‘Never Trumpers’ unite to back Trump’s battle for Kavanaugh

[Emjay]

When he took the oath of office, Trump was handed the nuclear football. Damn right it's his "fault", when he signs legislation that he's publicly railed against. Can't have it both ways.

By his actions, he's demonstrated he's not against illegal immigration as much as you think. He has a long, documented history of hiring foreign workers at his resorts.


Believe me, when it comes to Trump, we KNOW you don't care. He has carte blanche to do whatever he wants, because it's all couched in MAGA and Winning!

You misunderstood me, I assume, deliberately.  What I meant was I've stopped caring about his rough personality because he's doing the right thing for the country.

I'm not sure if you know how the Constitution works, but the President doesn't make laws; he signs or refuses to sign the legislation he is presented.  The President has to decide if there is enough good in the legislation to make it worth signing.

[Jazzhead]

No, because it is in the Constitution to fund the military.  It is necessary for the defense of the country.  How could it be unconstitutional when it is in the Constitution?

It isn't however in the Constitution that people must pay to kill babies.

Items of expenditure lawfully appropriated by Congress can be lawfully funded with tax dollars.   I understand that you do not favor the use of tax money to fund abortion (far more tax money, for what it's worth, is used to provide single mothers with welfare).    The solution is to change the law which provides for the appropriation.    But such appropriations aren't "unconstitutional";  they're merely for stuff you don't like.   And no one has the right to pay only a portion of his or her tax bill corresponding to only the stuff they like. 
 

[edpc]

I'm not sure if you know how the Constitution works, but the President doesn't make laws; he signs or refuses to sign the legislation he is presented.  The President has to decide if there is enough good in the legislation to make it worth signing.

He didn’t need to sign the omnibus bill to pass the military spending.  That had already been signed months before.  Constitutionally, the bill becomes law without a presidential signature after 10 days.  So, his whole mopey faced “I’ll never sign a bill like this again” act was a farce.

[Jazzhead]

You misunderstood me, I assume, deliberately.  What I meant was I've stopped caring about his rough personality because he's doing the right thing for the country.

I'm not sure if you know how the Constitution works, but the President doesn't make laws; he signs or refuses to sign the legislation he is presented.  The President has to decide if there is enough good in the legislation to make it worth signing.

The problem is the nature of omnibus legislation.    A President can't veto a spending bill containing appropriations to fund abortions without vetoing the entire bill, or shutting down the government over a comparatively miniscule expenditure.     Some folks favor giving the President a line-item veto - something requiring a Constitutional change, since it would shift power dramatically from the legislature to the executive.

As for the current budget deficits,  I think the jury's out.    A balanced budget is an abstract ideal that isn't currently realistic.  And the only way for it to some day become realistic is to restore 4 percent-plus economic growth per year.   Trump's budget, therefore, is a calculated risk -  tax cuts intended to spur growth, which in the short term may increase deficits but in the longer run may create the conditions for growth that can make a more balanced budget attainable.   

[XenaLee]

The problem is the nature of omnibus legislation.    A President can't veto a spending bill containing appropriations to fund abortions without vetoing the entire bill, or shutting down the government over a comparatively miniscule expenditure.     Some folks favor giving the President a line-item veto - something requiring a Constitutional change, since it would shift power dramatically from the legislature to the executive.

As for the current budget deficits,  I think the jury's out.    A balanced budget is an abstract ideal that isn't currently realistic.  And the only way for it to some day become realistic is to restore 4 percent-plus economic growth per year.   Trump's budget, therefore, is a calculated risk -  tax cuts intended to spur growth, which in the short term may increase deficits but in the longer run may create the conditions for growth that can make a more balanced budget attainable.   

You are making fiscal, logical sense here.   So I have one question.

Who are you (really)... and what have you done with the REAL Jazzhead?????

[roamer_1]

A balanced budget is an abstract ideal that isn't currently realistic. 

My kitchen table says otherwise. Every single fiscally conservative principle says otherwise.
First rule of holes applies in all caps.

[INVAR]

Issues like the spiraling, out of control debt/deficit, which ... if not curbed, will eventually collapse our economy completely like a deflated balloon, or like an exploded and crashed Hindenburg.

We are past that point already.  The laws of mathematics and economics have been circumvented as far as they can go, and they WILL assert themselves upon our heads at some point in the not-too-distant-future.  There is not enough wealth on the planet to cover the amounts we owe and are spending in innumerable IOUs charged to our posterity to several generations.

So while everyone is partying like it's 1999 while yelling to themselves that the economy is great and marvelous and we gots nothing to worry about - the morning hangover and woe is coming.  The longer we artificially stave off consequences while spending more egregiously than liberal Democrats - the more devastating the morning after is gonna be.

It's a mathematical certainty.

[XenaLee]

We are past that point already.  The laws of mathematics and economics have been circumvented as far as they can go, and they WILL assert themselves upon our heads at some point in the not-too-distant-future.  There is not enough wealth on the planet to cover the amounts we owe and are spending in innumerable IOUs charged to our posterity to several generations.

So while everyone is partying like it's 1999 while yelling to themselves that the economy is great and marvelous and we gots nothing to worry about - the morning hangover and woe is coming.  The longer we artificially stave off consequences while spending more egregiously than liberal Democrats - the more devastating the morning after is gonna be.

It's a mathematical certainty.

Well... it certainly doesn't help that the rabid, radical left is no doubt TRYING to make that mathematical certainty happen during Trump's presidency.   They managed it before.   Only question is... can they do it again...?   With billionaire aholes like Soros on their team, I'm betting yes.

[XenaLee]

My kitchen table says otherwise. Every single fiscally conservative principle says otherwise.
First rule of holes applies in all caps.

It may not be currently realistic considering the spendaholic Congresscritters we have in DC right now.  And yeah, Trump never was concerned with spending, so....

[roamer_1]

It may not be currently realistic considering the spendaholic Congresscritters we have in DC right now.  And yeah, Trump never was concerned with spending, so....

The only limit on a spendaholic congress is the presidential veto, so...
Ultimately, that must needs be the hill to die on.

None of the rest is possible without the money to make it go.

[240B]

The NeverTrump people, they are with me.

[Emjay]

The problem is the nature of omnibus legislation.    A President can't veto a spending bill containing appropriations to fund abortions without vetoing the entire bill, or shutting down the government over a comparatively miniscule expenditure.     Some folks favor giving the President a line-item veto - something requiring a Constitutional change, since it would shift power dramatically from the legislature to the executive.

As for the current budget deficits,  I think the jury's out.    A balanced budget is an abstract ideal that isn't currently realistic.  And the only way for it to some day become realistic is to restore 4 percent-plus economic growth per year.   Trump's budget, therefore, is a calculated risk -  tax cuts intended to spur growth, which in the short term may increase deficits but in the longer run may create the conditions for growth that can make a more balanced budget attainable.   

Good post @Jazzhead

[XenaLee]

The only limit on a spendaholic congress is the presidential veto, so...
Ultimately, that must needs be the hill to die on.

None of the rest is possible without the money to make it go.

Well..... then.....

we're screwed.   lol

[roamer_1]

Well..... then.....

we're screwed.   lol

As @INVAR  said - It is a mathematical certainty.
If you kept taxation as it is, and cut spending by 75% it would still be decade upon decade to pay it off.
Even WITH serious economic growth. That's what needs to be done, and every year it  is foregone is ten more years paying it off.

At some point, it is irretrievable. If Invar is not precisely right, that horizon is swiftly coming to the fore.

[XenaLee]

As @INVAR  said - It is a mathematical certainty.
If you kept taxation as it is, and cut spending by 75% it would still be decade upon decade to pay it off.
Even WITH serious economic growth. That's what needs to be done, and every year it  is foregone is ten more years paying it off.

At some point, it is irretrievable. If Invar is not precisely right, that horizon is swiftly coming to the fore.

So maybe instead, we should start realistically looking at how to deal with this impending and inevitable collapse.   What 'could' be done to recover.  What steps could be taken now (sans reeling in spending) to lessen the impact of said disaster?   One thing's for sure... the radical left (our enemy within) will take full advantage of such an event to implement their long awaited moist dream of complete takeover.  And our enemies without would probably also take advantage of our weakness.  Again...

looks like we're screwed.

[roamer_1]

So maybe instead, we should start realistically looking at how to deal with this impending and inevitable collapse.   What 'could' be done to recover.  What steps could be taken now (sans reeling in spending) to lessen the impact of said disaster?   One thing's for sure... the radical left (our enemy within) will take full advantage of such an event to implement their long awaited moist dream of complete takeover.  And our enemies without would probably also take advantage of our weakness.  Again...

looks like we're screwed.

The only thing is to go back to the principles that made America what it was... To include one helluva lot of prayer... Because even with serious Conservative restraint, it's gonna take a miracle.

[XenaLee]

The only thing is to go back to the principles that made America what it was... To include one helluva lot of prayer... Because even with serious Conservative restraint, it's gonna take a miracle.

Agreed.   Especially since.... most Americans aren't aware of the impending collapse.  Ignorance really is bliss.

[INVAR]

The only thing is to go back to the principles that made America what it was...

No one wants them.

They are 'unrealistic', 'holier-than-thou-self-righteous' and 'extremist', so sayeth our 'betters' who are basking in Trump's 'winning'.

In fact, as a whole lot of discussion here on this board attests in the last few months, those principles are as despised and hated by the so-called Trumplican 'right' as they are by the rabid Marxist Left.

[roamer_1]

No one wants them.

They are 'unrealistic', 'holier-than-thou-self-righteous' and 'extremist', so sayeth our 'betters' who are basking in Trump's 'winning'.

In fact, as a whole lot of discussion here on this board attests in the last few months, those principles are as despised and hated by the so-called Trumplican 'right' as they are by the rabid Marxist Left.

Sooner or later, the bean counter comes to call  -  And I predict that will be 'our fault' too.

[Sanguine]

So maybe instead, we should start realistically looking at how to deal with this impending and inevitable collapse.   What 'could' be done to recover.  What steps could be taken now (sans reeling in spending) to lessen the impact of said disaster?   One thing's for sure... the radical left (our enemy within) will take full advantage of such an event to implement their long awaited moist dream of complete takeover.  And our enemies without would probably also take advantage of our weakness.  Again...

looks like we're screwed.

Those are good, fundamental questions that we should already have answers for.  Unless we just want to wait and wing it.   

[Hoodat]

As @INVAR  said - It is a mathematical certainty.
If you kept taxation as it is, and cut spending by 75% it would still be decade upon decade to pay it off.

Balance the budget 20 years in a row, and the national debt is eliminated.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The problem is the nature of omnibus legislation.    A President can't veto a spending bill containing appropriations to fund abortions without vetoing the entire bill, or shutting down the government over a comparatively miniscule expenditure.     Some folks favor giving the President a line-item veto - something requiring a Constitutional change, since it would shift power dramatically from the legislature to the executive.

As for the current budget deficits,  I think the jury's out.    A balanced budget is an abstract ideal that isn't currently realistic.  And the only way for it to some day become realistic is to restore 4 percent-plus economic growth per year.   Trump's budget, therefore, is a calculated risk -  tax cuts intended to spur growth, which in the short term may increase deficits but in the longer run may create the conditions for growth that can make a more balanced budget attainable.   

Where does Congress get the constitutional right to collect taxes for expenses not enumerated in Article I, Section 8?  @Jazzhead

(Serious question, I can't find it)  Thanks.

[INVAR]

Sooner or later, the bean counter comes to call  -  And I predict that will be 'our fault' too.

Yes it will.  A mob suffering from consequences they brought upon themselves always looks for a scapegoat to sacrifice to appease the rage and need to blame.

Balance the budget 20 years in a row, and the national debt is eliminated.

Impossible.

You first have to cure everyones addiction to other people's money.

And this corrupted government is incurable of that disease by it's very nature.

[dfwgator]

Yes it will.  A mob suffering from consequences they brought upon themselves always looks for a scapegoat to sacrifice to appease the rage and need to blame.

Impossible.

You first have to cure everyones addiction to other people's money.

And this corrupted government is incurable of that disease by it's very nature.

The problem is that everybody hates pork,  except when it's 'their' pork.

[roamer_1]

Balance the budget 20 years in a row, and the national debt is eliminated.

I think that an all too rosy picture, even as dire as it is.