Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers at the Political Forums; A clear cut overview; you can pick and choose what to discuss Trump Budget Breakdown: Here Are the Winners and ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2017, 04:21 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 71,078
Thanks: 51,899
Thanked 24,649 Times in 17,427 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers

A clear cut overview; you can pick and choose what to discuss


Trump Budget Breakdown: Here Are the Winners and Losers | Fortune.com
__________________
I'm the Ernest Hemingway of 140 characters. Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2017, 05:50 AM
Lumara's Avatar
Belly Dance Queen
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Great Smoky Mountains
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,533
Thanks: 1,909
Thanked 1,829 Times in 899 Posts
Default Re: A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers

I read the link and think a lot more should be cut, but at least that's something.
__________________
"Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." - David Horowitz
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lumara For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:57 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,783
Thanks: 1,411
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,599 Posts
Default Re: A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers

I would address budget issues one at a time so at the top of the list is defense spending where there is a proposed increase of $52 billion.

Quote:
The plan earmarks the new funds to accelerate the fight against Islamic State militants, reverse Army troop reductions, build more ships for the Navy and ramp up the Air Force—including by purchasing additional F-35 fighter jets, built by Lockheed Martin
As some may know my primary career was in aerospace where I was often involved in military programs that included the F-17, B-2, F-18, F-22, and F-35 programs among others. These programs focused on advanced technology that improved the overall mission capability with a smaller forces. For example one B-2 bomber with a single aerial tanker for in-flight refueling provided the same mission capability of 100 conventional aircraft based upon the use of B-52 bombers and all of the support aircraft required for the same mission. One F-35 has the same mission capability as an entire squadron of F-18's.

Like technology in any field the technology "improves productivity" so that fewer resources are required. That's why we spend the money on the technology.

The technological advancements I've personally been involved in with military aircraft over the years were so we can reduce the number of military aircraft, flight crews, ground crews, logistical support, and costs while still realizing a significant overall increase in the mission capability of our military aircraft.

The technological advancements for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army have achieved the same goals of reducing the necessary hardware, manpower, logistical support and costs while also creating a significant overall increase in the mission capabilities of these branches of service.

The spending of money on the technology is supposed to reduce the defense budget and the manpower needs of our military, That's why we spend the money on the technology. You don't spend money on the technology to increase the size and cost of the military. You spend the money on the technology to reduce the size and cost of the military.

Defense Secretary James Mattis just sent out a memo that included this statement:

Quote:
The 2018 budget will propose buying more stuff, investing in advanced capabilities and growing the size of the*military.
Mattis outlines defense-budget planning; Lockheed lets an F-35 appeal deadline pass; Talkin? tech with NATO; and more... - Defense One

This is unexplainable to anyone that understands advanced technology in weapons systems because the advance weapons systems are expressly about reducing the size of the US military. The rational for spending the money in the military is no different than the rational for spending money in the private sector because both are based upon a cost/benefit analysis.

If investing the huge sums of money in the technology doesn't result in an overall cost reduction then the expenditure isn't justifiable.

In 2015 the US spent $581 billion dollars on defense while the combined expenditures of the next ten nations was only $533 billion. The second highest spender was China and it only spent $156 billion. We've been over-spending all other nations at this rate for decades and it's not justifiable.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defen...ing-budget.asp

The United States can provide an undefeatable military for half of what we're spending indefinitely into the future. It's amazing that Republicans so often say, "Just throwing more money at it doesn't do anything" unless it relates to the US military where they want to throw more money at it even when we don't need to.

I oppose this increase and would support at least a $52 billion reduction instead. A $100 billion decrease is more reasonable because we're currently spending at least $200 billion more than is necessary for a military that's not just superior to any other military in the world but is literally superior to any pragmatically allied military forces in the world.
__________________
ďNo Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:34 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,783
Thanks: 1,411
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,599 Posts
Default Re: A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers

Next on the budget list is Homeland Security that I'll address in two parts.

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8% increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants.
We know that increasing the number of border patrol agents improves the deportation and/or prevention of those illegally crossing the border. Under the Obama administration the increase in Border Patrol agents increased the number of individuals caught crossing the border and removed from the United States by 10%-15% during 2014 and 2015 based upon the reports from the Department of Homeland Security (and mentioned by President Trump).

Then there's the other part of this which is the costs and manpower requirements for ICE that relates to the deportation of those already in the United States. Since taking office the Trump administration has abandoned to policy of the Obama administration of focusing the ICE efforts on aliens in the United States, both legally and illegally, that represent a threat to national security and/or the public safety. Trump's executive order on immigration enforcement is an order for mass deportations without any regard to whether the person represents a threat to national security and/or the public safety. It was estimated that is one of the first ICE round-up that 25% of those arrested (and deported) had no criminal record where their only crime was the civil offense of being in the United States without documentation.

The "mass deportation" policy of the Trump administration is estimated to have a huge negative effect on the US economy. The extent of the economic impact is dependent upon source but all sources agree that it's a negative impact on our economy.

The estimate by Oxford Economics, the most trusted of all sources as being accurate and politically unbiased, represents the lowest negative economic impact. It estimated that Trump's policies of mass deportation will reduce the GPD by 0.2% the first year alone (2017) or by roughly $38 billion based upon the estimated $19 trillion GDP. A $38 billion reduction in our GDP represents over one million Americans jobs that will be lost based upon Trump's policy of mass deportation.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, estimates "a policy of mass deportation would immediately reduce the nation's GDP by 1.4 percent, and ultimately by 2.6 percent, and reduce cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion."

Bottom line the Trump administration needs to stop spending money on mass deportation that's going cause a significant reduction to our GDP that cost the American workers millions of jobs and instead use that money to enforce border security. This would be a cost trade-off that requires no additional funding by Congress.

Quote:
Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for his promised border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal yearóenough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build itóand a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018.
Everyone involved in border security, even those that support Trump's wall, agree that it's fundamentally useless and a waste of money unless there are Border Patrol agents to arrest those crossing the border. If the border patrol agents are there then they really don't need the wall and if they're not there the wall doesn't do anything to prevent illegal entry. This has never been anything but a "feel good" measure that costs one hell of a lot of money to accomplish virtually nothing. Not only does it do nothing to improve border security (only more Border Patrol agents improve border security) but the wall also can also cause significant problems related to other US laws.

While some don't seem to care the Endanger Species Act prohibits creating a barrier that prevents the migration of an endangered or threatened species. The black bear in the United State is a threatened species in all of the states including Texas where the natural migration takes the black bear back and forth across the US-Mexican border. Trump's wall cannot block this migratory route without violating the Endangered Species Act.

If Trump wants to propose funding to increase the number of Border Patrol agents then that would be acceptable but only under two conditions.

First is that ICE must stop it's mass deportation efforts that are causing economic harm and job loss for Americans first. ICE needs to limit it's deportation efforts to the "Bad Guys" that represent a threat to national security and/or public safety regardless of whether they're documented or undocumented aliens and stop deporting undocumented aliens where their only criminal record is something like a felony conviction for using a false SSN to obtain a job.

What I would support without any hesitation is a $50,000 increase in the Department of Homeland Security's budget for the exclusive propose of providing a series of information meetings with the Trump White House were attendance is mandatory for everyone including Donald Trump. These meeting need to present the information that the DHS has acquired since it's creation on "terrorism" that would include:

1. The "nationality/citizenship" of a person is insufficient evidence to establish that a foreigner represents a terrorist.
2. Muslim religious beliefs do not provide any indication of a possible terrorist threat by any person.
3. The United States has, under the last two administrations, provided effective processes and procedures to protect the American people from the international terrorist threat. While it's always necessary to keep these processes and procedures under review for improvement there is currently no justification to irrationally believe that the US is currently under a serious threat of an international terrorist attack. There have been no international terrorist attacks on US soil since the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.
4. Radical Islam, while getting the attention of the media, is not the primary threat of terrorism in the United States according to law enforcement agencies. Members of radical American right-wing anti-government movements represent the greatest threat of terrorism according to representatives of our law enforcement community.
5. Domestic "Islamic" terrorism in the United States is not generally motivated by Muslim beliefs but instead is a result of anti-Muslim prejudice and oppression in the United States than marginalizes young Muslims making them susceptible to recruitment by radical Islamic terrorist groups.

I've saved my favorite for last.
6. If you're in the White House and relying on Fox News or any other news organization for your "intelligence reports" then it indicates that you shouldn't be in the White House.
__________________
ďNo Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:20 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,783
Thanks: 1,411
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,599 Posts
Default Re: A Breakdown of Trumpís Budget: The Winners and Losers

Next on the list:

Quote:
Environmental Protection

The Environmental Protection Agency's budget would be cut by 31%, eliminating its climate change programs and trimming back core initiatives aimed at protecting air and water quality.

The proposal would eliminate 3,200 EPA employees, or 19% of the current workforce, and effectively erase former Democratic President Barack Obama's initiatives to combat climate change by cutting funding for the agency's signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
How about a willingness to compromise because I believe I could to that on this proposal. If the Republicans and the Trump Administration don't want to protect the environment then I'd be willing to compromise based upon the following:

The Congress must pass and the President must sign into law the following:

1. Establish by law that the destruction and/or damage to the environment is a fundamental violation of the Right of Property of all the People.
2. Establish the "standing" in our federal courts for any American citizen to file an environmental lawsuit on behalf of the "People" based upon the destruction or damage to the environment by any person or business entity.
3. If found responsible by a federal court of destroying or damaging the environment the responsible party will be required to fund 100% of the cost as compensatory damages to restore the environmental based upon the damage they've caused.
4. Any person or entity found guilty of damaging or destroying the environment will also have to pay an additional 200% in punitive damages that will be used exclusively for the purpose of restoration of environmental damages caused by others previously that were not held financial liable under prior law. .
5. All of the necessary and reasonable costs and expenditures by the plaintiff will be reimbursed by the defendant upon determination of guilt.
6. All industries where a history of being responsible for environmental damage can be established by scientific study will be required to maintain a security bond or insurance in the amount necessary to fund the restoration of the potential environmental damage and the potential costs of punitive damages based upon their business operations.
7. Ensure that future legislation will not remove the above and that if proven necessary that additional requirements will be created under the law to ensure that the American citizen always has the pragmatic ability to protect and/or restore our environment from damage by other individuals or enterprises in the United States.

Basically if our government isn't going to protect our environment then give us, the individual citizens of the United States, the authority and the means to effectively protect our environment from those that would damage or destroy it.

Any Republicans have a problem with that?
__________________
ďNo Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, breakdown, budget, losers, the, trumpís, winners

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0