Chump for President

[Farbin Kaiber]

So, take aways on Trump Goes to Congress?

[gwb72tii]

Haven't watched a state of the union for a long time

[roguetoaster]

So, take aways on Trump Goes to Congress?

Didn't catch it all, but it was his most politico like speech that I can recall, which is to say that it took a fair amount of time and gave very little specific information. So that's a step in the right direction.

The whole silent majority thing was very silly.

Liked that he actually said "radical Islamic terrorism" and not Muslims or the ever vague "enemies."

Some populist ideas seem to be taking shape.

Except state medicare freedoms (which are bad in the way they seem to be abused IMO) the new health plan does not seem very different from the first outlines of the ACA.

How will we promote clean air/water when we desire to defund, weaken, and cause the organizations responsible for those goals to reduce regulations?

I just don't give a fuck about the "special people in attendance" and how you plan to use them to prop up an agenda. I have always hated that methodology.

Very conflicted by the desire to massively increase military spending. While I firmly believe we do not need any substantial increases in funding I do understand that new projects do enrich the country, just not all of us.

The positive message looking forward to the 250th anniversary was nice.

Just wish that the time for trivial fights was actually behind us.

Not bad 7/10, would use that speechwriter again.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Thank you.

I would note, in typical bureaucratic style, it will be easy to write one new regulation that includes both of the disposed of regulations, giving us a 3 for 1 regulation.

I intend to respond more in depth on my opinion in the AM when I'm not doing it via a cellphone. I will agree you hit some points I thought about as well.

[roguetoaster]

Thank you.

I would note, in typical bureaucratic style, it will be easy to write one new regulation that includes both of the disposed of regulations, giving us a 3 for 1 regulation.

I intend to respond more in depth on my opinion in the AM when I'm not doing it via a cellphone. I will agree you hit some points I thought about as well.

Fair point, but I expect that they are somehow prohibited from doing so, or it would be a completely toothless order. Also didn't mention appointing directors who have ideas that run seemingly contrary to the purposes of their departments. Will look in to it.

[z31maniac]

...what?

Congress has continually "borrowed" money from the Social Security "deposit box" to pay for other things and essentially put IOUs back in.

Think Dumb and Dumber and the suitcase full of money with post it notes promising to repay the money.

How likely do you think that is?

[BraveUlysses]

Congress has continually "borrowed" money from the Social Security "deposit box" to pay for other things and essentially put IOUs back in.

Think Dumb and Dumber and the suitcase full of money with post it notes promising to repay the money.

How likely do you think that is?

Oh yes i'm aware of that, his description was not particularly accurate.

Still, we can continue to properly fund social security, even if the IOUs aren't paid back.

[Wschnitz]

Not even the borrowing, but whenever it gets more money then 'needed' they just use it for other purposes, its like they cant look into the future and see a ton of people retiring these next 10 years.

[BraveUlysses]

Not even the borrowing, but whenever it gets more money then 'needed' they just use it for other purposes, its like they cant look into the future and see a ton of people retiring these next 10 years.

They do look into the future, of course they do. But social security is not a piggy bank, it's a direct transfer of money from workers to retired, even if there's a rainy day in the future.

Basically the money collected was more than necessary to pay for current retirees and the excess money that was collected was used for the general fund.

not saying that it was the right thing to do but that's where we are at.

[gwb72tii]

They do look into the future, of course they do. But social security is not a piggy bank, it's a direct transfer of money from workers to retired, even if there's a rainy day in the future.

Basically the money collected was more than necessary to pay for current retirees and the excess money that was collected was used for the general fund.

not saying that it was the right thing to do but that's where we are at.

all truue except we've now borrowed more than was paid in.

And the demographics of social security are not all that hard to fix, it will have to take into account longer life expectancy and means testing for high income retirees. the proposal trump put out is high income retirees are not eligible for COLA adjustments

the hard part is the other entitlements.

[z31maniac]

Along with means testing, there shouldn't be the $107k/yr (or is $112k/yr) cap on paying SS tax. You should have to pay it on all income.

EDIT: $127k for this year. 118,500 The last couple of years.

[gwb72tii]

I've heard this a fair bit from people with different political leanings.

So what "wasteful" spending should we be rid of?

let me name only one thing

The Department of Education

why do states (taxes paid by you and me) send Washing DC money to be redistributed back to the states?

ignore the lack of results education wise

The Dept of Ed is a glaring example of what the founding fathers were trying to avoid, the federal government usurping states rights. How can an unelected bureaucrat in DC know better than me and my neighbors what works for my children in my local school?

further, this is also an argument for charter schools where i'd have the choice of schools to send my children to. If my local school is crap, i'd send them somewhere else. DC has no business being involved in any way.

[BraveUlysses]

let me name only one thing

The Department of Education

why do states (taxes paid by you and me) send Washing DC money to be redistributed back to the states?

ignore the lack of results education wise

The Dept of Ed is a glaring example of what the founding fathers were trying to avoid, the federal government usurping states rights. How can an unelected bureaucrat in DC know better than me and my neighbors what works for my children in my local school?

further, this is also an argument for charter schools where i'd have the choice of schools to send my children to. If my local school is crap, i'd send them somewhere else. DC has no business being involved in any way.

Why does the DoED spend money on states? because states have historically underfunded many schools or school districts for ~reasons~.

DoED also spends money to help schools make sure they can serve the needs of special needs students.

Over half of the DoED budget is geared towards pell grants and college loans.

Educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Budget

Stop parroting republican talking points about all this shit if you're "not a republican"

[ajhostetter]

Along with means testing, there shouldn't be the $107k/yr (or is $112k/yr) cap on paying SS tax. You should have to pay it on all income.

EDIT: $127k for this year. 118,500 The last couple of years.

I believe that if we're going to do that, then means testing needs to be off the table. I take issue with high earners having to pay more and more into this system and then be denied benefits.

[marshallnoise]

I believe that if we're going to do that, then means testing needs to be off the table. I take issue with high earners having to pay more and more into this system and then be denied benefits.

Ok, so you are against theft. :devil: