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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 59K
  • Politics 
rodoheel said:
If Trump declares the Democratic Party a violent terrorist organization and declares it illegal for them to run candidates in elections - which is something Stephen Miller and others have openly said should be done - I can absolutely promise you that ramrouser will not raise one peep of protest about it.
Click to expand...
No, but he's going to be forced to get involved with the debate anyway, since he and his ilk will find out first-hand what happens during a civil war.
 
mpaer said:
We pretty much don't have a SCOTUS-so Yea, why not
Click to expand...
Trumpers have finally achieved their wet dream of creating an effective Unitary Executive. Right now we pretty much have one branch of the federal government that matters, while one of the other two branches keeps ceding their powers to the executive and the highest part of the third keeps mostly rubber-stamping whatever the executive branch is doing. And ironically, it was conservatives - the Antifederalists and Democratic-Republicans in the 1790s - who were most opposed to overweening federal power and a dominant executive branch. My, how times have changed.
 
ChileG said:
So, you support slashing government spending without even knowing what is going to be slashed?
Click to expand...
This is where I become conflicted. Trump ran on reducing the size of g'ment and that is one of the reasons I voted for him. However, I thought Musk and the entire effort was going to be conducted with some thought and analysis, not with him holding up a chainsaw on stage like a clown and what appears to be uncalculated and poorly thought out cuts. Now we are at a shutdown where it doesn't make sense that the left is balking at a CR for 7 weeks other than the hell CS is going to catch from the radical wing of his party. That is going to allow trump to continue with his cuts, albeit with a more professional "cutter" than musk. My issue is just what you raised. I want cuts but I want logical, well thought out cuts. Not random rushed cuts that will have to have those positions reinstated because they shouldn't have been cut. All that does is create more hostility. In the end I may get what I believe is right, but through a process that created unnecessary animosity. I'm forced to "trust the process" and after seeing how trusting Belichick's process has played out I'm not much for just hoping it is done correctly.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Trumpers have finally achieved their wet dream of creating an effective Unitary Executive. Right now we pretty much have one branch of the federal government that matters, while one of the other two branches keeps ceding their powers to the executive and the highest part of the third keeps mostly rubber-stamping whatever the executive branch is doing. And ironically, it was conservatives - the Antifederalists and Democratic-Republicans in the 1790s - who were most opposed to overweening federal power and a dominant executive branch. My, how times have changed.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t apply conservative or liberal as we know the terms to Jefferson or Adams or Washington or Hamilton or any of the Founders.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Trumpers have finally achieved their wet dream of creating an effective Unitary Executive. Right now we pretty much have one branch of the federal government that matters, while one of the other two branches keeps ceding their powers to the executive and the highest part of the third keeps mostly rubber-stamping whatever the executive branch is doing. And ironically, it was conservatives - the Antifederalists and Democratic-Republicans in the 1790s - who were most opposed to overweening federal power and a dominant executive branch. My, how times have changed.
Click to expand...
Conservatism, at heart, has always (for 200+ years) had a predilection towards executive (monarchical) power.
 
ZenMode said:
There have been many studies done on the topic with the many finding negative impacts particularly among non-white women.

I'm surprised, given that this has been a fairly well discussed topic, even among liberals, that you are at all familiar.

It shouldn't be surprising that men would find it easier to leave knowing that the government will pick up the financial slack.

The research literature on the effects of welfare on marriage and fertility contains a large number of studies over the last 30 years. The studies use a variety of methodologies, employ several different datasets with different types of individuals, and cover different time periods. Several studies were conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s, but there has been a second wave of studies beginning in the mid-1980s and still under way. Based on the early studies, a consensus among researchers developed a decade or so ago that the welfare system had no effect on these demographic outcomes. However, a majority of the newer studies show that welfare has a significantly negative effect on marriage or a positive effect on fertility rather than none at all. Because of this shift in findings, the current consensus is that the welfare system probably has some effect on these demographic outcomes.

Click to expand...

"However, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding this consensus because a significant minority of the studies finds no effect at all, because the magnitudes of the estimated effects vary widely, and because there are puzzling and unexplained differences across the studies by race and methodological approach."

Published in 1998. You didn’t make a very strong argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top