Trump's Policies Part 5

[Bamabuzzard]

Well, my groceries cost twice as much today as they did 25 years ago, probably more, so maybe it does take more to run the government. Of course, I am not saying that there is no unnecessary spending. I work in state government,t and when we pay $30 for a 6 foot cat5 patch cable instead of being able to order one from Amazon for $6-9, then I know the government overspends. But, it also probably costs a lot more to run a government today compared to 25 years ago.

As for the changes DOGE has made, whether one agrees with them or not, they will not be permanent unless congress backs them with legislation. This congress seems to be asleep at the wheel so I do not see that happening.

I also work in state government, and this type of ignorant spending is systemic from top to bottom, and it's worse at the federal level. Yes, it costs more to run the government, but how much of the "more" is due to the excessive spending rather than just natural inflation? Inflation will happen, but the government has made it exponentially worse by doubling down on excessive spending from top to bottom.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I also work in state government, and this type of ignorant spending is systemic from top to bottom, and it's worse at the federal level. Yes, it costs more to run the government, but how much of the "more" is due to the excessive spending rather than just natural inflation? Inflation will happen, but the government has made it exponentially worse by doubling down on excessive spending from top to bottom.

My point is that even accounting for that change in value of the dollar due to inflation we're literally spending more than 2x as much money as we did 25 years ago. We're spending >2x as much in 2000 dollars.

There's massive amounts of waste.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

My point is that even accounting for that change in value of the dollar due to inflation we're literally spending more than 2x as much money as we did 25 years ago. We're spending >2x as much in 2000 dollars.

There's massive amounts of waste.

You don't have to convince me, I see it daily, tax dollars being utterly wasted, and to think it is worse at the federal level. I am for raising taxes as a way to get out of debt, but I'm also fully aware that when you've got a spending problem, giving people who caused the spending problem access to more money becomes very tempting for them to continue to waste. That is why I think there needs to be a ratio between spending cuts and tax increases. For example, for every 1 billion/trillion in revenue we increase via taxes, there needs to be 2 billion/trillion in spending cuts. It doesn't need to be the other way around. That would only lead to more excessive spending.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My point is that even accounting for that change in value of the dollar due to inflation we're literally spending more than 2x as much money as we did 25 years ago. We're spending >2x as much in 2000 dollars.

There's massive amounts of waste.

Let me be crystal clear: you're absolutely right.

One common thing I saw in the military - and I've heard about this from folks in other government funded places - is that many times they can operate what they have on.....well, substantially LESS than their budget. It was common to have money in reserve until late August and then all of a sudden they would come around and say, "If you want any new desks or chairs or tables or office purchases, we have a surplus, and if we don't spend it, they'll cut our budget next year." This happened at every military base where I was assigned under both Democratic and Republican Presidents AND Congresses.

And things are this way everywhere. My Oregon bud who is in a wheelchair used to volunteer for The United Way years ago and saw the same type of stuff with their "donations" - and for the record, their leader got seven years in the Iron Hotel for embezzlement (a $10 word meaning STOLE) while he was there, so he saw a lot more than that.

Now....as far as the doubled cost inflation adjusted from 25 years ago, I don't dispute there's waste. (Amazingly, liberals can ALWAYS see waste when it's the Defense Dept but then can't see it anywhere else; conservatives can ALWAYS see it when it's NOT the Defense Dept but can't see it there).

But let me give you an example of where we went down this road:

Social Security was the most tempting and politically risky factor in this equation. As the largest domestic program, it met the vital test of Willie Sutton, who said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Social Security entitlements, however, were guarded more zealously than any bank by a growing army of the elderly and their political battalions in Congress. And Social Security was also the most enduring domestic legacy of the New Deal. It had been created in 1935 as a retirement system that would be financed by taxes on employers and workers, an alternative that had been selected after the Roosevelt administration had rejected a proposal that would straightforwardly have required the federal government to pay a share of the cost. FDR took a long view of history. The principal reason that he rejected direct government financing of Social Security was because of estimates showing that this plan would cost the government estimated annual costs of $1.4 billion by 1980. “It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980,” Roosevelt said. “We can’t do that. We can’t sell the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935.”

Because of its financing mechanism, Social Security from the beginning imposed a disproportionately high tax burden on young and lower-paid wage earners and provided retired workers with far more benefits from the system than they had put into it. The first Social Security check, of $22.54, was issued in 1940 to Ida Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont, who had paid a total of $22 in Social Security taxes. By the time she drew her last check in 1974, shortly after her 100th birthday, she had collected $20,944 in Social Security payments.23 Small wonder that even orthodox conservative economists such as Niskanen considered Social Security to be an “intergenerational Ponzi game.”24 Stockman and other conservative intellectuals also described Social Security as a pyramid scheme. As Time magazine put it when the Social Security debate was raging in 1982, “The aged have been misled for two generations into believing that Social Security payments constitute no more than a return to them of the payroll taxes they have paid during their working years. This is dramatically untrue. The average retired person today can expect to collect lifetime benefits five times as great as the total taxes that he or she once paid, plus interest.”

Congress was principally to blame for this inequity. Between 1950 and 1972 Congress raised Social Security benefits or extended eligibility eleven times—six times in an election year. The most significant change occurred in 1972 when House Ways and Means Committee chairman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas was making an abortive bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination. He sponsored and Congress passed a bill raising Social Security benefits by 20 percent and indexing the benefits so that recipients received a raise whenever the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 3 percent. Many economists disparaged the use of the CPI for this purpose because it was disproportionately influenced by housing and mortgage interest costs, and few seniors buy houses. Once embedded in the system, however, these cost-of-living increases became nearly as sacrosanct as Social Security itself. By the time Reagan came to office, Social Security accounted for 21 percent of the total budget. It continued to grow by nearly 3 percent a year during Reagan’s first term.
(Lou Cannon, "President Reagan: The Role of A Lifetime," 2001: 227-8).

Mills was motivated by the fact he learned that in 1972, New Hampshire had a high number of people on Social Security. See if something doesn't capture your attention:

February 12, 1972 - Mills announces he's running for President
February 23, 1972 - Mills announces in a lunchtime speech in DC he wants to increase Social Security benefits by 20%
March 7, 1972 - New Hampshire primary


Nothing suspicious about THAT timing....

And nobody wants to be the person in Congress to say, "No, we don't have the money" because the next words are always something about starving grandma on a fixed income and taxing the rich

 

[Huckleberry]

NYT gift link

Investigators See No Criminality by E.P.A. Officials in Case on Biden-Era Grants
A contentious investigation that questioned the legality of E.P.A. grants has found very little to suggest government employees violated the law.

A politically fraught investigation opened by the Trump administration into a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency grant program has so far failed to find meaningful evidence of criminality by government officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

The criminal investigation, initiated by Ed Martin, then the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, was cheered by Republicans, who have made unsubstantiated claims that the multibillion-dollar program, intended to fund climate and clean energy initiatives, was a political slush fund.




This administration will unceasingly lie to further its political goals and the sheep who bleated their approval will happily ignore reality. As long as government programs they don't like are being eliminated, the means, motive, and final consequences don't matter.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Guy with six bankruptcies gives unsolicited business advice to most successful retail business in the history of the world.

 

[Huckleberry]

View attachment 50861

Guy with six bankruptcies gives unsolicited business advice to most successful retail business in the history of the world.

One of the big problems conservatives have expressed in the past about increasing corporate taxes is that the business will simply pass the cost on to consumers. It's interesting to see that it's no longer a Republican concern.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

One of the big problems conservatives have expressed in the past about increasing corporate taxes is that the business will simply pass the cost on to consumers. It's interesting to see that it's no longer a Republican concern.

Yes, but this cuts both ways.

How a liberal can see "tariffs get passed on to the consumer but we can tax corporate America (and they won't)" is beyond my ability to comprehend.

You're not wrong, and conservatives - oh, who are we kidding, if you voted for Trump, you ain't a conservative anyway - are being hypocritical. But the difference here is action and inaction. Every "tax the rich" ALWAYS trickles down (pardon the pun) onto the consumers whenever its possible.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Let me add that for all the "tax the rich"....and it's not that I even mind it, I don't........is the brutal truth that they can afford accountants that can get legally creative, and they can afford tax attorneys the rest of us cannot.

And oh yeah, they can make donations that give them access to talk to someone in DC about it, too.

 

[Huckleberry]

Trump re-posts a suggestion from an adviser that he release “terrorists” near the homes of Supreme Court justices who’ve merely ruled that the government can’t send people to a foreign gulag without due process

 

[CrimsonJazz]

if you voted for Trump, you ain't a conservative anyway

Interesting take. Would you elaborate for me on what makes a conservative an actual conservative? We keep redefining the word “liberal” and I suspect perhaps the same is happening with the “conservative” tag. The definitions for both feel subjective at this point (to me, anyway.) I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[some_al_fan]

Let me add that for all the "tax the rich"....and it's not that I even mind it, I don't........is the brutal truth that they can afford accountants that can get legally creative, and they can afford tax attorneys the rest of us cannot.

And oh yeah, they can make donations that give them access to talk to someone in DC about it, too.

Are you suggesting do not tax them at all because they have accountants?
Otherwise, let's define the numbers in the "tax the rich" statement, because in the latest tax proposal, Trump is asking to drop the top rate from 39.6 to 37%.
And, yes, I think it is ok for the "rich" to pay 39.6 instead of 37 to reduce budget deficit.
However, I think it is a marketing material to claim that 39.6 is "tax the rich" and 37 is not

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Are you suggesting do not tax them at all because they have accountants?
Otherwise, let's define the numbers in the "tax the rich" statement, because in the latest tax proposal, Trump is asking to drop the top rate from 39.6 to 37%.
And, yes, I think it is ok for the "rich" to pay 39.6 instead of 37 to reduce budget deficit.
However, I think it is a marketing material to claim that 39.6 is "tax the rich" and 37 is not

Obviously that’s not what l meant at all.

Tell me this: why not go up to 50 or back to 70% if “tax the rich” is the point. And then you have the answer.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Interesting take. Would you elaborate for me on what makes a conservative an actual conservative?

Let's start with, I don't know, FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!

Back in 1995 when he was advising Clinton, Dick Morris (before he lost his damned mind) explained (it's in "Behind The Oval Office") the concept that basically there are issues where the public trusts Republicans (crime/law and order, balanced budgets, strong national defense, anti-Communism) and issues where they trust the Democrats (social justice/civil rights, education, Social Security/Medicare - at least back then). Now I understand issues have changed but let's drop the border issue since it's the one mark on his escutcheon that might say Trump has one conservative leaning.

1) Law and order

Let's set aside the childish argument "anyone who says the words law and order means racism." Expectations are that a Republican President is not only going to enforce law and order, he's also going to at least TRY to embody it in his approach to government. That's why Watergate and Iran-Contra were so damaging WITHIN the Republican Party at the time, because it contradicted their core (Goldwater, Durenberger, Dole, and Bush were flawed men, but they had a core of conviction about things). Now take almost every allegation (most of them true) against Trump and what is the response of so-called conservatives? A) Accuse the accuser of doing the same thing; B) take the same words, redefine them, and accuse again; C) insist that anyone who disagrees with you is a "RINO" and run them out of the party. Trump got beat at the ballot box, whined, tried to steal the election with lies, incited a riot, and then pardoned those who rioted. I'm sure the conservatives defending this pile of nonsense would be happy if President Harris had taken office in January and announced she was pardoning all the BLM rioters caught on video in 2020 to prevent prosecution.

2) Balanced Budgets

Oh, who are we kidding? Reagan attempted to apply a wrong economic theory that he genuinely did believe would work in an entirely different set of circumstances (there's a huge difference in a top marginal rate of 70% and one of half that when it comes to a tax cut). Bush 41 tried to undo the damage from that and it cost him his Presidency. Furthermore, Reagan's budget deficits are more defensible in the sense there was this thing called the Cold War going on that we couldn't lose. That isn't what Trump's game is here, it's just "I want the people to like me so I'm gonna tell them nobody has to pay taxes on tips or anything."

If Harris had won, the GOP would suddenly have rediscovered balanced budgets again (like the religious person who suddenly rediscovers God after backsliding into the bed of a hooker) which would have automatically lowered the budget deficit below what Trump will accomplish with DOGE.

3) Strong national defense
This does not mean throwing trillions at the Defense Dept or pipe dreams like an American Golden Dome.

4) Anti-Communism
Who is anyone kidding with this? This guy is kissing Putin's rump in Red Square. My suspicion has always been Putin must have actual video of those golden showers that supposedly doesn't exist.

And that Tweet he made yesterday about Wal-Mart sounds like something Bernie Sanders would have said.

I mentioned earlier this week to my liberal friend that Trump sounds like an early 1980s liberal Democrat with the camouflage on the border. His Walmart declaration yesterday only further makes it correct. And while I'll grant there can be a sliding scale of where exactly conservatism (or liberalism) falls, I was not an infant when conservatives were whining about Barack Obama "picking winners and losers" as too many self-declared conservatives want under Trump.

My comment about the 80s Democrats......and I didn't even make it on Twitter.....is suddenly on there from several folks noting the same thing. Conservatives cried a river when Obama told Putin he'd have more flexibility after the election, but the Cult (as opposed to the conservatives) has lined up with "Zelensky should have been nicer to Trump and wore a suit."

I would add.

5) Respect for the decisions of the Supreme Court
It didn't mean they didn't like them and it didn't mean they agreed, but it DID mean they used the PROCESS (elections) to foster change and mitigate court decisions perceived as extreme. Remember 2022, when the left came unglued when their sole religious sacrament (abortion) was deemed to be a state issue (you know, like McGovern, Ted Kennedy, and RBG all said but that gets ignored).....what happened? "This court is corrupt, we need to expand the Court and have term limits."

You know....the exact same thing so-called "conservatives" are saying now when Trump is being told, "No, you can't use a war act to do what you're doing" and the ruling is 7-2. And most of the Court decisions on the 2020 election were 9-0.

"Trump ought to just do it anyway and show the Court."

George W Bush fractured conservatism by his ill-conceived invasion of Iraq and insane tax cut policy; Trump killed what was left of it by getting them to compromise the basics of their position.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

So I'm watching Bissent this morning on Jake Tapper, and the Treasury Secretary looks like he's reciting points in a hostage video. And just so you know, the only reason the GOP has to spend $3 TRILLION we don't have is because.....(checks notes)......"of the last four years," which sounds like almost every administration in my lifetime.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1924091231010746787

Asked about Walmart saying it's raising prices, Bessent acknowledges of the cost of tariffs that "some may get passed on to consumers"



I thought the foreign nations were going to pay for the tariffs. That's what Trump said. Of course, many Americans (including some here) are happy to pay the higher prices because "at least he's doing something."

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yes, but this cuts both ways.

How a liberal can see "tariffs get passed on to the consumer but we can tax corporate America (and they won't)" is beyond my ability to comprehend.

You're not wrong, and conservatives - oh, who are we kidding, if you voted for Trump, you ain't a conservative anyway - are being hypocritical. But the difference here is action and inaction. Every "tax the rich" ALWAYS trickles down (pardon the pun) onto the consumers whenever its possible.

Actually, aside from targeted "wealth" taxes, like the estate tax, closing loopholes does a better job...

 

[some_al_fan]

Let's start with, I don't know, FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!

Back in 1995 when he was advising Clinton, Dick Morris (before he lost his damned mind) explained (it's in "Behind The Oval Office") the concept that basically there are issues where the public trusts Republicans (crime/law and order, balanced budgets, strong national defense, anti-Communism) and issues where they trust the Democrats (social justice/civil rights, education, Social Security/Medicare - at least back then). Now I understand issues have changed but let's drop the border issue since it's the one mark on his escutcheon that might say Trump has one conservative leaning.

1) Law and order

Let's set aside the childish argument "anyone who says the words law and order means racism." Expectations are that a Republican President is not only going to enforce law and order, he's also going to at least TRY to embody it in his approach to government. That's why Watergate and Iran-Contra were so damaging WITHIN the Republican Party at the time, because it contradicted their core (Goldwater, Durenberger, Dole, and Bush were flawed men, but they had a core of conviction about things). Now take almost every allegation (most of them true) against Trump and what is the response of so-called conservatives? A) Accuse the accuser of doing the same thing; B) take the same words, redefine them, and accuse again; C) insist that anyone who disagrees with you is a "RINO" and run them out of the party. Trump got beat at the ballot box, whined, tried to steal the election with lies, incited a riot, and then pardoned those who rioted. I'm sure the conservatives defending this pile of nonsense would be happy if President Harris had taken office in January and announced she was pardoning all the BLM rioters caught on video in 2020 to prevent prosecution.

2) Balanced Budgets

Oh, who are we kidding? Reagan attempted to apply a wrong economic theory that he genuinely did believe would work in an entirely different set of circumstances (there's a huge difference in a top marginal rate of 70% and one of half that when it comes to a tax cut). Bush 41 tried to undo the damage from that and it cost him his Presidency. Furthermore, Reagan's budget deficits are more defensible in the sense there was this thing called the Cold War going on that we couldn't lose. That isn't what Trump's game is here, it's just "I want the people to like me so I'm gonna tell them nobody has to pay taxes on tips or anything."

If Harris had won, the GOP would suddenly have rediscovered balanced budgets again (like the religious person who suddenly rediscovers God after backsliding into the bed of a hooker) which would have automatically lowered the budget deficit below what Trump will accomplish with DOGE.

3) Strong national defense
This does not mean throwing trillions at the Defense Dept or pipe dreams like an American Golden Dome.

4) Anti-Communism
Who is anyone kidding with this? This guy is kissing Putin's rump in Red Square. My suspicion has always been Putin must have actual video of those golden showers that supposedly doesn't exist.

And that Tweet he made yesterday about Wal-Mart sounds like something Bernie Sanders would have said.

I mentioned earlier this week to my liberal friend that Trump sounds like an early 1980s liberal Democrat with the camouflage on the border. His Walmart declaration yesterday only further makes it correct. And while I'll grant there can be a sliding scale of where exactly conservatism (or liberalism) falls, I was not an infant when conservatives were whining about Barack Obama "picking winners and losers" as too many self-declared conservatives want under Trump.

My comment about the 80s Democrats......and I didn't even make it on Twitter.....is suddenly on there from several folks noting the same thing. Conservatives cried a river when Obama told Putin he'd have more flexibility after the election, but the Cult (as opposed to the conservatives) has lined up with "Zelensky should have been nicer to Trump and wore a suit."

I would add.

5) Respect for the decisions of the Supreme Court
It didn't mean they didn't like them and it didn't mean they agreed, but it DID mean they used the PROCESS (elections) to foster change and mitigate court decisions perceived as extreme. Remember 2022, when the left came unglued when their sole religious sacrament (abortion) was deemed to be a state issue (you know, like McGovern, Ted Kennedy, and RBG all said but that gets ignored).....what happened? "This court is corrupt, we need to expand the Court and have term limits."

You know....the exact same thing so-called "conservatives" are saying now when Trump is being told, "No, you can't use a war act to do what you're doing" and the ruling is 7-2. And most of the Court decisions on the 2020 election were 9-0.

"Trump ought to just do it anyway and show the Court."

George W Bush fractured conservatism by his ill-conceived invasion of Iraq and insane tax cut policy; Trump killed what was left of it by getting them to compromise the basics of their position.

I just want to say Thank You. Appreciate this great write-up about conservatives and the difference between Trump's policies and theirs

 

[Tidewater]

Actually, aside from targeted "wealth" taxes, like the estate tax, closing loopholes does a better job...

True, bt I think Confgress loves tax loopholes.

 

[2003TIDE]

The House Bill being pushed through isn't just about tax cuts. This thing pretty much breaks the federal government and is the next step to Authoritarianism. Don't say you weren't warned.



The "Alt National Park Service" account provided this list (this was before the changes, goodness knows now):

• Closure of the U.S. Department of Education
• 25% expansion of logging in national forests, bypassing environmental reviews and fast-tracking timber production
• Rollbacks on clean energy incentives, cutting tax credits for EVs and renewables, gutting key climate provisions
• More public lands opened up for drilling, mining, and logging, with royalty breaks for fossil fuel companies
• Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, ending U.S. participation in global climate efforts
• Executive Order 14215, forcing independent federal agencies to follow White House legal interpretations and centralizing authority under the presidency
• Pension changes for federal workers hired before 2014, cutting take-home pay by raising required contributions, reducing future payouts, and eliminating early retirement supplements
• REINS Act-style regulation repeal, where major federal rules expire unless Congress re-approves them every 5 years allowing Trump to quietly erase protections without rewriting laws
• Expanded executive control over agency budgets, allowing the White House to move federal funds internally without explicit congressional approval
• Restoration of impoundment powers, giving Trump the ability to block or delay spending already passed by Congress reviving powers stripped after Watergate
• Creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), placing White House–aligned teams inside every federal agency with access to internal systems and influence over hiring and daily operations
• Sharp cuts in regulatory enforcement, with agencies like the EPA, CFPB, and Labor and Transportation Departments halting enforcement of key safety, environmental, and anti-discrimination rules
• Trump’s personal control over economic policy, strengthening his power to direct tariffs, pressure private companies, and dictate pricing with little resistance treating the U.S. economy like his own business

This bill isn’t just “big.” It’s a roadmap for dismantling oversight, hollowing out federal protections, and handing Trump sweeping, unchecked control. Read the fine print.

By Alt National Park Service