• 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!

Op-Ed: The Trump budget is just telling the truth—and you can’t handle the truth!

chuckiechan said:
If the world were a safer place, and Obama didn't gut the military - to be fair so did Clinton, and others, we wouldn't be paying the higher price due to deferred maintenance.

BUT... Now the budget goes to Schumer and Pelosi's houses of "NO". But, obviously there is room for some bi partisan give and take.
Click to expand...

I'm for a strong military as well but can you tell me what your definition is of 'gut the military'?
 
chuckiechan said:
It's time to face the economic realities of truth is spending. We can't afford the welfare state as it is constructed today. We need economic growth beyond what is statistically possible. Our "good" growth is 3%. At this rate we can't keep doing what we are doing. No one likes to hear the truth especially a politician or a bureaucrat.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-trump-budget-just-160449563.html

America finally has something it's needed for decades: A budget that starts to tell the truth. And some people don't seem to be able to handle the truth. But they need to start.

Note:A few sentences have been clipped out for brevity and character count.
Click to expand...

Fact is, Trump is taking money away from those who did not vote for him and transferring it over to those who did. There is no reduction in spending, just transferring money from poor to the rich.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Figure-3.jpg


The Constitution doesn't mandate that people work until they drop, or that no one over age 16 should be in school.

The Constitution also does not rule out federal spending on education, or safety nets, or Social Security.
Click to expand...

It think you made a mistake:

U1 is Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.

U2 is Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.

U3 is Official unemployment rate per the International Labor Organization definition. It occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.

U4 is U3 + “discouraged workers”, or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.

U5 is U4 + other “marginally attached workers”, or “loosely attached workers”, or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.

U6 is U5 + Part time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons, i.e. the economy is bad so their employer cut their hours and they can’t find other work.

Data Tables are available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for U1 – U6.
Click to expand...
 
reinoe said:
Any budget that doesn't include massive cuts to military spending isn't a serious budget.
Click to expand...

The military is the smallest it has been (as a % of GDP) since WW2, massive millitary cuts are a red hearing to the real problem of retiring baby boomers and a dysfunctional medicare/SS system.
 
chuckiechan said:
It think you made a mistake:
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I didn't.

At this time, somewhere around 208 million people are in the labor force, 117 are not.

Anyone listed as "unemployed" by any BLS definition are in the labor force. National unemployment is around 4.5%, so that's 9.36 million Americans. That is definitely not 30% of the American public. That's, like, 2.9%. Even if we're looking at U6, that's around 6% of the US population.

Plus, not everyone who is unemployed receives safety net benefits. Some collect unemployment insurance; others do not. There are millions of Americans who receive benefits and work and pay taxes.

So if you are suggesting that "70% work for the 30% who do not," it is far more likely you're discussing the total labor force, not just unemployed people. Right?
 
chuckiechan said:
This is just an opening gambit. It still has to go through the house of "NO".
Click to expand...
That doesn't change anything about how I described the Trump proposals for taxation & spending.
 
DA60 said:
Are you being serious or sarcastic (I agree with your post, btw)?

I assumed you were a Trumpbot in all things and loved military spending...more and more of it.

If that is not the case - I owe you an apology.
Click to expand...

i am a conservative, but also a realist

do we need the world's mightiest military? depends on what our mission is, and who our leader is, and what they are likely to get us into

and i dont care if they have a D or an R after their name....

what i do care about, is that if we are going to send our troops into harms way, they are equipped with the best they can get....

there is NOTHING worse than being in the field and having something you are relying on suddenly go kaput....be it a weapon, communications, or needed other machinery

we could cut our military budget by 1/2....and pull out of NATO....and let other countries defend themselves....instead of us being their security blanket

we wouldnt need troops in 25 or so other countries around the world.....we wouldnt need a huge navy.....and the ability to deploy two massive forces at one time

but then i dont want to hear it when one of the other big sticks starts bullying their neighbors....and that we need to suddenly step in

either we are going to be the big boy in the world, and carry the biggest stick....or we can become more isolationist....and let other countries handle their own security and cut our defense

but you cant have it both ways.....just understand that....and the ramifications it "may" bring
 
<alt>doxygen said:
With regard to the subject at hand, I believe it's called "dynamic scoring", or in layman's terms, pure fantasy. It's called out in post #19.
Click to expand...

Dynamic scoring is the only thing that has a chance of being close to correct. It's like saying if you qualify for a house today, and lose your job tomorrow, nothing changes. Bull. Everything changes.
 
gdgyva said:
i am a conservative, but also a realist

do we need the world's mightiest military? depends on what our mission is, and who our leader is, and what they are likely to get us into

and i dont care if they have a D or an R after their name....

what i do care about, is that if we are going to send our troops into harms way, they are equipped with the best they can get....

there is NOTHING worse than being in the field and having something you are relying on suddenly go kaput....be it a weapon, communications, or needed other machinery

we could cut our military budget by 1/2....and pull out of NATO....and let other countries defend themselves....instead of us being their security blanket

we wouldnt need troops in 25 or so other countries around the world.....we wouldnt need a huge navy.....and the ability to deploy two massive forces at one time

but then i dont want to hear it when one of the other big sticks starts bullying their neighbors....and that we need to suddenly step in

either we are going to be the big boy in the world, and carry the biggest stick....or we can become more isolationist....and let other countries handle their own security and cut our defense

but you cant have it both ways.....just understand that....and the ramifications it "may" bring
Click to expand...

Or a costal nation capturing one of the worlds busiest sea lanes and installing a toll booth. (China)
 
chuckiechan said:
Or a costal nation capturing one of the worlds busiest sea lanes and installing a toll booth. (China)
Click to expand...
Trump had ample opportunity at Mar-a-Lago to confront Xi over China's nine-dash-line. Not a word about this by Trump after the Xi summit.

Contrary to his campaign rhetoric, Trump did publicly state that he no longer considers China a currency manipulator.
 
reinoe said:
Unlike Trump haters who operate on a hive-mind like the borg, Trump supporters include diverse people from all walks of life who think independently. I've been calling for reduced military spending since I got to the forum, unlike liberals who's opinions change depending on which party is in office.
Click to expand...

Then you voted for the wrong candidate. Trump has said he would increase military spending from the start. He lied about not touching Medicaid too. Typical Trump voter, you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest.
 
chuckiechan said:
Dynamic scoring is the only thing that has a chance of being close to correct. It's like saying if you qualify for a house today, and lose your job tomorrow, nothing changes. Bull. Everything changes.
Click to expand...

Pie in the sky GDP growth numbers are not realistic or even possible. It is always the way they justify ballooning the deficit while cutting social programs.
 
The Trump budget is theater . Meaningless. Obama used to achieve bipartisan agreement on his budget requests.
For example In 2012 it was rejected unanamously by both parties.

LAFFRIOT
 
The op-ed cited in the OP calls for something that no administration has really put any effort into and I doubt this one will be any different. Here it is:

Now, let's get to what the Trump budget gets wrong. In short, it still isn't "harsh" enough. So far, we have no details of any reforms to the three biggest problems in our budget: Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. No real anti-deficit and pro-taxpayer moves can be made permanent until all three of those programs are reformed and essentially cut. It's not surprising the White House plan doesn't make the hard choices on that three-headed fiscal monster considering it would make the current political firestorm over his other cuts look like a small campfire.
Click to expand...

So he admits Trumps budget doesn't address this. Surprise, surprise! The old pipe dream of reform and stopping the cheaters from gaming the government. Good luck with that!

I've got a great budget cut suggestion. Cut the pay and benefits of all Federal government employees to make them come into line with what people are getting in the private sector.
 
chuckiechan said:
National defense is mandated in the constitution, allowing 30% of the population to feed off the other 70% isn't.
Click to expand...
1) The 70% number is pulled from thin air.
2) Your argument essentially is that not only is Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security bad ideas, they're unconstitutional.
3) We are hardly starving the Pentagon.
 
iguanaman said:
Then you voted for the wrong candidate. Trump has said he would increase military spending from the start. He lied about not touching Medicaid too. Typical Trump voter, you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest.
Click to expand...

No, I take into account everything when voting for a candidate. Unlike liberals who voted for the Hillary simply because she was a woman.
 
chuckiechan said:
America finally has something it's needed for decades: A budget that starts to tell the truth. And some people don't seem to be able to handle the truth. But they need to start.
Click to expand...
Start to tell the truth? It's fiction. That budget is based upon wild projections and magic asterisks. It presumes a high growth rate that economists say is unfounded and presumes tax cuts without a fall in revenue as % of GDP.
 
MTAtech said:
Start to tell the truth? It's fiction. That budget is based upon wild projections and magic asterisks. It presumes a high growth rate that economists say is unfounded and presumes tax cuts without a fall in revenue as % of GDP.
Click to expand...

BTW what growth rate did they use?
 
reinoe said:
No, I take into account everything when voting for a candidate. Unlike liberals who voted for the Hillary simply because she was a woman.
Click to expand...

Then stop lying about wanting to cut defense spending. Oh wait, lying is one of Trump's favorite things and you are emulating him. How cute.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The budget problem is simple to solve - you start with a realistic projection of revenue (last years actual revenue is a good number to use) and then allocate that, program by program, on a priority basis. That means spending cuts of about $500 billion or a tax increase.
Click to expand...
I think your math is way off. If im not mistaken last year the gov collected aprox 2T and spent 4T.

They would either need to cut their spending in half or double the revenue just to get 0.

A realistic approach would be a plan that combines both. They have to come up with an incremental plan to reduce spending and devise a system that is designed to provide long term growth.

Neither party seems to have a sincere interest in it, nor do the majority of the electorate. People are only interested in whats in it for them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump had ample opportunity at Mar-a-Lago to confront Xi over China's nine-dash-line. Not a word about this by Trump after the Xi summit.
Click to expand...
You don't know that. That information wouldn't be leaked because that would portray Trump in a positive light and the MSM would never stand for that.
 
iguanaman said:
Then stop lying about wanting to cut defense spending. Oh wait, lying is one of Trump's favorite things and you are emulating him. How cute.
Click to expand...

LOL U! Unlike liberals I don't have to agree with everything a candidate says to vote for them. Remember Hillary's slogan was: "I'm with her". I get it, you're part of the cult of personality that her campaign required. That's not necessary with Trump. I can disagree with someone and still vote for them. That's not the same with Hillary Voters. Her will became their will. Her agenda became their agenda. That's what "I'M WITH HER" represents.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-congressman-just-destroyed-trump-182449077.html

Sanford offered some basic history to challenge Mulvaney’s assumptions. For starters, he noted that the average economic expansion in all U.S. history lasts about 58 months. The current expansion begun under President Barack Obama has been underway for 94 months. The Trump budget, Sanford noted, assumes that will continue uninterrupted for an additional 214 months.

“This budget presumes a Goldilocks economy, and I think that’s a very difficult thing on which to base a budget,” Sanford said. He also noted that the Bible cautions against building a house on sand.

Sanford took specific aim at the unemployment, growth and inflation rates the budget relies on.

“Can you guess the last time we had an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, growth at 3 percent, and inflation held at 2 percent?” Sanford asked. “It’s never happened,” he answered, when Mulvaney didn’t.
Click to expand...

That was a bit of an ass kicking there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom