Trump lashes out at DeSantis, says he regrets his endorsement of him

[sneakypete]

You said this many times and you’ve been wrong every time you said it. Mandatory spending is an act of Congress, but that does not mean he doesn’t have any control over discretionary spending.

You’ve countered your argument by saying that he has no control over spending but then claiming he has to spend a lot on projects you want. Which is it?

Uhhhh,both,but not so much projects I want,but programs he is OBLIGATED by law to finance,as well as spending bills already passed.

But let’s say your argument is true. Trump is not running on cutting anything. He’s already attacked any cuts for ethanol subsidies. No to any kind of entitlement reforms

Like it or not,there IS going to be a period where spending already approved by Congress is going to have to continue until new bills are passed to cut or eliminate.

Some,such  as  SS and Veterans Programs can't really be cut because they are OBLIGATIONS.

[sneakypete]

Good boy

You included every adjective that reflects the limit of your debating skills

@LMAO

I don't know about that,but they clearly reflect the limit of your ability to understand simple concepts.

[LMAO]

@sneakypete

Why are you putting words into someone else's mouth?  I do not recall @LMAO ever saying that he was in favor of simply cutting off all social security or veterans' benefits recipients, regardless of age or need.

That’s right

I understand life isn’t perfect and I have no problem with a safety net.

But there’s not enough taxation without destroying the economy to pay for these programs without some serious reforms, and we just can’t keep printing and borrowing to pay for them

If Donald Trump disagrees with Ron DeSantis’s approach to Social Security, then he needs to say why a plan he has would be better and debate that. Using the “throwing  grandma off the cliff” is not a plan.

[LMAO]

Like it or not,there IS going to be a period where spending already approved by Congress is going to have to continue until new bills are passed to cut or eliminate.

Some,such  as  SS and Veterans Programs can't really be cut because they are OBLIGATIONS.

You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?'” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”  Joe Biden 2009


That line was ridiculous then and it’s even more so now

[sneakypete]

Can you show me in Donald Trump’s platform were he’s promising to deport illegal immigrants?

Can you show me where is is against deporting illegal aliens,bubba

 

You’re putting a lot of what you believe in what you want a Trump second term to be versus what he’s even saying

You DO know the campaign season hasn't even started yet,right?

Besides, illegal immigrants are not the reason we have a near $32 trillion debt

Well,yeah,it IS a big reason,and it is going to get even worse if the Dims win and import millions more illegals and set the up with "free" housing,food,clothing,medical care,rent,and spending money.

The fact is Donald Trump has no history or desire to cut spending

I am certain that is a lie,but you know it is a lie too,so it is a waste of time for me to look up actual statements.

Since YOU are the one that brought this up,why  not post a quote of his claiming he wants to increase the number of illegal aliens allowed into America?

After all,YOU are the one that made the statement,bubba.

[LMAO]

Can you show me where is is against deporting illegal aliens,bubba

 
You DO know the campaign season hasn't even started yet,right?

Well,yeah,it IS a big reason,and it is going to get even worse if the Dims win and import millions more illegals and set the up with "free" housing,food,clothing,medical care,rent,and spending money.

I am certain that is a lie,but you know it is a lie too,so it is a waste of time for me to look up actual statements.

Since YOU are the one that brought this up,why  not post a quote of his claiming he wants to increase the number of illegal aliens allowed into America?

After all,YOU are the one that made the statement,bubba.

You made the statement that we are going to deport the illegal immigrants. I asked where is that in Donald Trump’s platform.

Illegal immigrants are not the  big reason the that we have our $32 trillion debt. But they are definitely affecting state budget and places like Texas, Arizona, and California. Besides, I don’t think you understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending.

If you think I’m lying about something, prove me wrong. Don’t tell me I’m a liar, but you’re not gonna look something up to prove that I am lying. In fairness to him, he did toy with the idea of cutting the budget while president. But he appears now to say no.

Lastly, I’ve never claimed that Donald Trump wants to increase the number of illegal immigrants. You made the statement about deporting them. I assume that you expect Trump to do that. If not Donald Trump, who?

[roamer_1]

SoSec/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid:

I will bet you money you can cut 25% out of those programs streamlining protocols and bureaucracy ALONE, not even touching any actual benefits.

[roamer_1]

Some,such  as  SS and Veterans Programs can't really be cut because they are OBLIGATIONS.

The hell you say.

[sneakypete]

You made the statement that we are going to deport the illegal immigrants.

Where and when? I made the statement that IF Trump becomes our next President that HE will order the roundup and deportation of illegal aliens.

I have also written that he is the ONLY candidate that will do that.

I asked where is that in Donald Trump’s platform.

And I answered.

Illegal immigrants are not the big reason the that we have our $32 trillion debt.

They are a LARGE part of it.

But they are definitely affecting state budget and places like Texas, Arizona, and California.

If you think they are the only states being affected,you need to get out more.

Besides, I don’t think you understand the difference between mandatory and discretionaryo spending.

Uhhh,one is mandatory and the other discretionary?

If you think I’m lying about something, prove me wrong. Don’t tell me I’m a liar, but you’re not gonna look something up to prove that I am lying. In fairness to him, he did toy with the idea of cutting the budget while president. But he appears now to say no.

Glad to see you write the word "appears".

Lastly, I’ve never claimed that Donald Trump wants to increase the number of illegal immigrants.

If you think I have EVER written or implied that you  had,I am sorry you misread what I wrote or that I wrote something ambiguous.

You made the statement about deporting them. I assume that you expect Trump to do that.

Yes,I do. I doubt that any President can find and deport ALL of them at this point in time,but I think he is the only one willing to try.

If not Donald Trump, who?

Good question. Wish I had an answer.

[LMAO]

SoSec/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid:

I will bet you money you can cut 25% out of those programs streamlining protocols and bureaucracy ALONE, not even touching any actual benefits.

Maybe

But it would be a drop in the bucket

They’re are to many that don’t see the crisis that can develop when your debt to GDP ratio sustains at over 100% and rising and you devalue the currency while interest rates rise making it more costly to maintain that debt

Simply cutting fraud and waste or “the illegals” isn’t going to be the fix

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Are you willing to claim that GOP voters want MORE money spent on anything  other than deporting illegals?

I'm talking some Trump voters specifically, but yes.  As long as it goes to the working class.

I read a lot from various Trumpers regarding the COVID stimulus bills.  People wanted their checks to be large, but didn't want money going to illegals or for other stuff.

[roamer_1]

Maybe

But it would be a drop in the bucket

They’re are to many that don’t see the crisis that can develop when your debt to GDP ratio sustains at over 100% and rising and you devalue the currency while interest rates rise making it more costly to maintain that debt

Simply cutting fraud and waste or “the illegals” isn’t going to be the fix

No, it's not but a drop in the bucket... Entitlements are one of the largest expenses. If you can knock 25% off that bill, and still meet obligations, that would be an EPIC discount, and a righteous step in the right direction...

Not to mention the savings knocking the props out from under the Insurance/Medical sectors, which are holding costs extraordinarily high... Which has a a whole lot to do with price fixing coming out of Medicaid/Medicare.

I agree it ain't a proper fix, but it's whoppin big low-hanging fruit.

[LMAO]

Where and when? I made the statement that IF Trump becomes our next President that HE will order the roundup and deportation of illegal aliens.

I have also written that he is the ONLY candidate that will do that.

And I answered.
 

They are a LARGE part of it.
 

If you think they are the only states being affected,you need to get out more.


Uhhh,one is mandatory and the other discretionary?


Glad to see you write the word "appears".

 

If you think I have EVER written or implied that you  had,I am sorry you misread what I wrote or that I wrote something ambiguous.


Yes,I do. I doubt that any President can find and deport ALL of them at this point in time,but I think he is the only one willing to try.


Good question. Wish I had an answer.

Now you’re moving the goalposts

And I don’t get what your issue with the word “appears.”  Trump has already said no to any entitlement reform. And he won’t even go after the boondoggle called ethanol subsidies

And your answer still proves you know the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending

[Maj. Bill Martin]

SoSec/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid:

I will bet you money you can cut 25% out of those programs streamlining protocols and bureaucracy ALONE, not even touching any actual benefits.

Honestly, I think that's a gigantic myth. Any government program of significant size, especially an entitlement program whose benefits are mandated by law, is going to inherently have a level of waste/fraud/abuse that cannot be eradicated.  So you either acknowledge that reality, or you don't have the programs at all.

The core problem for that is that the low level employees who would be most able to detect fraud or abuse don't have (and can't be given) the power or authority to deny payment based just on a suspicion. And there are always going to be enough loopholes in black letter administrative law that people are going to be able to exploit them for an extended period before being caught.

[LMAO]

No, it's not but a drop in the bucket... Entitlements are one of the largest expenses. If you can knock 25% off that bill, and still meet obligations, that would be an EPIC discount, and a righteous step in the right direction...

Not to mention the savings knocking the props out from under the Insurance/Medical sectors which are holding costs extraordinarily high... Which has a a whole lot to do with price fixing coming out of Medicaid/Medicare.

I agree it ain't a proper fix, but it's whoppin big low-hanging fruit.

Agreed

But we have a GOP candidate who won’t even dump the low, hanging fruit of ethanol subsidies

[sneakypete]

Maybe

But it would be a drop in the bucket

They’re are to many that don’t see the crisis that can develop when your debt to GDP ratio sustains at over 100% and rising and you devalue the currency while interest rates rise making it more costly to maintain that debt

Simply cutting fraud and waste or “the illegals” isn’t going to be the fix

@LMAO

No,but they WOULD be a good first step and it WOULD make a huge difference in the financial stability of America and her citizens.

[roamer_1]

Honestly, I think that's a gigantic myth. Any government program of significant size, especially an entitlement program whose benefits are mandated by law, is going to inherently have a level of waste/fraud/abuse that cannot be eradicated.  So you either acknowledge that reality, or you don't have the programs at all.

The core problem for that is that the low level employees who would be most able to detect fraud or abuse don't have (and can't be given) the power or authority to deny payment based just on a suspicion. And there are always going to be enough loopholes in black letter administrative law that people are going to be able to exploit them for an extended period before being caught.

I don't think so... It is a monolithic protected bureaucratic conglomerate industry that has not suffered any reform in decades. To say it is bloated and inefficient would be all too kind by a couple orders of magnitude.

You could slash and burn for weeks and months and never even make it near that river.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Maybe

But it would be a drop in the bucket

They’re are to many that don’t see the crisis that can develop when your debt to GDP ratio sustains at over 100% and rising and you devalue the currency while interest rates rise making it more costly to maintain that debt

Simply cutting fraud and waste or “the illegals” isn’t going to be the fix

I just wonder if we've entered a new era where it just doesn't matter anymore. All of our currency's competitors are actually worse than we are at this stuff.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Have you guys seen the low-level government employees who administer those entitlement programs at the local level?  If they wrongfully deny someone benefits to which they are entitled, that's when the fecal matter really hits the pitched rotating blades, media gets alerted, etc..  And why should those workers care when it isn't their money anyway.

They have a rational, self-interested bias in always erring in the side of "If in doubt, send the check", and there is no feasible way of changing that.

[sneakypete]

I'm talking some Trump voters specifically, but yes.  As long as it goes to the working class.

I read a lot from various Trumpers regarding the COVID stimulus bills.  People wanted their checks to be large, but didn't want money going to illegals or for other stuff.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I have to admit that I never read or even saw those posts.

[sneakypete]

No, it's not but a drop in the bucket... Entitlements are one of the largest expenses. If you can knock 25% off that bill, and still meet obligations, that would be an EPIC discount, and a righteous step in the right direction...

Not to mention the savings knocking the props out from under the Insurance/Medical sectors, which are holding costs extraordinarily high... Which has a a whole lot to do with price fixing coming out of Medicaid/Medicare.

I agree it ain't a proper fix, but it's whoppin big low-hanging fruit.

@roamer_1

It may not be the total answer,depending on WHAT entitlements you are favoring ending,but it would be a start,and we HAVE to start somewhere.

I WILL fight any step to stop or cut veterans benefits for disabled vets,though. I am a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran,and certain promises WERE made to me when I enlisted and re-enlisted in the army,and I damn sure expect those promises to be kept.

After all,if my only options are to either starve to death or take up my rifle and go into politics and at least die on my feet,guess which one I will take.

And I won't be alone by a long shot. No pun intended.

One group I expect to see beside me are the seniors that paid into SS for decades and who are too old and feeble to work anymore.

[LMAO]

Not that I’m surprised, but I think SP is admitting what the rest of us already know.

Donald Trump gets a second term, expect an explosion in government spending and the debt and the size of the federal government.

This idea that presidents can’t do anything about spending or the  debt is false. Andrew Jackson paid it off. Calvin Coolidge reduced it and I believe Eisenhower did, also

[sneakypete]

Now you’re moving the goalposts

And I don’t get what your issue with the word “appears.”  Trump has already said no to any entitlement reform. And he won’t even go after the boondoggle called ethanol subsidies

And your answer still proves you know the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending

@LMAO

I missed that. Do you have a current link to him saying that you can provide.

[Kamaji]

@roamer_1

It may not be the total answer,depending on WHAT entitlements you are favoring ending,but it would be a start,and we HAVE to start somewhere.

I WILL fight any step to stop or cut veterans benefits for disabled vets,though. I am a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran,and certain promises WERE made to me when I enlisted and re-enlisted in the army,and I damn sure expect those promises to be kept.

After all,if my only options are to either starve to death or take up my rifle and go into politics and at least die on my feet,guess which one I will take.

And I won't be alone by a long shot. No pun intended.

One group I expect to see beside me are the seniors that paid into SS for decades and who are too old and feeble to work anymore.

Please point to one person who is seriously talking about cutting off disabled vets or low-income seniors.

[LMAO]

@LMAO

I missed that. Do you have a current link to him saying that you can provide.

Which one. Entitlement reform?



Trump’s position echoes his long-held, albeit unorthodox, conviction that the Republican Party should stay away from attaching themselves to entitlement reform. Prior to being elected president, Trump was highly critical of then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for pushing austerity budgets during the Obama years.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/20/trump-gop-medicare-social-security-debt-ceiling-00078731

Or ethanol…

Trump touted support for ethanol, and an executive order he made while in office to allow for year-round sales of 15% ethanol gasoline blend.

https://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/davenport-visit-trump-calls-desantis-very-very-bad-on-ethanol/article_90474b73-9f1a-5add-92c5-482e23ea56bc.html