• 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

cuban smokes said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nope, you have all the liberal leftist talking points down pat.
 
cuban smokes said:
nuthin' wrong with a healthy dislike for the military; they don't do a thing to build any nation from WITHIN ..........
Click to expand...

That's not their mission. Providing security is, however I take it that is not a priority of yours. And I'll bet you never served in the military.
 
Born Free said:
Gotcha, you hate our military.
Click to expand...

I think it's laughable that Trump masquerades around under the banner of "America First", while his budget proposal kills funding for popular programs that are the living, breathing testament of "America First". All to give the money to the Pentagon where it will go to defense contracts to build more warplanes that will be used overseas. It's the antithesis of "America First"

I recognize Trump had little to do with the critical thinking involved in the creation of a federal budget that allows for his $54 Billion dollar DoD increase. He was in all likelihood watching Fox News until his eyes bled.
 
cuban smokes said:
just because something is a talking point does not detract from it being the truth
Click to expand...

I see none of what you said is true. In fact everything you said describes some in your liberal party and some in the Pubs party but to claim all are as you said is a flat out lie.
 
Born Free said:
That's not their mission. Providing security is, however I take it that is not a priority of yours. And I'll bet you never served in the military.
Click to expand...

HOW has the military provided for the security of American citizens since WWII? Seriously

Korean War? no
Vietnam War? no
Iraq War? no
Afghannyville War? no
there are MANY more, just name them ..........

come on mr. military guy, tell US ............... how is the military securing MY security & YOUR security?

someone listening to the politico & their BS?

the US military blows the s*** outta of a lot of brown folks; what do they do to offer US any real security?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Because most states are controlled by conservative governors.
Click to expand...

Excellent observation. One that ocurred to me briefly in my response to jimbo about "why should the federal government do food stamps at all?"

Because without federal funding for food stamps, the onus to address poverty and hunger crisis is on heartless Republican governors. How quick would it take Kentucky to switch from a conservative position to a liberal one, if the Fed killed their Food Stamps?
 
cuban smokes said:
HOW has the military provided for the security of American citizens since WWII? Seriously

Korean War? no
Vietnam War? no
Iraq War? no
Afghannyville War? no
there are MANY more, just name them ..........

come on mr. military guy, tell US ............... how is the military securing MY security & YOUR security?

someone listening to the politico & their BS?

the US military blows the s*** outta of a lot of brown folks; what do they do to offer US any real security?
Click to expand...


I take it you don't care sacrificing 3,000 people now and then like we had on 9-11, and I see you never served this country. Enough said.


I rephrased your rant"
"I view the TYPICAL Liberal 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. ...."
 
Born Free said:
I take it you don't care sacrificing 3,000 people now and then like we had on 9-11, and I see you never served this country. Enough said.
Click to expand...


well, OBVIOUSLY POTUS George W. Bush FAILED America on 9/11 & the US MILITARY failed the US on 9/11

that is ON THEM, NOT ON ME BRO .........


is that any reason to offer the military more money for failure?
 
Roadvirus said:
These cuts are not set in stone. My guess is there will be weeks of wheeling and dealing between Trump and Congress on this before it's first vote and some of these cuts will be stopped.
Click to expand...

Understood. His budget has to make it through congress. Maybe after talking with some Senate committees they can figure out some cuts that aren't political suicide. I also understand Mulvaney was proably instructed to go out there like John Wayne. Bam! These cuts are awesome! Bam! We're 20 Trillion in debt! Bam! Famine for Seniors is compassionate!
 
Mr Person said:
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.
Click to expand...

People often forget that that having a societal benefit and government are not a binary decision. We can have them without government if we want them. The intent of the founders was to limit the power of government with the constitution. It defined a treasury, state department, defense department and justice department which we still need today. All the rest of it doesn't have to be in federal government and should not be in federal government where the motivations are primarily political. The federal government should do what the states and the private sector cannot do and the founders hit the nail on the head.

Secondly, the government should treat people equally. That is not the same thing as creating equality or engaging in fairness. Money should never go from government to an individual unless the government is buying something from an individual. Same with state and local governments. In short we were created as a union of states. We are now a national government with 50 geographic divisions that we call states. They are directed by federal government using money. The closer decisions are made to the individual, the better the outcome of the decisions will be.

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

That is an opinion I don't share.

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.
Click to expand...

Let's allow unfettered immigration but let's take a number of American born people and banish them?

(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......
Click to expand...

I didn't say any of that. You can read what I said above.

.....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.)
Click to expand...

Nothing silly about it. No dismantling of federal government. Just a rearrangement of how and where we do some things. I don't think you have thought through the possibilities.
 
Winston said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing unconstitutional about it. It is a part of the justice department and it enforces federal laws.

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.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that the concept of exceeding appropriate roles for government belonged to a political party. Nor did I suggest that we should have hungry children or pollution. I didn't suggest we should be doing military things in the middle east either. I suggested that federal government has grown way, way beyond what is appropriate or healthy for society. These things do not need to be handled in federal government. There are other more appropriate venues.
 
RickJames3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I won't bore you with the list of positive things that are coming from this administration. I'll leave you to your cherry picking. You will be happier that way. What makes an observation a lie? Anything with which you disagree is a lie? It can't be a lie. It is an opinion.
 
fmw said:
I won't bore you with the list of positive things that are coming from this administration. I'll leave you to your cherry picking. You will be happier that way. What makes an observation a lie? Anything with which you disagree is a lie? It can't be a lie. It is an opinion.
Click to expand...

Fine. I'll leave you alone to cuddle with your "alternative facts" instead. :lol:
I hope they keep you warm at night.

PS: You need to do a bit of research into the word "opinion".
You wrote, "The Trump supporters are getting exactly what they expected to get. Trump was clear about his goals and is following through on them."

That's not an "opinion".
That's an assertion... and can be proven true or false, by examining FACTS...
which I have helpfully done for you.
 
fmw said:
Nothing unconstitutional about it. It is a part of the justice department and it enforces federal laws.



I didn't suggest that the concept of exceeding appropriate roles for government belonged to a political party. Nor did I suggest that we should have hungry children or pollution. I didn't suggest we should be doing military things in the middle east either. I suggested that federal government has grown way, way beyond what is appropriate or healthy for society. These things do not need to be handled in federal government. There are other more appropriate venues.
Click to expand...

Under a strict-constructionist POV, law enforcement is a Reserved Power. So, the FBI is unconstitutional if you want to play "The Fed is too big" game. The FBI is subject to your criticisms. And is in fact unconstitutional. If we're to accept your argument, then we can't play favorites. We can't go well, I like the Department of HUD but, I don't like the Department of Education. So, they're gone. By your thinking, we have to get rid of every Department not in the Ennumerated Powers.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. They interpret the elastic clause to contain the giant federal bureacracy you see today.
 
Winston said:
Under a strict-constructionist POV, law enforcement is a Reserved Power. So, the FBI is unconstitutional if you want to play "The Fed is too big" game. The FBI is subject to your criticisms. And is in fact unconstitutional. If we're to accept your argument, then we can't play favorites. We can't go well, I like the Department of HUD but, I don't like the Department of Education. So, they're gone. By your thinking, we have to get rid of every Department not in the Ennumerated Powers.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. They interpret the elastic clause to contain the giant federal bureacracy you see today.
Click to expand...

So cut out the FBI it that's what you want. The supreme court rarely agrees with me.
 
fmw said:
So cut out the FBI it that's what you want. The supreme court rarely agrees with me.
Click to expand...

No don't cut the FBI. But, the same logic that conservatives use to moan about entitlements is the logic that would be used to cut the FBI.

Health is a reserved power, but under the elastic clause we have a DHHS.

Law enforcement is a reserved power but, under the elastic clause we have an FBI




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cuban smokes said:
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 ..........
Click to expand...

Hitler asks a fortune teller "why am I losing the war"

The fortune teller says " it is because of the jewish generals"

Hitler: "But I haven't got any!"

The fortune teller says "ah, but your enemy does"
 
We feed these people and then half a day later they want food again! We're getting nowhere!
 
“They’re supposed to be educational programs right? They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better at school,” he said. “Guess what, there’s no demonstrable evidence they’re doing that, helping results, helping kids do better in school … which, when we took the money from you, the way we justified it was these programs are going to help children do better in school and get better jobs. We can’t prove that is happening.”
Click to expand...

"The little brats aren't getting better grades, so no more food for them."

These people aren't human.

Moderate Right said:
Here we go again with the left meme of Republicans are fighting a war against everybody. Do you even realize these same things have been said for decades and yet Republicans now have the most power of any party since 1928? Voters don't believe the propaganda spewed by the left anymore.
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken a position that favored the poor over the rich, or do the terms of your contract forbid that?
 
cuban smokes said:
well, OBVIOUSLY POTUS George W. Bush FAILED America on 9/11 & the US MILITARY failed the US on 9/11

that is ON THEM, NOT ON ME BRO .........


is that any reason to offer the military more money for failure?
Click to expand...

Its an excellent reason to offer more money, to stop such events.

But I see you liking the POTUS and our military failing to keep our citizens safe. You would rather sacrifice 3,000 people whenever the terrorist want by cutting out our military, customs, FBI, HLS, DIA, CIA and the like, by defunding them completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom