Current events discussion

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Was he offered the early retirement legally?

Happendc under Clinton; therefore, by definition, it was legal. I've never heard of an illegal early etirement. I wonder exactly what makes offering/taking an early retirement illegal.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Big Mic podcast

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Huh? After the budget is approved by Congress, you think someone gets to decide that they don't like what's in the budget and just arbitrarily change it?

That's exactly what Trump did when he stole that money back from New York.

POTUS has exercised some descretion in budgets in the past; ie Trump using DOD dollars for the wall. If congress is signing off on each and everyline item, then there is no wonder why the budget is out of control. Why is the left so oppossd to DOGE/POTUS saving us money???

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

She's in the wrong line of work. Sne would have been a bad *** hedge fund manager.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

She's in the wrong line of work. Sne would have been a bad *** hedge fund manager.

She shouldn’t retire. Without her my Robinhood account would be down without Nvidia and Visa
Waiting for her buy crypto

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

POTUS has exercised some descretion in budgets in the past; ie Trump using DOD dollars for the wall. If congress is signing off on each and everyline item, then there is no wonder why the budget is out of control. Why is the left so oppossd to DOGE/POTUS saving us money???

The planned tax cuts are going to increase the deficit significantly. So this idea that DOGE/Trump are going to "save us money" is such a ridiculous claim. Regular *** Americans aren't going to see any money coming back to us. We're going to be paying for for goods due to Trump's dunderheaded tariffs and those people who rely on public services/grants are going to see them reduced or entirely eliminated.

The question you should be asking is.....why is the left so opposed to DOGE and Trump pulling a reverse Robin Hood (taking from the poor to give to the rich) on the country? And you can probably answer that question yourself.

 

[Old_Slapper]

False. A budget means that it was approved. The Biden administration never approved $400 million of spending on cybertrucks. That's patently false.

A budget does not mean it's approved. A budget means "an estimated spending limit." I can't believe you just made that claim.

The Eutelsat won't cost more if the EU fronts the bill for it.....which is what I'd expect them to do. Ukraine isn't paying for it regardless.

Of course EU would have to front the bill. That's the problem. EU is still processing if they want to front the funds and it doesn't look like they want to.

Fasle. The argument started because JV Pants busted in to complain that Zelensky wasn't kissing Trump's feet over a deal that provided no security guarantees to Ukraine. It was a surrender deal that Trump worked out unilaterally with Putin.....and no input from Ukraine or the EU. There was little gain to be had. Zelensky knew it and so did Trump. It was a deal that required Ukraine to capitulate.

I understand you will believe whatever makes Trump look bad, instead of actually hearing what is being said. Did you also notice how Zelensky slammed Obama and Biden? watch it again and pay attention to what the conversation is. The US gave Zelensky billions and he has no idea where 40% of it went. On top of that, not once did he thank Obama or Biden for the money he was given. He just kept DEMANDING more money. For what? Why should be the only country that is dumping billions into his war?

I noticed something else. Trump told everyone that he would quickly bring an end to the war.....and so far that hasn't happened. And Russia isn't budging on their demands now that Ukraine has rejected the surrender option offered by Trump. So what's happening? I thought that Trump was a big, strong, tough guy? Looks more like his attempt to further Russian goals fell flat.

Trump has been in office for 3 months. That war is not the only issue Trump is dealing with. Biden had 2 years to fix it. If Trump ends it in 1 year, that's have the time Biden had, hence making it end quickly. Trump helped it slow down within the first month he was in office. Biden didn't do that.

No. The real problem here is that you are buying the propaganda without thinking. Trump and Musk are selling the narrative that all they want to do is cut fraud and that nobody else will have their SS/Medicaid touched. That's total BS. They need to cut close to a trillion dollars.....and there's nowhere near that much fraud in the system. Hell....even the fraud cuts of billions that DOGE is claiming are proving to be inflated nonsense.

Is buying into their ideas a bad thing, or continuing to believe the government is spending our money wisely? Am I 100% sold on their idea being the greatest? Nope! However, I think it is going in a better direction than it was under Biden. Biden allowed more groups to **** off USAID without properly reviewing them. Instead of only pulling out the negative, show me you're a free minded person and show the fraud in USAID. You don't have to look hard to find it.

You sure are. Trump is a sociopath who can't go more than a day without pushing a blatantly provable lie. lol.....he's actually been saying the past couple of days that eggs prices have come down under his watch....which is such a laughably false statement....I really don't know whether he believes it (because the dementia is acting up)....or if he's simply trying to see how blatant his lies can get.

I will say he is not being honest with that statement. It's about as honest and Biden saying gas prices are cheaper under him than Trump.

See, I can honestly say when my candidate is lying. Can you say that about your candidate? Rob couldn't.

You're choosing to believe that Trump and Musk are acting in your best interest despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Are they actin in my best interest? Yes. Are all of their decisions in my best interest? No. However, their interests are a lot closer to mine than Biden and Kamala.

I've taken plenty of economics courses during my undergraduate. It's quite clear that you have no grasp of basic economics as evidenced by you original claim that corporations would go under if we didn't give them tax cuts.....which is such an idiotic claim......that I don't even know how you managed to type it without hurting yourself in the process. Corporations were profitable when their tax rates were closer to 40% in the 80s. There's absolutely zero reason that we need to continue to cut that from the low 20s to 15%. None. And why exactly does it matter where the majority of tax revenue comes from? 10% of tax revenues from corporations is still a massive amount of money.

Holy sheep shiz straw man!
PLEASE show me where I said corporations will go under without tax cuts!!! I see why you say all these things about Trump. You exaggerate the actual claims that are actually being made. This is EXACTLY the same issue Rob has. You can't admit when you're wrong, so you have to "flip the script" and make extremely false accusations."

Economic was one of my majors. Corporations were profitable in the 80's because there was a huge push to buy American and China wasn't so powerful. Then Clinton came along and moved our auto industry to Mexico, so their suppliers had to follow.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

First, you need to stop taking personal jabs at me.

Is that so?
When you complain to the mods, are you going to share your own recent jabs, or do those not count because you are special? Maybe something like "I'll say all this stuff about others, but it hurts my feelings if they point out my inabilities"?

Second, stocker08 said that "budgets are spending plans". Federal Budgets are spending plans. Words matter when it comes to context.

The context was already about Federal Budgets.
As I said, no one was thinking the discussion was about planning for your electric bill, monthly haircuts, IRA contributions. Unless YOU were?

This would have been one of the contextual clues. Some keywords for context include "$400M for armored electric trucks.", and of course the fact that we are talking about DOGE doing an "audit" of spending from the approved BUDGET.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Is that so?
When you complain to the mods, are you going to share your own recent jabs, or do those not count because you are special? Maybe something like "I'll say all this stuff about others, but it hurts my feelings if they point out my inabilities"?
View attachment 63898
View attachment 63899
View attachment 63900

The context was already about Federal Budgets.
As I said, no one was thinking the discussion was about planning for your electric bill, monthly haircuts, IRA contributions. Unless YOU were?

This would have been one of the contextual clues. Some keywords for context include "$400M for armored electric trucks.", and of course the fact that we are talking about DOGE doing an "audit" of spending from the approved BUDGET.
View attachment 63901

I'm sorry, are you complaining to me like I care what you have to say? You can hover over my avatar and click IGNORE. Nobody is forcing you to talk to me or insult me.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Happendc under Clinton; therefore, by definition, it was legal. I've never heard of an illegal early etirement. I wonder exactly what makes offering/taking an early retirement illegal.

I'm not sure I get the "by definition" part. Was the early retirement offered legally, or not?

When it was offered, had the funding been approved by Congress?
You see, this whole DOGE thing of just eliminating people by offering them an unfunded early retirement or short-term buyout plan is illegal. The Antideficiency Act says so.

CONGRESS has the power of the purse, not Trump, or Musk.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I'm sorry, are you complaining to me like I care what you have to say? You can hover over my avatar and click IGNORE. Nobody is forcing you to talk to me or insult me.

No one is forcing me, is right. I choose to be in this thread, which is an open forum discussing Trump being Trump.
As such, any post any of us makes here is open to reply by anyone else.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

No one is forcing me, is right. I choose to be in this thread, which is an open forum discussing Trump being Trump.
As such, any post any of us makes here is open to reply by anyone else.

Yes and you are in here with others trying to enjoy this thread and none of us care for your constant insults and condescension. I don't have a problem not calling you names until you start your bullshit.

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

A budget does not mean it's approved. A budget means "an estimated spending limit." I can't believe you just made that claim.

"Budgets" are approved by congress. This is not disputable. For things like discretionary spending, it is appropriated by congress. Please stop making things up as you go.

Of course EU would have to front the bill. That's the problem. EU is still processing if they want to front the funds and it doesn't look like they want to.

Who exactly do you think is paying for Starlink in Ukraine? Poland is currently paying for about half the subscriptions as it is.

‘Be quiet, small man’: Musk clashes with Polish FM over Starlink in Ukraine

Tesla and SpaceX CEO insists he will not cut Ukraine's access to internet service despite his disagreements with Kyiv.

www.aljazeera.com

I understand you will believe whatever makes Trump look bad, instead of actually hearing what is being said. Did you also notice how Zelensky slammed Obama and Biden? watch it again and pay attention to what the conversation is. The US gave Zelensky billions and he has no idea where 40% of it went. On top of that, not once did he thank Obama or Biden for the money he was given. He just kept DEMANDING more money. For what? Why should be the only country that is dumping billions into his war?

I understand that you get your information delivered through right wing filters rather than using a modicum of critical thinking. Zelensky has thanked the United States plenty of times. Again...you are getting your information carefully curated to fit what you want to believe. JV Pants and Dementia Don were acting like assholes because they wanted Zelensky to grovel and sign their shitty Pro-Russia deal.

And to further prove that you don't know what the f**k you are talking about....the EU has provided more aid to Ukraine than the U.S. Pull your head out of your *** and stop pushing right wing propaganda.....but it only makes you look less and less informed.

Ukraine Support Tracker - A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine

The Ukraine Support Tracker lists and quantifies military, financial and humanitarian aid promised by governments to Ukraine.

www.ifw-kiel.de

Trump has been in office for 3 months. That war is not the only issue Trump is dealing with. Biden had 2 years to fix it. If Trump ends it in 1 year, that's have the time Biden had, hence making it end quickly. Trump helped it slow down within the first month he was in office. Biden didn't do that.

Biden had no interest in bowing down to Putin. It's not in the best interest of the United States, Ukraine, or the rest of our allies.

Is buying into their ideas a bad thing, or continuing to believe the government is spending our money wisely? Am I 100% sold on their idea being the greatest? Nope! However, I think it is going in a better direction than it was under Biden. Biden allowed more groups to **** off USAID without properly reviewing them. Instead of only pulling out the negative, show me you're a free minded person and show the fraud in USAID. You don't have to look hard to find it.

Is buying into their blatant lies a bad thing? Yeah....probably. They've been lying from the very beginning about what they are cutting and how much they are "saving". Musk doesn't have a clue what he's doing and neither does his team of incels. But yeah.....let's just take them at their word.

A part of these savings are laid out in the team’s “Wall of Receipts,” which lists some canceled contracts, grants, and real estate. However, the team says the receipts provided on the website only represent approximately 30% of the full savings, making the top-line figure unverifiable.

And even the selected savings provided by DOGE for public review have been unreliable.

Harry Kraemer, an executive partner with Madison Dearborn Partners and a clinical professor of Leadership at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, told Fortune that DOGE’s figures could not be relied upon. He said in his view the total savings were overstated by up to 80%.

“Where they’ve claimed to have taken up to a billion dollars, some of the specific items are really like a couple hundred thousand or a couple million dollars. My guess would be from what they’ve said they’ve eliminated, no more than 10% to 20% of the numbers are actually important,” he said.

DOGE says it's saved the federal government $115 billion. Experts say the figures don't stack up | Fortune

DOGE says it's saved the federal government $115 billion. However, the team's claims have consistently included inaccuracies and inflated numbers.

fortune.com

I will say he is not being honest with that statement. It's about as honest and Biden saying gas prices are cheaper under him than Trump.

See, I can honestly say when my candidate is lying. Can you say that about your candidate? Rob couldn't.

Oh....you think Trump's not being honest when he says that egg prices are down? Wow....what a brave take!

Are they actin in my best interest? Yes. Are all of their decisions in my best interest? No. However, their interests are a lot closer to mine than Biden and Kamala.

You think so. Hell....maybe they even ARE looking out for YOUR best interests. But they certainly aren't looking out for the best interests of the country as a whole.

Holy sheep shiz straw man!
PLEASE show me where I said corporations will go under without tax cuts!!! I see why you say all these things about Trump. You exaggerate the actual claims that are actually being made. This is EXACTLY the same issue Rob has. You can't admit when you're wrong, so you have to "flip the script" and make extremely false accusations."

Economic was one of my majors. Corporations were profitable in the 80's because there was a huge push to buy American and China wasn't so powerful. Then Clinton came along and moved our auto industry to Mexico, so their suppliers had to follow.

ROFL! Corporate profits have continued to trend UPWARDS since the 80s. Are you really trying to say that economic growth and corporate profits haven't exploded in the decades since the 80s!!!???

And I am referring to this budget AI looking post (below) you made back on the 6th. A post so ridiculously idiotic....that there's no possible way to take you seriously.....not that your posts since that point have helped your case.

I see you all are talking about who should be taxed and who shouldn't? What I will say is going to be a gut wrencher, but it's a fact.

If you put a high tax on corporations, the only people that will be negatively affected are the consumers and the employees. Corporations rely on stock investments. If a corporation doesn't meet their budgeted goals, their stocks drop. If they are taxed higher, this affects their goal. So, they end up raising their prices and cutting operation costs. This leads to pay cuts and layoffs. If you tax them less, the corporations will put more into their employees and keep costs lower. Just think if it was your corporation. You would never want your company to show a negative growth. You would lose all of your investors.