Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:50:11 GMT
Department of the Treasury...
”Funding Highlights:
• The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) manages the U.S. Government’s finances, promotes conditions that enable stable economic growth, protects the integrity of the financial system, and combats financial crimes and terrorist financing.
• The Budget proposes reforms to bring greater accountability and efficiency to Treasury’s operations and requests targeted new investments to protect the Nation from malign economic and cyber intrusions, secure and modernize the taxpayer experience, and lower the deficit.
• The Budget requests $12.7 billion in base discretionary resources for Treasury’s domestic programs, a $0.2 billion or 1-percent decrease from the 2019 estimate.
• The Budget also proposes a program integrity initiative to narrow the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid that is estimated to reduce the deficit by $33 billion over 10 years.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:51:49 GMT
Department of Veterans Affairs...
”Funding Highlights:
• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to providing military veterans and their survivors with the benefits, care, and support they have earned through sacrifice and service to the Nation.
• The 2020 Budget fulfills the President’s promise by making critical investments in high priority initiatives that ensure veterans receive top quality care, benefits, and services—wherever they work or live. The Budget provides dedicated resources to implement the historic VA MISSION Act of 2018 and gives veterans greater choice and access to the medical care they deserve. The Budget also provides resources to improve the veteran experience across all programs and services, as well as promote efficiency, transparency, and accountability within the Department.
• The Budget requests $93.1 billion for VA, a $6.5 billion or 7.5-percent increase from the 2019 enacted level. In addition, the Budget requests $87.6 billion in advance appropriations for VA medical care programs in 2021 to ensure the Department has sufficient resources to continue providing the premier services that veterans have earned. The request also includes new legislative authorities and $123.1 billion in mandatory budget authority, including $129.5 billion in 2021 advance appropriations for other critical veteran and survivor benefits.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:54:30 GMT
Corps of Engineers...
”Funding Highlights:
• The Army Corps of Engineers civil works program (Corps) develops, manages, restores, and protects water resources primarily through the construction, operation and maintenance, and study of water-related infrastructure projects. The Corps is also responsible for regulating development on navigable waters of the United States and works with other Federal agencies to help communities respond to and recover from floods and other natural disasters.
• The Budget focuses Federal investment where it is most warranted within the three primary mission areas of the Corps to address the most significant risks to public safety or to provide a high economic or environmental return to the Nation. The Budget also proposes reforms to how the Nation invests in water resources projects, reducing the reliance on Federal funding and control and providing State and local governments, as well as the private sector, more flexibility to make investments they deem a priority.
• The Budget requests $4.8 billion for the Corps, a $2.2 billion or 31-percent decrease from the 2019 enacted level.”
31% decrease in a budget for an agency that addresses “the most significant risks to public safety “;;
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:55:49 GMT
Environmental Protection Agency..
”Funding Highlights:
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and enforcing statutes designed to protect human health and the environment.
• The 2020 Budget continues EPA’s work to ensure clean air, water, and land, and safer chemicals, while reducing regulatory burden and eliminating lower-priority activities. Focusing on the core mission makes EPA a better steward of taxpayer dollars and promotes operational efficiencies that enhance the Agency’s performance.
• The Budget requests $6.1 billion for EPA, a $2.8 billion or 31-percent decrease from the 2019 estimate.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:57:03 GMT
NASA..
”Funding Highlights:
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is responsible for leading an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and bring new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth.
• The Budget takes steps to achieve lunar exploration goals sooner, improve sustainability of NASA’s exploration campaign, and increase the use of commercial partnerships and other procurement models to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of NASA programs.
• The Budget includes $363 million to support commercial development of a large lunar lander that can initially carry cargo and later astronauts to the surface of the Moon.
• The Budget focuses funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle, to ensure the rocket is operational in the early 2020s when it will be needed to carry astronauts to the vicinity of the Moon.
• The Budget requests $21 billion for NASA, a $283 million or 1.4-percent increase from the 2019 estimate.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:58:11 GMT
SBA...
”Funding Highlights:
• The Small Business Administration (SBA) serves American entrepreneurs in their pursuit to start, grow, recover, and expand their businesses. As the Nation’s leading advocate for small businesses, SBA ensures that business owners have access to affordable capital, mentoring and counseling opportunities, and immediate support in the wake of disaster.
• The Budget recognizes the vital role small businesses fulfill in contributing to the Nation’s economic strength, building America’s future, and helping the United States compete in today’s marketplace. The Budget emphasizes the importance of investing in growing and recovering American communities while upholding SBA’s commitment that its services are efficient, effective, and accountable.
• The Budget requests $820 million in new budget authority for 2020, a $119 million or 17-percent increase from the 2019 estimate. This request is offset by fiscally responsible proposals to provide SBA the flexibility to adjust existing fee structures across its business loan guarantee programs, resulting in a net request of $665 million, a $36 million or 5-percent decrease from the 2019 estimate.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 20:09:52 GMT
Department of Defense..
”Funding Highlights:
• The Department of Defense (DOD) provides the combat credible military capabilities needed to compete, deter, and if necessary, fight and win wars to protect the security of the United States.
• The Budget funds the National Defense Strategy to support DOD’s three lines of effort: rebuilding readiness and lethality; strengthening alliances and partnerships; and improving performance and affordability through reform.
• The Budget requests $718 billion for DOD, a $33 billion or 5-percent increase from the 2019 enacted level.”
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 11, 2019 20:42:09 GMT
More new budget stuff: His wall at any cost! President Trump on Monday called for cutting spending at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the government's top funder of nonmedical research, by 9 percent. The White House's fiscal 2020 budget proposal recommends slashing NSF funds by $700 million, on par with a wider 9 percent cut to annual nondiscretionary funding. The NSF provides about one-quarter of all federal research grants and covers fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer science and social sciences. It also funds the purchase of large-scale scientific equipment. According to the NSF website, foundation-funded researchers have gone on to win 236 Nobel Prizes. Trump's overall budget proposal also calls for dramatically reducing funding for education, agriculture, health programs, transportation and the State Department.** thehill.com/homenews/administration/433507-trump-proposes-cutting-national-science-foundation-budget-by-almostNow I know why!! They won;t give him a Noble Prize so no one else should strive for one from the USA and no help! Science.Bad. Facts.Bad.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 11, 2019 20:47:16 GMT
The current Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack.” Sonny Perdue since April 2017?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 11, 2019 20:50:15 GMT
More new budget stuff: His wall at any cost! President Trump on Monday called for cutting spending at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the government's top funder of nonmedical research, by 9 percent. The White House's fiscal 2020 budget proposal recommends slashing NSF funds by $700 million, on par with a wider 9 percent cut to annual nondiscretionary funding. The NSF provides about one-quarter of all federal research grants and covers fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer science and social sciences. It also funds the purchase of large-scale scientific equipment. According to the NSF website, foundation-funded researchers have gone on to win 236 Nobel Prizes. Trump's overall budget proposal also calls for dramatically reducing funding for education, agriculture, health programs, transportation and the State Department.** thehill.com/homenews/administration/433507-trump-proposes-cutting-national-science-foundation-budget-by-almostNow I know why!! They won;t give him a Noble Prize so no one else should strive for one from the USA and no help! Science.Bad. Facts.Bad. Wall -wall -wall - need wall -drugs -bad stuff -wall -blah -blah -blah-word salad Meanwhile: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/3128185002Because a wall would things like fix this? No more agents would help this but not a wall. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 11, 2019 21:10:12 GMT
honestly, I shouldn't care about the fake Melania controversy... but if he's using this fake person as a prop to his image for the evangelicals-- as in, look, my wife and I travel together, and we're BOTH so very happy as a couple... which is what I suspect is the motive, if they ARE using a double... THAT, I have an issue with.
If she doesn't want to travel with him, then fine- however, they shouldn't try to trick the public.
But then again, since when has DT cared about truthfulness?
|
|
|
Post by peano on Mar 11, 2019 21:25:45 GMT
From WaPo Magazine: linkNancy Pelosi on Impeaching Trump: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’ In a wide-ranging interview [with Nancy Pelosi], the country’s most powerful Democrat says Trump is unfit to be president — “ethically,” “intellectually” and “curiosity-wise” — but impeachment would be too divisive. Nancy Pelosi stands up in her spacious office in the U.S. Capitol, walks past an enormous window with a commanding view of the Mall and the Washington Monument, and picks up a small plaque from her desk. A gift from Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), the plaque has the familiar profile of a young Abraham Lincoln on one side. Pelosi returns to her chair holding the plaque on her palm and reads a quote from Lincoln etched on the reverse side: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.” It was public sentiment, Pelosi says, that convinced her President Trump would back down in the standoff over funding a border wall that partially shut down the government for 35 days earlier this year. And it is public sentiment, she says, that will guide her as she leads the House Democrats and seeks to use their powers as a check on a president she believes disregards the Constitution. Pelosi, 78, never thought that Donald Trump would be elected president, but in many ways she has been preparing for this political battle all of her life. First elected to Congress in a special election in 1987 and now in her 17th term, she is experienced in all of Washington’s various forms of combat, power and perseverance. She is the first woman to lead a political party in Congress and, in 2007, was the first woman to become speaker of the House. After Democrats won control of the House in November following eight years out of power, Pelosi fended off an effort by some in her party to replace her, and reclaimed the speakership. Now in her fourth decade as an elected representative, Pelosi is at the outset of a term that will almost certainly be the most critical of her career. I spoke with her last week about her relationship with Trump, the rise of a new generation of women lawmakers, the Green New Deal, the prospect of impeachment and more. After eight years as minority leader, what does it mean for you to be back in this office?
Has it been eight years? [Laughs.] In some ways it seems much faster than that. Well, being in the majority always feels great, especially compared to the minority. … So it feels good. I mean, it feels responsible. We have important work to do for our country. And I’m very proud that we got here on a path for the people with a clear definition of our agenda. Lower health-care costs, bigger paychecks, building the infrastructure of America, cleaner government. We have H.R. 1 on the floor, and in the first 100 days we will have had introductions, hearings, markups or floor action on everything in our agenda: lowering health-care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs, building infrastructure, bigger paychecks. And then guns, dreamers, Equality Act and equal pay. Is this the most divisive political climate in your 32 years in Congress?
Yeah, well, it’s very divisive because of the person who is in the White House and the enablers that the Republicans in Congress are to him. It was terrible when we were here in the ’90s and [Newt] Gingrich was speaker and impeached the president, Bill Clinton. There’s no question that that was horrible for the country. It was unnecessary and the rest. But in terms of where we are, as Thomas Paine said, the times have found us. And the times have found us now. We have a very serious challenge to the Constitution of the United States in the president’s unconstitutional assault on the Constitution, on the first branch of government, the legislative branch. … This is very serious for our country. Forgetting politics, forgetting partisanship, just talk about patriotism. So in terms of divisiveness, that we don’t see a commensurate — I don’t want to say reaction, just action — on the part of Republicans to the statements and actions the president is taking, yeah, this is probably the most divisive and serious. Serious, because again it’s about our fundamentals; it’s not about our politics. For 2020, your goal is to keep control of the House and have a Democrat elected president.
And the Senate, the whole thing. Is this the most critical 20 months of your entire career?
Well, every election we say this is the most important election of our time. And it just gets to be more crucial every time. In ’16, I never thought he would be elected president of the United States. How could it be? But then he was, so that made ’18 more crucial. And we won that. And thank God, because we now have a lever; we have leverage against this assault on the Constitution. This election is very important. I don’t think he’ll be reelected, but it is important for us to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate and Democratic House. So they only become more crucial. Not to diminish the importance of the others, but because of the actions taken by the person in the White House, disregarding the Constitution of the United States, disregarding our commitments to the world in terms of our commitment to NATO, to Paris climate, to our values. How would you describe your relationship with the president?
Is there a relationship? [Laughs.] How would I describe my relationship to the president? My relationship toward him is respectful, respectful of the office that he holds. Straightforward, just tell him what I think. And I always say you’re not going to hear me saying anything publicly that I’m not saying here in the office. Hopeful that at some point we can find common ground that he’ll stick to. So, yeah, respectful, honest and hopeful. Do you feel that he has done anything that has been good for America?
He’s been a great organizer for Democrats, a great fundraiser for Democrats and a great mobilizer at the grass-roots level for Democrats. [Laughs.] And I think that’s good for America. There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.
I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. A lot of Americans are really anxious about where the country is right now, and some of them feel the nation’s institutions are in a perilous state. Do you share that concern?
No. Here’s why I don’t: Our country is great. It’s a great country. Our founders gave us the strongest foundation. … All the challenges we have faced, we can withstand anything. But maybe not two [Trump] terms. So we have to make sure that doesn’t happen. So you’re on the cover of Rolling Stone with Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Do you see in this new generation of women lawmakers, not just them, but this generation, do you see yourself in them, or do you not see much of yourself in them at all?
Here’s what I see myself in them as: When I came to Congress I had no intention of running for office, shy person that I have always been. I was chair of the [California Democratic] Party, always advancing other people. I loved that because I cared about the causes of the Democratic Party, about fairness in our economy. My motivation is the 1 in 5 children who lives in poverty in America. So what I see, and I say this to them: I was you. I used to carry the [protest] signs pushing strollers. … And as an advocate, relentless, persistent, dissatisfied always. But when you cross over the threshold and come to Congress, you can bring those enthusiasms, those priorities, your knowledge, your vision, your plan. But you have to want to get results. You have to get results. Then, you were trying to impact others making decisions. Now you are that person. So [my] being a progressive, a liberal from San Francisco, they can’t go any place I haven’t been philosophically. [Laughs.] … So I think I have a good simpatico with a lot of them because, again, that’s who I was. The young women today, though, coming in … the way they balance family and children and home, I’m in awe of them. I’m in awe of them. Is it harder to manage the demands of the more-centrist members who are going to face tougher reelections, or the more-progressive members who maybe feel a freedom to push a little more?
Understand this: There are a range of views in our caucus, and we respect that. But we are unified. People compliment me and they say, “Oh, you know, you can keep them all together.” I don’t. Our values unify us. And all of us, wherever we are, here or there, are all of one mind that we are here for America’s working families to lower their costs, to raise their paycheck and give them more-honest government in a country where we have gun safety and respect for every person in our society. So there is no management of this. It’s the vitality. We invite it. We’re not trying to curtail it. We’re excited by it. Has Twitter been good for American politics?
Are you including the president of the United States? I don’t think that’s been good. No. I think truth, fact, evidence, data — I think that’s what’s good for America. As long as that’s being conveyed, I’m for it all. But when it’s not, and I don’t think that’s what the president is conveying, I think that that does a disservice. It’s Ash Wednesday, and you’re a practicing Catholic. How does your faith guide you in this office?
I was born into a family that was devoutly Catholic, fiercely patriotic, proud of our Italian American heritage and staunchly Democrat. And we saw that connection between church and Democrats as the Gospel of Matthew. When I was hungry, when I was thirsty, when I was naked, when I was homeless, when I was in prison. And that was how we were raised, that we had a responsibility to other people. And that was our motivation. So that’s why sometimes it’s hard for me to understand — I have to admit this, that we were raised to say there’s a spark of divinity in every person. That we’re all God’s children. And yet I see people of faith go down paths that so contradict what they say. For example, on the issue of immigration, so many people of faith, I guess they just don’t think that there’s a spark of divinity or that we’re all God’s children. How disrespectful they are. When Trump was asking for the money for the border wall, why was it so essential that Democrats not give in?
Because it was wrong. I mean, when the president was advocating for a wall, that was a tangible, visible sign of discrimination. He [was] in sharp contrast to every president before him in modern times. It might interest you to know that the president I quoted most on the campaign trail was Ronald Reagan. … He talks about the Statue of Liberty and what it means to the world to see this beacon of hope, what it means to people who came here, people who are coming here. Then he goes on to say, the vital force of America’s preeminence in the world is every generation of newcomers to our country. And when America fails to recognize that, America will fail to be preeminent in the world. … Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama all subscribed to the vitality of America being about a renewal of optimism, hope, determination to make the future better. Courageous to come here, to do it as newcomers, making America more American and subscribing to those values of our country. Except this president used a message of fear against immigrants, against trade, against Hillary Clinton in his campaign, but his anti-immigrant issue is ongoing. It’s the wall, and the wall is not even a campaign promise because he promised Mexico was going to pay for it. It’s a campaign applause line of discrimination and bigotry. And it’s just not right, and it doesn’t do the job. So he wants us to spend billions of dollars when we have other needs to meet the needs of the American people. He wants us to spend tens of billions of dollars on a wall that doesn’t serve the purpose and is a sign of discrimination. You said earlier you don’t feel it’s worth it to pursue impeachment. Do you believe he’s fit to be president?
Are we talking ethically? Intellectually? Politically? What are we talking here? All —All of the above. No. No. I don’t think he is. I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States. And that’s up to us to make the contrast to show that this president — while he may be appealing to you on your insecurity and therefore your xenophobia, whether it’s globalization or immigrants — is fighting clean air for your children to breathe, clean water for them to drink, food safety, every good thing that we should be doing that people can’t do for themselves. You know, I have five kids, and I think I can do everything for them, but I can’t control the air they breathe, the water that they drink. You depend on the public sector to do certain things for the health and well-being of your family, and he is counter to that. But again, this is coming across too negatively. I don’t usually talk about him this much. This is the most I’ve probably talked about him. I hardly ever talk about him. You know, it’s not about him. It’s about what we can do for the people to lower health-care costs, bigger paychecks, cleaner government. One of the proposals that has drawn a lot of attention and some support from Democrats is this idea of a Green New Deal. What do you tell members who want leadership to get behind that plan?
I don’t think anybody’s ever told me to get behind the plan. Here’s the thing: When I was speaker, the first time, my flagship issue was climate and energy. And working with President Bush to pass the biggest energy bill in the history of our country, the equivalent of taking millions of cars off the road by raising emission standards, the CAFE standards. He wanted nuclear. I want renewables. We came to a conclusion. We passed a big bill that was the basis for many of President Obama’s initiatives to protect the environment and honor what we agreed to in Paris. … So the fact that the Green New Deal raises the profile of the issue, that’s really important. But any proposal that someone has, has to come through the committee process. We see it for standards. What does it do in terms of public health, clean air, clean water? What does it do in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs? How does it keep America preeminent in the green technologies? What does it do in terms of our national security? And I think the generals came out again with a more-current statement of how the climate issue is a national security issue. … And it’s a moral issue if you believe, as I do, that this is God’s creation and we have a responsibility to be good stewards of it — and even if you don’t share that view, if you just believe that we have a moral responsibility to future generations to preserve the planet or pass it on to the next generation in a responsible way. … So I’ve just said if you have an idea, put it forth, we’ll send it to committee. It will be subjected to that review. But know that we all share the value of preserving the planet. [Your daughter Alexandra] said in an interview: “She knows what she’s doing. And that should make you sleep at night, knowing that at least somebody in this town knows what they’re doing.” I want to ask: How well do you sleep at night?
It depends on how much chocolate I have eaten during the day. Now today I gave up chocolate for lunch — I mean for Lent. [Laughs.] It really was more for lunch because I’m off it already. I had a doughnut for breakfast. I totally forgot till I went to get the ashes that I wasn’t supposed to have that chocolate doughnut for breakfast. Then, once I had the doughnut, I thought I might as well have the chocolate ice cream for lunch. Then my colleague came from Guam and brought chocolate chip cookies. What am I supposed to do? And out of kindness to my colleagues, to my staff and to my families, I don’t think giving up chocolate for Lent is going to work. Well, that did not last long.
It didn’t last long at all. … What keeps me up at night is the concern I have about the lack of respect for the Constitution, for our values, for our responsibilities and the rest that exists in the White House. And how can we, because you have so many issues, how do we stay focused and just make sure the public knows this isn’t, again, about politics, it’s about who we are as a nation. … So it’s always about what keeps you up at night. The challenge and what are we going to do about it. And I have a pretty good feel for what we need to do, and, really, to be respectful of every point of view in our caucus. I consider myself a weaver. Like, every thread is important, and you have to just weave it all in. Every thread is important no matter how different — in fact, that’s part of the strength of it. And that beautiful tapestry of what is the Democratic Party in Congress is strengthened by every different thread. So as I say to the members, and will close by saying to you: Our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. We’re about power.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 11, 2019 21:39:00 GMT
I posted the other picture on page 38.....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 23:00:42 GMT
Paul Waldman & Greg Sargent/Washington Post..
“The new Trump budget is a horror show”
“You may remember that when he ran for president in 2016, Donald Trump said a lot of unusual things, among which were regular pledges that unlike his Republican primary opponents and others in his party, he’d protect the safety net. In the speech announcing his candidacy, he said, “Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it.”
Trump liked to emphasize how this position distinguished him. “I’m not going to cut Social Security, like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” he said in an interview not long before that announcement. His campaign liked this promise so much that it later published it on its website. In fact, as early as 2011, when Trump was turning himself into a Republican political celebrity with Roger Ailes’s help with a regular gig on “Fox & Friends,” he attacked then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for the congressman’s plan to cut entitlements, calling it an electoral “death wish.”
Yet the budget that the Trump administration just released contains enormous cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention domestic programs. In a word, it is positively savage. Some of the highlights:
*The Trump budget would cut about $845 billion from Medicare over 10 years
*It cuts $241 billion from Medicaid
*It would push Medicaid toward block grants which cap the amount each state would receive, which when the money runs out would result in pared-back benefits, recipients being tossed off the program or both
*It would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which would mean millions would lose their health coverage
*It would cut $25 billion from Social Security
*It would impose work requirements on recipients of food stamps, Medicaid and housing assistance, forcing them to navigate a bureaucratic maze or lose their benefits
*It would cut $220 billion from food stamps
*It would cut $1.1 trillion from domestic discretionary programs, which do not include Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security
*It would cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development by 16 percent and the Education Department by 12 percent
*It would cut the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent
In short, it’s Ryan’s dream come true.
Whenever Trump talked about protecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, any sane person could tell he didn’t believe it out of some personal conviction about our mutual obligations to one another. It was a purely political calculation, and a smart one at that. Republicans’ greatest political problem is the widespread perception that they only care about the welfare of the rich, so Trump presented himself as a populist who cared about the common folk and would advocate for them.
As president, he has done nothing of the sort, of course. In fact, there may be no president in modern history who has worked so hard for those at the top, combining tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations with an agenda of ruthless regulatory rollback whose targets are any regulations that protect consumers, workers or people who enjoy breathing air and drinking water. If anything, since becoming president, Trump has proved that he’s a different kind of Republican only in ways that are damaging — going even further than most Republicans are willing to go on immigration and destructively upending our trade relationships, while going all in with the very worst aspects of the Republican philosophy of government on taxes and spending.
What makes this all the remarkable, however, is that it comes right after Republicans lost control of the House, in a referendum on all the ways in which Trump has implemented his own version of Republican rule
Consider: The midterm elections were all about Trump’s immigration agenda, the Trump/GOP effort to repeal Obamacare and the massive GOP tax giveaway to corporations that Trump signed. And Democrats won the House in their largest victory since the Watergate era.
This is the first Trump budget that has come after that public verdict on Trump/GOP rule. Yet on one front after another, it blithely ignores that verdict.
Trump is seeking an additional $8.6 billion for his border wall — after making the election all about the border (he even sent in the military as a campaign prop) and after losing a government shutdown battle over this same topic, one in which majorities firmly sided with Democrats.
Trump is seeking to block-grant Medicaid, impose work requirements and zero out the Medicaid expansion — after an election in which Democrats routed Republicans in districts across the country by campaigning on a vow to protect Obamacare, which of course includes an open-ended expansion of Medicaid in states that have opted in.
And the Trump budget would make the tax cuts he signed permanent — after Republicans suffered a dramatic repudiation at the polls, despite their effort to sell those tax cuts as their primary accomplishment of the Trump era. Those tax cuts, of course, have led to an explosion of the deficit, repudiating GOP economic theory. Yet this budget only doubles down on that theory and the broader set of priorities embedded in it, deeply cutting spending to help fund tax cuts and his border wall, even as his budget would produce trillion-dollar deficits in coming years.
“His budget doesn’t adapt to new political realities,” Joel Friedman, vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told us. “It adheres to the same structure that we’ve seen from congressional Republican budgets dating back to Paul Ryan — tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in programs that provide core public services and cuts to the safety net that are assisting the most vulnerable.”
This budget appears to enshrine the notion that the 2018 elections never happened. Which may be exactly the point.”
Let me repeat this part of the budget...
“And the Trump budget would make the tax cuts he signed permanent — after Republicans suffered a dramatic repudiation at the polls, despite their effort to sell those tax cuts as their primary accomplishment of the Trump era. Those tax cuts, of course, have led to an explosion of the deficit, repudiating GOP economic theory. Yet this budget only doubles down on that theory and the broader set of priorities embedded in it, deeply cutting spending to help fund tax cuts and his border wall, even as his budget would produce trillion-dollar deficits in coming years.”
|
|
samantha25
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,909
Jun 27, 2014 19:06:19 GMT
|
Post by samantha25 on Mar 12, 2019 1:08:22 GMT
honestly, I shouldn't care about the fake Melania controversy... but if he's using this fake person as a prop to his image for the evangelicals-- as in, look, my wife and I travel together, and we're BOTH so very happy as a couple... which is what I suspect is the motive, if they ARE using a double... THAT, I have an issue with. If she doesn't want to travel with him, then fine- however, they shouldn't try to trick the public. But then again, since when has DT cared about truthfulness? If you look at other photos from this trip, without sunglasses, it is definitely her. The pic at the gravesite is a little off, but maybe she was upset. But, could be her double, especially since holding hands?? LOL
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 12, 2019 1:48:43 GMT
That reminds me of the Cat in the Hat with little Cat A, Little Cat B,etc. Especially since each cat is smaller then the next and this pretend Melania appears to be shorter then the “real” Melania. I do wonder if it was a fake Melania (which I still can’t really believe), why? And why would it be a secret service person? I know people are crackers, but I don’t believe that if there was a credible threat on her or his life Trump would dare step out on public without being utterly surrounded by people with guns and bullet proof vests. He is such a coward he would probably be sporting some sort of Kevlar suit and have his head wrapped in it as well. Not sure about all this #fakemelania stuff but instead of a "credible threat" to her life, I could see her just simply no longer wanting to accompany him anywhere anymore. #youcan'tmakeme
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 12, 2019 2:36:29 GMT
Someone has done it!!! Georgia state Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick (D) on Monday announced that she is introducing a "testicular bill of rights" as a way to respond to a restrictive abortion bill the state House passed last week. "Ggggooooodddd morning! Introducing my 'testicular bill of rights; legislative package," Kendrick said in a tweet. "You want some regulation of bodies and choice? Done!" Kendrick's tweet included an image of her proposed legislation, which would require men to obtain permission from their sex partner before obtaining erectile dysfunction medication as well as ban vasectomy procedures. The legislation also includes stipulations that would require DNA testing once a woman is six weeks and one day pregnant to "determine the father of the child who shall IMMEDIATELY start paying child support." The bill would also make it an aggravated assault crime for a man to have sex without a condom. The final stipulation on Kendrick's list proposes a 24-hour waiting period for men to purchase any porn or sex toys in Georgia. Kendrick told The Rolling Stone that she is "dead serious" about the proposed legislation. She added that she expects a draft on her desk later this month, though admitted it has no chance of passing in the House. "[The point is to] bring awareness to the fact that if you’re going to legislate our bodies, then we have every right to propose legislation to regulate yours," Kendrick said. ** thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/433602-georgia-state-lawmaker-proposes-testicular-bill-of-rights-in-response-to
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 12, 2019 2:39:29 GMT
Do you feel that he has done anything that has been good for America?He’s been a great organizer for Democrats, a great fundraiser for Democrats and a great mobilizer at the grass-roots level for Democrats. [Laughs.] And I think that’s good for America. There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. So you’re on the cover of Rolling Stone with Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Do you see in this new generation of women lawmakers, not just them, but this generation, do you see yourself in them, or do you not see much of yourself in them at all?So what I see, and I say this to them: I was you. I used to carry the [protest] signs pushing strollers. … And as an advocate, relentless, persistent, dissatisfied always. But when you cross over the threshold and come to Congress, you can bring those enthusiasms, those priorities, your knowledge, your vision, your plan. But you have to want to get results. You have to get results. Then, you were trying to impact others making decisions. Now you are that person. So [my] being a progressive, a liberal from San Francisco, they can’t go any place I haven’t been philosophically. [Laughs.] … So I think I have a good simpatico with a lot of them because, again, that’s who I was. The young women today, though, coming in … the way they balance family and children and home, I’m in awe of them. I’m in awe of them. Is it harder to manage the demands of the more-centrist members who are going to face tougher reelections, or the more-progressive members who maybe feel a freedom to push a little more?Understand this: There are a range of views in our caucus, and we respect that. But we are unified. People compliment me and they say, “Oh, you know, you can keep them all together.” I don’t. Our values unify us. And all of us, wherever we are, here or there, are all of one mind that we are here for America’s working families to lower their costs, to raise their paycheck and give them more-honest government in a country where we have gun safety and respect for every person in our society. So there is no management of this. It’s the vitality. We invite it. We’re not trying to curtail it. We’re excited by it. You said earlier you don’t feel it’s worth it to pursue impeachment. Do you believe he’s fit to be president?
Are we talking ethically? Intellectually? Politically? What are we talking here? All —All of the above. No. No. I don’t think he is. I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States. And that’s up to us to make the contrast to show that this president — while he may be appealing to you on your insecurity and therefore your xenophobia, whether it’s globalization or immigrants — is fighting clean air for your children to breathe, clean water for them to drink, food safety, every good thing that we should be doing that people can’t do for themselves. You know, I have five kids, and I think I can do everything for them, but I can’t control the air they breathe, the water that they drink. You depend on the public sector to do certain things for the health and well-being of your family, and he is counter to that. But again, this is coming across too negatively. I don’t usually talk about him this much. This is the most I’ve probably talked about him. I hardly ever talk about him. You know, it’s not about him. It’s about what we can do for the people to lower health-care costs, bigger paychecks, cleaner government. Edited the OP to highlight my favorite parts of the interview: he's not worth it and it's not about him. I love Nancy Pelosi.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 3:05:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 3:44:15 GMT
When do we have empty pockets? From last summer. Still worth a watch.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 12, 2019 8:17:04 GMT
Someone has done it!!! Georgia state Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick (D) on Monday announced that she is introducing a "testicular bill of rights" as a way to respond to a restrictive abortion bill the state House passed last week. Ha! I love it. Hope it gets through...or at the very least that many other states do the same.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 14:14:00 GMT
trump...
“Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....”
I’m pretty sure there is a second tweet coming so we can all find out what split second decisions are...
Ah here it is and it only took him 12 minutes to get it out..
”needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!”
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 12, 2019 14:17:29 GMT
trump... “Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....” I’m pretty sure there is a second tweet coming so we can all find out what split second decisions are... Ah here it is and it only took him 12 minutes to get it out.. ”needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!” he is such a know-nothing idiot!!! What in the hell does he know about planes? Nothing.
"I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better."
^^^ And I know I'm generalizing, but in my opinion this bit here is him showing his age, and not in a GOOD way.
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,767
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Mar 12, 2019 14:19:10 GMT
Well, to be fair, I don't want Albert Einstein to fly my plane either...him being dead and all that. Takes the term skeleton service to a whole new level.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 14:20:29 GMT
When do we have empty pockets? From last summer. Still worth a watch. Thank you for posting this video. And I mean it. I’m not feeling very well this morning and this video gave me a much needed laugh.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 12, 2019 14:21:10 GMT
trump... “Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....” I’m pretty sure there is a second tweet coming so we can all find out what split second decisions are... Ah here it is and it only took him 12 minutes to get it out.. ”needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!” Not so good that he needs 12 minutes to finish a four sentence paragraph!! The master of frequent erronnies(sp) split decisions!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 14:36:53 GMT
The cost would double the state’s budget and we all know CA is not shy about taxing and spending money. If CA can’t do it for 39M people, how can the United States switch from Medicare/Medicaid for a few million to coverage for 320M? I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just saying fix the ACA and then have the thoughtful realistic discussion on how to get it done. And done right. But nothing is going to happen until the Democrats take back the White House and the majority in the Senate.
LA Times June 2017
California won't be passing a single-payer healthcare system any time soon — the plan is dead for this year
A high-profile effort to establish a single-payer healthcare system in California sputtered on Friday when Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) decided to shelve the proposal.
Rendon announced late Friday afternoon that the bill, SB 562 by state Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would not advance to a policy hearing in his house, dampening the measure’s prospect for swift passage this year.
“SB 562 was sent to the Assembly woefully incomplete,” Rendon said in a statement. “Even senators who voted for SB 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.”
Rendon took pains to note that his action does not kill the bill entirely — because it is the first year of a two-year session, it could be revived next year.
But the move is nonetheless a major setback for legislation that has electrified the Democratic party’s progressive flank.
The California Nurses Assn., the bill's sponsors and the state's mo
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 12, 2019 16:13:10 GMT
I know Trump's CPAC speech is kinda old news now, but I just read an analysis of it, and this jumped out at me:
"On display were 10 distinct personalities of Trump that encapsulate his unorthodox presidency and reveal his strengths and vulnerabilities as he begins his quest for reelection.
It was the presidency as Vaudeville act — the commander in chief at Carnegie Hall."
and someone on Progressive Sirius radio said something similar yesterday-- whoever he was, he grew up in Trump Village (? is that a real place?)... anyway, he would see DT as a teenager, and said he was an awkward teen wearing a suit, with funny hair, even then-- and the person said in his opinion, DT is a failed comedian. It really does seem like he wants to be a comedian (or other BIG Hollywood "STAR" persona), the way he loves the attention, and craves the attention from his 'adoring fans' of supporters. ...I mean, everything he does points to that- who else would autograph a Bible, for gosh sakes?!?
As much as he derides the liberal stars and those awful Hollywood types, he wants to BE one of them.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 12, 2019 16:32:56 GMT
Yes Trump village is a complex in Brooklyn near Coney Island
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 3:10:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 19:02:41 GMT
linkNewsweek... ”Trump administration "censorship" tracker shows how LGBT rights, climate change are being erased from federal sites trib.al/INdKg5D” From the article. ”A new website dedicated to tracking online "censorship" on U.S. government websites has shone a light on the ways the Trump administration has overseen the erasure of important information from federal websites, particularly when it comes to LGBTQ rights and climate change. Gov404, a new platform launched on Tuesday by The Sunlight Foundation's Web Integrity Project, was created as a way to track, aggregate and verify "the most significant cases of information removals from federal websites," the Web Integrity Project said in a statement published online. “ trump is a cancer that is spreading through out the government. And yet there are those who say the Democrats have to be careful who they put up against trump. This I don’t understand.
|
|