n8nrgim

K through 12 is already funded by local taxes  and colleges r not publically owned. I can see limiting federal spending on education but u look like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about on education

So u want to just start cutting people's benefits and healthcare, consequences be damned? Besides being unethical, do u know how unpopular that would be and damaging to to careers of politicians who would do such a thing?

what do you propose cutting to get rid of our 1.8 trillion deficit per year?  trump and elon are just making small dents in spending, causing a lot of damage without really changing anything. i can cite you articles on that if you dont believe me. neither of them can over come the resistence even from their own party on cutting people's healthcare and benefits. 

trump is just causing chaos. he's breaking a lot of things, but not really changing the deficit much. moderate republicans are fighting him on things that would really change the deficit, spending to the people.  trump will probably just cause the deficit to spiral out of control and not change anything, just like last term. he's catering to the least common denominator, people's worst impulses, giving the people money at the expense of the younger generation. 

so what should be done?  a two percent wealth tax on the top one percent of wealth, and maybe cutting all spending by ten percent. 

the top one percent own about 45 trillion worth of wealth. a two percent wealth tax would raise about 900 billion dollars per year. we spend about four or five trillion a year, so cutting that would save another 4 or 500 billion per year. our deficit is 1.8 trillion. 

these measures would get our deficit down to where it grows about the same rate as our economy, which means it's under control. this is all without major shock to the population, and just taking  a little off the top from the wealthy. the wealthy probably wouldn't move to another country just because of a two percent wealth tax. 

if we wanted to raise a little more, it could make the tax on the top two percent of wealth, or top 5. i dont think we're desperate enough to need it on the  top ten percent of wealth. 

a wealth tax also forces people to pay who use loop holes to get their declared income close to zero for tax purposes. 

Yeah but u r very temperamental and unpredictable. Maybe tomorrow you'll be a bernie sanders supporter, a socialist that's back to worshipping carrots again. 

the quaran talks about chopping off heads and hands. self evidently false. i dont know if gettin the seventy two virgins at death thing is official teaching, but also self evidently false. 

What does you being better at spending money than the government have to do with the government putting spending on our credit card? 

And, if anything, you are being provided a loan of your own money, by charging it to your and everyones children. How virtuous of you.

Switzerland subsidized it's healthcare insurance. Their system is basically obamacare that covers everyone. Every developed country except the usa provides universal healthcare to all their citizens at half the cost with usually better wait times

that's a truism. blaming spending doesn't justify putting things on the credit card.  if you start putting your living expenses on a credit card, who is to blame for that? 

it's completely irresponsible to put the government's spending on our credit card, like reagan, bush jr, and trump did. the article shows if they hadn't done that, our debt would be permanently manageable. so what do these goons do? they cut taxes primarily for the wealthy and then try to find ways to cut spending to regular people. republians just passed a resolution that they want to cut one and a half trillion per year from the budget. the only way to do that, is to cut medicaid to the poor and food stamps, among other things. every other civiilized society knows it's just part of living in a civilized socieity that you provide these services. i think the conservatives who wanna cut these things, aren't enlightened compared to the rest of civilized society... no, these conservatives including you guys here, are brainwashed. half of conservatives dont know that trump is trying to attack their welfare, given red states take in disproportionately more in these services than blue states. and the ones that do know better, are stupid and brainwashed. that's all conservatives are on these issues... ignorant, stupid, and/or brainwashed. 

Don't forget his anti Vax anti science views

I'm all for making food healthier. Tho I'd also add if dems did the same thing they'd call it overreach

I don't know why, but you are going gang busters on rationalizing a poor running economy and government. 

you say healthcare is okay even though we spend twice as much as other countries and way more than we use to, because life expectancy has increased. ok, sure, that helps justify it a bit. but even libertarians and conservatives who want to provide everyone healthcare have healthcare plans that would significantly reduce the size our or healthcare bloat. why not advocate that? both parties have good ideas to reduce costs, there's no reason to rationalize leaving it the way it is just because life expectancy has risen. plus, even by that metric, the USA is away behind other countries on life expectancy too, yet every other developed country provides healthcare to everyone at half the cost with shorter wait times in general. 

you are also rationalizing on education too. just because education leads to higher paying jobs doesn't mean the outrageous cost is justifiable. in boomer days, schools were funded like k through 12, so education was super cheap also like they do in some other countries. the conservatives privatized it and put the pressure on individual students, ballooning costs. we could go back to that model or we could outlaw student tuition loans and only have student pay a percent of their income. these would be bring costs down, or at least to a managemenable level. there's no reason it has to be so unmanageable. 

where on earth do you get that compensation has risen to match productivity? do a basic Google search. if the minimum wage had increased with productivity, it'd be above twenty bucks an hour. there's no reason it should be half of what it was after inflation compared to the 70s. 

houses have gotten bigger but that stilll doesn't justify the costs of 400 freaking thousand on average. there's a housing shortage so instead of rationalizing the costs yet again, you should be promoting building more houses. there's lots of ways to put downward pressure on housing costs that don't involve hand outs, you should be coming up with ideas instead of rationalizing. 

you say standard of living has increased, sure, even poor people can have a decent life as long as they can work 40 hours a week, mostly... but that doesn't justify all the things that we could easily bring the costs down on being so out of reach compared to boomer days. you're a smart guy, instead of rationalizing so much, you should be coming up with solutions. 

Don't you pay attention to lib talking points or the news? The cost of living is way out of whack. The average house now is 400k, whereas in the 70s it was way less even after inflation. Education costs tens of thousands when before it's a few hundred or thousand, cause they privatized colleges. Healthcare was was less now it's 18% of our gdp, which also isn't competitive with other countries who spend half as much and cover everyone with less wait times and better in general. The minimum wage in the 70s was 15 bucks after inflation and is only 7 and change now. Wages just tread water and have barely gone up after inflation over decades.

Don't you pay attention to lib talking points or the news? The cost of living is way out of whack. The average house now is 400k, whereas in the 70s it was way less even after inflation. Education costs tens of thousands when before it's a few hundred or thousand, cause they privatized colleges. Healthcare was was less now it's 18% of our gdp, which also isn't competitive with other countries who spend half as much and cover everyone with less wait times and better in general. The minimum wage in the 70s was 15 bucks after inflation and is only 7 and change now. Wages just tread water and have barely gone up after inflation over decades.

yes but it's more than that. it's undue influence in acquiring it and undue influence in maintaining it. look at the wealth distribution map in my last post. if we were cavemen and 40 percent of Americans owned that small dot and 1 percent owned a quarter of the land, don't you think the cavemen would try to take from the one percent to meet their basic needs? and wouldn't they be justified? the way it's becoming, poorer americans can barely survive let alone get ahead. they are like serfs from olden days. if poor cavemen couldn't even support themselves with their means of getting resources, don't you think ti's moral to go after the ones with the overabundance? 

here is a map that shows how wealth is divided. If wealth were like the land in the USA.

I personally think we should tax the rich for consumption with their income. the rich borrow money at 1 percent, instead of taking from their investments and incurring a capital gain tax. they escape taxes that way. the rich should pay fifty percent of everything they borrow for personal use, or the highest bracket tax. otherwise the rich will keep escaping paying taxes. 

I also think the rich should pay a yearly two percent tax on their wealth. I doubt too many rich people will leave the country with just a two percent wealth tax. this was Elizabeth warren's idea which I didn't support at first but then I realized might be doable enough. 

ideally we'd also tax their unrealized capital gains at death, cause as it is now they escape taxation their whole life and face meager estate taxes (stupid conservatives call it double taxation but it's better to tax you when you die than when you're alive plus they do deserve to get taxed on their gains, so at least tax their unrealized gains). the problem is they might use trusts or move to another country to escape taxation so this tax might not work. we could tax them before they leave, but then they'd live the rest of their life untaxed when their wealth grows more. 

thats not a bad idea.

we might also be able to tax higher earners more for the same resources as lower earners.

When rich people hoard wealth, that's also theft. They r using the nation's laws and police and military to take all they can. Just because they usually use legal means doesn't mean it's moral. It's basically hoarding resources at gun point. 

Violence from both ends, is inherent in the system. 

USAID was created by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President John F. Kennedy. Although executive orders can influence the operations of federal agencies, they cannot create them if they are not established by law.

President Kennedy did issue an executive order related to foreign assistance, but the formal establishment of USAID was through legislative action. Thus, while a president can shape the agency's direction and priorities through executive orders, the agency itself exists due to an act of Congress.

I think it's fair that we finally come to the conclusion,  that biden retards r less retarded than trump retards 

The authority of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its funding can be influenced by executive orders, but nullifying the agency outright would be a complex process. An executive order can change how USAID operates, direct its funding priorities, or implement specific policies. However, it cannot completely eliminate the agency without legislative action.

In the U.S. government, agencies like USAID are established by law, and any significant changes, including elimination, would typically require congressional approval. An executive order can affect how the agency functions within the parameters set by law, but it doesn't have the power to nullify the agency itself.

The only point I might be wrong is usaid is rooted in statute but I think was created by a president. The president might have more authority than I realize to revoke or modify that. But it's still based in statute and Rubio is trying to utilize congress to amend it instead of relying on trump nullifying the order

It doesn't make sense to ask for a source that establishes 50 percent of the orders r illegal because no one would make that claim because there's no objective way of measuring that. It lacks critical thinking on your part to request it. All we could do is research the law point by point in my last post then we each give our judgment. 

You just do a small gish gallop. You started spouting nonsense about the executive trumping the judiciary and related nonsense. 

Instead of taking my suggestion and finding a few citations of law that contradict my last post analysis, you r going off on wild tangents. I've noticed that as a trend from you. Why don't you read my claims in my last post and you show me three pieces of law that contradict it? Why r u opposed to that approach? It diesnt make sense to turn this into a dissertation debate, that is overkill for our purposes. Just make a claim by citation of where my post is mistaken and I'll cite authority back where u r wrong. This will also help me establish that u lack credibility on legal matters

what do you expect me to cite statutes, the constitution, regulations, and case law? instead of all that, how about I just explain the law to you, and you can fact check me with a citation. i'm not gonna let you call my arguments Gish gallop then allow you to just turn around and Gish gallop me.

the department of education was created by Congress. that means the executive can't nullify it since it only enforces what congress gives, for the most part. many of the program in that department like student loans are mandatory spending which are not subject to yearly appropriation. the executive can't touch that either. most experts consider the supreme court the final word on on laws and the constitution. that means they can minimize or nullify that department, if they think it infringes on the executive, but they tend to respect congress the most as the law writer and give deference to them. if the court were to allow trump to nullify the department he would have to restructure the government to maintain the department's lawful orders. 

USAID is created by Congress. the president can't touch it as a program. the spending in it is discretionary and subject to yearly appropriation. so, even tho trump tried to nullify the program the court wouldn't let him, but he must spend its money as the executive unless he gets congress to change the spending, and that's exactly what Marco Rubio as secretary of state is trying to do, despite trump trying to nullify it all. Rubio is upholding the law as the statesman. 

the president has limited authority to selectively enforce the law or not spend appropriated money. the impoundment control act limits the presidents authority not to spend what congress has appropriated. the supreme court could nullify or modify that law, but they generally defer to congress. the court could give him more power to not enforce laws, but they usually limit that too. I think you could argue the executive can force its views as final, but almost every legal expert tends to give the court the final word. if we aren't careful, if we follow your ideas on executive as final, or the court lets him nullify these statutes enacted lawfully by the people or selectively enforce laws, or not spend money etc, then we could be moving in the direction of a dictatorship. for practical purposes, that might be good as our nation heads towards bankruptcy, but it's not democratic, and if we give trump that power, then dem presidents would have that power, and I know we all wouldn't want that. 

Technically the supreme court could reverse course and give the president more power. But I wouldn't want that plus dem presidents would have more power and I know we all wouldn't want that. 

I don't think they'll give him so much power to selectively eforce the law or not spend appropriated money, and its pretty clear they won't let him nullify the department of education. They'll nullify his executive orders as they often do for president's and Rubio will get usaid funding reprioritized

Here is a top historian from Yale calling it a coup

Also he is stopping payments from many programs of congressional appropriated money and those r illegal without congress. All trump can do is pause them temporarily but technically I think musk is stopping payments before trumps input. Take usaid. Permanently stopping or changing spending needs congressional approval. Rubio looks to trying that that way even tho they stopped funding already. Maybe these will just be technically illegal and plausible in the eyes of the law?

Most of Trumps executive orders r illegal. My guess is that the courts will void them and congress will do its best to uphold them lawfully. But u r right in that it's not the first time and won't be the last that presidents have been out of line by executive order. The move to nullify the department of education is blatantly illegal and ballsy tho. 

The actions of musk r skirting the boundary of legality. Hes a temporary employee and doesn't have security clearances to be accessing all the data systems of all the agencies but he's doing it anywa6 and using trumps lawyers and congress to threaten retaliation for push back. I'd need to brush up on the law to see if it's definitely illegal but it does look like it and is at least a gray area

Trump is still the most unpopular president in recent history. I admit he's more popular with this blitz than ever before but he's still very unpopular. Dems will need to pick a loser to lose to vance. Dems often suck tho and vance is like a polished up version of trump, so it's possible tho still carries m7ch of trumps baggage

Why do u call them 4th branch? They are departments created by congress and often involve mandatory spending

Are you incorrectly using artificial intelligence on this debate site? 

First u call usaid a creature of the executive controlled by the executive. Then I point out that the program is created by congress and can't be dissolved without congress but involves discretionary spending that is subject to congress yearly budget process. Point, even u just contradicted your original stance by admitting these things, it's not all subject to executive 

Trumps executive order dismantling the department of education is unlawful cause it was created by congress and things like student loans are mandatory spending not subject to yearly appropriation. 

The courts will probably uphold the law and void trumps executive orders except for the power to temporarily halt funding. Rubio will probably get congress to change the funding for us aid. 

Youre mistaken on the law. But it looks like they r trying to dismantle it legally. I know the president can pause spending so that will prob be the path he takes 

Research it. Usaid and the department of  education were passed by congress along with much of the other stuff they're doing. That means trump has no authority to undo those. 

He'd have to test theories in Court that have been struck down like him trying not to spend what has been appropriated by congress or selectively enforcing laws. I'm not saying the court won't support him, I'm pretty sure they believe in democracy, but they might let him pause these things at best. 

Beyond that I'm not gonna debate with someone who struggles to stay relevant and lacking basic knowledge of our legal structures

Our country is headed for bankruptcy. I don't see any realistic ways of remedy that in the foreseeable future. Given violent revolutions r sometimes morally justifiable, such as the revolution that began our country, couldn't a violent revolt be justifiable now, and if so couldn't a lawless coup also be justifiable? 

For example, the usaid thing or the department of education or half of what trumps attacking trump has no legal authority to stop. Right now there's talk of this all being temporary but if that's the case, it was just chaos and destruction for no reason. But what if trump tries to make it permanent? Would it only last till the next president takes over to reestablish the rule of law? What if trump does what the libs were mocked for sayin he would do, and tries to establish a dictatorship? Would that be ethical? 

I know I was playing devils advocate but I believe in democracy. If we destroy ourselves, we deserve whatever fate we get. Lawless coups r not justifiable. 

No it's like a friendly neighbor sometimes has visitors who r bad people. You threaten to burn his house down so the neighbor only has the visitors come on the weekend even tho they still come. 

I've found lots of credible authority who say trumps Canadian tariffs were way out of proportion to the goal. Do u have any credible authority besides fox and Trump sycophants?

I have also been reading about material suppliers from Canada changing from USA buyers to other countries, due to instability, even after trump lifted the tariffs.

You asked what future things the tariffs will accomplish not about past things. But to answer your question I don't know.

I'll just leave this here tho...

“Would you threaten to burn down the house of your friendly neighbor to get some salt or sugar from them?” said Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal. “President Trump’s approach to bargaining is destructive, and it erodes trust. Most Canadians are unlikely to forget what just happened, even if his tariffs are never imposed upon Canada.”

Why do you say there was no enforcement when we pointed out there was lots of enforcement already?

So instead of talking about the wisdom of Canadian tariffs u r talking about Mexican even though I admit that could make a difference. 

And instead of admitting a billion dollars in Canadian spending probsbly won't change much, you use gut speak to double down on stating "it's just gotta change something". Plus you didn't engage in my stats other than to dismiss them.

All I see from you is gut speak and diversion tactics. 

So canada is spending 1.3 billion more on border security. 0.02 of fentynal comes from there. So let's say peobably way over optimistically that they cut that in half. How much is it Worth to you to reduce flow by 0.01? Also are you really confident they will reduce flow by half? And are you sure you're not one of those conservatives who say the war on drugs is stupid except when conservatives are the ones doing it. I mean u do seem like someone with no principles other than defending all the stupid stuff conservatives do.

These show theres lots of waste but the numbers r pretty small. They'd have to cut into major programs affecting every day people to make a real difference in spending. They do some productive things but it still doesn't justify a coup. 

The biggest problem is that the way people got their news and stay informed has become fragmented. The usa used to watch the same TV shows and news and movies etc, but now everything is fragmented, especially the news. People r stupid and lack critical thinking and believe whatever their news source agenda wants them to believe. The nightly news use to unite everyone and tell everyone what to think with whatever agenda they had. Remember every news source is bias.

I'm not gonna hunt down a better article just so we can reach the same impasse I just told you we'd reach. Plus to me the article is adequate. There's nothing stopping you from finding a credible source that says all the concessions trump got, in writing, if what you claim is true. But even if Mexico increase their troops from 30000 to 40000 and Canada spent a little extra, I don't see your argument making a whole lot of sense 

I don't know why u r still harping on the credibility of the article. It looks accurate don't it? and I summed up the way we can agree to disagree right? Even tho your best arguments are super weak

the article had plenty of facts to engage with. and arguments. they are the same arguments be and Double have used. a key point in the article is that it quoted experts who are engaged with the details, and they said it's unclear what concessions trump will actually get. to make your argument for you, you should admit that there are no 'plans in writing' as you stated, but just an 'agreement to make an agreement', and to your side, that could change things, maybe, or maybe more than marginally. but to our point, that's not clear by any metric, and it was dangerous for trump to go down the path of putting tarriffs on Canada. I could live with the tariffs on Mexico, though, either way, even though they look very ineffectual and would probably damage all of north america's economies a lot, with an emphasis on the poor in America when food and supplies cost too much and there's chaos. I think you know deep down, that trump caved, if ithat's all he got and all we might expect 

do you contest the facts they present? or their arguments? I realize they are bias, but they have a reputation for accuracy and educational. unlike many other news sources I could mention. I could cite the new York times, or the Atlantic, or PBS, or NPR, but you'd say the same thing. you prefer propaganda over the facts, apparently. your diversion argument isn't an argument, it's a diversion. engage with the information. there are arguments you could make, but i'm not going to make them for you, and they'd be weak anyway. 

Trump's tariff deals with Mexico and Canada are pretty superficial https://search.app/RboTbcpu2yGCssgp9

1. you think getting an agreement "in writing" justifies all the harm trump did, even though those agreements were already in place? 2. is that 'in writing' part something that will change anything or something beyond what was already being done, or is that just some sort of brain hack you do to settle your cognitive dissonance? 

So me and double R completely owned u guys concerning the wisdom of trumps tariffs and the wisdom of lifting them. Now u latch onto any irrelevant weak points and irrelevant side issues. What goes on in your mind when this happens ? Are u aware enough to say? Do u acknowledge the cognitive dissonance? Do u acknowledge that u r evading the heart of the issues?

It's still theatrics considering it don't change much. Trump tried to put both countires in peril and even if he sticks to lifting the tariffs, hes caused irreparable harm to our alliance and reputation. Token gestures and theatrics don't justify trumps actions and changed next to nothing. Trump caved and caused damage with barely anything to show for it, bottom line