Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..
So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
even more funny (or scary) is that this sounds like something that is done all the time in COBAL legacy systems with the current crew doesn't have much (any?) clue about. I leave it to others as to why but a lot of the people with limited axes to grind have said in recent days....sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
I've been maintaining a database with about 2500 entries in our office for about 20 years. Irritatingly, whoever first set it up entered one field in ALL CAPS and if I used mixed case now, it screws up any sorting that gets done by fields. I don't have the luxury of taking a week or two to reenter 2500+ values, so I grit my teeth and remember to capitalize that field every time I enter a new record (about 20-30 times a year).tequila4kapp said:
Yes on A and B
Re A…we say it all the time.
Re B…once had an executive *****ing about an ancient COBOL system. IT exec retorted with an ROI assessment
The obligation to spend the money comes from the "Take Care Clause" found in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution - the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."socaltownie said:We don't know. No President since 1974 has done this. What he is SUPPOSED to do is go to Congress and say "I didn't need to spend it on X and here is why". They then need to take action to affirm that and, if not, he is supposed to "obligate it".BearGoggles said:From what I understand, this is correct. Impoundment is an open constitutional issue though from what I've read, Trump may have an uphill battle given that he is supposed faithfully execute the laws which suggest he's supposed to spend the $. He may have to spend the money even if he has broad discretion on what the money is spent on.socaltownie said:While they have a lot of leeway (depending on the authorizing language) what is going to be litigated is whether they can explicitly NOT spend it (the impoundment act). We are surely going to get a case on that in front of the SOCTUS soon and it probably does need to be litigated (and Congress needs be forced to legislate - which is going to likely require a pretty massive overhaul in how it does business and some real maturity by voters since askign them to reauthorize agencies and pass appropriation bills is going to require compromise at a level we haven't seen for probably 40 years).BearGoggles said:As is typical, you misunderstand the law while, ironically, lecturing about civic classes.DiabloWags said:BearGoggles said:DiabloWags said:
You need to go back to high school and stay awake during your civics class.
You clearly weren't awake when the teacher talked about the 3 branches of Govt.
USAID is a federal agency created by CONGRESS.
It has a bunch of positions all of which were created by CONGRESS.
Georgetown legal scholar and constitutional expert, Stephen Vladeck:
And even Vladek admits, at 1:37, that The president gets to choose who runs departments and gets to set policy priorities for those departments. That is the end of 90% of the argument.
You're conflating and cherry picking again.
It's the only thing that you do well here.
Congress gets to FUND and STRUCTURE an agency that they created such as USAID.
Not the President.
Duh.
Congress appropriates. Congress CAN structure (i.e., earmark) an expenditure if it so chooses. For example, it can appropriate $1M for a park in Alabama. When it does that, the executive branch is obliged to spend the $$ for said purpose, but retains limited discretion as to how the money is spent (i.e., picking the contractors, etc.). The executive cannot reallocate the $$ to building a wall in Texas.
However, the vast majority of appropriations are not that specific. For example, money to FEMA for disaster relief. In those cases, the President, as the leader of the executive branch, has tremendous discretion as to how the money is spent.
And in the case of USAID, the statute specifically says USAID money is to be spent in a manner serving the US interests, as determined by the Secretary of State (who operates under the President). Specifically, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which established USAID as an independent agency and clarified that its administrator "shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the secretary of state."
So, as is often the case, you're wrong. The President (and by extension his delegates in the executive branch) have tremendous discretion as to how money is spent, particularly in the case of USAID.
One obvious counterpoint will be that Biden objectively refused to enforce border/immigration laws and the courts gave him wide discretion. Not an exact analogy, but not off base. It shows that courts are limited in what they can/will order a president to do.
In that regard, what remedy can a court really enforce? Is a court going to decide how the $$ is spent? If a court orders Trump to spend the $$ and he decides to spend it on a wall (as opposed to USAID), then what?
I do not believe that Biden had an appropriation bill that said "spend X on Immigration, specifically X, Y and Z".
uhhh just use a new database for new accounts and have the COBOL database for backup, and then eventually the new database will become current. There's no point to continually use a less efficient database that requires such a niche skillset to maintain.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I've been maintaining a database with about 2500 entries in our office for about 20 years. Irritatingly, whoever first set it up entered one field in ALL CAPS and if I used mixed case now, it screws up any sorting that gets done by fields. I don't have the luxury of taking a week or two to reenter 2500+ values, so I grit my teeth and remember to capitalize that field every time I enter a new record (about 20-30 times a year).tequila4kapp said:
Yes on A and B
Re A…we say it all the time.
Re B…once had an executive *****ing about an ancient COBOL system. IT exec retorted with an ROI assessment
I've done COBOL programming. It's a weird duck of a language and I guarantee that it would take a few years to fix all the bugs that a transition to a more modern language would cause.
MinotStateBeav said:uhhh just use a new database for new accounts and have the COBOL database for backup, and then eventually the new database will become current. There's no point to continually use a less efficient database that requires such a niche skillset to maintain.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I've been maintaining a database with about 2500 entries in our office for about 20 years. Irritatingly, whoever first set it up entered one field in ALL CAPS and if I used mixed case now, it screws up any sorting that gets done by fields. I don't have the luxury of taking a week or two to reenter 2500+ values, so I grit my teeth and remember to capitalize that field every time I enter a new record (about 20-30 times a year).tequila4kapp said:
Yes on A and B
Re A…we say it all the time.
Re B…once had an executive *****ing about an ancient COBOL system. IT exec retorted with an ROI assessment
I've done COBOL programming. It's a weird duck of a language and I guarantee that it would take a few years to fix all the bugs that a transition to a more modern language would cause.
Usually, if a simple answer hasn't been implemented, there's reason why it won't work. I don't pretend to know what it is though.oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's cuz they didn't have a MENSA like Minot working the problem. We're saved!
It often takes more than aunybears and government time card punchers to solve a problem.
Well it is the government.sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:uhhh just use a new database for new accounts and have the COBOL database for backup, and then eventually the new database will become current. There's no point to continually use a less efficient database that requires such a niche skillset to maintain.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I've been maintaining a database with about 2500 entries in our office for about 20 years. Irritatingly, whoever first set it up entered one field in ALL CAPS and if I used mixed case now, it screws up any sorting that gets done by fields. I don't have the luxury of taking a week or two to reenter 2500+ values, so I grit my teeth and remember to capitalize that field every time I enter a new record (about 20-30 times a year).tequila4kapp said:
Yes on A and B
Re A…we say it all the time.
Re B…once had an executive *****ing about an ancient COBOL system. IT exec retorted with an ROI assessment
I've done COBOL programming. It's a weird duck of a language and I guarantee that it would take a few years to fix all the bugs that a transition to a more modern language would cause.
Yes, I'm sure no one has ever thought of this before.
sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security... even if it's one million, taking them off of SS and Medicare would be a huge savings.
And can we bring felony theft charges and recoup some of those monies?
Just move on to the next unverified claim, that's the deal. Never admit to being wrong.Haloski said:sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
It's so weird that movielover didn't respond to this.
Most likely it's that it would come at a huge cost in infrastructure and man-hours, and come with a high likelihood of breaking some crucial functions in the process. Let's see if Elon tries it.Eastern Oregon Bear said:Usually, if a simple answer hasn't been implemented, there's reason why it won't work. I don't pretend to know what it is though.oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's cuz they didn't have a MENSA like Minot working the problem. We're saved!
It often takes more than aunybears and government time card punchers to solve a problem.
Haloski said:movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security... even if it's one million, taking them off of SS and Medicare would be a huge savings.
And can we bring felony theft charges and recoup some of those monies?
I gave you an extra star (like) for this post because I want you to know you're precious.
Please return the favor.
I'm always suspect when someone on X does a screen grab instead of a quote tweet as Ron did... There's usually a reason for that...sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
I don't read the appropriations bills but the general vibe of the modern Agency world leads me to believe most appropriations are generic rather than specifically directed. In that case the Executive has a pretty solid argument to make for discretion about how much money is spent and how.BearGoggles said:The obligation to spend the money comes from the "Take Care Clause" found in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution - the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."socaltownie said:We don't know. No President since 1974 has done this. What he is SUPPOSED to do is go to Congress and say "I didn't need to spend it on X and here is why". They then need to take action to affirm that and, if not, he is supposed to "obligate it".BearGoggles said:From what I understand, this is correct. Impoundment is an open constitutional issue though from what I've read, Trump may have an uphill battle given that he is supposed faithfully execute the laws which suggest he's supposed to spend the $. He may have to spend the money even if he has broad discretion on what the money is spent on.socaltownie said:While they have a lot of leeway (depending on the authorizing language) what is going to be litigated is whether they can explicitly NOT spend it (the impoundment act). We are surely going to get a case on that in front of the SOCTUS soon and it probably does need to be litigated (and Congress needs be forced to legislate - which is going to likely require a pretty massive overhaul in how it does business and some real maturity by voters since askign them to reauthorize agencies and pass appropriation bills is going to require compromise at a level we haven't seen for probably 40 years).BearGoggles said:As is typical, you misunderstand the law while, ironically, lecturing about civic classes.DiabloWags said:BearGoggles said:DiabloWags said:
You need to go back to high school and stay awake during your civics class.
You clearly weren't awake when the teacher talked about the 3 branches of Govt.
USAID is a federal agency created by CONGRESS.
It has a bunch of positions all of which were created by CONGRESS.
Georgetown legal scholar and constitutional expert, Stephen Vladeck:
And even Vladek admits, at 1:37, that The president gets to choose who runs departments and gets to set policy priorities for those departments. That is the end of 90% of the argument.
You're conflating and cherry picking again.
It's the only thing that you do well here.
Congress gets to FUND and STRUCTURE an agency that they created such as USAID.
Not the President.
Duh.
Congress appropriates. Congress CAN structure (i.e., earmark) an expenditure if it so chooses. For example, it can appropriate $1M for a park in Alabama. When it does that, the executive branch is obliged to spend the $$ for said purpose, but retains limited discretion as to how the money is spent (i.e., picking the contractors, etc.). The executive cannot reallocate the $$ to building a wall in Texas.
However, the vast majority of appropriations are not that specific. For example, money to FEMA for disaster relief. In those cases, the President, as the leader of the executive branch, has tremendous discretion as to how the money is spent.
And in the case of USAID, the statute specifically says USAID money is to be spent in a manner serving the US interests, as determined by the Secretary of State (who operates under the President). Specifically, Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which established USAID as an independent agency and clarified that its administrator "shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the secretary of state."
So, as is often the case, you're wrong. The President (and by extension his delegates in the executive branch) have tremendous discretion as to how money is spent, particularly in the case of USAID.
One obvious counterpoint will be that Biden objectively refused to enforce border/immigration laws and the courts gave him wide discretion. Not an exact analogy, but not off base. It shows that courts are limited in what they can/will order a president to do.
In that regard, what remedy can a court really enforce? Is a court going to decide how the $$ is spent? If a court orders Trump to spend the $$ and he decides to spend it on a wall (as opposed to USAID), then what?
I do not believe that Biden had an appropriation bill that said "spend X on Immigration, specifically X, Y and Z".
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-1/ALDE_00001160/
The obligation requires the president to spend money. It also require him/her to faithfully execute immigration laws.
And just to be clear, to my knowledge, congress does not pass appropriation bills saying the President must spend every last dollar. It is implied because of the Take Care clause - i.e., the President cannot overrule the congress. Same seemingly should apply to immigration.
So in other words she's right about Elon's social security claims being false.TheFiatLux said:You should read more of her stuff...sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
Because you lied about what I said and then took that lie out of context. You should grow a thicker honesty gene, because lying is in fact uncivil.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I don't see why I should apologize for having different opinions than you. You should grow a thicker skin. Not everyone will agree with you and that doesn't make them uncivil.TheFiatLux said:So instead of just apologizing to someone being civil to you in this conversation, you create a strawman. 1) I didn't say Dems were insane 2) I said they're doing crazy things - just like the GOP has done in the past 3) I literally started by calling out past actions of my party (in reply to someone saying it was insane), and then brought up the Dems.Eastern Oregon Bear said:What's civil about saying Democrats are insane?TheFiatLux said:I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snide in reply to a perfectly civil post.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I appreciate you speaking up to tell us what the American people want. Surely a monolithic group like the American people must be of one mind.TheFiatLux said:At this point in time, I'm not sure what insane rhetoric - at the foundational level - you're talking about. To be clear, there have been many times in the past when it was the GOP doing crazy things. Right now, it's the Dems. I honestly can't think of an issue where they're on the right side, and certainly not on the right side with the public. As a Republican, I say keep at it because I know, as my grandfather told me, the worm always turns. But until it does, I want to see things I believe in get instituted. And right now, the people working the hardest to make sure that happens, are the Democrats. Illegal immigration, deporting violent criminals, cutting bloat and waste out of the government, helping Americans before sending money abroad, protecting women's sports and the list goes on and on... aside from abortion (that would actually be an example for you of some insane GOP rhetoric) there doesn't seem to be anything on which the Dems are taking the position the American people want them to.sycasey said:Would you say the same about insane rhetoric from The Right? I'd say that examples abound right now.tequila4kapp said:
It's what I've been saying forever - The Left diminishes its own credibility with their insane rhetoric. It's unbelievably stupid because there is so much meat on the bones for legit criticism.
Regarding the American people. there was an election.
I will admit being in danger of being fired illegally without cause does make me rather snippy and you caught my crossfire.
This is why it's so hard to have honest conversations when people disagree.
In the private sector I've got fired and laid off. It's not fun, so should it happen to you I absolutely empathize with you, but it's part of life.
No, she says they need to look at that info more, a fair thing to suggest.sycasey said:So in other words she's right about Elon's social security claims being false.TheFiatLux said:
You should read more of her stuff...One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
To his point, a talking head somewhere observed that the current situation is like when you find go into your partner's phone and discover they are cheating on you. When confronted with the cheating the cheater halts substantive discussion of the cheating by being offended that their phone was interrogated.TheFiatLux said:One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
If Elon and Trump want to bring some proposed legislation to Congress, Democrats might have the opportunity to work with them on this.tequila4kapp said:To his point, a talking head somewhere observed that the current situation is like when you find go into your partner's phone and discover they are cheating on you. When confronted with the cheating the cheater halts substantive discussion of the cheating by being offended that their phone was interrogated.TheFiatLux said:One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
Democrats would be sooooo smart to see that dynamic and/or follow the advice of this guy in the clip. Get in the game. Acknowledge there is waste and fraud. Work with the admin to eliminate it. I fear they can't because it would offend their TDS megadonors and the progressive left. Trump is going to keep winning as a result.
Yep, agree. That was a point of my first post in this thread.tequila4kapp said:To his point, a talking head somewhere observed that the current situation is like when you find go into your partner's phone and discover they are cheating on you. When confronted with the cheating the cheater halts substantive discussion of the cheating by being offended that their phone was interrogated.TheFiatLux said:One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
Democrats would be sooooo smart to see that dynamic and/or follow the advice of this guy in the clip. Get in the game. Acknowledge there is waste and fraud. Work with the admin to eliminate it. I fear they can't because it would offend their TDS megadonors and the progressive left. Trump is going to keep winning as a result.
I'll be all for getting rid of fraud once some has actually been found.TheFiatLux said:No, she says they need to look at that info more, a fair thing to suggest.sycasey said:So in other words she's right about Elon's social security claims being false.TheFiatLux said:
You should read more of her stuff...One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
I guess you're a part of the 10% not interested in getting rid of fraud, waste and abuse.
Objectively the problem is just how much influence the public employee unions have in the current Democratic Party. I am not sure it is as pronounced on the Federal level but absolutely at the state and most of these guys and gals have to run in primaries were they could be at risk.tequila4kapp said:To his point, a talking head somewhere observed that the current situation is like when you find go into your partner's phone and discover they are cheating on you. When confronted with the cheating the cheater halts substantive discussion of the cheating by being offended that their phone was interrogated.TheFiatLux said:One of the very best clips of the day.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) February 19, 2025
Alex Karl, CEO of Palantir, admits his fmr Dem party is killing itself by opposing what 90% of Americans truly WANT - accountability from govt!
Elon is the best man for the job he says, and…
Hear who he BLAMES for the left’s disaster: pic.twitter.com/YpMc6oC8Es
Democrats would be sooooo smart to see that dynamic and/or follow the advice of this guy in the clip. Get in the game. Acknowledge there is waste and fraud. Work with the admin to eliminate it. I fear they can't because it would offend their TDS megadonors and the progressive left. Trump is going to keep winning as a result.
OK, you're right. You used crazy rather than insane. I apologize for using the wrong word. They are synonyms though.TheFiatLux said:Because you lied about what I said and then took that lie out of context. You should grow a thicker honesty gene, because lying is in fact uncivil.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I don't see why I should apologize for having different opinions than you. You should grow a thicker skin. Not everyone will agree with you and that doesn't make them uncivil.TheFiatLux said:So instead of just apologizing to someone being civil to you in this conversation, you create a strawman. 1) I didn't say Dems were insane 2) I said they're doing crazy things - just like the GOP has done in the past 3) I literally started by calling out past actions of my party (in reply to someone saying it was insane), and then brought up the Dems.Eastern Oregon Bear said:What's civil about saying Democrats are insane?TheFiatLux said:I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snide in reply to a perfectly civil post.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I appreciate you speaking up to tell us what the American people want. Surely a monolithic group like the American people must be of one mind.TheFiatLux said:At this point in time, I'm not sure what insane rhetoric - at the foundational level - you're talking about. To be clear, there have been many times in the past when it was the GOP doing crazy things. Right now, it's the Dems. I honestly can't think of an issue where they're on the right side, and certainly not on the right side with the public. As a Republican, I say keep at it because I know, as my grandfather told me, the worm always turns. But until it does, I want to see things I believe in get instituted. And right now, the people working the hardest to make sure that happens, are the Democrats. Illegal immigration, deporting violent criminals, cutting bloat and waste out of the government, helping Americans before sending money abroad, protecting women's sports and the list goes on and on... aside from abortion (that would actually be an example for you of some insane GOP rhetoric) there doesn't seem to be anything on which the Dems are taking the position the American people want them to.sycasey said:Would you say the same about insane rhetoric from The Right? I'd say that examples abound right now.tequila4kapp said:
It's what I've been saying forever - The Left diminishes its own credibility with their insane rhetoric. It's unbelievably stupid because there is so much meat on the bones for legit criticism.
Regarding the American people. there was an election.
I will admit being in danger of being fired illegally without cause does make me rather snippy and you caught my crossfire.
This is why it's so hard to have honest conversations when people disagree.
In the private sector I've got fired and laid off. It's not fun, so should it happen to you I absolutely empathize with you, but it's part of life.
sycasey said:Just move on to the next unverified claim, that's the deal. Never admit to being wrong.Haloski said:sycasey said:Not true.movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security..So Musk didn’t discover the $4.5 trillion in Social Security was paid to tens of millions of dead people? But Elon spent the last 2 days hyping this and Karoline Leavitt promised she would never lie to us. I’m shocked! pic.twitter.com/ggalOPqvcu
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 18, 2025
It's so weird that movielover didn't respond to this.
movielover said:Haloski said:movielover said:
They've alluded to possibly six million dead people collecting Social Security... even if it's one million, taking them off of SS and Medicare would be a huge savings.
And can we bring felony theft charges and recoup some of those monies?
I gave you an extra star (like) for this post because I want you to know you're precious.
Please return the favor.
Notice the words 'possibly' and 'if'?
The desire for a quick PR hit should be tempered with review, and even a review by a Devil's Advocate.
tequila4kapp said:
Democrats would be sooooo smart to see that dynamic and/or follow the advice of this guy in the clip. Get in the game. Acknowledge there is waste and fraud. Work with the admin to eliminate it. I fear they can't because it would offend their TDS megadonors and the progressive left. Trump is going to keep winning as a result.
socaltownie said:
But again - while I think that this isn't bad politics by MAGA (until something breaks) it is a sideshow.
They are not finding "real" money. More telling, I think, is going to be the tax bill and whether Trump can deliver on his campaign promises. Guessing not or a huge civil war in the GOP about ending top tier tax breaks to be able to fund things like no taxes on tips, overtime, Social Security and extension of Childcare credit.
"By Real I mean enough $$$ to fund meaningful tax cuts without increasing deficit or to make a major difference red ink).
You still can't do it. It's right there... I didn't say Dems were crazy I said they were doing crazy stuff. Big difference. AND i started it by saying that the GOP has done the same, and even concluded by giving an example of "insane rhetoric" from the GOP. But all I guess you could see was "oh my god, he said something critical of Democrats" and that was it for you. Seriously, I apparently crossed the Rubicon for you. Can't have that so let's attack.Eastern Oregon Bear said:OK, you're right. You used crazy rather than insane. I apologize for using the wrong word. They are synonyms though.TheFiatLux said:Because you lied about what I said and then took that lie out of context. You should grow a thicker honesty gene, because lying is in fact uncivil.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I don't see why I should apologize for having different opinions than you. You should grow a thicker skin. Not everyone will agree with you and that doesn't make them uncivil.TheFiatLux said:So instead of just apologizing to someone being civil to you in this conversation, you create a strawman. 1) I didn't say Dems were insane 2) I said they're doing crazy things - just like the GOP has done in the past 3) I literally started by calling out past actions of my party (in reply to someone saying it was insane), and then brought up the Dems.Eastern Oregon Bear said:What's civil about saying Democrats are insane?TheFiatLux said:I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snide in reply to a perfectly civil post.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I appreciate you speaking up to tell us what the American people want. Surely a monolithic group like the American people must be of one mind.TheFiatLux said:At this point in time, I'm not sure what insane rhetoric - at the foundational level - you're talking about. To be clear, there have been many times in the past when it was the GOP doing crazy things. Right now, it's the Dems. I honestly can't think of an issue where they're on the right side, and certainly not on the right side with the public. As a Republican, I say keep at it because I know, as my grandfather told me, the worm always turns. But until it does, I want to see things I believe in get instituted. And right now, the people working the hardest to make sure that happens, are the Democrats. Illegal immigration, deporting violent criminals, cutting bloat and waste out of the government, helping Americans before sending money abroad, protecting women's sports and the list goes on and on... aside from abortion (that would actually be an example for you of some insane GOP rhetoric) there doesn't seem to be anything on which the Dems are taking the position the American people want them to.sycasey said:Would you say the same about insane rhetoric from The Right? I'd say that examples abound right now.tequila4kapp said:
It's what I've been saying forever - The Left diminishes its own credibility with their insane rhetoric. It's unbelievably stupid because there is so much meat on the bones for legit criticism.
Regarding the American people. there was an election.
I will admit being in danger of being fired illegally without cause does make me rather snippy and you caught my crossfire.
This is why it's so hard to have honest conversations when people disagree.
In the private sector I've got fired and laid off. It's not fun, so should it happen to you I absolutely empathize with you, but it's part of life.
Lies run rampant on BI. Trump lies constantly. Most politicians do, though not to Trump's extent. I don't see you calling out anyone else out for lying and it's a target rich environment here and all around the country.
