Trump

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2020, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Because the government caused the banks to collapse by allowing those people to get unsecured prime mortgage loans.

And Obama bailed them out. Not Trump. So, unless the beef is with government spending, not sure what bank bailouts have to do with Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jonboy79** · 01-06-2020, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

Maybe we need UFT. Universal flat tax. Where everyone pays their fair share.

Make it a sales tax instead of an income tax, then truly everyone pays it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Laxdad24** · 01-06-2020, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

And Obama bailed them out. Not Trump. So, unless the beef is with government spending, not sure what bank bailouts have to do with Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn’t W write the blank check to Wall Street? BHO “bailed out” the Pep Boys. Either way ...has zero to do with Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2020, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Laxdad24

Didn’t W write the blank check to Wall Street? BHO “bailed out” the Pep Boys. Either way ...has zero to do with Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Believe so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**bandc** · 01-06-2020, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Believe so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My beef is not necessarily with Trump. I believe he is a symptom of all the ridiculous government spending that hasn't gone to making people's lives better. I just brought up his tweet in order to illustrate my point.

**bandc** · 01-06-2020, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

Spot on. I'm sure we've all heard it a million times, but, as long as we all (collectively) keep sending the same morons back to DC (as well as all levels of government), we should expect the same results. Either admit it's time to actually DO something about it, or just sit back and keep jawing. My guess is it'll be the latter.

One of the biggest hurdles is always going to be getting the big money out of politics. SCOTUS says that's unconstitutional to do so. Ok....how do we fix that? Convention of States.

This is another as to why I hate when people like Buttigieg complain about "purity tests". If we are going to get big money out of politics, we need to start with our elected officials and the American people have the right to scrutinize every connection you have to pharmaceutical companies, wall street, etc... Whether democrat, republican, independent, or other, elected officials need to have not taken a dime of dark money in order to get elected.

**DitkasSausage** · 01-06-2020, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by bandc

At this point, I don't even care about the arguments about whether it's viable or not. Until the country can tell me why bailouts of banks over homeowners was viable, or why being in war for almost two decades is viable, I don't wanna hear a damn thing about the viability of UBI.

Even if you don't care for UBI, are you gonna tell me that the money couldn't have been put into infrastructure? That the money couldn't have put to use to develop and manufacture cheaper drugs, and lower healthcare costs? There are so many better things that this country could put our tax money towards other than fancy new weapons. It sickens me bro.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

We bailed out the banks instead of the homeowners because it was the banks that held all of the debt, and owned all of the assets. I do NOT agree with the bank bailout at all, but it wasn't an either/or situation either. Bailing out the homeowners would have cost the exact same amount, and now you have millions of people who own their home, and don't have jobs because their employer had to layoff virtually everyone associated with growing their business because they cannot get money from anyone.

As for the items you say the money "could" have been spent on... it is absurd. You are essentially saying, "Hey! He paid for a round of golf when he COULD have bought everyone Ferraris!!!" $2bil doesn't even scratch the surface of any one of those things. Oh... and those new weapons are what keep the world from getting thrown into total anarchy btw. If American lost military superiority, it would be to Russia or China, and how much restraint would they show in adversity or disagreement? Seeing how they kill their own people who disagree with their government... probably not much. How many people would they use to protect or save with their military? None. How much would they leverage it to impoverish the rest of the world? A lot...

I don't think you are making terrible initial points... Trump shouldn't be wasting money. I didn't see his tweet so I don't know what he is spending it on, nor have you answered anyone's questions on that topic... It is your follow through. I agree when you say, "Our government shouldn't be spending..." I start to disagree with you the second you turn it to, "They should be spending on these things..."

Our government should serve very limited purposes, and healthcare, providing income, and other boondoggles are not it. Military is literally one of the only things we are currently discussing that they should be spending money on. Nearly anything outside of that is what they are using to steal from us... and even our military needs to be reigned in. We don't need troops in 85% of the places they are currently... And we SURE AS HELL do not need to be providing weapons and tech to other countries...

**blah3** · 01-06-2020, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by bandc

This is another as to why I hate when people like Buttigieg complain about "purity tests". If we are going to get big money out of politics, we need to start with our elected officials and the American people have the right to scrutinize every connection you have to pharmaceutical companies, wall street, etc... Whether democrat, republican, independent, or other, elected officials need to have not taken a dime of dark money in order to get elected.

Well half your plan is good.
There should be no donation caps and 100% disclosure. That way you can eliminate bundlers (and let’s face it those are the most shady people involved) and the effect of PAC’s, while also maintaining freedom of speech

**DitkasSausage** · 01-06-2020, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

Well half your plan is good.
There should be no donation caps and 100% disclosure. That way you can eliminate bundlers (and let’s face it those are the most shady people involved) and the effect of PAC’s, while also maintaining freedom of speech

We should have a branch of the IRS totally seperated from D.C. Put it in Iowa or something. And their entire role is to audit elected government officials and make public record of all audits. I'd love to find out how a person making $250k a year has a net worth of $43mil. As Nancy Pelosi says, "We should be allowed to insider trade because we don't get paid enough..."

**bandc** · 01-06-2020, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by DitkasSausage

We bailed out the banks instead of the homeowners because it was the banks that held all of the debt, and owned all of the assets. I do NOT agree with the bank bailout at all, but it wasn't an either/or situation either. Bailing out the homeowners would have cost the exact same amount, and now you have millions of people who own their home, and don't have jobs because their employer had to layoff virtually everyone associated with growing their business because they cannot get money from anyone.

As for the items you say the money "could" have been spent on... it is absurd. You are essentially saying, "Hey! He paid for a round of golf when he COULD have bought everyone Ferraris!!!" $2bil doesn't even scratch the surface of any one of those things. Oh... and those new weapons are what keep the world from getting thrown into total anarchy btw. If American lost military superiority, it would be to Russia or China, and how much restraint would they show in adversity or disagreement? Seeing how they kill their own people who disagree with their government... probably not much. How many people would they use to protect or save with their military? None. How much would they leverage it to impoverish the rest of the world? A lot...

I don't think you are making terrible initial points... Trump shouldn't be wasting money. I didn't see his tweet so I don't know what he is spending it on, nor have you answered anyone's questions on that topic... It is your follow through. I agree when you say, "Our government shouldn't be spending..." I start to disagree with you the second you turn it to, "They should be spending on these things..."

Our government should serve very limited purposes, and healthcare, providing income, and other boondoggles are not it. Military is literally one of the only things we are currently discussing that they should be spending money on. Nearly anything outside of that is what they are using to steal from us... and even our military needs to be reigned in. We don't need troops in 85% of the places they are currently... And we SURE AS HELL do not need to be providing weapons and tech to other countries...

The problem is that the number isn't 2 billion. They just spent 2 TRILLION! That's more than enough to cover a public option and it would cover free college or elimination of ridiculous student debt 100x over.

There is NO ARGUMENT that you can come up with that makes it necessary to spend 2 TRILLION dollars to defend ourselves from little ass Iran! Especially when you have plenty of issues that can fixed right here at home.

**bandc** · 01-06-2020, 01:32 PM

Also for anyone that wants to see the tweet that I'm referencing, here it is:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...89342272659456

**Vlad the lad** · 01-06-2020, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by bandc

My beef is not necessarily with Trump. I believe he is a symptom of all the ridiculous government spending that hasn't gone to making people's lives better. I just brought up his tweet in order to illustrate my point.

Does t the congress do the spending? And isn’t about 75% of the budget fixed?