The thread in which we sift through the smoldering wreckage of the American experiment

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
Several of my disabled clients volunteer for meals on wheels as part of their vocational development. When I thought about how the incoming administration might negatively affect their quality of life, I gotta admit, "They might lose their job with meals on wheels" never crossed my mind.
Mar 16, 2017 10:18 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
I'm someone who favors a significant reduction in government spending. For example, I would eliminate federal funding for public media in an ideal world. But I can't get behind the utterly screwed up priorities in this budget or the depraved justifications for them. The last things that should be cut are getting axed in order to make way for incremental increases in defense spending.

People right now are mostly focusing on how arts, science, and assistance to the needy are being slashed, but I think a deeper story here is that a big focus of the discretionary cuts are tributaries to liberal influence. This was inevitable, and they will go to bat to make it happen. It's not just a budgeting issue.
Mar 16, 2017 10:22 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41074
Esoteric AllusionSeveral of my disabled clients volunteer for meals on wheels as part of their vocational development. When I thought about how the incoming administration might negatively affect their quality of life, I gotta admit, "They might lose their job with meals on wheels" never crossed my mind.


My understanding is that Meals on Wheels is neither a federal program, nor does it receive the large majority if its funding from federal sources. I'm not going to defend the prioritization of cuts like this, broadly speaking, but based on the nature of the program, isn't it unlikely to really be decimated?
Mar 16, 2017 10:24 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
NimChimpsky
Esoteric AllusionSeveral of my disabled clients volunteer for meals on wheels as part of their vocational development. When I thought about how the incoming administration might negatively affect their quality of life, I gotta admit, "They might lose their job with meals on wheels" never crossed my mind.


My understanding is that Meals on Wheels is neither a federal program, nor does it receive the large majority if its funding from federal sources. I'm not going to defend the prioritization of cuts like this, broadly speaking, but based on the nature of the program, isn't it unlikely to really be decimated?

Scaled back, not decimated. It's locally dependent, so I'm sure some programs will be decimated. Others will take a haircut. Fewer people will participate in the program unless charities make up the difference, and there's only so much charity monies to go around.

ETA: I'd be fine with the cut personally if it wasn't for the priorities issue. Eliminating these grants to help put a down-payment on another warship is not something I am going to support because, hey, small government.
Mar 16, 2017 10:29 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
We're all watching these unbelievably ridiculous and callous justifications for the cuts, correct? This is happening in the context of this coming from the Trump admin. There are more images of Trump cavorting about in unbelievably tacky, but also unbelievably expensive settings than any of us have had the time to see.

I suspect the fact that this contrast isn't already imploding his presidency is a testament to just how powerful right-wing propaganda infrastructure is at the moment.

The Trump admin gets on TV and says, "Coal miners ain't got money for PBS!"

Meanwhile this:



It takes work for people to not go French revolution on that kind of nonsense. And I say this as someone who would defend unpopular cuts in government programs like public funding for PBS/NPR.
Mar 16, 2017 11:43 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12698
And speaking of priorities, the costs for Trump and families' secret service protection should be compared to the cuts, not only because much of these costs are unnecessary (maintaining the voluntarily lavish habits of the family) but also because much of those taxpayer dollars end up in Trump's pocket.

Two cuts that are particularly malicious: cutting assistance to low-income heating/cooling bills and simultaneously cutting the program to weatherproof low-income housing in order to reduce those costs.
Mar 16, 2017 11:46 PM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15278
This has nothing to do with Trump (technically, Hannity is still a separate entity from our President) but haha, what? Sean Hannity apparently showed Juan Williams his sweet new gun after an on air debate, pointing the laser at Williams and generally acting like Deniro in This Boy's Life. Between the sexual harassment and weapons(?!) Fox News sounds like an... interesting place to work.
Mar 17, 2017 2:05 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15278
I mean, just how terrifying is Megyn Kelly in person?
Mar 17, 2017 2:08 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12445
The low income heating assistance program helped keep my grandmother alive after my grandfather, who literally was a miner, died.
Mar 17, 2017 2:32 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12698
"I think it's compassionate to say we're not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore, single mom of two in Detroit. We're not going to do that anymore unless we can guarantee to you that money is being used in a proper function. That's about as compassionate as you can get."

Either Mick Mulvaney doesn't know about the Earned Income Tax Credit, or he thinks that Americans are too dumb to understand why a single mom of two most likely does not pay federal taxes.
Mar 17, 2017 4:26 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
Robert Mercer, the business tycoon behind Brietbart and the Trump presidency, apparently believes that the radiation that results from nuclear warfare actually makes people healthy and the risks of nuclear war are overblown:

Link

So, I guess we're lucky he didn't get the department of Energy job?
Mar 18, 2017 2:33 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35013
Mar 22, 2017 1:31 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15278
wirthling

Gorsuch: I hate every one of you so, so much.
Mar 22, 2017 1:45 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
1 horse-sized duck is clearly the correct answer. Enough of these softballs, kid.
Mar 22, 2017 1:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35013
A horse-sized duck would definitely kill me. I think my ankles might be sturdy enough for me to survive the duck-sized horses.
Mar 22, 2017 2:03 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 9061
wirthlingA horse-sized duck would definitely kill me. I think my ankles might be sturdy enough for me to survive the duck-sized horses.

Yeah. I mean come on EA.
Mar 22, 2017 2:10 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
You have a fighting chance of crippling one horse sized duck.100 duck sized horses out for blood will fuck you up like a pack of wolves.
Mar 22, 2017 2:12 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35013
OK, let's face it -- I would lose to either.
Mar 22, 2017 2:14 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 9061
Esoteric AllusionYou have a fighting chance of crippling one horse sized duck.100 duck sized horses out for blood will fuck you up like a pack of wolves.

Ducks are pretty small though. It'd be more like fighting 100 rats. I mean all that horse size duck has to do is get one good kick in and you're done.
Mar 22, 2017 2:15 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 9061
Why are we seriously discussing this? I guess that question wasn't as dumb as initially thought.
Mar 22, 2017 2:15 AM
0 0