WOW - Trump was serious about draining the swamp

[tucker6]

New executive order yesterday says he wants to reorganize the entire executive branch, including eliminating agencies. Goodbye EPA and Education. Maybe turn the VA over to the military. This Order should have been issued by any of the last four presidents.

Bold is mine.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Sec. 2. Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.

(b) The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) Within 180 days after the closing date for the submission of suggestions pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Director shall submit to the President a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. The proposed plan shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions. The proposed plan shall include recommendations for any legislation or administrative measures necessary to achieve the proposed reorganization.

(d) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii) whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv) whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v) the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

(e) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consult with the head of each agency and, consistent with applicable law, with persons or entities outside the Federal Government with relevant expertise in organizational structure and management.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 13, 2017.

[rastajenk]

Lefties are mulling over just how to spin this reduction of the federal sphere as Hitler-esque. :p

[tucker6]

Lefties are mulling over just how to spin this reduction of the federal sphere as Hitler-esque. :p

They've already started by saying Trump is obviously anti-jobs since this would throw thousands of valuable govt workers out of work. Never heard valuable and govt worker used in the same sentence before. Maybe we should check whether all the inmates are still inside the asylum.

[boxcar]

Suck it up, lefties. It's called trimming the fat, and God knows that if there's a fat, bloated pig in this country, it's the Federal Government! Lots of fat to cut away before we can get down to the lean bacon.

[fast4522]

Well the President knows full well in order to go down into history favorably he must face the national debt. No one on the left would credit the twenty trillion growing because the size of the government. But when you grow jobs inside the private sector and shrink jobs inside the government at the same time it effects our national debt in a positive way. Not only will this President eliminate big departments inside our government, he is freezing hiring too. And just watch what he does to the Post Office and their budget in the second and third year of his administration. Borrow more moneys from China to give it to PBS, maybe today but everyone will feel the knife in spending reductions soon enough.

[dkithore]

Tucker, thanks 4 bringing to our attention. So much is going on with Trump. It is hard to keep up.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Steve Bannon's idea of deconstructing government is more the motivating factor than debt management. If you really wanted to manage the debt you would tackle entitlement programs. But assuming Medicaid and Medicare remain some level of responsibilities, social security doesn't get addressed, we still have to run the prison system, homeland and the military actually get increases, eliminating everything else would essentially save maybe 15% of the budget. That's shutting down government except for entitlements, prisons, homeland, and defense. The other thing is that Trump can't eliminate departments - only Congress can do that. Trump can put a moratorium on new hires, and he can appoint agency heads that will implement his regulatory policies. However, what he can't do is change Congressional deadlines for the issuance of regulations, and if he misses them he'll get sued and wind up under court order. I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.

[boxcar]

Steve Bannon's idea of deconstructing government is more the motivating factor than debt management. If you really wanted to manage the debt you would tackle entitlement programs. But assuming Medicaid and Medicare remain some level of responsibilities, social security doesn't get addressed, we still have to run the prison system, homeland and the military actually get increases, eliminating everything else would essentially save maybe 15% of the budget. That's shutting down government except for entitlements, prisons, homeland, and defense. The other thing is that Trump can't eliminate departments - only Congress can do that. Trump can put a moratorium on new hires, and he can appoint agency heads that will implement his regulatory policies. However, what he can't do is change Congressional deadlines for the issuance of regulations, and if he misses them he'll get sued and wind up under court order. I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.

You have obviously have no business sense! In the business world, when one is faced with numerous complex problems to solve or resolve, the best way to begin, assuming the house isn't already burning down, is to tackle the problems that are less time-consuming and less complex first, gradually working your way to the more complicated and time-consuming ones. The rationale is easy to understand: Some things actually get accomplished on the journey to arrive at the bigger goals.

Trump is a savvy business man. He's going about this the right way.

[DSB]

I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

[Binder]

Doing the job, that he said he would do. I am looking forward watching his agenda continue to Make America Great Again,

No more easy rides , you work hard you stay,

[chadk66]

You have obviously have no business sense! In the business world, when one is faced with numerous complex problems to solve or resolve, the best way to begin, assuming the house isn't already burning down, is to tackle the problems that are less time-consuming and less complex first, gradually working your way to the more complicated and time-consuming ones. The rationale is easy to understand: Some things actually get accomplished on the journey to arrive at the bigger goals.

Trump is a savvy business man. He's going about this the right way.and this is exactly what has to be done and why Trump was elected for the job. Lefties have no business sense for the most part. And this is why the country is in the shape it is in. Nobody said swamp draining was going to be easy, fun or popular. Good business people don't care about that. They just roll up their sleeves and get it done. What a breath of fresh air.:headbanger:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Someone ask boxcar how shutting down the Department of Education fixes social security along the way.

Trump's motivation is political, which is fine. It's his sandbox. But don't mistake wiping out agencies for solving the debt crisis.

[tucker6]

Someone ask boxcar how shutting down the Department of Education fixes social security along the way.

Trump's motivation is political, which is fine. It's his sandbox. But don't mistake wiping out agencies for solving the debt crisis.

Can you provide us with examples of govt reduction that you would find altruistic?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

This is why the appropriate background for Chief Executive of the country is Chief Executive of a business.

Governors are more appropriate than Senators or Congressmen and

NEVER ELECT A LAWYER.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Can you provide us with examples of govt reduction that you would find altruistic?

I would spend most of my time trying to make entitlement programs viable in the longer term. In terms of value, that is where the big money is being spent. The savings Trump will get from downsizing is peanuts compared to what is needed to keep entitlements solvent.

I never said that shutting the Department of Education was a bad reduction. I simply disagreed that it had anything to do with debt reduction. I'll say what I said previously. It is being done for political reasons, which is fine because Trump is in control of the sandbox. He's running the show. But as long as the Trump plan is to pump billions (maybe trillions) into infrastructure, defense, a wall, and homeland agents, the amount saved from closing Education would hardly put a dent in those increased expenditures. My point was that you could shut the entire government except for defense, homeland, prisons and entitlements and you'd still wouldn't have enough revenue to fund them at the levels Trump is talking about. You'd have to be pretty naive to see that as some sort of balancing act. Let's call a spade a spade. You like the cuts because it sounds like government will be smaller (if only momentarily). But the bigger picture is that you have to balance both sides of the equation.

I'm not sure how cutting Education or EPA has anything to do with altruism. On the other hand, making social security viable is altruistic.

I've argued on multiple occasions for a budget that balances revenues and expenditures, and doesn't simply focus on one side or the other at a time. And the expenditures can be based on the priorities within Trump's administration. I have a few simple questions. How much do you want to spend? What do you want to spend it on? Where will the money come from?

[woodtoo]

PDJT tells State Dept. to cut more than 50% of United Nations funding.
Total funding is 10$ billion annually but States is only 4$billion.
$2billion is a good start.:headbanger:

[boxcar]

Someone ask boxcar how shutting down the Department of Education fixes social security along the way.

Trump's motivation is political, which is fine. It's his sandbox. But don't mistake wiping out agencies for solving the debt crisis.

Someone please explain to HOH that Rome wasn't built in day. Shutting down agencies are just initial, easys step in the right direction for reducing our debt. Also, please point him to my recent post which explained this rationale from a business man's perspective. Poor Halv seems to be stuck on stupid.

[OntheRail]

Steve Bannon's idea of deconstructing government is more the motivating factor than debt management. If you really wanted to manage the debt you would tackle entitlement programs. But assuming Medicaid and Medicare remain some level of responsibilities, social security doesn't get addressed, we still have to run the prison system, homeland and the military actually get increases, eliminating everything else would essentially save maybe 15% of the budget. That's shutting down government except for entitlements, prisons, homeland, and defense. The other thing is that Trump can't eliminate departments - only Congress can do that. Trump can put a moratorium on new hires, and he can appoint agency heads that will implement his regulatory policies. However, what he can't do is change Congressional deadlines for the issuance of regulations, and if he misses them he'll get sued and wind up under court order. I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.


How many Sub Departments have been created without Congressional approval... add in Committees... and Sub Committees? These action have lead to the Bloat. These are the areas that Trump can cleave away cleanly. Break out the Sub Pump.

Now your such a smart guy with all the answers... you going to submit any suggestion per Section 2 (b)?

Me I'm gonna send Trump this...

http://www.kotapparel.com/images/KeepOnTruckin.png

Cause he's steppin' in the right direction...:ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Apparently the answer I gave doesn't work. Answer the three questions. How much do you want to spend? What do you want to spend it on? Where do the revenues come from? Everybody keeps missing the point, and the point is to balance the budget while funding the programs that are the priorities. Don't tell me you're going to save $2 billion crow about how you're shrinking government and then spend $3 billion more a month later.

Give me an appropriation, give me your statutory requirements and policy preferences, and I'll construct you a budget. That would be the smart guy way to do it.

[JustRalph]

I posted this on Facebook yesterday as being ignored by most.

This e/o is the bravest thing a politician has done since Lincoln.


I'm shocked, but then again maybe not. Just get Gorsuch confirmed and I'll be happy. But if he can pull off some of this other stuff.....WOW!

[Clocker]

This e/o is the bravest thing a politician has done since Lincoln.




This order doesn't do anything. It says I'm thinking about doing something, give me some ideas and information. According to the order, it is at least a year until he even starts talking about what to do. I hope he does do something significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[tucker6]

This order doesn't do anything. It says I'm thinking about doing something, give me some ideas and information. According to the order, it is at least a year until he even starts talking about what to do. I hope he does do something significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I think what you'll find is that Trump rolls this out for electorate consumption at the midterms next summer. Let the dems defend govt waste left and right. Every day, Trump and the GOP will be able to bring forth ten things that our govt does that is asinine. The dems won't be able to defend all of the waste and Donald gets his way.

[tucker6]

I would spend most of my time trying to make entitlement programs viable in the longer term. In terms of value, that is where the big money is being spent. The savings Trump will get from downsizing is peanuts compared to what is needed to keep entitlements solvent.



You're going for the all or nothing approach, and when you can't get it all, don't do anything. You also approach the issue much differently than I do. I believe what Kennedy preached. "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." What happened to that ideal? What happened to taking care of your fellow man or family member rather than send them to the govt for aid? A school in PA got sued about 10 years ago for requiring their student to perform some minimal amount of community service in order to graduate. A parent sued that you can't make my son perform community service, and the school ended the program. Is that what you are defending?

The Dems have tried to legislate altruism from the American lexicon. Whether you believe that to be true or not is for you to decide. Many of us believe that they have tried this to some success. We need Americans helping Americans, not the govt helping Americans. The govt should help people to help people. We cannot afford any more entitlements. We can't afford the ones we have. You ask how do we balance the budget? By cutting programs and asking Americans to fill the gap. Give them incentives if need be, but ask Americans to help Americans for a change.

[chadk66]

first thing that needs to be done and is being done is hiring freeze on government jobs. Assess the actual needs first. Then give your people a few months to assess each departments actual needs vs current wasteful spending. Then reduce the budgets to every department by the margin those department heads feel is needed. Put forth a serious (real) effort in curbing fraud on everything from medicare/SSI/Welfare Programs/etc. etc. Put real world business people into the purchasing departments at the DOD. Turn them loose negotiating real world pricing on anything from potatoes for the mess hall to fighter jets. My wife works in admin for the fed gov't. If you turned her loose she could save millions a year just be eliminating shear stupidity in her governmental dept. alone. Man I could go on for hours with this kind of stuff. you could cut budgets 10% across the board and nobody would really feel it there is that much waste.

[OntheRail]

Apparently the answer I gave doesn't work. Answer the three questions. How much do you want to spend? What do you want to spend it on? Where do the revenues come from? Everybody keeps missing the point, and the point is to balance the budget while funding the programs that are the priorities. Don't tell me you're going to save $2 billion crow about how you're shrinking government and then spend $3 billion more a month later.

Give me an appropriation, give me your statutory requirements and policy preferences, and I'll construct you a budget. That would be the smart guy way to do it.

When looking to construct a budget... the first place to acquire revenue from, when one has no new source of it... is wasteful spending. Once that it addressed next is to trim spending where it can be done...chicken for steak and better deals.. some belt tightening. Then once all that it done one looks at the most important needed and go from there.

Not I want to spend X... y don't I have enough cash flow to make it so. That is the thinking that had gotten US buried so deep in the hole.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

When looking to construct a budget... the first place to acquire revenue from, when one has no new source of it... is wasteful spending. Once that it addressed next is to trim spending where it can be done...chicken for steak and better deals.. some belt tightening. Then once all that it done one looks at the most important needed and go from there.

Not I want to spend X... y don't I have enough cash flow to make it so. That is the thinking that had gotten US buried so deep in the hole.:

Look at it like your personal budget. Yes, if all you want to do is balance revenues and expenditures, when expenditures exceed revenues you start cutting starting with the lowest priority items. But when you want to add expenditures you have to re-do the priority list to decide where the new items fit. In other words, they have to be higher priorities than the stuff already on the list. But the bottom line is that you still have to balance both ends and you do that by looking at revenues and expenditures at the same time.

Of course, you could always look for a higher paying job or maybe do some moonlighting. Cutting expenditures is only one of two possible solutions.

I'll say it again. When Bannon talked about deconstructing government it wasn't simply a case of trimming some fat here or there. It was reconstructing the government in line with his philosophical ideals. Which for the 99th time is fine - he and Trump won. Just don't mistake one reason for cutting departments for the other reason.

[kingfin66]

You have obviously have no business sense! In the business world, when one is faced with numerous complex problems to solve or resolve, the best way to begin, assuming the house isn't already burning down, is to tackle the problems that are less time-consuming and less complex first, gradually working your way to the more complicated and time-consuming ones. The rationale is easy to understand: Some things actually get accomplished on the journey to arrive at the bigger goals.

Trump is a savvy business man. He's going about this the right way.

Or stated another way, don''t you dare cut my social security and Medicare! :)

I am one liberal Marxist (your definition of me) who is 100 percent behind making cuts. I could see how at your age it would be a concern. That is not a bad thing it would just be nice for folks to be honest about things like that.

[boxcar]

Or stated another way, don''t you dare cut my social security and Medicare! :)

I am one liberal Marxist (your definition of me) who is 100 percent behind making cuts. I could see how at your age it would be a concern. That is not a bad thing it would just be nice for folks to be honest about things like that.

And why should either be cut, since for many, many years most of us have PAID into it!? Now...if the Nanny State wants to cut SS and/or Medicare, then cut it for future generations who haven't even come close to paying all their dues in full.

And by the way, you need to attend night school for remedial reading rehab. I never said you were a "liberal Marxist". I said the income tax was a thoroughly Marxist idea. However, I have no doubt, you are a liberal. :p

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You're going for the all or nothing approach, and when you can't get it all, don't do anything. You also approach the issue much differently than I do. I believe what Kennedy preached. "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." What happened to that ideal? What happened to taking care of your fellow man or family member rather than send them to the govt for aid? A school in PA got sued about 10 years ago for requiring their student to perform some minimal amount of community service in order to graduate. A parent sued that you can't make my son perform community service, and the school ended the program. Is that what you are defending?

The Dems have tried to legislate altruism from the American lexicon. Whether you believe that to be true or not is for you to decide. Many of us believe that they have tried this to some success. We need Americans helping Americans, not the govt helping Americans. The govt should help people to help people. We cannot afford any more entitlements. We can't afford the ones we have. You ask how do we balance the budget? By cutting programs and asking Americans to fill the gap. Give them incentives if need be, but ask Americans to help Americans for a change.

You apparently didn't understand anything I said. The all or nothing approach because I said taking care of the most dangerous problem first? Cutting some of the executive department programs would be like saying, yes, my furnace will blow up sooner or later, but let me retouch some of the painting upstairs because people see that first.

When they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said, because that's where the money is. It would be like Sutton saying, I think I'll just hold up 7-11's because it is easier.

Most of the rest of that paragraph I'm clueless about what you are trying to say. What does taking care of your fellow man have with balancing the budget by worrying about the expenditures that will cause the most trouble?

The Dems have tried to legislate altruism from the American lexicon? You mean like Obamacare? Did you find a dictionary that said altruism only meant private citizens helping other private citizens? If you use the textbook definition of altruism, the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others, the Democrats spend way too much political capital being altruistic.

How you can read something that said you look at what you have to spend, and what your priorities are for spending the money, and then knocking stuff off the list until one column matches the other, and come up with some sort of gobbledygook about all or nothing and altruism baffles me.

[tucker6]

How you can read something that said you look at what you have to spend, and what your priorities are for spending the money, and then knocking stuff off the list until one column matches the other, and come up with some sort of gobbledygook about all or nothing and altruism baffles me.

It baffles you because you don't understand that entitlements don't have to be an equal sum game. The goal should be to end entitlement programs long term. I mean ALL entitlement program, including SS. There are better ways to make products now versus the 1930's. There are certainly better ways to protect retirement than the programs invented in the 1930's and 1960's. It's a fallacy to think these programs are still the right solutions for a changing society. Think about that. SS was created 80 years ago, and it's still what we need? Exactly what we need? No other solutions are more viable?

Of course there are better solutions, but as soon as you discuss SS, the dems tell the seniors that the gop wants you dead. A fine discourse we have in this country.

[boxcar]

:I'll say it again. When Bannon talked about deconstructing government it wasn't simply a case of trimming some fat here or there. It was reconstructing the government in line with his philosophical ideals. Which for the 99th time is fine - he and Trump won. Just don't mistake one reason for cutting departments for the other reason.

All Bannon wants to do is what Obama promised to do...except for the Government. The commie Obama promised to transform the face of America to the detriment of most Americans; the freedom-loving patriot Bannon wants to transform the face of the U.S. government for the benefit of all Americans. See...those two are not that far apart. :lol::lol::lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It baffles you because you don't understand that entitlements don't have to be an equal sum game. The goal should be to end entitlement programs long term. I mean ALL entitlement program, including SS. There are better ways to make products now versus the 1930's. There are certainly better ways to protect retirement than the programs invented in the 1930's and 1960's. It's a fallacy to think these programs are still the right solutions for a changing society. Think about that. SS was created 80 years ago, and it's still what we need? Exactly what we need? No other solutions are more viable?

Of course there are better solutions, but as soon as you discuss SS, the dems tell the seniors that the gop wants you dead. A fine discourse we have in this country.

I wonder why the Congress hasn't put that on the agenda for the next two years? As far as I know, they've decided they aren't going to touch social security and Medicare. You want to mention which one of the Republicans wants to get rid of social security or medicare? I mean, you make it sound like only the Dems are in favor of it. George Bush with a Republican congress couldn't touch it.

Perhaps they could appoint you to tell everyone who paid social security and medicare taxes all their lives that it was only an illusion. Here's the thing. You need everybody to keep paying SS to cover all the obligations the government promised over the last 70 years. Nobody born after the act passed forced the government to promise anything. The government made the deal, and everybody paid their money like they were required to do.

The point, and this is a critical point, is that whatever form of pension or medical care for the elderly the federal government decides on, it needs to be funded. And if they decide to drop it all, good luck getting elected again.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I'm not eligible for social security, because I never paid social security tax, so I technically don't have a dog in this fight.

[Tom]

Tucker, thanks 4 bringing to our attention. So much is going on with Trump. It is hard to keep up.

Don't you watch CNN for all the breaking news about Trump?

:pound::pound::pound::pound:

[davew]

Perhaps they could appoint you to tell everyone who paid social security and medicare taxes all their lives that it was only an illusion. Here's the thing. You need everybody to keep paying SS to cover all the obligations the government promised over the last 70 years. Nobody born after the act passed forced the government to promise anything. The government made the deal, and everybody paid their money like they were required to do.

.

That is the problem with running a Ponzi scheme, it never ends nice.

[chadk66]

I have yet to hear a single republican claim to they want to get rid of Medicare or SS

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm just going to mention the four letters every politician doesn't want to get on the bad side of, Republican or Democrat. AARP

[boxcar]

I'm just going to mention the four letters every politician doesn't want to get on the bad side of, Republican or Democrat. AARP

Don't make be barf. :puke:

[kingfin66]

And why should either be cut, since for many, many years most of us have PAID into it!? Now...if the Nanny State wants to cut SS and/or Medicare, then cut it for future generations who haven't even come close to paying all their dues in full.

And by the way, you need to attend night school for remedial reading rehab. I never said you were a "liberal Marxist". I said the income tax was a thoroughly Marxist idea. However, I have no doubt, you are a liberal. :p

I am really disappointed at the tone that you are interacting with me. I guess I mistakenly thought that we were kind of friends. I suppose that you prefer people that will validate you. So be it Doran.

To answer the question about why it should be cut. If it is not, it will become insolvent. It's a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make it solvent is to keep throwing more money at it, or reduce it. The band aid affect is not going to keep working as our population ages. Yes, I would say the cuts would be for future generations, although those future generations are really already paying for you. Yes, I know that you paid in, but of course you did not pay in nearly as much as you will likely receive should you live a long time. At 51 I am 20 years younger than you, but I'll bet I have probably paid in more than you already.

Speaking of remedial reading courses, you went on a rant about how I supposedly don't trust the IRS to process returns, blah, blah in response to a response that I posted to somebody else in which I simply distinguished between corporate and individual taxes.

I really don't know what happened to you. I know that you are typically disrespectful to most people on this board, but I had never experienced your wrath. Do what you think you have to do. Insult, disrespect, judge, lie and call yourself a Christian. Makes sense.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Sooner or later boxcar turns on everybody, which means sooner or later you were going to experience it.

When everybody on the board has said he is the worst apparently devout Christian they have ever seen, you gotta figure there is something to it.

[kingfin66]

I haven't read the epic religion threads because, quite frankly, I am not a Christian. In fact I am an atheist. I am not one who would ever mock religion; I simply choose not to participate. One thing that I have noticed over my lifetime, but especially beginning in 9th grade when I attended Catholic high school is that people can call themselves whatever they want. It is people's values and actions that truly define who they are. When I knew Boxcar behind the scenes, I thought that I had a chance to get to know the real Box. Now I am not so sure. It is really is too bad and a great disappointment, but it is also to know the truth.

Anyway, this thread is about draining swamps, not religion. Boxcar knows all about swamps since he is a Floridian.

[boxcar]

I am really disappointed at the tone that you are interacting with me. I guess I mistakenly thought that we were kind of friends. I suppose that you prefer people that will validate you. So be it Doran.

To answer the question about why it should be cut. If it is not, it will become insolvent. It's a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make it solvent is to keep throwing more money at it, or reduce it. The band aid affect is not going to keep working as our population ages. Yes, I would say the cuts would be for future generations, although those future generations are really already paying for you. Yes, I know that you paid in, but of course you did not pay in nearly as much as you will likely receive should you live a long time. At 51 I am 20 years younger than you, but I'll bet I have probably paid in more than you already.

Speaking of remedial reading courses, you went on a rant about how I supposedly don't trust the IRS to process returns, blah, blah in response to a response that I posted to somebody else in which I simply distinguished between corporate and individual taxes.

I really don't know what happened to you. I know that you are typically disrespectful to most people on this board, but I had never experienced your wrath. Do what you think you have to do. Insult, disrespect, judge, lie and call yourself a Christian. Makes sense.

What happened to me? What happened to you that you have to misrepresent what I said? I never called you a Marxist. I always welcome honest dialogue, even from the opposition, but will call out anyone who waxes dishonestly with me.

Now...I agree wholeheartedly with you about SS. Long ago I pointed out on this forum that SS was just a giant Ponzi destined to fail, and I took a lot of heat for that from my liberal "friends" here. And so, yes, I also agree that SS should cease and desist. Not be cut -- but eventually totally repealed! However, that not-so-brilliant brainstorm of a genie has long been out of the bottle and the only way to put that sucker back in is to come up with viable alternatives for people of this generation and for future generations, and one in which seniors, who have paid into it all their lives, would not be harmed. It would be grossly unfair and unjust to "cut" seniors off SS since they have paid into it for all their lives. (And I would remind you -- who were forced by law to pay into it!) A plan needs to be devised whereby this generation of workers are weaned off SS with the goal, of course, of completely terminating the program once and for all.

And, frankly, I don't see why coming up with a new plan that would put people in control of their money and their future would be such a difficult task. As one example, anyone studying the various methods for investing in the stock market will learn that a passive investing strategy in index funds has a long history of solid success, and the returns would far, far exceed what our benevolent nanny state is paying out. No surprises here. Virtually everything the government touches turns to bat excrement!

Hope we're still friends. Stay honest. :)

[boxcar]

I haven't read the epic religion threads because, quite frankly, I am not a Christian. In fact I am an atheist. I am not one who would ever mock religion; I simply choose not to participate. One thing that I have noticed over my lifetime, but especially beginning in 9th grade when I attended Catholic high school is that people can call themselves whatever they want. It is people's values and actions that truly define who they are. When I knew Boxcar behind the scenes, I thought that I had a chance to get to know the real Box. Now I am not so sure. It is really is too bad and a great disappointment, but it is also to know the truth.

Anyway, this thread is about draining swamps, not religion. Boxcar knows all about swamps since he is a Floridian.

Yeah...I do know about swamps. Different kinds of them since I live in the middle of a Democrat stronghold. :p

[chadk66]

I'm just going to mention the four letters every politician doesn't want to get on the bad side of, Republican or Democrat. AARPI don't know if AARP has half the members it used to have.

[boxcar]

I don't know if AARP has half the members it used to have.

AARP likely paid a hefty price when it came out whole hog for Obamacare.

[chadk66]

AARP likely paid a hefty price when it came out whole hog for Obamacare.they did that's why I brought it up. They are fading fast.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

they did that's why I brought it up. They are fading fast.

Interesting question. I would think that AARP still has a powerful lobbying influence. But whether or not AARP is going to be a problem, if you mess with old people, you run the risk of getting slaughtered come election time. Old people vote in percentages larger than any other cohort, and the word entitlement resonates with them big time. We'll see what happens.

[davew]

Interesting question. I would think that AARP still has a powerful lobbying influence. But whether or not AARP is going to be a problem, if you mess with old people, you run the risk of getting slaughtered come election time. Old people vote in percentages larger than any other cohort, and the word entitlement resonates with them big time. We'll see what happens.

older people also donate larger amounts to campaigns

[chadk66]

and older people have finally come to grips with the fact the Dem's are always trying to scare em. very few are falling for it anymore.

[Tom]

older people also donate larger amounts to campaigns

And we get grumpy and carry grudges for a long time, too.:rant:

[Fager Fan]

Sooner or later boxcar turns on everybody, which means sooner or later you were going to experience it.

When everybody on the board has said he is the worst apparently devout Christian they have ever seen, you gotta figure there is something to it.

That's a low blow to pretend to speak for others. I'm one on this board who has never said that, so espouse your own thoughts and don't be pretentious enough to think you espouse everyone else's.

[Fager Fan]

I am really disappointed at the tone that you are interacting with me. I guess I mistakenly thought that we were kind of friends. I suppose that you prefer people that will validate you. So be it Doran.

To answer the question about why it should be cut. If it is not, it will become insolvent. It's a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make it solvent is to keep throwing more money at it, or reduce it. The band aid affect is not going to keep working as our population ages. Yes, I would say the cuts would be for future generations, although those future generations are really already paying for you. Yes, I know that you paid in, but of course you did not pay in nearly as much as you will likely receive should you live a long time. At 51 I am 20 years younger than you, but I'll bet I have probably paid in more than you already.

Speaking of remedial reading courses, you went on a rant about how I supposedly don't trust the IRS to process returns, blah, blah in response to a response that I posted to somebody else in which I simply distinguished between corporate and individual taxes.

I really don't know what happened to you. I know that you are typically disrespectful to most people on this board, but I had never experienced your wrath. Do what you think you have to do. Insult, disrespect, judge, lie and call yourself a Christian. Makes sense.

You can also say that insurance is a Ponzi scheme, and all the various pensions (mostly governmental ones) are as well.

Wouldn't the way to start with SS be to put it in an untouchable account? Have a team of experts invest it the way people do in the real world? Why not even invest it in real estate, including government infrastructure?

I've never understood how it has been legal (at least within government) to allow pension funds to be touched outside of its intended purpose.

[Nitro]

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
A List of Republican Budget Cuts Notice S.S.
And the military are NOT on this list.
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Read to the end.

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon ,
eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers(such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.WHAT'S
THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!

Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It's what happens when lobbyists become self-serving and embroiled in the hideous grand and entirely legal proposition and activity of spending other peoples money, AND, of course, taxing the absolute HELL out of them to make it all happen....the whole rubric of this extortion and deceit scheme is then blanketed under the notion that "we all benefit from all of this, and therefore ought to pay for it all".... Rubbish, theft, legal political criminals.... But be careful not to make any waves....you would not want to bite the hand that dishes out ALL those benefits to you now, would you....?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That's a low blow to pretend to speak for others. I'm one on this board who has never said that, so espouse your own thoughts and don't be pretentious enough to think you espouse everyone else's.

Well, you're the first person I've ever seen defend him. Of course, you didn't say you disagreed that he is the worst christian you've ever met. I guess I'll just have to say everybody but you, or maybe everybody who has ever talked with him, or maybe anybody who knows the difference. The list of people who used to be "everybody" is a pretty long one. But your point is well taken. I'll leave you off the list of people who believe he is a big league hypocrite.

[boxcar]

Well, you're the first person I've ever seen defend him. Of course, you didn't say you disagreed that he is the worst christian you've ever met. I guess I'll just have to say everybody but you, or maybe everybody who has ever talked with him, or maybe anybody who knows the difference. The list of people who used to be "everybody" is a pretty long one. But your point is well taken. I'll leave you off the list of people who believe he is a big league hypocrite.

See that Fager: Consider yourself blessed by our resident genius.

[Tom]

*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???


I will be grateful if I damn well want to be.

[JustRalph]

I will be grateful if I damn well want to be.


Great! :lol::jump: