• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WH Defends Proposed Cuts to Programs for Elderly, Minorities, and Poor

SouthernDemocrat said:
There are only so many people around with expertise in policy and governance. Thus every Democratic president will pull from much of the same talent pool for their administrations and every Republican president will pull from the same talent pool for their administrations.
Click to expand...

that may be true. However, Trump's appointments of Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin to run his economy are subject to question on account of him railing against Wall St. and Hillary's afformentioned connection to Goldman Sachs. When Trump said "Im gonna drain the swamp." He meant I'm going to make operational cuts to Democratic programs, cuts that Republicans have always been in favor of, and sell it to the disenfranchised rural White voters by telling them I'm draining the swamp. When really, I'm just funelling the money that was used on Democratic programs to rich Republican donors. Then when those Democratic programs are too underfunded to perform we can then sell them off to private interests. Basically he's going to do what Republicans have always done but, he gets to tell the electorate he's an outsider. Unfortunately, the American public is still too complacent to examine statements and actions.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That is why the federal government is involved
Click to expand...

The point being that Federal government should not be involved. There is no reason why the States can't pay for it. They just don't because the Federal government has thus far been willing to foot the bill. No more.
 
Napoleon said:
The point being that Federal government should not be involved. There is no reason why the States can't pay for it. They just don't because the Federal government has thus far been willing to foot the bill. No more.
Click to expand...

The Great Depression is proof that the states finances are not enough
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The Great Depression is proof that the states finances are not enough
Click to expand...

Then maybe Texans should start paying taxes to feed their elderly. It's interesting that people are all about autonomy of the States until there's money to be had. And this isn't the Great Depression - its Meals On Wheels. We're talking about approximately $90 million spread across 50 States. Why can't your State shell out $1.8 million to feed its elderly citizens?
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
Got any details as to exactly what was cut?
Click to expand...

Meals on Wheels is one. The article goes into some specifics. I'd have to do some research. What are the chances his budget passes Congress?
 
chuckiechan said:
Depends who is in close races.
Click to expand...

I read the WP article, so I'm sure they will get a hearing in congress. But I'd like another view. I don't trust the WP due to Bezos hatred of all things Trump.

My prediction is it will survive, but it's nice that it get looked at.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its a typical Republican Administration. I said all last year to the Trump supporters thinking they were going to get something different that it would be a typical Republican Administration.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. It is like no republican administration in history. It is like nothing we have ever seen before. The Trump supporters are getting exactly what they expected to get. Trump was clear about his goals and is following through on them.
 
Napoleon said:
Then maybe Texans should start paying taxes to feed their elderly. It's interesting that people are all about autonomy of the States until there's money to be had. And this isn't the Great Depression - its Meals On Wheels. We're talking about approximately $90 million spread across 50 States. Why can't your State shell out $1.8 million to feed its elderly citizens?
Click to expand...

Interesting how you think we should pay the same in federal taxes and get less value and Texas does pay taxes btw
 
fmw said:
You have to be kidding. It is like no republican administration in history. It is like nothing we have ever seen before. The Trump supporters are getting exactly what they expected to get. Trump was clear about his goals and is following through on them.
Click to expand...

Your post is complete and utter nonsense.
Trump supporters expected to see Clinton indicted and imprisoned. They expected to see Mexico pay for a border wall. They expected to see coal jobs come back to Appalachia. They expected to see Muslims barred from immigrating to the US.

None of these things are happening. Quit lying to the board... and more importantly, quit lying to yourself.
 
Crovax said:
Interesting how you think we should pay the same in federal taxes and get less value and Texas does pay taxes btw
Click to expand...

You have no State income taxes and I'm fairly certain that Texas receives far more in federal grants and aide than it contributes in Federal income taxes. Pay for your own programs. You guys just finished a $1.2 billion dollar football stadium last year so don't tell me the lot of you can't find $1.8 million to feed the elderly.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
You have no State income taxes and I'm fairly certain that Texas receives far more in federal grants and aide than it contributes in Federal income taxes. Pay for your own programs. You guys just finished a $1.2 billion dollar football stadium last year so don't tell me the lot of you can't find $1.8 million to feed the elderly.
Click to expand...

We have a very high sales tax to offset that and as for taxes paid versus federal money Texas about breaks even.
 
jimbo said:
CDBG's, if there is a need, should be the territory of state government.

I have no idea why the Federal education system should be charged with feeding the kids.
Click to expand...

Because it's helpful to people. Unfortunately for Republicans, the New Deal happened. And they can't get rid of that pesky elastic clause. If you are to open that door then why should the Federal Government have a food stamp program at all? Try and include the abolition of food stamps in your platform, and see how rural Kentucky likes that one. So, instead they have to chip away at sustenance programs and assistance buried in dense block grants that only intellectuals discover, all to funnel the money to the military industrial complex, in the name of fighting terrorism with the ineffective method of bombing them.
 
2016:


The world spendt 1.676 trillion on "defense" (hah) spending.
We spent 596 billion, and Trump wants it increased by almost 10%
China spent 215b.
Saudi Arabia 87.2b
Russia 66.4b




Think about this: there's no way we want to get into a war with China or Russia despite our massive outspending because of the nuclear deterrent. Yet we cannot even stamp out Al Queda in what is now nearly 20 years of War ("on Terror"). Think about that. We spend 35.5% of the total world military spending, and we cannot defeat a gaggle of terrorists. We also don't want to have a hot war with the biggest potential opponents because we'd be looking at tens of millions of dead and trillions if not tens of trillions in new debt, if it was fought to the bitter end.

What in the precise **** are we getting out of this? What does it even do?

Our defense spending is basically one massive yearly stimulus sent directly to "defense" contractors.





$596,000,000,000 in one year........whereas the targeted programs cost an average of $3,200,000,000 a year over the last 47 years (OP: 150 billion since the 1970s).....and they are the ones that need cutting?



Edit:

Source of numbers, w/ links. Numbers vary depending on whether you use "military" or "defense", but not in any way relevant to validity of my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
The vast majority of what the federal government is beyond its role as defined by the constitution and the intent of the founders. An effort to reduce some of that is noble and intelligent. How low can you go?
Click to expand...

If you want to make the argument that the federal government exceeds the Ennumerated Powers, I hear you but, then that means that by your definition the FBI is unconstitutional too and should be disbanded. Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen. We aren't going back to a pre-New Deal era of government. The younger generation is only more and more open to spending on federal programs. So, really I can see no reason to cut these programs other than to funnel the money to the military industrial complex and to pay for Trump's border wall. Republicans, if this budget passes, will own the pollution the deregulation is going to cause and the hungry children the cuts to sustenance programs produce, they will own those ugly political realities lock, stock, and barrel. Not to mention all the Middle Eastern lives that a powerful military will claim.
 
fmw said:
The vast majority of what the federal government is beyond its role as defined by the constitution and the intent of the founders. An effort to reduce some of that is noble and intelligent. How low can you go?
Click to expand...

Current conditions could not have been envisioned by the founders. We literally and truly could not function as one single country if we returned to the way things were in the 18th century, let alone even 1900. That is why the Supreme Court, despite any personal feelings, incrementally allowed the growth of the administrative branch of government.

We could function as a whole bunch of different countries, sure, but not one really strong rich country.



I propose we allow one mid-western country to succeed from the union. Libertarians can move there and live in the borderline anarchy they think will become a Utopia. The rest of us can recognize reality for what it is, deal with it pragmatically, and get on with things.

(Though, I do grant you that it might be self-satisfying to some to demand a return to the Articles of Confederation while lambasting everyone else for not respecting "original intent", while making this demand in the certain knowledge that it simply will never happen. In other words, you know full well that you will never have to live in the Vaguely Related States of North America, that you say you want to bring about......

.....but it is silly, you must admit. There is no way the U.S. functions as one country if the Libertarians get their way and basically dismantle the federal government.)
 
Winston said:
Because it's helpful to people. Unfortunately for Republicans, the New Deal happened. And they can't get rid of that pesky elastic clause. If you are to open that door then why should the Federal Government have a food stamp program at all? Try and include the abolition of food stamps in your platform, and see how rural Kentucky likes that one. So, instead they have to chip away at sustenance programs and assistance buried in dense block grants that only intellectuals discover, all to funnel the money to the military industrial complex, in the name of fighting terrorism with the ineffective method of bombing them.
Click to expand...

Winston, I agree. Why should the federal government be involved in welfare? Unemployment? Food Stamps? For that matter, why should the federal government be involved in education at all?
 
Winston said:
White House defends proposed cuts to programs for elderly, minorities and poor | TheHill



How low can Mulvaney go?
Click to expand...



Hitler did the same thing in Germany in the 1920s & 1930s; it's ALL ABOUT getting rid of the weaker, dependent population so, that when your nation GOES TO WAR your nation is full of a younger, a stronger, a more vital population

have no doubt; BannonTrump is going to war BUT they believe it is a war they can win ............ haha ......... they have ALREADY lost ..........
 
jimbo said:
Winston, I agree. Why should the federal government be involved in welfare? Unemployment? Food Stamps? For that matter, why should the federal government be involved in education at all?
Click to expand...

The Federal government should be involved to do what the local and state governments fail to do for their communities. When you look at a state like Kentucky. Perfect example of a state in crisis that needs food stamps. Trump's not bringing the coal jobs back so, their main source of income has left the building. Consequentially, Kentucky leads the nation in Food Stamps. If you remove their Food Stamps people go hungry.

The Fed has to step in and provide Food Stamps to avoid an overall crisis, which Kentucky's state government cannot handle. I don't know the numbers off hand but, I doubt that Kentucky generates enough revenue to support sustaining a food stamp program. I doubt it has a liberal enough governor for state-run food stamps too. Without the Fed, Kentucky goes hungry. Grocery stores lose business too because people can't buy as much food. And people have no room to breath in their budget if they can't even afford the 100-200 dollars a week on groceries.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its a typical Republican Administration. I said all last year to the Trump supporters thinking they were going to get something different that it would be a typical Republican Administration.
Click to expand...

I view the TYPICAL Republican as a hypocrite, uneducated, FAKE religious zealot, insecure, lover of under aged flesh, two faced, self loathing, racist, bigoted, suicidal, money grubbing, nationalist, self defeating, etc. ....

did I leave anything out?
 
Napoleon said:
I don't see it as going low. The States play a shell game with block grants. If the programs are so important to their constituents then why aren't they paying for them with State revenue? Meals On Wheels is a great program. So why isn't the State paying for it?
Click to expand...

Because most states are controlled by conservative governors.
 
Winston said:
Mulvaney told single mothers of Detroit that cutting HUD and Meals on Wheels was Republicans being compassionate. That's pretty low. When you have Republicans taking food from seniors and after school programs from children to inflate the Pentagon's already exorbitantly high budget.. Remember, these cuts are being made in part to pay for Trump's $54 Billion dollar increase in DoD spending. Is that what a Republican mother voted for? The Fed can afford a Meal on Wheels program.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, you hate our military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom