Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

764dak · 26-09-2017 11:29AM

Christy42 wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. We were having a conversation about people being too easily offended.

If the Army is unhappy with how they are being honoured they can feel free to stop sponsoring the nfl. As has been pointed out the players kneeling are not breaking the contract which was agreed to by both sides.

Trump might hate the NFL.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-long-love-hate-relationship-with-football-and-pro-sports

Manic Moran · 26-09-2017 03:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the issue is, why did Trump choose to mention Puerto Rico's debt at all at this point, in this context? Texas and Florida both have much bigger debts that Puerto Rico; Trump never thought to comment on this when addressing the impact of hurricanes on those states. His bringing it up in this context suggests that he thinks it is in some way relevant either to the damage PR has suffered or to the response which the Federal Government should make.

Either that, or he's a drooling idiot who tweets whatever pops into his head without intending it to be in any way relevant to public discourse or any any way connected to what is actually his business as President. You choose.

Puerto Rico is bankrupt. As in actually filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago. The infrastructure has suffered as a result, and it is part of the reason its people are so badly off and will be for the next while. Florida and Texas may owe more money, but their infrastructure is better and they are not insolvent.

Congress is about to pass an aid bill for the island. It is perhaps possible that such significant fiscal issues should be part of what Congress should be taken into account when passing that aid bill? Maybe part of the bill should include not only repairing, but also improving the infrastructure so that the next hurricane isn't as bad, which also means paying off various debts so that the power company has money left over for improvement.

listermint · 26-09-2017 04:48PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Puerto Rico is bankrupt. As in actually filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago. The infrastructure has suffered as a result, and it is part of the reason its people are so badly off and will be for the next while. Florida and Texas may owe more money, but their infrastructure is better and they are not insolvent.

Congress is about to pass an aid bill for the island. It is perhaps possible that such significant fiscal issues should be part of what Congress should be taken into account when passing that aid bill? Maybe part of the bill should include not only repairing, but also improving the infrastructure so that the next hurricane isn't as bad, which also means paying off various debts so that the power company has money left over for improvement.

It is bankrupt through every fault of the United States, they have alot to answer for in relation to Puerto Ricos issues.

Akrasia · 26-09-2017 07:57PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Puerto Rico is bankrupt. As in actually filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago. The infrastructure has suffered as a result, and it is part of the reason its people are so badly off and will be for the next while. Florida and Texas may owe more money, but their infrastructure is better and they are not insolvent.

It might not have been perfect, but they had a power grid before the category 5 hurricane came along and destroyed it...

Congress is about to pass an aid bill for the island. It is perhaps possible that such significant fiscal issues should be part of what Congress should be taken into account when passing that aid bill? Maybe part of the bill should include not only repairing, but also improving the infrastructure so that the next hurricane isn't as bad, which also means paying off various debts so that the power company has money left over for improvement.

One would hope that if they rebuild the infrastructure, that they build it properly and modernize it. But do you honestly think the republicans will vote give money to Puerto Rico beyond the bare minimum they can get away with. America is broke remember, they can't afford to spend any money (unless it's 80 billion dollars extra for the military.)

MadYaker · 26-09-2017 08:08PM

The republicans in the senate have ditched that vote on the obamacare repeal. I wonder is Trump getting tired of winning yet?

Manic Moran · 26-09-2017 09:00PM

Akrasia wrote: »

One would hope that if they rebuild the infrastructure, that they build it properly and modernize it. But do you honestly think the republicans will vote give money to Puerto Rico beyond the bare minimum they can get away with. America is broke remember, they can't afford to spend any money (unless it's 80 billion dollars extra for the military.)

Probably, for two reasons.
1) The Republicans need a popular win. This is an easy one, cost or no cost.
2) Puerto Rico has been bouncing around the idea of statehood for a few years, and it leans conservative. All of a sudden the opportunity arises for the (Republican-led) Federal Government to do well by Puerto Rico, which may have an influence on popular perception on the island. If the end result is a greater likelihood of a Republican-leaning additional State in Congress, the Electoral College, etc, why not, as Republicans, give it a go?

MadYaker · 26-09-2017 09:13PM

Would Puerto Rico not be mostly latino who tend to vote democrat? Or at least young latinos tend to vote democrat. So it might not be democrat yet but it will be in a few election cycles.

I'm surprised the republicans haven't tried to do that already if it would benefit them. Someone should mention it to Trump, he isn't going to think of it himself. He's too busy berating NFL players, shoring up the white supremacist vote and insulting Kim Jong Un on twitter.

Leroy42 · 26-09-2017 09:32PM

If PR became a full state then US would gave to spend money on it. At the moment Trump can claim that their problems are all their own.

And why would GOP and especially Trump want to spend money on latinos.

There latest is that funds will be made available in the 1st OR 2nd week of October. Not all the money mind. Just a start.

This is passing even the shambles of Katrina. One can at least put that down to incompetence on W Bushs part.

Trump is doing this out of sheer petiness and probably more than a little racism

Manic Moran · 26-09-2017 10:37PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Would Puerto Rico not be mostly latino who tend to vote democrat? Or at least young latinos tend to vote democrat. So it might not be democrat yet but it will be in a few election cycles.

I'm surprised the republicans haven't tried to do that already if it would benefit them. Someone should mention it to Trump, he isn't going to think of it himself. He's too busy berating NFL players, shoring up the white supremacist vote and insulting Kim Jong Un on twitter.

They can't do it until the Puerto Rican government applies for Statehood. The last referendum on the matter was heavily boycotted (97% in favour), in reality, the people are fairly evenly split between Statehood and Territory, with a small minority voting independent.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because they speak a variant of the same language that PR Latinos are the same as Mexican ones. Just try saying that sort of thing to my wife! Socially, the island leans quite conservative, not least, they are highly religious. They also have about the highest enlistment rates in the military of any part of the US. Further, because they are already American citizens, the big issue of immigration and immigrants, which is something of a rallying cry for Hispanics for the Democratic party just doesn't apply. It's simply not a concern for Puerto Ricans.

The political structure in PR is rather different than in the US as a whole. The parties are split up along the Statehood/Territory/Independence lines, the two big parties being PNP on a Statehood platform, the PPD wants the status quo. Both have about the same amount of registered voters. The PIP are the noted 'third party', the 'I' stands for "Independence."

The PNP currently has a supermajority in the PR legislature, as well as the Governor's Chair, but both are subject to swings. Their membership affiliates about 50-50 Republican and Democrat. Overall, all the parties are basically centrist by CONUS standards. It would be very interesting to see if they retain their own parties if they entered Statehood. The current governor sides Democrat, whilst, for example, being against same-sex marriage or recreational marijuana. His predecessor from the same party (Fortuno) caucused with the Republicans, looked to repeal Obamacare, and so on.

recedite · 26-09-2017 11:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

And why would GOP and especially Trump want to spend money on latinos.
...Trump is doing this out of sheer petiness and probably more than a little racism

Manic Moran wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because they speak a variant of the same language that PR Latinos are the same as Mexican ones...

Trump-haters will keep on making the same mistake because they assume that the President is motivated by racism, and that anyone who is not a racist will tend to vote democrat.
Trump of course also did very well in Miami and Florida during his election because Cuban-Americans have always been big supporters of the GOP.

Leroy42 · 26-09-2017 11:14PM

We dont have to assume he is motivated by racism, his actions clearly point to that.

From the incessant 'birther' lie to calling out Mexicans, siding with white supremacists and now an massive difference between his approach to disasters on mainland USA and PR.

To him PR is nothing but an island way off in a really big ocean.

This has nothing to do with winning vites, or shouldn't have.PR was devastated by a hurricane and Trump feels it is better to use his time castigating citizens for peaceful protest and blaming PR for their own problems rather than actually doing something to help.

If not racism, what else can explain it?

oscarBravo · 26-09-2017 11:44PM

recedite wrote: »

Trump-haters will keep on making the same mistake because they assume that the President is motivated by racism...

Not quite. We know he's a racist, but we also know that he's primarily motivated by insanity.

"Trump-haters" is a nice glib little phrase, by the way. It's a clever attempt to normalise him, and to dismiss those who oppose him as "haters".

History will not be kind to those who attempt to pretend that Trump is anything other than an absolute disgrace to the office of President on pretty much every conceivable level. Assuming he manages not to start a world war, his presidency will mostly be remembered as a farce.

recedite · 27-09-2017 12:15AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

We know he's a racist, but we also know that he's primarily motivated by insanity.

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.
Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YXLWNGGxo

BabyCheeses · 27-09-2017 12:57AM

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.
Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YXLWNGGxo

There was a point we stopped considering him as a clown? It is possible for a man to be racist without yelling racial slurs at every black person they meet.

spoonerhead · 27-09-2017 01:07AM

I found it disturbing what he said about princess Diana, even though it was only leaked today. Listening to him abuse her after she stuck up for aids victims in the 90s. Extremely distasteful! Whenever I see clips of these mainly homophobic driven men, talking about aids my stomach is sickened. That’s the underbelly that we are really seeing the last few weeks. Bigoted, Racist and homophobic. Have your political views and stuff about his policies all you want. He’s vile

Leroy42 · 27-09-2017 07:49AM

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.

Nobody said otherwise. He can be a racist that is primarily motivated by money and power. Is it your assertion that he can't be racist as it isn't his primary driver?

recedite wrote: »

Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

He is a clown. Nothing he has done as POTUS could possibly point to anything other than that. The only alternatives are that he is grossly incompetent or he actually believes that Nambia is a country, or that his crowd was bigger, or that he has the best performing POTUS ever, or that hiring and then firing people within days is a show of competence. In a functioning and truth driven democracy he wouldn't have stood a chance. He got lucky in terms of the opponent and the GOP itself.

recedite wrote: »

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?

Do you think racists go around all day heckling other races? In the vast majority of cases racist will keep their opinions to themselves except when they feel threatened.

If it is not racist, which you are of the opinion that it is not, then how can you explain the widely varying efforts by POTUS in dealing with the natural disasters of Texas/Florida and PR?

For T/F is was all over it. He said he would get FEMA on the ground, have the funds available, he visited them within days. For PR is blamed hem for the mess they find themselves in and complained that it is harder since its an island in a big ocean!

VinLieger · 27-09-2017 09:05AM

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.

What motivation does he have to still insist the central park 5 are guilty after being found without any shadow of a doubt completely innocent of all charges..........

Nody · 27-09-2017 09:33AM

Nody wrote: »

On a separate note there's a battle of ideology going down in Alabama among the Republicans. On the one side there's the Republican party and Trump backed candidate Luther Strange; on the other there's Sarah Palin, Tea Movement and Bannon supported candidate (and general nutcase by the looks of it) Roy Mooreto help drain the swamp. Roy is a judge who told his colleagues to ignore a Supreme court decision on same sex marriage, that State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior" in a custody battle over a lesbian asking for custody of her child due to the husband being abusive and violent, and to put a plaque of the 10 commandments in his court and held before session group prayers in the court house. He's clearly a man who don't care about minor things such as the constitution which is a complaint the republicans like to leverage on moderate judges; however if you still had some doubts if he was really that bad simply know that Nigel Farage is campaigning for him as well as that should clarify any outstanding concerns you may have.

As a follow up to the above the Trump backed candidate lost which does give some dark shadows for the Republican party in general as the Tea party alt Republican groupings are likely to feel empowered by this. That risks splitting votes in the upcoming elections accordingly between the Tea Party candidate and the Republican party candidate instead of a unified front; it also shows that Trump support is not as powerful as the Republican party though it would be undermining his position further. And of course further infighting in the Republican party in general will further paralyse them from doing, well, anything as seen in multiple key votes to date.

So Trump being Trump will he now go full support being the Tea Party instead since the Republican party has "failed him"?

Leroy42 · 27-09-2017 09:47AM

Its an odd one. On one hand to hear that the candidate that Trump backed and got behind lost is a blow to him, and calls into question the power that he has to deliver on behalf of the GOP.

On the other, the guy that won the nomination seems like a total right wing tea party advocate. So, at least in Alabama, US is turning ever more right wing.

Samaris · 27-09-2017 10:07AM

Amazing how sarky some of the answers got. Taking a step back from it a moment, it is rather remarkable to think that a US president can open his gob and comment that this destroyed territory "owes a lot of money to Wall Street and the banks and that, unfortunately, must be dealt with", y'know, while they're still desperately low on water, fuel for the surviving generators, oh, and there's a large dam that could fail catastrophically at any moment.

It does go to show the changes in public discourse, in honourable action. Once it was just assumed that the central government would help regions that fall victim to natural disastors rather than imply that the point of devastation is the point to rook them for the cash back.

It's even more egregious when one considers that the island might not be in such a position without the helpful influence of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the "Jones Act" from which they seek the waiver. It started as a protection against U-boats but there's been very few of those around the last, oh, seventy years or so, so now it's more protectionism that contributes to a far higher cost of living on the island than there is on the mainland - either foriegn ships pay very high tariffs for making port there or they sail to the mainland, unload everything onto an American vessel and then send that out - the costs above and beyond the mean are passed onto the locals who are, after all, a bit of a captive audience. I wonder would their debt be so high if the cost of living due to this law wasn't elevated beyond the norm.*

This was immediately lifted for the two states, who are, after all, connected to the rest of the US by roads and surely it could be argued that all their aid could come in from the land. (Not the quickest or most sensible method, but exactly what's happening on PR without the road network.

FEMA are working on their third national disaster within the space of a month or so. (Trump's contribution to FEMA was proposing to cut their budget, but anyway.) Of course they're there and doing heroic work. Some of them have probably seen nothing but hurricane damage for a month now.

If you don't see why Trump's insinuation that the money needed to be paid back to "Wall Street and the banks" while looking at the devastation was at the least inappropriate (such a mild term), boy, Jed, I don't know. If, by some Christmas miracle, he was saying as a businessman that it would be very hard to borrow money on behalf of PR to rebuild without something being done there which the government could help out with, that's another thing. It would be rather unlike him to think of such a thing though. Especially for non-voters.

*Cost of goods - can be anything up to twice as much on the mainland
Cost of living - 13% higher than than in 325 urban areas elsewhere in the United States
Mean income - $18,000, half that of Mississippi, the poorest of the 50 States
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/hurricane-puerto-rico-jones-act.html

Billy86 · 27-09-2017 10:07AM

It really says a lot that Trump's best attempt at a comic book villain (the lads name was even Luther Strange for feck's sake!) failed to win against an end times loony toon who thinks "God's Law" invalidates/overrides federal law if the two don't agree on something. And I'd bet Alabama is one of the loudest screeching states about 'Sharia Law!!' out there, the ignorance, irony and outright stupidity of it all is now officially beyond the point of being 'beyond the point of satire'.

This is a literal reason given by someone who voted for him - “The world, I don’t think it’s going to be here too much longer. Everything that the Bible said is going to happen, it is happening.”

Meanwhile the Democrat opponent has a long history of competence, doesn't appear to have much of any scandal around them, and is the guy who successfully brought the Alabama church bombers to justice - which should be enough for him to win a lot of Christian votes alone. Oh wait no, he doesn't have an (R) beside his name - and we all know the letter (R) is the real religion tens of millions of Americans subscribe to as fundamentalists.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Snowflake In Chief has apparently done the predictably childish and cowardly thing and deleted his Tweets endorsing Luther Strange. :pac:

Billy86 · 27-09-2017 10:09AM

Samaris wrote: »

Amazing how sarky some of the answers got. Taking a step back from it a moment, it is rather remarkable to think that a US president can open his gob and comment that this destroyed territory "owes a lot of money to Wall Street and the banks and that, unfortunately, must be dealt with", y'know, while they're still desperately low on water, fuel for the surviving generators, oh, and there's a large dam that could fail catastrophically at any moment.

It does go to show the changes in public discourse, in honourable action. Once it was just assumed that the central government would help regions that fall victim to natural disastors rather than imply that the point of devastation is the point to rook them for the cash back.

It's even more egregious when one considers that the island might not be in such a position without the helpful influence of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the "Jones Act" from which they seek the waiver. It started as a protection against U-boats but there's been very few of those around the last, oh, seventy years or so, so now it's more protectionism that contributes to a far higher cost of living on the island than there is on the mainland - either foriegn ships pay very high tariffs for making port there or they sail to the mainland, unload everything onto an American vessel and then send that out - the costs above and beyond the mean are passed onto the locals who are, after all, a bit of a captive audience. I wonder would their debt be so high if the cost of living due to this law wasn't elevated beyond the norm.

This was immediately lifted for the two states, who are, after all, connected to the rest of the US by roads and surely it could be argued that all their aid could come in from the land. (Not the quickest or most sensible method, but exactly what's happening on PR without the road network.

FEMA are working on their third national disaster within the space of a month or so. (Trump's contribution to FEMA was proposing to cut their budget, but anyway.) Of course they're there and doing heroic work. Some of them have probably seen nothing but hurricane damage for a month now.

If you don't see why Trump's insinuation that the money needed to be paid back to "Wall Street and the banks" while looking at the devastation was at the least inappropriate (such a mild term), boy, Jed, I don't know. If, by some Christmas miracle, he was saying as a businessman that it would be very hard to borrow money on behalf of PR to rebuild without something being done there which the government could help out with, that's another thing. It would be rather unlike him to think of such a thing though. Especially for non-voters.

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Samaris · 27-09-2017 10:49AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Leroy42 · 27-09-2017 10:57AM

This is the first electorial set back for Trump. He, according to some reports, required persuasion to get behind Strange in the first place, but he did get behind him and called on the people of Alabama to get out and vote for Strange.

Will this erode one of the last pillars of Trumps power, in that regardless of what he did/didn't do his base seem to hold and the GOP had continued to win the seat run-offs.

From a GOP perspective, they will still be pretty confident to hold the seat (it was previously held by Sessions) but whilst this of course will be downplayed by WH and Trump supporters, does it highlight that Trump is not as useful in terms of votes for GOP as previously thought?

So far Trump has failed to deliver on his election promises but at least held the card that to go against him was to face voter anger. Does this result (55%-45% so not even close) indicate that that isn't true?

Billy86 · 27-09-2017 10:57AM

Samaris wrote: »

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Not that I can recall off the top of my head, but -and I'm not joking here- in contrast to PR being "too poor" for aid, my guess is they were trying to claim that NY as being "too rich" for aid. The real reason we all know is "Obama is going to look so, so bad if thousands die under his watch!!", which is also why there is a strong chance many simply refused to give any reason at all - let's not forget this is the same Republican party who have held as good as no town hall meetings in months.

Cowards and scumbags really sums the guts of that party up quite well, makes it easy to understand the type of voter they attract.

Samaris · 27-09-2017 11:04AM

I think I'll need to see a few more of Trump's people fail before I consider it a positive sign. Strange was behind to begin with, afair, and Trump's help is a bit of a wild card anyway. Arizona's flipped blue before (albeit not since Clinton) and Trump didn't win there by a huge margin, Arizonans were rather torn on him (support's at 42%, disapproval at 55%).

It's a datapoint, but I'll be cautious about hoping for a trend yet.

Edit: Regarding Sandy, as disgraceful as it was, their protesting was to do with certain programs (such as Head Start and apparently fishing industry) getting money to rebuild. I get they don't like social programs but I'm a bit bemused at why the fishing industry caused upset.

spacecoyote · 27-09-2017 12:38PM

Samaris wrote: »

I think I'll need to see a few more of Trump's people fail before I consider it a positive sign. Strange was behind to begin with, afair, and Trump's help is a bit of a wild card anyway. Arizona's flipped blue before (albeit not since Clinton) and Trump didn't win there by a huge margin, Arizonans were rather torn on him (support's at 42%, disapproval at 55%).

It's a datapoint, but I'll be cautious about hoping for a trend yet.

Edit: Regarding Sandy, as disgraceful as it was, their protesting was to do with certain programs (such as Head Start and apparently fishing industry) getting money to rebuild. I get they don't like social programs but I'm a bit bemused at why the fishing industry caused upset.

Strange was running in Alabama, as opposed to Arizona. Its one of the reddest states as far as I know (think Trump won by something like +28 points), so they'll probably still hold it.

To be honest I don't think Trump will be too upset over the loss. The guy who won seems to be a complete nut job & would likely vote with Trump the majority of the time, should he get in, probably moreso than Strange would have

Samaris · 27-09-2017 12:46PM

Bugger, Alabama. Okay, that makes their crazy Republican choices a bit more understandable. I stand corrected! Don't know where I got Arizona from.

Celticfire · 27-09-2017 01:14PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Samaris wrote: »

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Billy86 wrote: »

Not that I can recall off the top of my head, but -and I'm not joking here- in contrast to PR being "too poor" for aid, my guess is they were trying to claim that NY as being "too rich" for aid. The real reason we all know is "Obama is going to look so, so bad if thousands die under his watch!!", which is also why there is a strong chance many simply refused to give any reason at all - let's not forget this is the same Republican party who have held as good as no town hall meetings in months.

Cowards and scumbags really sums the guts of that party up quite well, makes it easy to understand the type of voter they attract.

It has been publicly stated that he reason was because the bill was full of "Pork". Once again a disingenuous portrayal of the facts and what actually happened.

Cruz Press Release

Hurricane Sandy inflicted devastating damage on the East Coast, and Congress appropriately responded with hurricane relief. Unfortunately, cynical politicians in Washington could not resist loading up this relief bill with billions in new spending utterly unrelated to Sandy.

Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.

Two thirds of this spending is not remotely “emergency”; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 30% of the authorized funds would be spent in the next 20 months, and over a billion dollars will be spent as late as 2021.

This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.

16,000,000,000 dollars for Community Development Block Grants (11 billion higher than HUD was requesting at the time)
600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA
348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service
100,000,000 for Head Start
50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS
45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft
22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment
50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services
24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund
10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief
4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service
3,000,000 for oil spill research
2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s famously leaky roofs.
1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA.
1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporattion

Samaris · 27-09-2017 01:21PM

Because none of those were in any way affected by a natural disaster, ofc. Everyone knows that say, the Smithsonian and the premises of Head Start can levitate above weather systems when they happen.

There probably was pork in there, Celticfire, there always is. People make demands to be able to pass the basic structure. But to ascribe anything not immediately identifiable as pork is a bit much.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Comments