Welcome To Trump World

[Canadian Visitor]

bust, Last year, Trump ran up the federal debt $666B. There is no excuse for that. I am unaware of any Democratic initiative to balance the budget. Prior to Bush's first year, Obama ran up the federal debt $10T/8 years and Bush ran up the federal debt $5T/8 years. Each $1T of federal debt equals $12,000 of federal debt for the average American family of four. In less than 5 years, interest on the federal debt is expected to cost more than national defense; about as much as Bush's bank bailout every year. Forget about keeping up with China on military modernization. Forget about free college, free medical care, making economic refugees' dreams come true, and better schools. The choices are some combination of much higher taxes, cutting government services, or printing money like Venezuela. You must have some good ideas as to where to cut spending to supplement your Trump drivel. Please lay them out. Hillary and Kerry voted for those wars your article blamed solely on Republicans. Obama kept them up and did in Libya. Candidate Hillary was even advocating shooting planes down over Syria where Russian military aircraft operated. At least we aren't in WWIII yet and Americans have jobs now.

Richard was correct about Obama doing a tax cut. When Bush's tax cut was about to end, instead of letting it die after it expired, Obama reduced it by 18% but for perpetuity.

Your right.

Unlike Richard, you do show evidence of literacy and some level of consistency.

Now, that said, let me ask this sincerely without making excuses for Obama. If you were President, and early in your term, having yet to have many signature accomplishments, Congress sends you a bill that largely preserves the status-quo. Not new tax cuts, just not reversing them out.

If you had any hope of passing anything thereafter...........or winning a second term.........would you choose to Veto that?

Would you want to end up responsible for one of the largest tax hikes ever?

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment he shouldn't have done just that.

But political suicide is not that common in either party.

Just sayin.

****

As for where to cut.....Defense is first. FFS, in straight military confrontation the US can over-match anyone in the world, several times over.

There is no need for the # of troops, ships, bases or planes. Its a waste.

If there is another large-scale war, it will either be nuclear, and genocidal......

Or it will be cyber....disabling the power grid, via hacking, as Russia did to Ukraine.

DoD does not need the same money, let alone more money, it needs smart money.

From there, the sentencing reform bill is a modest start toward reducing wasteful spending on prisons/courts/cops.

But it needs to be broader, full federal legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of simple possession of small everything for personal use [[drugs, not bombs, LOL)

Sentences need to be shorter still, "three strikes" needs to exclude drug and all non-violent offenses.

Then US gov't needs far fewer fiefdoms at all levels.

There's your cuts.

Throw in a national VAT [[sales tax) of 5% and your in surplus.

You're welcome.

[Richard]

^ you guys cannot figure out how to even feed your school kids,what cuts do you recommend Canada implements in order to handle that and bring you into a first world status.

Until then you are just puffing smoke,or maybe sampling your own product.

For somebody that went into a corner crying about blocking me you sure like bringing my name up,you must of missed me in your self imposed drama.

Keep your VAT on that side of the border.

[Richard]

Richard, those are good articles you referenced. Did you read them?

Yes i did read them before I posted them,you did ask for facts,but you did not like them so they do not count?

You do not find it odd to post Republican tax cuts as a fault without also publishing Democrat tax cuts as a comparison?

What was the intent? We already know the republicans applied tax cuts,and?

[coracle]

^^^ Can you say CONDESCENDING or SMARM? This is like “fiddling” while your own Dollar “tanks”.

[coracle]

It’s amazing how some people [[Socialists) know how “to save the world” by redirecting and redistributing other people’s EARNED monies, and if the level of confiscation is reduced [[tax cut) they call it an “expenditure”.

We don’t need more taxes [[like VAT) we need more people that don’t need to be susidised; especially no more ILLEGALS, and deportation of those that are here,

[oladub]

Your right.

...llet me ask this sincerely without making excuses for Obama. If you were President, and early in your term, having yet to have many signature accomplishments, Congress sends you a bill that largely preserves the status-quo. Not new tax cuts, just not reversing them out.

If you had any hope of passing anything thereafter...........or winning a second term.........would you choose to Veto that?

Would you want to end up responsible for one of the largest tax hikes ever?

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment he shouldn't have done just that.

But political suicide is not that common in either party.

Just sayin.

****

As for where to cut.....Defense is first. FFS, in straight military confrontation the US can over-match anyone in the world, several times over.

There is no need for the # of troops, ships, bases or planes. Its a waste.

If there is another large-scale war, it will either be nuclear, and genocidal......

Or it will be cyber....disabling the power grid, via hacking, as Russia did to Ukraine.

DoD does not need the same money, let alone more money, it needs smart money.

From there, the sentencing reform bill is a modest start toward reducing wasteful spending on prisons/courts/cops.

But it needs to be broader, full federal legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of simple possession of small everything for personal use [[drugs, not bombs, LOL)

Sentences need to be shorter still, "three strikes" needs to exclude drug and all non-violent offenses.

Then US gov't needs far fewer fiefdoms at all levels.

There's your cuts.

Throw in a national VAT [[sales tax) of 5% and your in surplus.

You're welcome.

Servicing the national debt is expected to cost more than military expenditures in five years. Even if the U.S. went to 'smart' military spending instead of building sitting duck $13B aircraft carriers as it should, it is already too late to expect military cuts to save the economy. China is creating new A.I. weponry, drones, and other state of art weaponry not to mention claiming sovereignty over the South China Sea. Even if the U.S. spends 4x as much on its military, China gets more bang from its buck. China may be in a position to outspend the U.S. to drive the U.S. further into bankruptcy by trying to keep up as the U.S. did to the U.S.S.R..

Democratic Party spending programs will also drive the U.S. further into economic desperation. Yesterday, an Obama appointed judge in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. had to allow anyone who makes it across the border a hearing. It costs U.S. taxpayers about $13,500/year, a federal government estimate, and $17,900/year, a FAIR estimate, for each refugee for each of the first five years they are here. That diverted tax money comes out of the hides of Amerian taxpayers and American tax beneficiaries. This Obama judge just gave the invasion a green light despite the Constitution's requirement that Congress is delegated with the obligation to establish an uniform naturalization process - not one naturalization process for legal aliens and whatever for illegal aliens. The Constitution also expects Congress, or the President if Congress is away, to repel invasions, it does not specify military invasions, but the Obama's economic legacy lingers on.

Were Republicans to propose a 5% sales tax as you suggest, Democrats would rail against it as being regressive. It would also probably temporarily jolt the economy. When Pres. Wilson [[D) pushed through the federal income tax, thus transferring the tax burden from import corporations [[tariffs) to middle class taxpayers, the federal income tax was to a maximum of 4% for comparison.

To answer your question obliquely; I prefer Pres. Harding's approach. When confronted with higher unemployment than Obama ever had early in his administration , Harding cut federal taxes and spending. Within two years, unemployment nosedived. No, I don't think Obama would have had the inclination or nerve to try that. Obama was well rewarded though for his preservation of the 1%'s status quo; a legacy of sorts. The Obamas are becoming a billion-dollar brand.

[Canadian Visitor]

. China may be in a position to outspend the U.S. to drive the U.S. further into bankruptcy by trying to keep up as the U.S. did to the U.S.S.R.

Not a threat, YET. But a real prospect. All the more reason to curtail wasteful military spending. Banking some savings and reinvesting others.

Democratic Party spending programs will also drive the U.S. further into economic desperation. Yesterday, an Obama appointed judge in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. had to allow anyone who makes it across the border a hearing. It costs U.S. taxpayers about $13,500/year, a federal government estimate, and $17,900/year, a FAIR estimate, for each refugee for each of the first five years they are here. That diverted tax money comes out of the hides of Amerian taxpayers and American tax beneficiaries. This Obama judge just gave the invasion a green light despite the Constitution's requirement that Congress is delegated with the obligation to establish an uniform naturalization process - not one naturalization process for legal aliens and whatever for illegal aliens. The Constitution also expects Congress, or the President if Congress is away, to repel invasions, it does not specify military invasions, but the Obama's economic legacy lingers on.

I oppose allowing/promoting/facilitating illegal immigration.

For now, we can set aside that part of the issue.

The caravan is clearly an issue, and I would broadly support denial of entry, based on the 'safe harbour' principle.

The principle states that a refugee is obliged to ask for protection at the first 'safe' country they arrive at.

While Mexico has lots of problems, it would be 'relatively' safe when compared with Honduras/El Salvador/Guatemala at the moment. Mexico is open to dealing w/the issue at some level. Though obviously it would more expensive for them to support these folks, in relative terms, than it would be the U.S.

That seems reasonable.

What is not reasonable is the fear-mongering.

Canada took in more Syrian refugees in one year than this entire caravan at its maximum size. We are a country 1/9 the size of the US by population.

It has not caused any surge in crime, nor has it been economically challenging.

That does not mean I favour open borders. It does mean one can have an adult conversation without being alarmist.

****

Were Republicans to propose a 5% sales tax as you suggest, Democrats would rail against it as being regressive.

Canada addressed this issue first by exempting groceries and residential rent. Second, by rebating the tax entirely to all low-income earners. Its still a cash cow.

Each point generates around 9B net, so let's 45B CAD scaled up to the US size, or something like $36B USD, so a 5 point tax should pull in about $180B USD.

***

If you want reduction in 'social' programs, I don't have a problem w/that, with the proviso that they are efficiency focused, rather that simply clawbacks.

For example, medicare/medicaid/chirp would cost less if you drove down the obscene cost of drugs in the US like every other country does.

You don't have to legislate this, you simply state, we the government will only pay this price, if you'd rather have Zero sales.....walk away.

Similar reductions in over-payments, including excessive physician fees, and hospital fees would free up tens of billions rather easily.

Then increase spending where it results in prevention and/or early intervention at lower cost.

Example. When Colorado picked up the tab for Birth Control for low income earners, they SAVED money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/s...g-success.html

42% decline in abortions. Estimated savings of $5.85 in Medicaid spending alone, for every dollar this program cost.

Smart money!

[canuck]

What's not to love about our Chump? He has a great relationship with Saudi Arabia, doesn't want to lose military materiel contracts with the kingdom.
I love how the Honduran "caravan" members are suspected criminals, and The Saudi regime is an honorable ally... Money talks and bullshit wobbles...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...i-crown-prince

[coracle]

Happy Thanksgiving to ALL American Posters.

[coracle]

^ On reflection - at least a lot of ‘em!

[oladub]

"I oppose allowing/promoting/facilitating illegal immigration."

Canadian Visitor, I'm more in agreement with you than we might have expected so I'll just quibble about details. Unlike you, American liberals don't want to defend U.S. borders from economic invasion.

There are, however, a couple of underlying factors contrasting Trudeau's generous invite of Syrian refugees with U.S. conservative support for Trump's shutting the doors. Canada, has more of a frontier inviting the development its vast natural resources. California, in contrast, invites immigration while dealing with resulting sprawl. Americans with memories are still stung by the 9/11 attack dramatically killing 3,000 in the name of Islam.

Hillary suggested doubling the number of Syrian refugees her policies created in her first year as President. It would have been better if Kerry/Hillary/Obama policy had left Syria alone rather than winding up having Pentagon supported "freedom fighters" fighting CIA supported "freedom fighters" with Syrians caught in the middle. The U.S. has some responsibility for the resultant mess and should be more generous in support of Syrian refugees it created now in mid-east refugee camps. The same money can provide for 12x as many refugees in UN mid-east refugee camps as bringing them to the U.S.. Also, local refugees are more likely to return home to help rebuild Syria than those brought to Canada or the U.S. at huge expense. As ISIS has been rolled back since Obama left office, Syrian refugees in mid-east refugee camps have been returning to help rebuild. I have no idea why Trump is perpetuating Obama's era neocon policies in Syria to the extent he has but at least he is trying to prevent ISIS from sneaking its agents in with refugees as ISIS promised to do. There is something creepy about people who allow and encourage death and destruction and then invite resulting refugees in at huge expense and some risk to do virtue signaling. That is not a reference to Trudeau.

My guess is that liberals, Trudeau or Hillary as examples, ingratiate themselves to the 1% by providing cheap foreign labor while simultaneously dividing labor; union roofers or meatpackers vs. lower paid non-union foreign roofers and meat packers for instance all the while promising higher living wages and free stuff to left behind workers. Its a version of bombing people and then being their savior.

I doubt that bringing Syrian refugees to Canada has been less than "economically challenging". It costs U.S. taxpayers $13,500-$17,900/year/refugee for each of the first five years they are here including things like school. Germany's figure is about $18,000/year. Norway's cost is over $23,000/year/refugee. To me, that's a lot of money. Maybe Canada is doing it a lot cheaper but I doubt it. Housing alone costs Canadian taxpayers $1,400/month per family of four in Nova Scotia. Public schooling in the U.S. costs an average of over $12,000/year/K-12 student. In Canada, "Syrian mothers and fathers with four children can get about $50,000 a year in various tax benefits."

Thank you Canadian Visitor, by the way, for including suggestions for balancing our federal budget. We should probably have a thread to that end. Your insight would be helpful.

[Canadian Visitor]

American liberals don't want to defend U.S. borders from economic invasion.

I think its important to distinguish between 'average Americans' who may vote Democrat or lean liberal vs certain politicians w/in the Democratic Party, whose motivations, much as Republicans are about holding power and pleasing their donors.

I think its also important to distinguish between addressing a vast number illegals already in the United States, particularly those brought in as young children, vs 'the next wave'. People may have sympathy for the former group, without condoning the latter.

There are, however, a couple of underlying factors contrasting Trudeau's generous invite of Syrian refugees with U.S. conservative support for Trump's shutting the doors. Canada, has more of a frontier inviting the development its vast natural resources. California, in contrast, invites immigration while dealing with resulting sprawl.

Very few Syrians have ended up in rural Canada, the vast majority are in larger urban centres, a smattering in smaller towns.

There are real differences though that are not widely discussed in the US context.

Canada did not allow single-men to come over. Only families. This was done on the assumption a man with a family to support was less likely to be a terrorist or trouble maker.

Canada did allow some single women.

Canada also had a vast private-sponsorship program where churches/synagogues/mosques could sponsor families to come over, as could any private group of Canadians.

* [[side note, there are Americans who are sponsoring Syrian refugees in Canada)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...model-refugee/

This not only limited some state costs, it has also provided a support network for the newcomers.

Americans with memories are still stung by the 9/11 attack dramatically killing 3,000 in the name of Islam.

True, though, none of those were from Syria, most were from Saudi Arabia.

Also note how Canada moved to reduce risk by not allowing single men.

It would have been better if Kerry/Hillary/Obama policy had left Syria alone rather than winding up having Pentagon supported "freedom fighters" fighting CIA supported "freedom fighters" with Syrians caught in the middle.

In 100% agreement. One should not go around meddling in other countries business, particularly on the level of fomenting insurrection/civil war unless there is:

A) one hell of a compelling reason, ideally one compatible with one's own national interest

B) You have a realistic plan and budget to deal w/the fallout of your choice.

The U.S. has some responsibility for the resultant mess and should be more generous in support of Syrian refugees it created now in mid-east refugee camps. The same money can provide for 12x as many refugees in UN mid-east refugee camps as bringing them to the U.S.. Also, local refugees are more likely to return home to help rebuild Syria than those brought to Canada or the U.S. at huge expense.

That's a perfectly reasonable position. Though its worth adding here that Syria was still in full-on war when Canada made its choice, and the refugee camps were [[are) miserable places that were bursting, w/the resultant effect of that surge of folks who then went to Europe.

Whether that was addressable at the time by investing in those camps is an open question, but a fair one to ask.

I doubt that bringing Syrian refugees to Canada has been less than "economically challenging". It costs U.S. taxpayers $13,500-$17,900/year/refugee for each of the first five years they are here including things like school. Germany's figure is about $18,000/year. Norway's cost is over $23,000/year/refugee. To me, that's a lot of money. Maybe Canada is doing it a lot cheaper but I doubt it. Housing alone costs Canadian taxpayers $1,400/month per family of four in Nova Scotia. Public schooling in the U.S. costs an average of over $12,000/year/K-12 student. In Canada, "Syrian mothers and fathers with four children can get about $50,000 a year in various tax benefits."

I looked at a variety of figures and its frankly hard to tell.

An auditor generals' report suggests that gross Federal costs per immigrant are in the range of 900M CAD over a 5-year period.

That would cover direct financial support costs, federal programs, and federal transfers to provinces to defray certain costs.

So far as I can discern, that does not include the cost of school for children which is about $13,000 CAD per child. But its hard to tell. The info is not all in one place.

What's also omitted, mind you is any revenue the refugees have generated. ie. Income tax, corporate tax etc.

So at best you get a 'gross' picture and not the 'net' one.

The gross figure, Federally works out to just over $5,000 per refugee.

School costs may add to that substantially...

However there are some success stories which would reduce the net costs.

This one [[linked below) is the best known, and unquestionably an outlier, but it certainly is a case of investing in one family paying large dividends.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...size-1.4774576

Thank you Canadian Visitor, by the way, for including suggestions for balancing our federal budget. We should probably have a thread to that end. Your insight would be helpful.

You're quite welcome. I would be happy to contribute to such a thread.

[Jimaz]

From the White House's "just make shit up" department:

Why the people of Finland are trolling Trump by raking the woods

[Richard]

^ ever wonder what it would be like if they actually spent 30 seconds to actually learn what a forestry rake was, instead of publicly looking like fools?

[canuck]

Chump is a rake. lol

Just turn him on his head and use him, doublol.

[aj3647]

^ ever wonder what it would be like if they actually spent 30 seconds to actually learn what a forestry rake was, instead of publicly looking like fools?

Enlighten us, Richard, what is a "forestry rake?" Do you have a link to one we could take a look at? Please, educated us, oh wise one.

[Jimaz]

Sarah Silverman as Sarah Huckabee Sanders | I Love You, America on Hulu

[Richard]

Enlighten us, Richard, what is a "forestry rake?" Do you have a link to one we could take a look at? Please, educated us, oh wise one.

For some reason I do not think it would take a wise one to educate you,search,so easy a cave man can do it.

https://www.auctiontime.com/listings...1990-destec-d6

Make sure you get your bid in,that one is made in Canada,so it may contain Chinese steel.

Commonly used to create a fire break or wide path through the forest to prevent the spread of forest fires,unless you are an adamant save the trees person and prevents the state from useing them,then Mother Nature takes her course,as we can see.

[jcole]

Finland's forests are far different than ours, they don't rake and they worry more about bog fires than the forest:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...trump-on-rakes

[jcole]

For some reason I do not think it would take a wise one to educate you,search,so easy a cave man can do it.

https://www.auctiontime.com/listings...1990-destec-d6

Make sure you get your bid in,that one is made in Canada,so it may contain Chinese steel.

Commonly used to create a fire break or wide path through the forest to prevent the spread of forest fires,unless you are an adamant save the trees person and prevents the state from useing them,then Mother Nature takes her course,as we can see.

How did you ascertain that the implement linked is a Forestry Rake? It's not called one anywhere on that site, nor can I find another link to anything that looks like that called a "forestry rake". What you posted is a "root rake

noun

Definition of root rake

: a tree dozer or rooter with heavy teeth [[attached to the front of a tractor) that is used for uprooting small trees, stumps, or brush and pushing them into piles"

[Richard]

“We take care of our forests” is all Niinisto recalled telling Trump.

And we did not and it has cost lives,but let’s obsess with every word the president says as distraction from the real issue and care more about what a country that has a population less then most US cities.

Then joke about raking a lawn instead of sending condolences,no wonder you guys find it amusing.

[Richard]

How did you ascertain that the implement linked is a Forestry Rake? It's not called one anywhere on that site, nor can I find another link to anything that looks like that called a "forestry rake". What you posted is a "root rake

noun

Definition of root rake



: a tree dozer or rooter with heavy teeth [[attached to the front of a tractor) that is used for uprooting small trees, stumps, or brush and pushing them into piles"

Seriously? I tell you what,go grab your garden trowel and clear a 60 foot wide fire break miles long through dense forest.

Just because you cannot see something it does not meen it does not exist.

That what I listed is called a rake,it says it in the heading,you can be specific and call it a root rake but it gets attached to a bull dozer and is used to clear heavy brush and root systems and even smaller trees.

They are used in construction in land clearing and by the forestry service to create fire breaks.

If you are in the forestry service you would tell somebody to go grab the rake,it would not meen grab the garden rake because it would be sill to even think of taking down trees.

Maybe what the president needs to do is break out the crayons and draw pictures for some.

The discussion was about forestry fire prevention and the tools used in the process,you guys are the ones that were thinking about little house gardens and the tools that apply.There is a difference between a backyard garden and 9 million acres of forest.

Some comprehend that and others do not.

[jcole]

It says "root" in the heading, not "forestry" which is what you claimed it to be.

Lot # 9378 - 1990 DESTEC D6 Rake, Root
Dig

They are used to clear ground, not to "rake" the forest floor.
And, yes it is a common practice to use fire breaks during a forest fire and I’m sure they did that in California during the latest fires. But they don’t call that “raking the forest”

[Jimaz]

To put this into perspective:

The Best Trump Trolling Reactions From Finns To Him Saying They Rake Leaves To Prevent Fires

Finland has ~73% forest coverage = 222,180 square kilometers of forests [[world bank study). Our forests are the densest in the world, averaging 72,000 trees in sq km. That's 22 billion trees or 4,500 for every Finn [[yale university study).

Please send help. Must bring own rakes.

[canuck]

Seriously? I tell you what,go grab your garden trowel and clear a 60 foot wide fire break miles long through dense forest.

Just because you cannot see something it does not meen it does not exist.

That what I listed is called a rake,it says it in the heading,you can be specific and call it a root rake but it gets attached to a bull dozer and is used to clear heavy brush and root systems and even smaller trees.

They are used in construction in land clearing and by the forestry service to create fire breaks.

If you are in the forestry service you would tell somebody to go grab the rake,it would not meen grab the garden rake because it would be sill to even think of taking down trees.

Maybe what the president needs to do is break out the crayons and draw pictures for some.

The discussion was about forestry fire prevention and the tools used in the process,you guys are the ones that were thinking about little house gardens and the tools that apply.There is a difference between a backyard garden and 9 million acres of forest.

Some comprehend that and others do not.

Richard, you're swimming in it. Oh, I know, I know, our schoolchildren are starving and Canada's standards are below Venezuela's. lol