, his proposed (announced) spending cuts could pay for the revenue lost from removing the death tax. Stuff like that.

 

[Rod1]

My point is simply that thus far he has geared more verbiage in office to specific cuts -- not spending. I agree its lipstick on the pig -- but its not untrue. And, yes speculation until the budget is released. I fully expect it to be a major deficit (depends if they go after SS and health) But we could say as of this moment things like, his proposed (announced) spending cuts could pay for the revenue lost from removing the death tax. Stuff like that.

The issue is that he has not so far proposed any cut to the meaningful programs so unless he guts the military, SS or Medicare/Medicaid, he isnt going to reduce spending.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The issue is that he has not so far proposed any cut to the meaningful programs so unless he guts the military, SS or Medicare/Medicaid, he isnt going to reduce spending.

I agree, i haven't said he will meaningfully cut the budget, or has proposed specifics that would. But if he were to say im going to cut the death tax and pay for it with these 5 cuts -- he, as of today could realistically say that (based on how much we know it brings in v. how much those cuts would save).

That is what an organized and sane conservative president would do

Agreed that it is all speculation until that budget is out -- which is taking its sweet as time

 

[cooks1]

Thats why i said announced -- so far as of today his announcements have been geared more toward cuts. Since he has been in office, where have the announced spending statements (outside of the wall) he hasnt talked about taxes yet. He has announced any real ideas for infrastructure. Again, as of today, the vast majority of verbiage coming out of the white house has been geared towards minor cuts -- about 20 specific things. If we are going by campaign speak -- yes, there will be a huge deficit from revenue cuts to new spending. But, thus far in his presidency, he hasnt really talked or put specifics to anything. His cut speak has been to specific programs. It is all probably lipstick on the pig to appease conservative base BUT THUS far more announced policy has been geared to specific cuts.

Im totally with you on the deficit divide will be larger once his budget and tax plans are released but i am merely speaking for what specific policies / programs he has officially mention thus far. Not sure why you cant see that.

Again- You are paying selective attention. He has announced the wall while in office. He has announced the tax cuts while in office. And he has announced a huge infrastructure investment. I am not sure how you are making the distinction between how he 'announces' a cut and how he 'announces' something else. but you might want to review it

In fact not only has he announced infrastructure investment, he has actually already signed XO's expediting environmental approval on several high priority infrastructure projects. An area where he has a surprising amount of support from across the aisle. In fact Democrats already have a Trillion $ infrastructure spending plan out there. And Trump is helping them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ers-pipelines-steel-and-environment/96988428/

I think he will have a lot of support for the infrastructure investment. The problem will be spending a trillion on infrastructure while lowering taxes and simultaneously lowering the deficit, while not touching entitlements. Can't be done.

 

[Joe]

90% of our news today is unnamed sources and tweets.

It has been pretty much anonymous sources. When wasnt it? The biggests stories get broken like that.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Again- You are paying selective attention. He has announced the wall while in office. He has announced the tax cuts while in office. And he has announced a huge infrastructure investment. I am not sure how you are making the distinction between how he 'announces' a cut and how he 'announces' something else. but you might want to review it

In fact not only has he announced infrastructure investment, he has actually already signed XO's expediting environmental approval on several high priority infrastructure projects. An area where he has a surprising amount of support from across the aisle. In fact Democrats already have a Trillion $ infrastructure spending plan out there. And Trump is helping them.

http://www.transmissionhub.com/arti...ucture-plan-trump-signs-executive-orders.html

I think he will have a lot of support for the infrastructure investment. The problem will be spending a trillion on infrastructure while lowering taxes and simultaneously lowering the deficit, while not touching entitlements. Can't be done.

I acknowledged the wall in the post you are quoting -- i did not know about the announced infrastructure spending and your link just goes to a splash page. All you had to do was bust that out earlier when i showed you the links showing 20 program cuts to say "judo, he has also thus far announced spending programs otuside of the wall"