Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #1 
Some things to like, but a lot not to like here.


WINNERS

Defense
INCREASE: $52.3 billion, 10 percent
The $639 billion defense proposal should go over well with hawks such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who notably advocated for a $640 billion budget. The huge increase restores $52 billion to the Department of Defense and $2 billion more to other defense programs “in a repeal of defense sequestration.” Cyber security is significantly highlighted as a key area to improve as the U.S. builds a “more lethal joint force.” The budget also funds efforts “to strike ISIS targets, support our partners…disrupt ISIS’ external operations, and cut off its financing.” (Yes, the “ISIL” acronym is now officially replaced by “ISIS.”) The defense windfall also addresses warfighting readiness and shortfalls in munitions, personnel and maintenance.

Veterans Affairs
INCREASE: $4.4 billion, 5.9 percent
Representing a key area where then-presidential candidate Trump promised investment, the budget increases discretionary funding for VA health care by $4.6 billion while also investing in IT advancements to improve efficiency. It also provides monetary support for VA programs that serve homeless and at-risk veterans.

Homeland Security
INCREASE: $2.8 billion, 6.8 percent
This portion of the budget is almost all about Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” on the Mexican border and other border enforcement priorities. It gives $2.6 billion for “high-priority infrastructure and border security technology” including funding to construct a “physical” border wall. The budget supplies $314 million to recruit, hire and train 500 new Border Patrol Agents and 1,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and support staff. About $1.5 billion is provided for expanded detention and removal of illegal immigrants, while $15 million is set to go to mandatory nationwide implementation of the E-Verify system. Cuts include $667 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency programs that weren’t authorized by Congress and underperforming Transportation Security Administration programs.

LOSERS

Health and Human Services
DECREASE: $15.1 billion, 17.9 percent
Most of the cuts come from two areas – the National Institute of Health and the Office of Community Services. Eliminating discretionary spending for OCS saves $4.2 billion while NIH spending reduction checks in at $5.8 billion. A major reorganization of NIH, including an elimination of various programs and activities, is also on tap. A Federal Emergency Response Fund is created to quickly respond to health outbreaks, with the Zika virus specifically cited.

State
DECREASE: $10.9 billion, 28.7 percent
The budget eliminates the Global Climate Change Initiative and ceases payments to United Nations climate change programs. Funding for the U.N. and affiliated agencies is also reduced overall, as is foreign aid. The State Department’s Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs get cuts, as do multilateral development banks, “including the World Bank.” But the budget isn’t all cuts. Citing the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, money is provided to maintain “robust funding levels for embassy security,” and $3.1 billion is provided for security assistance to Israel. Economic development assistance programs are reoriented “to countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.” and resources are provided to fulfill a $1 billion vaccine pledge.

Education
DECREASE: $9.2 billion, 13.5 percent
The budget eliminates numerous grants and programs, while safeguarding the Pell Grant program. Federal Work-Study is reduced and also reorganized to better be allocated to those undergraduate students most in need. More than 20 categorical programs “that do not address national needs” are reduced or eliminated.

Housing and Urban Development
DECREASE: $6.2 billion, 13.2 percent
HUD’s rental assistance program is reformed and funding is eliminated for lower priority programs and Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing. Cutting the Home Investment Partnerships Program saves $1.1 billion and wiping out the Community Development Block Grant program saves $3 billion.

Agriculture
DECREASE: $4.7 billion, 20.7 percent
Numerous loan and grant programs are eliminated, staffing at USDA Service Center Agencies is reduced and funding for USDA statistical capabilities is cut. Rural Business and Cooperative Service discretionary activities are eliminated and major new Federal land acquisitions for the National Forest System get the axe.

Labor
DECREASE: $2.5 billion, 20.7 percent
The budget reduces funding for ineffective or duplicative job training grants and focuses Bureau of International Labor Affairs on ensuring that “U.S. trade agreements are fair for American workers.”

Transportation
DECREASE: $2.4 billion, 12.7 percent
A proposal to shift air traffic control from the FAA to a non-governmental organization is initiated while federal funding is capped on the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program. Several grants are eliminated.

Energy
DECREASE: $1.7 billion, 5.6 percent
A trio of energy research programs are cut in favor of private sector research. The Weatherization and Assistance Program and the State Energy Program are eliminated in attempts to reduce Federal intervention in State-level issues.

Commerce
DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 15.7 percent
The budget consolidates aspects of the Economics and Statistics Administration within other statistics agencies. It eliminates two agencies: the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. There are also $250 million in cuts to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants.

Interior
DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 11.7 percent
Programs such as discretionary Abandoned Mine Land grants are discontinued because they overlap with existing programs. Funding for major acquisitions of Federal land is reduced. Better budgeting is put in place for wild land fire suppression. About $1 billion is invested in “safe, reliable and efficient management of water resources.”

Justice
DECREASE: $1.1 billion, 3.8 percent
Despite the bottom-line getting cut overall, there are plenty of increases at Justice, including in counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Funds are also provided to target the “worst of the worst criminal organizations and drug traffickers.” To combat illegal immigration, the budget provides for the hiring of 75 additional immigration judges, 60 additional border enforcement prosecutors, 40 deputy U.S. Marshals and 40 attorneys. Bankruptcy filing fees are increased in an effort to produce an additional $150 million.

Treasury
DECREASE: $519 million, 4.1 percent
The budget eliminates grants, shrinks the Federal workforce and “empowers the Treasury Secretary … to end taxpayer bailouts.”  

OTHER AGENCIES

Environmental Protection Agency
DECREASE: $2.6 billion, 31 percent
While not technically a full-blown Cabinet department, the EPA also is slated for major cuts, including the elimination of over 3,000 positions. 

EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 2,886
Reply with quote  #2 
HHS, Ed, HUD, IRS, Ag, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Interior, EPA should all be abolished, and their relevant tasks should be given to the states. 
__________________
"I can picture you attempting to grow Ivanka some fruit."
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #3 
Come on!  What is not to like there?  Name one republican that has anything close to that fiscal conservative budget as a stance? 

10% increase in defense, 6% in Vets and Homeland security.
The rest pretty much 20% cut across the board.  Some a little less, education, energy, treasury, some get cut a lot more EPA. Treasury, Justice.


keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,092
Reply with quote  #4 
I like it that he treats our money like it's his own. Cut man cut
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #5 
transportation cut - I don't like that.  transportation spending creates jobs.  I think these programs should be returned to the states. As is, the feds collect gas tax, keep some for admin and such, then give you back a portion of what your citizens put in.  Instead of cut it, I think it should stay within the states, for them to spend as they see fit.  That could include reducing the tax amount.

NIH - cut waste and stupid research, but keep important research, of this there is some.

CDBG - many small and rural communities don't have the pop/tax base to adequately develop water, sewer, transportation, and other things.  I hate to see this cut outright.  Again, eliminate dumb things, but don't totally eliminate.

Rural economic development - things like the Appalachian fund - again, very poor, rural communities w/o the tax base to develop essential needs.  cut dumb stuff, but don't eliminate.

too much "let the private sector do it".  that works sometimes, sometimes not.  However, it's not always the panacea it's made out to be.

Some other things are eliminate because they are not federal government functions.  Great - do that.  However, eliminate the money/tax that goes with it.

This budget does not cut spending - it diverts it all to 3 favored departments.  If you're gonna cut, great.  If you're keep spending the same and/or increase, no thanks.

mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
I like it that he treats our money like it's his own. Cut man cut


Doesn't "cut" anything.  It just robin hoods spending to favored programs.  We all still pay the same - maybe more.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #7 
Since we have Republicans in charge, why doesn't the President's budget balance?  Why not make cuts to the point we don't need to borrow money?  At the very least, why not find tax revenue to pay for the defense increase in spending?   Why are we borrowing from our children to pay for our defense and security needs?  Why should they pay for our security?
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,776
Reply with quote  #8 
Dewey, are you suggesting Trump should cut so much he would balance the budget? All in one year? That would be a fascinating position for a progressive.

If there is one thing we should borrow for, it would be security. Obama left Russia ascendant, China growing militarily, al-Queda expanding, Iran nuclear in less than 10 years, DPRK testing missiles at will, ISIS still a threat, the Taliban poised to take over Afghanistan, and various other terrorist groups threatening peace and security worldwide. Doubtful our kids will mind repaying money spent ensuring they don't live their lives as subjects of Putin, Xi, or the ayatollahs.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Since we have Republicans in charge, why doesn't the President's budget balance?  Why not make cuts to the point we don't need to borrow money?  At the very least, why not find tax revenue to pay for the defense increase in spending?   Why are we borrowing from our children to pay for our defense and security needs?  Why should they pay for our security?

It might balance.  It actually might reduce debt.  You will have to wait for CBO Scoring to criticize that.


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Dewey, are you suggesting Trump should cut so much he would balance the budget? All in one year? As a Progressive, I would get there gradually.  But Conservatives are against borrowing our children's future so why continue?  Submit a balanced budget.  Don't borrow and harm future generations if that's what one believes.  Where am I going wrong?  My guess is most of you think there's still a great deal of waste in Government spending.  Why doesn't President Trump take it out now?

That would be a fascinating position for a progressive. If there is one thing we should borrow for, it would be security. Why do we have to borrow it rather than generate tax revenue from those living today to pay for our own security?  I'm missing the logic here.  Obama left Russia ascendant, China growing militarily, al-Queda expanding, Iran nuclear in less than 10 years, DPRK testing missiles at will, ISIS still a threat, the Taliban poised to take over Afghanistan, and various other terrorist groups threatening peace and security worldwide. Doubtful our kids will mind repaying money spent ensuring they don't live their lives as subjects of Putin, Xi, or the ayatollahs.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
transportation cut - I don't like that.  transportation spending creates jobs.  I think these programs should be returned to the states. As is, the feds collect gas tax, keep some for admin and such, then give you back a portion of what your citizens put in.  Instead of cut it, I think it should stay within the states, for them to spend as they see fit.  That could include reducing the tax amount.

NIH - cut waste and stupid research, but keep important research, of this there is some.

CDBG - many small and rural communities don't have the pop/tax base to adequately develop water, sewer, transportation, and other things.  I hate to see this cut outright.  Again, eliminate dumb things, but don't totally eliminate.

Rural economic development - things like the Appalachian fund - again, very poor, rural communities w/o the tax base to develop essential needs.  cut dumb stuff, but don't eliminate.

too much "let the private sector do it".  that works sometimes, sometimes not.  However, it's not always the panacea it's made out to be.

Some other things are eliminate because they are not federal government functions.  Great - do that.  However, eliminate the money/tax that goes with it.

This budget does not cut spending - it diverts it all to 3 favored departments.  If you're gonna cut, great.  If you're keep spending the same and/or increase, no thanks.


too much "let the private sector do it"  - you have to either pay the feds to do it, or leave it to the private sector. 

Too early to say if overall spending is cut or not.  Taxes will not get cut until the $20T obummer+Boehner+McConnell strapped us with.

Cut HUD, but increase Rural economic development?  Maybe you live in a more rural area?

Cuts should come across the board. Until the debt is to zero.  Then taxes should be lowered.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist

It might balance.  It actually might reduce debt.  You will have to wait for CBO Scoring to criticize that.




I'm not sure what the current ten year debt projection is but lets assume our debt is currently projected to be $27 Trillion end of 2026.  If the Trump budget changes that CBO ten year projection to $26 Trillion, will you find that acceptable?  What does he need to do to satisfy Conservatives on the budget?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #13 
Here's the ten year projection.  We'll see how it changes during the Trump years.

Ex:
Debt held by the public will rise by $10.7 trillion between 2016 and 2027, from $14.2 trillion to $24.9 trillion. As a share of GDP, debt will rise from a post-WWII era record-high of 77 percent in 2016 to 89 percent by 2027.

http://www.crfb.org/papers/cbos-january-2017-budget-and-economic-outlook
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


I'm not sure what the current ten year debt projection is but lets assume our debt is currently projected to be $27 Trillion end of 2026.  If the Trump budget changes that CBO ten year projection to $26 Trillion, will you find that acceptable?  What does he need to do to satisfy Conservatives on the budget?

Right now we are projected 10 years $10 trillion (new york times)  more in debt.  For a whopping $30T in debt.   Yes I would take $29 as better.  $28 would be even better.  20$ seemingly impossibly better.  $10, no we are talking baby.  $0 raw nirvana, virgins and all.   I think you get the drift.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist

too much "let the private sector do it"  - you have to either pay the feds to do it, or leave it to the private sector.  many things can be privatized, but in my experience, that's the great cop out.  say privatize and wash your hands of it.  It's now so easy.

Too early to say if overall spending is cut or not.  Taxes will not get cut until the $20T obummer+Boehner+McConnell strapped us with.  spending and tax cuts could go hand in hand.  some of those tax cuts could help to spur economic activity.

Cut HUD, but increase Rural economic development?  Maybe you live in a more rural area? I didn't say increase, I said don't eliminate.  it is a lifeline for some of these poor rural communities.  And yes, I travel to them firsthand and see them.

Cuts should come across the board. Until the debt is to zero.  Then taxes should be lowered.  we'll see how it gets scored, but it looks to me like it's moving money from non-favored to favored programs, and will come out about the same.  But, we'll see.

mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,878
Reply with quote  #16 
wait, I thought the goal was lose a little less money each year, but never really break even?

ps - you didn't build that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


I'm not sure what the current ten year debt projection is but lets assume our debt is currently projected to be $27 Trillion end of 2026.  If the Trump budget changes that CBO ten year projection to $26 Trillion, will you find that acceptable?  What does he need to do to satisfy Conservatives on the budget?
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #17 
I suspect overall no obummer care movement.  No SS cutting.  No medicaid.  Then not much is going to get cut.

Unfortunately Dewey's generation decided to strap our kids with resounding debt.  
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 1,657
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Here's the ten year projection.  We'll see how it changes during the Trump years.

Ex:
Debt held by the public will rise by $10.7 trillion between 2016 and 2027, from $14.2 trillion to $24.9 trillion. As a share of GDP, debt will rise from a post-WWII era record-high of 77 percent in 2016 to 89 percent by 2027.

http://www.crfb.org/papers/cbos-january-2017-budget-and-economic-outlook


Thanks Obama - can't believe you wouldn't actually post this!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #19 
Democrats will get you to a balanced budget.  In addition, Democrats are willing to pay more for our own security.  We don't need our children to pay our debts.  But that's another argument.  I'm still trying to figure out why Trump doesn't submit a balanced budget.  If there's no more room for spending cuts, then it's high time we realize we're not paying enough for the services and security we are demanding.

Finally, what if the Trump tax cuts lead to a CBO projection of a higher debt in 2026?  Will you still support them?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #20 
I'm pretty sure Obama did better than the ten year CBO projection put out in 2009. 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 2,886
Reply with quote  #21 
It's fun watching dewy the amateur-debater try to box everyone in with his "why doesn't trump and the gop NOW invoke on the public the painful results of what obama did over the last eight years?"

Gee dewy, but wouldn't that make everyone angry at the gop? And aren't the voters mostly too stupid to realize that trump would just be the adult who is breaking the bad news to your porch-sitting dem buddies that the bill for obama's reckless spending has come due?

__________________
"I can picture you attempting to grow Ivanka some fruit."
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #22 
I'm told the spending he could cut is waste and there would be no harm to the public.  As for Obama, he kept spending growth to the lowest levels in recent history and, yes, the GOP helped keep it low.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,092
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce
It's fun watching dewy the amateur-debater try to box everyone in with his "why doesn't trump and the gop NOW invoke on the public the painful results of what obama did over the last eight years?"

Gee dewy, but wouldn't that make everyone angry at the gop? And aren't the voters mostly too stupid to realize that trump would just be the adult who is breaking the bad news to your porch-sitting dem buddies that the bill for obama's reckless spending has come due?


Like a good cutting horse, good sweep

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,092
Reply with quote  #24 
Image result for sweep of a cutting horse
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #25 
Days ago I tried to analyze what results President Trump could achieve that would increase his support among the American people.  I suggested the most important one could be increasing average family incomes.  That said, if he increases it a couple thousand a year, it's hard to know how much that will mean as it relates to increased popularity.  As far as we know, the wealthy may go up dramatically which drives up the overall average which may not be substantial to average working families.  Just the same, an average increase in family income would still be a benefit to President Trump.

If we look at more potential results that may occur based on his budget, the benefits appear less appealing.  First off, the $437 Billion deficit appears it will be the same.  I can't see how anyone will find this to be a positive result.  In fact many Conservatives may wonder why he isn't reducing the deficit.  He could lose some of their support here.  If we look at cuts in housing and meals on wheels, I can see more support eroding.  If the CBO is correct and the new health care bill leads to millions losing insurance, there's more of his support evaporating.  If he succeeds in bringing jobs to those hard hit areas, they'll certainly be happy but these appear to be folks he's already won over.  Are there gains to be had here?  I don't know.

My understanding is the NYPD is taking some huge counter-terrorism cuts.  Maybe that's good for those looking for less Government spending but if some tragedy happens in NY, President Trump will take a big hit for these cuts.  That will hurt his popularity.  Again, little to gain and potentially a great deal to lose.

Cutting programs across the board is going to lead to many complaints of reduced services.  If the deficit were being lowered in a dramatic way, maybe it would offset these complaints.  But it appears that won't be the case.  No matter how you cut it, I see the President taking hits all over the place with few attaboys offsetting the negatives.  President Obama had a lot of jobs to recover, a lot of market to grow, deficits to lower, and several social gains (gay marriage and gays serving in military) to help grow his popularity.  I just don't see where President Trump finds the achievements which will bolster his support.  IOW, little to gain and much to lose.  Not an easy position to be in.  JMHO
woody

Registered:
Posts: 7,552
Reply with quote  #26 
Cutting discretionary spending is nothing. If you want to really cut the deficit, and attack our national debt, Medicaid, and SS disability income, along with SS supplemental income will have to be cut. SS and Medicare cannot survive with the albatross of porch sitters around it's neck. SS and Medicare are being gutted by all the add on handout programs. I am not saying the mentally challenged, and TRULY physically  disabled get cut, I'm talking about getting rid of the huge increases of people that jumped on disability while Obama was in charge. The porch sitters are a drain on our society. They get housing, money, food, phones, and free medical care. They must be forced to work. We cannot continue the handouts for a vote, and survive as a nation. The national debt will crush us, and destroy SS and Medicare..
__________________
You Liberals crying for open borders for the most part, don't live on the border. You are therefore insulated from illegal immigration. You are immune from the local costs involved, both economic, and in lives lost. So unless you live down here, and bear the burden, STFU about "immigration reform". You know nothing, and are better suited to eating bandwidth and scones at a Starbucks than telling me what I should feel. Arrogant Pissants.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 3,626
Reply with quote  #27 
His popularity is already way higher than obummers. Obummers average popularity was worse than nixons.

Everyone knows obummer screwed us with his endless spending that resulted in all that debt.  Also everyone knows it was obummers dream of socialist healthcare that has us paying + 20-30% increase in health insurance ever year.

Despite your crazy thinking, the American public is not dumb.  
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 1,657
Reply with quote  #28 
Obama got elected twice despite increasing the debt by 86% and raising it almost as much as every president before him combined. Also, income disparity grew at an all time rate.

Why do you hold President Trum to a different standard? By your standard of success, you should be lining up to vote for his second term.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #29 
uw - Needless to say I completely disagree but, that aside, please explain to the readers why the House and Senate approved the last six years of budgets if spending was too high?  My understanding is Congress sets their spending levels and then works out a compromise with the executive branch so the President will sign their budget.  Did they simply cave to the President on how much to spend?

After that explanation, I'm curious as to what budget achievements you think will increase President Trumps popularity?

Edit:  In my opinion, Obama's efforts kept the debt from rising maybe 200% or more.  He would have done even better but he was blocked from passing more economic incentives and tax increases which would have improved revenues even more and would have lowered the total debt increase.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 7,552
Reply with quote  #30 
What budgets? When did a budget get passed?
__________________
You Liberals crying for open borders for the most part, don't live on the border. You are therefore insulated from illegal immigration. You are immune from the local costs involved, both economic, and in lives lost. So unless you live down here, and bear the burden, STFU about "immigration reform". You know nothing, and are better suited to eating bandwidth and scones at a Starbucks than telling me what I should feel. Arrogant Pissants.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: