America is Healing ❤️🩹
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
Last edited:
We’re finally coming together. This was the most important election in our history
Harris and Biden were so divisive. The entire four years was like one big race and gender war. People are exhausted.
Trump is for all of us. Now we can begin to heal
Are you serious? I know you are often sarcastic but in this case I really think you mean it.
So you and the other Trump supporters are ignoring the other 45-50 percent that hate much of what he's doing?
You people are nuts. You are irate that the President dares to look under the hood and shares the findings with the American people who paid for it all.
The last four years were very very toxic. Gaslighting. Shaming. Canceling. Fomenting racial divides.
Now. We heal. That photo I linked is a beautiful totem of our unity. We’re not black brown white or eunuchs. We’re just. Americans 🙏
I've voted for more Republicans than you have Dems so spare me the You People.
Unlike many here, I don't live in a binary world. I can agree that USAID needed a serious review and overhaul. Can you not agree some good came from USAID and a more careful review is needed before mass layoffs?
What about stopping all work by the CFPB? This will hurt some of Trump's core base. Do you understand some of the good the comes from CFPB, especially protecting and education so many in this country that are financially illiterate.
I took the booing at Taylor to be a sign of displeasure about how much focus she's gotten in NFL coverage the past couple seasons. Not anything related to politics.
I think a lot of NFL fans resent her garnering so much attention within the football universe. As if to say "You stay in your world and let us keep ours." And I'd further read into this that it's not been uncommon for husbands to roll their eyes at their wives' newfound interest in Taylor and the Kelce Brothers (which they mistake for being new football fans).
And eagles fans booing a chiefs fan
I've said much the same thing re: USAID. But I'm probably less sympathetic than you are to the CFPB.
Here's the problem though: would Congress ever do this sort of review and overhaul on their own? They're losing their ever-loving shit about what Elon Musk is doing. And their basic argument is that it's their job, not the executive branch's job (let alone Elon and DOGE).
OK. There's merit to that argument. But they could do that every year during budget and appropriations. Do they? Ever?
Also, anybody with any familiarity about where federal dollars go knows that we're talking about the proverbial drops in the bucket. They're having knock-down, drag-outs over a single penny on the dollar...and summarily ignoring the quarters and half-dollars.
That said, you have to start somewhere. And, as far as I'm concerned, nothing in the budget should be treated as untouchable. But I don't think Congress is up to the task. One of the positive things about having somebody like Musk run this show is that he's politically insulated. In other words, him being unelected is a feature...not a bug.
She’s originally from Pennsylvania and was an Eagles fan and jumped ship because of Kelce, she became a Chiefs fan. Absolute blasphemy per Philadelphian’s.—ask Dick Allen how that works.
In another thread we had a discussion about government bloat and waste. The CFPB Is an example of just that. Every fraudulent and illegal act by various institutions was already covered by different state and federal laws. The only thing the CFPB added was a federal investigation that ultimately goes nowhere because it isn’t a criminal Justice agency.
Yep. Neither Musk nor Trump can be bought or owned. That is why the Democrats hate them. They are immune to influence peddlers.
Instead of four years of highlighting our differences we unite in what we share.
Like ending a very very toxic relationship we can finally begin to heal
🙌
We will see in a few years if the trust you put in a couple of billionaires is warranted. And before people pile on that I am just jealous, that is not the case. I've been more fortunate financially than I probably deserve.
But have a feeling this won't end great for many of his supporters. Especially those financially at risk.
Trump is a lot of things, but a uniter is not one of them. Do you know Dan, Joe, DBM, and many others think you are serious? Lol.
Funny, I've ran into more people that are applauding him than not. This are also people who I never would have thought would actually see the light.
The last four years we’ve been to hell and back. Now we see the light
Now we heal 🙌
What do we have to lose? Biden was a disaster and Harris would have been worse. Trump and Musk are by no means perfect but they bring innovation and a way of thinking that is refreshing in many ways. We went from basically no president to a very active one overnight.
Do you think there's a way out of this mess that doesn't involve some level of pain for most people? Because I don't. They'll be able to spare the poorest among us. But everybody else probably needs to expect one form or another of sacrifice.
We're trending towards an annual deficit of 7-8% of GDP. The bond ratings on USTs are already under pressure, and the worst hasn't even gotten here yet. The Fed is stuck, even while trying to aim for a higher inflation target than normal. There is no plan to keep Social Security from defaulting in 10 years.
So what course of action exists that would do anything other than not end great...not just for Trump's supporters, but for virtually everybody?
You put an emoji in your post title. That may be the worst thing I've ever seen on this forum.
Well, they booed Santa Claus so I'm not sure what she was expecting.
While I probably agree regarding most of the CFPB, I think having a federal standard, especially around lending/credit would be very useful. I work in a field adjacent to sub prime lending. The CFPB is anything but unnecessary.
Agree there are state laws, etc. but with indirect lending crossing state lines it would make sense to have federal guidelines/enforcement driving at least consistency of regulation.
Careful. That's not just a slippery slope, it's an invitation for the worst kind of political influence (that which cannot be undone by an election).
I’m really not all that moved by the unelected argument.
There are only 2 people in the entire executive branch who are elected. Everybody else is either appointed or a careerist.
The bigger problem here is that Congress, not the executive, holds the purse strings.
But I’m fine with the concept of impoundment if the courts bless it. And I say that because I think Congress is wholly incapable of reining its spending in.
One of the great things about impoundment is that POTUS can only reduce what Congress appropriates.
I would have loved to see those two embrace. Would have been a defining moment. I’d argue the three biggest figures of the 21 st century were together last night.
1. Messiah.
2. Taylor Swift
3. Donald John Trump
Advise and consent. I think Trump is itching for a constitutional crisis and fight. I'm not wholly against this as I think Congress needs a gigantic slap in the face. However, be careful what Speical Government Employee gets attached to the next Dem president. What if it's George Soros and a team of woke DAs looking at the Justice Dept?
I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with George Soros finding things to cut in the federal budget. He’s an extraordinarily competent financier. And the budget needs to be cut.
Keep in mind: impoundment is not unconstitutional. It was done without Congressional consent from Jefferson to Nixon.
It’s since been limited by statute. But the statute has never been adjudicated. Really, impoundment by a lame duck president would actually be a crafty way for Congress to pass the buck…and keep themselves from having to do the dirty work as they run for lifetime reelections.
Let’s let the spending levels they pass serve as maximums.
I know. I’m deliberately avoiding that bait.
I take the point. But, generally speaking, the issue here is impoundment. And I’ll just say that I’d be absolutely fine with a Democratic president having that power. It means that the funds spent will be some number less than what Congress passes.
C'mon. Let me have some fun!
I agree on the financial shit. I'm just saying the executive branch as you described works great right up until it doesn't which is usually when the OTHER SIDE wins.
Again, I'm on team Let Elon Cook for a minute but that dog better heel when told. Will he? Go beyond the financial and think about what some Special Government Employees could get up to.
You raise a lot of interesting points. I've never been a fan of his primary weapon which is tariffs as I think they tend to screw up the supply chain, as well as lead to higher costs. Especially if it leads to trade wars and reciprocal tariffs. I know folks want to bring jobs back but we simply can't many of these products as cheaply. Economists often say why try to make products others can provide more cheaply.
For more technical and challenging products like semiconductors, onshoring can take years. Plus the US is not exactly swimming in highly skilled people looking for work.
I also look at the long game. If Trump continues down the same path he has for the last few weeks, you will see long term damage to our economic standing in the world. Trade deals will be made that exclude us and countries will look for alternatives to the US. I know it's the evening news, but there was a story tonight of how many Canadians are looking for alternatives to US made products.
Don't underestimate what Trump's stance on Panama, Greenland, Canada, and Gaza signals to the rest of the world. No one likes unpredictability.
Next challenge will be the debt ceiling. Buckle up. It's not going to be dull.
Is it anything a POTUS couldn’t do on his own? After all, everybody in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of POTUS - whether they’ve gone through Senate confirmation or not.
The executive’s power is limited both by the Constitution and by statute. That was the same on January 19th as it is today. And what’s going on now is tantamount to de facto impoundment where the executive has some statutory latitude.
At the end of the day, I just want to see somebody make a good faith effort to get our costs down. And I have zero faith in Congress to ever do that.
They’re the quintessential committee. And a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Well, you’re preaching to the choir on protectionism. Hopefully it doesn’t amount to much more than saber-rattling for Trump. Because there are no winners in a trade war.
And I’m with you (mostly) on his bluster about foreign policy, too. The one caveat I’d have is that he’s right that it’s not in our best interest to have a Chinese firm operating ports in the Panama Canal. In fact, I agree with him that it was a mistake for us to cede control over the Canal itself.
I didn’t vote for Trump and have no regrets in not voting for him. But I’ll support him when he’s doing something good. And, to me, any attempt to reduce federal expenditures is a good thing. The expense is a drag on our national vitality.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Hypocritical to support Beard now but never Alford?- Latest: BradStevens
-
