Trump’s $1.1 Trillion Budget Makes Dramatic Cuts to Federal Government

[BannedForViews]

I'm comparing government employees to government employees. That's why this budget is bullshit, and it's why the argument that government is wasteful (which it is) doesn't really hold up with this administration. They want to be every bit as wasteful as the last administration, they just want to waste it on other things.

No where did I say I like Trump, EVER, or that I agree with his budget. I said, factually, that the EPA is not a Constitutionally protected federal institution, but the military is.

[PosPosPos]

Its a bit disingenuous to look at all federal spending when calling out who subsidizes who.

Sure, if you want to ignore the inconvenient fact that states that take more than they give back are mostly red.

[Alvito]

This right here. Trumps cuts are at the federal level. States are more than capable of governing themselves. The FED's should only be stipulating the minimum requirements for the states to adhere to, who themselves, can either meet or exceed those minimums.

Which was already happening. It is why some states are nice and clean and well maintained and others are shitholes.

[Machismo]

No where did I say I like Trump, EVER, or that I agree with his budget. I said, factually, that the EPA is not a Constitutionally protected federal institution, but the military is.

Actually, both have been deemed constitutional. In the end, pushing the budget to cover defense spending is no different than spending it on the EPA. Because, as you stated, it's all wasted on government employees.

[PosPosPos]

Neither conservatives, nor liberals in America give a damn about what they claim to care about.

Regardless of the validity of this statement, it's a fact that at the very least liberals aren't actively pushing for things that make it worse for the nation.

[Machismo]

Regardless of the validity of this statement, it's a fact that at the very least liberals aren't actively pushing for things that make it worse for the nation.

If liberals wish to ban things like guns, lead bullets, and large sodas... then they wish to make things worse.

[Kellhound]

The "arts" are nobodies responsibility, and you don't even know what interstate commerce is. That clause has been fought over from day one and the federalist papers do not support a democrats interpretation of it.

Art 1: To promote the progress of science and useful arts. So, the Constitution says the feds are responsible for arts. The only question is what constitutes a "useful" art. Interstate commerce is whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

[Alvito]

We could slash our military, and we'd be better for it for sure. We don't need as many troops as we have. But the military is actually a lawful expenditure for the federal government. The EPA is not. It just so happens humans don't give a shit about laws and will make up bullshit "interpretations" to push their agendas, and those things will never get challenged because who is going to stop them?

- - - Updated - - -



what....

/10char

Speaking of oushing agendas, buying surplus m1 ahbram tanks just to create jobs in Ohio as we are sitting on 100s that have never been used. These are the types of cuts I am refering to, billions wasted would do way more then lower military personnel counts.

[Krigaren]

I don't see people lining up to invest in building a wall on the Mexico border. Do you really want private investor creating a military? We tried that and it didn't really work out very well.

I thought Public Broadcasting was funded by donations?

Maybe Trump can start a GoFundMe for the wall?

PBS and NPR are bolstered by donations (which are tax deductible btw), and are primarily funded by endowments and grants, but a lot of money still comes from governmental sources.

In FY 2012 the government appropriated $445 million to public broadcasting, which includes both NPR and PBS.

That amounted to 0.018% of the total $2.45 trillion budget.

So Trump and the GOP wanting to cut public broadcasting is 100% politically motivated, because cutting these programs amounts to next to nothing in the federal budget. Put into more normal terms, imagine your at-home budget is $1,500 a month. 0.018% of that is .27c, or $3.24 a year. Book the cruise!

[Talon8669]

[QUOTE=Krigaren;45019385]Yeah, I keep hearing all this, "the states can do that" or "the states can make up the shortfall" stuff, but

Most states do rely on grants and other forms of funding from the federal government. Which they shouldn't. Each state needs to tax appropriately and we need to reduce the federal government a long with the taxes collected by the federal government. The only things the States need from the Feds is national defense, foreign policy and interstate commerce. Give the power back to the states and limit the federal government.

[PosPosPos]

If liberals wish to ban things like guns, lead bullets, and large sodas... then they wish to make things worse.

Banning guns: Worked well for pretty much every other developed nation that did already. There's nothing about America that makes guns so special and crucial to survival.

Banning lead bullets: Same as any other environmental regulations, if you care about not utterly destroying the balance of the ecosystem, you would have this.

Banning large sodas: Who cares except for the morbidly obese?

In the meantime, there are actual issues like economic stability, health, education and international relations being fucked over by Republicans. But you are going to whine that large sodas are banned and use that to equate the magnitude of both liberal and conservative policymaking.

[Alvito]

This is the same ignorant argument people use to push for more military spending. If you think the people working the job cant do it with less, then the correct people aren't working the job. Literally nothing the federal government does is efficient.

Also, this isn't the industrial revolution. You make it sound like people will take scrubbers off smoke stacks, or pour nuclear waste into rivers. And that THAT is what would get cut from the EPA, not grants to monitor if frogs need a road crossing.

It isn't even close to the same thing though. The military is a gluttenous behemoth. Cut its money in half and we would still outspend anybody on the planet.

[Krigaren]

You say:

Then it won't happen. And if people care enough, they'll elect new people who will make it happen in their state.

Followed by:

You operate under so many false assumptions.

Oh, if only irony was a currency, you'd be rich.

You don't know what states are and aren't willing to do, and you ignore that with a significantly smaller federal budget, state taxes would rise to pay for the new services they may or may not provide.

I bolded that sentence because it proves my point. States rely on the federal level because the federal level has forced them to need to. You critically think like the CBO predicts tax revenues. Llinearly. Life isn't linear. It is very much relative. When one thing changes, others don't stay the same, they adapt.

Man, I guess I wasted all that time getting an economics degree, huh? If only I could understand how macro and micro economic factors, incentives and disincentives worked I could stop thinking so linearly!

[PosPosPos]

Man, I guess I wasted all that time getting an economics degree, huh? If only I could understand how macro and micro economic factors, incentives and disincentives worked I could stop thinking so linearly!

Ya, you sure wasted your time, all you need to know is trickle down!

[Krigaren]

Most states do rely on grants and other forms of funding from the federal government. Which they shouldn't. Each state needs to tax appropriately and we need to reduce the federal government a long with the taxes collected by the federal government. The only things the States need from the Feds is national defense, foreign policy and interstate commerce. Give the power back to the states and limit the federal government.

So what do you do with states where the median household income is half what it is in other states? Do you think the costs to repair a bridge in that state is half the cost in the wealthier state?

How do you "tax appropriately" in a state that's struggling financially because their tax base is so small, and their population makes so little that they're forced to operate under a shortfall? You can't increase taxes on people who already can't afford the taxes they're paying. So what programs get cut first, do you think? What things do states decide they can go without? I'll give you a guess - these programs start with the word "social".

[Jastall]

Yeah, I keep hearing all this, "the states can do that" or "the states can make up the shortfall" stuff, but - and this is really funny - it's a load of bullshit. No they probably can't, and more importantly, no they definitely won't.

Most states, particularly under the GOP, have been slashing corporate taxes and have generally been struggling to even pay to maintain their own infrastructure. Even California dealt with a massive budget crisis throughout the 2000s due to restricted revenue streams. Revenue streams that only exist because of taxes - so the only way for states to make up these programs is to increase taxes on it's citizens. You take poorer states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and cut federal funding for roads, medical care, education subsidies, civil services, housing, unemployment, which forces higher taxes at the state level, and you're going to see people becoming a LOT poorer.

The fact is, many, if not most, if not all states rely on federal funding to maintain critical programs, and not even social ones. Agencies like the EPA, the FDA and the like NEED to exist on the federal level, not only for the additional funding they provide to states that can't afford to maintain their own programs, but to maintain consistency in regulations, implementation and enforcement. Federal funding provides an economic incentive to abide by those regulations, and gives leverage for enforcement. Without that leverage, the EPA becomes impotent and the states can ignore those kinds of agencies entirely.

Yeah, it's the same problem here in Canada. Provinces are quick to whine when the government legislates/invests in their affairs, but then turn around and say they have no budget for anything.

It's the limit to the whole ''mud state's right!'' argument. The federal government usually has far more leeway when it comes to its spending, thanks to higher income, more bargaining power, and just plainly not caring about its debt all that much in the end (especially since most of it is owed to American interests anyway). Yes, that does come with wasteful spending, but better than than no spending at all, which leaves you with impotent agencies and crumbling infrastructure.

[Kellhound]

It isn't even close to the same thing though. The military is a gluttenous behemoth. Cut its money in half and we would still outspend anybody on the planet.

Better to spend money than lives when it comes to the military.

[Kujako]

Better to spend money than lives when it comes to the military.

But not when it comes to health care, education, nutrition and the environment.... right?

[Orlong]

What about all the other stuff you ignored? You chose public broadcasting because it was the only thing you could stretch your imagination to in order to comment. You ignored clean water, public schools, clean air, health care and public housing to pick on public broadcasting.

We already HAVE clean air and water and have hand clean air and water for 50 years. We dont need to spend more money on it.

Public Schools dont need more money, they need to have the ability to get rid of shit teachers and let teachers discipline students. We spend more per student by far than any other country and yet countries like Japan do so much better with so much less money. School problems arent money problems.

Health care isnt the government's responsibility. Its personal responsibility

[Krigaren]

Ya, you sure wasted your time, all you need to know is trickle down!

That could have saved me so much money! And then I could have invested it to become a job creator!

St. Reagan, what have I done!