U.S. Budget & OBBB | OCT 1 - Gov’t Shutdown Begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 70K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
Well, if Trump’s going to give $10 billion of my tax dollars to farmers who voted for him to destroy their markets, I’m good with redistributing some wealth to help people who did not choose the circumstances that are causing them to struggle.
Click to expand...
You would want it regardless of any financial actions by Trump.
 
ZenMode said:
You would want it regardless of any financial actions by Trump.
Click to expand...
If someone thinks we should return to levels of income inequality that we had in the 1950s and 1960s, does that mean that person wants "income redistribution" or simply to reverse the "income redistribution" from the bottom 80% or so to the top 5% that has already happened over the last few decades?
 
ZenMode said:
If this is how this all works out, I will be able to say all of Trump's BS (to date any way) may have been worth it. Not since Clinton has there been a legit decrease in government size and have we been close to a balanced budget.

I hate Trump, but I hope he pulls this off.
Click to expand...
So, you support slashing government spending without even knowing what is going to be slashed?
 
superrific said:
1. What Vought is doing is clearly, inarguably illegal and unconstitutional. You have an ethical duty not to cheer on such things. Alas, you opened the door.

2. Every bit of that spending is someone's livelihood and/or profession. You are so cavalier about taking it away from them unconstitutionally. This is why I asked you whether you'd be willing to forfeit your bar license when the shit hits the fan. It's fun if it happens to someone else.

This is why I encourage liberals to come down hard on MAGA when we have the chance. You, who cheer on these illegal deprivations, must suffer one yourself and perhaps you will not be so enthusiastic about taking from other people. If it was up to me, I'd strip your bar license just on principle. Just for you to taste the consequences that you like to unleash on others. And since you don't care about legality, I wouldn't listen to your complaints about that. To cite a common legal maxim you've likely forgotten: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

3. A proximate cause of our present fascism is that white southerners have never felt the consequences of their misdeeds. Your forebears committed crimes against humanity and got off more or less scot-free. You implemented a system of segregation that harmed millions and you never had to answer for it.

You've been molly-coddled too long. Sherman had the right idea. I don't want to slash and burn your land, but feeling personal consequences is the only thing that motivates you. So be it.
Click to expand...
Luckily Superrific doen't get to proclaim whether what Vought is about to unleash is legal or not. The Courts will decide. I would think the OMB has a great deal of discretion in implementing the Antideficiency Act during a government shutdown, but we'll see.

Cuts in spending, downsizing and layoffs occur each and every day in the private sector. What makes the federal workers different, especially when we have a debt of 36T? When you're in deep debt you trim the fat of the corporation or government agency. In contrast, the Dems want to spend an additional 1.5T for a seven week CR rider.

I'll let stand your usual rants and dreams about the current fascism, white southerners and your Sherman fantasy of retribution by scorch earthing parts of the modern South - specifically my real and personal property. Luckily you'll never be in charge so no reason to respond.
 
rodoheel said:
If someone thinks we should return to levels of income inequality that we had in the 1950s and 1960s, does that mean that person wants "income redistribution" or simply to reverse the "income redistribution" from the bottom 80% or so to the top 5% that has already happened over the last few decades?
Click to expand...
Do you think the massive welfare expansion has been good or bad for the country?
 
lawtig02 said:
Sure, I guess Jesus and I are weird that way. But Trump, as he is so prone to do, shows us Pubs are in favor of wealth redistribution too.
Click to expand...
Jesus wanted the government to collect money and redistribute it?

I don't recall that being the case.
 
Ramrouser said:
Cuts in spending, downsizing and layoffs occur each and every day in the private sector. What makes the federal workers different, especially when we have a debt of 36T? When you're in deep debt you trim the fat of the corporation or government agency. In contrast, the Dems want to spend an additional 1.5T for a seven week CR rider.
Click to expand...
Congress controls the power of the purse, not the Executive. Linking some educational material for you:

 
ZenMode said:
Do you think the massive welfare state expansion has been good or bad for the country?
Click to expand...
I think programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, etc have unquestionably been good for the country, and that the republican efforts to undermine and reverse those programs over the last couple decades have been bad.

Do you think the massive tax cuts for the rich from 1980s to the present, and the deregulation from the early 2000s to the present, have been good or bad for the country? Surely anyone rational has to admit at this point that "trickle down economics" has been proven to be a farce multiple times over.
 
ZenMode said:
He's apparently not wrong..

Click to expand...

Side note: Can you imagine how left wing the Dem primary of 2028 is going to be with each socialist vying to "out socialist" the other on debate stages? Free healthcare, free daycare, free public transportation, free housing, guaranteed income, federal grocery stores (looting allowed), a 20 hour workweek (if you choose to work) paid for by seizing ALL individual or corporate property over $100k. This time there will be no all powerful DNC putting their thumb on the scales to "elect" a so called moderate white guy.
 
Ramrouser said:
Luckily Superrific doen't get to proclaim whether what Vought is about to unleash is legal or not. The Courts will decide. I would think the OMB has a great deal of discretion in implementing the Antideficiency Act during a government shutdown, but we'll see.

Cuts in spending, downsizing and layoffs occur each and every day in the private sector. What makes the federal workers different, especially when we have a debt of 36T? When you're in deep debt you trim the fat of the corporation or government agency. In contrast, the Dems want to spend an additional 1.5T for a seven week CR rider.

I'll let stand your usual rants and dreams about the current fascism, white southerners and your Sherman fantasy of retribution by scorch earthing parts of the modern South - specifically my real and personal property. Luckily you'll never be in charge so no reason to respond.
Click to expand...
The courts have already decided. The Supreme Court merely stayed the judgment because they are fuckheads, but they didn't say it was legal. All the other courts have determined that Vought's bullshit is illegal.

My "rants" are nothing personal to you. It's just that you, like all of MAGA, seem congenitally incapable of caring about anything that doesn't affect you. Let's suppose, hypothetically speaking, the government were to take your bar license and prevent you from practicing law because it thinks you aren't aligned with the president's priorities. Would you sue? Would you think it unjust? Or would you just take it? Pretty sure I know the answer. And yet you are perfectly happy to fuck others over.

Your inability to answer these questions is telling on yourself.
 
lawtig02 said:
Should not be surprising, I know, but it's still so disheartening to see that a high-profile Pub congressman and one of the most influential people in the right wing infosphere are either (a) unaware of EMTALA, which has been a federal law since 1986, or (b) are choosing to pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
So, hospitals should deny care to these people? Yeah, that seems very Christian like.
The demonization of illegals has been brilliantly effective for the GOP. It follows in a long line for them, from blacks, to liberals, to gays, to...
 
LeoBloom said:
So, hospitals should deny care to these people? Yeah, that seems very Christian like.
The demonization of illegals has been brilliantly effective for the GOP. It follows in a long line for them, from blacks, to liberals, to gays, to...
Click to expand...
"Jesus wanted hospitals to provide emergency care to ALL people, even those with dark skin from foreign countries? I don't recall that being the case."

-- Zen
 
rodoheel said:
I think programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, etc have unquestionably been good for the country, and that the republican efforts to undermine and reverse those programs over the last couple decades have been bad.
Click to expand...
I think some redistribution is necessary. There are people who, by no fault of their own, don't have the capability of being financially self-sufficient. I also think a) actual welfare has done serious harm to the country and b) what many Liberals want is a level of redistribution that is significantly closer to what we'd see in socialism likely in the form of UBI which, IMO, would be a horrible mistake.
rodoheel said:
Do you think the massive tax cuts for the rich from 1980s to the present, and the deregulation from the early 2000s to the present, have been good or bad for the country? Surely anyone rational has to admit at this point that "trickle down economics" has been proven to be a farce multiple times over.
Click to expand...
I do not think cutting taxes on the rich is a good idea. I'd rather see tax loopholes closed to increase tax revenue from the rich.
 
LeoBloom said:
So, hospitals should deny care to these people? Yeah, that seems very Christian like.
The demonization of illegals has been brilliantly effective for the GOP. It follows in a long line for them, from blacks, to liberals, to gays, to...
Click to expand...

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”​

 
Ramrouser said:
Side note: Can you imagine how left wing the Dem primary of 2028 is going to be with each socialist vying to "out socialist" the other on debate stages? Free healthcare, free daycare, free public transportation, free housing, guaranteed income, federal grocery stores (looting allowed), a 20 hour workweek (if you choose to work) paid for by seizing ALL individual or corporate property over $100k.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole and fear-mongering aside, over 60% of American households in 2023 made less than $100,000. Increasing taxes above that threshold to help pay for healthcare, childcare, public transportation, food assistance, etc. would benefit the majority of American households.
 
ZenMode said:
I think some redistribution is necessary. There are people who, by no fault of their own, don't have the capability of being financially self-sufficient. I also think a) actual welfare has done serious harm to the country
Click to expand...
Why/how? How are you distinguishing the "good" of helping people "who, by no fault of their own, don't have the capability of being financially self-sufficient" from the "bad" of "actual welfare"?
 
rodoheel said:
I mean, yeah, this is basically what many of us have said about conservatives all along - that you are happy to indulge any amount of corruption (as long as the beneficiaries are people like you) and authoritarianism (as long as the authoritarian is a person like you) and deprivation of civil liberties (as long as the victims are not people like you) in exchange for your precious tax cuts and government cuts/deregulation. It's nice to have confirmation of that though.
Click to expand...
BTW note that ram chose not to respond to this - because he agrees with it but knows he can't admit it out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top