n8nrgim

I forgot to add. If the Republicans don't gut medicaid, the deficit won't get cut, and then the Maga base will blame RINOs for not cutting it. Totally predictable. Even tho the only way to do it is to gut medicaid, which largely would affect trumps base predominantly. In other words the magats don't realize they basically should be blaming the Republicans for not cutting the magat benefits. As is often said. Cause magats vote against their own self interest and don't know Jack about shit

So dems provide better social safety net and Republicans get people back to work... so we both agree on both counts that Republicans make the lives of the American people more like medival peasants?

I think the root of the problem is that the way people get their news has become fragmented. Now there are many low information and bad information and pure propaganda news out there. It's not just a lack of credibility, each talking head has a different agenda to give their sheep. Before 2010, news sources were more standardized in educating people and setting the agenda. Plus a country in distress will always succumb to a demagauge strongman con man. Maybe we need a different form of government if a single man can cause as much dysfunction as trump. Rank choice voting, parliamentary systems, proportional representation, some ideas that come to mind

cut the workforce? sure, but dont just start slashing it. set a goal, and say you want ten or twenty percent reduction in cost within six months, on the aggressive side. even if you insisted on fifty percent reduction, do it in an orderly way and let the people who know how the agencies are run, call those shots. when bill clinton cut the workforce of the feds, that's the way he did it. elon and trump are just firing really good talent and acting arbitarirly. what do MAGAts say? 'well we need a reduction in costs and trump is sticking to his word'. that's obviously something a brainwashed person would rationalize, cause there's no good argument that this is being done in a smart way.  plus the fed work force is only a percent or so of our budget, so it's causing dysfunction with no real gain unless they can find a real way to cut the deficit

cutting medicaid and food stamps etc? trump has insisted that medicaid wont be touched. the only way the republians can cut the 1.5 trillion they want per year, is to cut medicaid, there's no question about that. it's basic math. when you point out to trump supporters that the only way to do this math is to cut these vital programs that affect red states the most, they deny it. if medicaid gets axed, will they change their tune? they'll prob think it is necessary pain. every other developed world knows it's basic humanity to prvoide healthcare to the poor and disabled, so the ones that want it axed aren't more enlightened that the rest of the developed world, they're just brainwashed hacks. 

does it help that the tax cut only benefits the wealthy and not the middle class? if they aren't too ignorant to know that, they dont care. does it matter that the tax cut is dollar for dollar dependant on cutting welfare programs and things for our society? they're usually too ignorant to know that, or they think pain is necessary, even though we spend less on taxes than the rest of the develeoped world already, and the bush and trump tax cuts spiraled the debt, where the economy would be growing much faster than the debt if they didn't do those tax cuts. this pain is totally self inflicted, in other words, but MAGAts dont know that, and wont care if you told them, as they are part of the cult. 

we've had the first measles death in over ten years, when we thought we had it eradicated twenty five years ago. trump put an anti vaxxer in the spot to run the health agencies, which in addition he has no background in healthcare or policy. which is a recurring them with trump appointeees, comepletley no relevant experience in the agency they're running other than loyalty to trump. magats think expertise doesn't matter and loyalty to their dear leader is good enough. kids are dying because of the ignorant decisions of adults, back on the measels point. what does the anti vax leader say about it? those things happen all the time, even though that's verifiably untrue. 

We also take fewer vacations. 

Questions, comments, words of wisdom?

Also which political party do you think makes this situation worse? 

Here is the plan

joy reid

They say there is a stronger than normal correlation between thigh mass and life span. Peobably because they r the biggest body muscles and aid in respiratory health 

gotta give Double props for fighting the good fight, against impossible odds

Plus I think if there's ways to cut costs the businesses would already be doing it. They're not out of goodwill spending more than they have to

You could say that about any tax. Should we just not tax the wealthy cause they'll Weasel out of the consequences? Are you sure you wouldn't be the one against what we already have as the highest tax bracket, which as far as i can tell is working fine yet youd be agaisnt? Instead of wealth taxes where all the richest of the country are, do you prefer taxing income and sticking it to the working class who have no way to weasel out of it?

If u don't like the wealthy not paying taxes what would your solution be? 

I assume they'll grit their teeth and bear it. I don't think most do anything major over a two percent tax of their net worth, though I could be wrong. 

I'm libtarded so I fit in with the Maga retards

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.”