Political 2024 presidential election

[glockman]

Let me make sure I am following your "logic":
Since the Democrats considered, and ultimately rejected, a candidate many considered unfit for office, it is okay for the Republicans to bypass Constitutional requirements requiring Senate confirmation?


Lastly, many Trump supporters are masters at 'playing both sides'. When they like what he says, the claim he 'says what he thinks and does what he says', yet when he says something outrageous or extreme, he 'says stupid things', is 'joking', 'venting' or the like. We saw that in all three of his campaigns.



His supporters now have the responsibility to be vigilant and not give him a free pass just because he is their guy.

Have the constitutional requirements been bypassed? That is my point. Both teams make claims and push for things that skirt the process. You cannot take any politician at their word, including Trump, especially Trump. Supporters on both sides give their guy a free pass.

I'm already tired of hearing the media spout off the terrible things Trump will do when he hasn't done any of them, or if he has he is just doing them to the extent all politicians do. The left has completely taken the Right's platform from the 90's. The fear mongering is happening AGAIN and on an epic scale. From abortion, to the economy, to racism, to world peace, I am already hearing how the end is near now that Trump is going to put on his KKK hood and go after all his political enemies, women and minorities. It just isn't real. People are tired of the lies and the red wave is proof of that.

 

[DAA]

Here is what I may, or may not know.

A few days ago, I may, or may not have been on a dirt road in Nevada, within a couple miles of the California border. And I may, or may not have, suggested to my buddy that was driving that we should cross the border and do a pair of suppressed AR hi cap mag dumps on California soil. Just because it might feel good.

I may, or may not, be easily amused. But I appreciate the freedom to be so.

- DAA

 

[YROC FAB.]

Ok…going forward…Trump is going to be the next president, fine. I accept the election results despite NOT voting for him. I want forward progress. Building starts with foundation and part of foundation is character. I am having an impossible time with How demonstrably BAD of a human being trump has been to his fellow Americans and Women specifically. No details necessary. No finger pointing necessary. I’ve not been lied to by the media. I’ve done my peer reviewed research. It’s unquestionable. I just keep getting hand waved away when I bring it up.

I’m NOT trying to start a debate. I’m not trolling. I’m not stirring shit.

How do I get past this?

Its like getting the greatest subway sandwich ever promised but I watched the subway kid wipe his ass with the turkey slice with a smile on his face.

I’m not accepting “what about….” I know all politicians are dirtbags. All politicians didn’t get elected to the presidency? Trump did.

As part of your fellow American citizenry that didn’t vote for trump, I’m begging you for help on this. I’m looking to start figuring this out.

Do I just work to ignore how bad of a person he is? Is that where I start?
Did you guys vote for the policy and not the person? Is it that simple?

Let’s be real here.

I dont hire a plumber based hon how he lives his life. I hire a plumber based on how well he can get my plumbing job done.

 

[anderson750]

This is going to be fun to watch. If there is anybody who can have some success in reigning in the wasted spending, it is these guys.

 

[TRD270]

This is going to be fun to watch. If there is anybody who can have some success in reigning in the wasted spending, it is these guys.

View attachment 177906

 

[Houndoc]

Is what will be interesting is how far Trump's base supports budget cuts until they realize it impacts them.

I think most people define wasteful spending, over regulation or government over reach is when it benefits someone besides themselves.

 

[Hickey]

I think most people define wasteful spending, over regulation or government over reach is when it benefits someone besides themselves.

That’s definitely not how I define it.

 

[Gravy]

436K views · 28K reactions | | Grant Cardone

.

www.facebook.com

This made me smile a little.

 

[glockman]

Is what will be interesting is how far Trump's base supports budget cuts until they realize it impacts them.

I think most people define wasteful spending, over regulation or government over reach is when it benefits someone besides themselves.

I'll give you a few local examples.

I live in Pleasant Grove. PG City workers drive around in Toyota TRD OR vehicles. I emailed the city manager and asked why they bought the 2nd most expensive trim package for work vehicles. He stated that Toyota's had higher resale, which I fully understand and support. He never answered my reply on why they didn't go with SR5 models?

Multiple police departments in Utah require patrol cars to be running for the officers entire shift. The reasoning is that a car that doesn't start could put someone's life at risk. This is silly, adds tons of cost in fuel and pollution. Simple fix, put a jump pack in every car, they could even use it to help the public.

My wife works for Utah DHS. She is the highest performing agent in her department (statewide) and has been for over a decade straight. She works 4 hours a day max. So what do the rest of the people do who perform way below her? Well, they make EXACTLY the same wage. Cox, love him or hate him, took a portion of the COL increase budget and ear marked it for high performers. She got a performance bonus this year for the first time in her 20 years working for the state. This is how you entice people to do a better job and reduce the number of people required, without taking anything from anyone.

These are examples in Utah, in my sphere that I consider government waste that a DOGE could improve.

 

[anderson750]

Is what will be interesting is how far Trump's base supports budget cuts until they realize it impacts them.

I think most people define wasteful spending, over regulation or government over reach is when it benefits someone besides themselves.

Their focus will not be on programs, but on workers. There are over 400 government agencies and a lot of redundancies across them that cost us billions of dollars of every year. They cost us the money through not only duplication of work, but the acceptance of not be efficient in the work they do. Raising the unemployment rate through trimming down government employment will be a good thing.

 

[SoopaHick]

I'll give you a few local examples.

I live in Pleasant Grove. PG City workers drive around in Toyota TRD OR vehicles. I emailed the city manager and asked why they bought the 2nd most expensive trim package for work vehicles. He stated that Toyota's had higher resale, which I fully understand and support. He never answered my reply on why they didn't go with SR5 models?

Multiple police departments in Utah require patrol cars to be running for the officers entire shift. The reasoning is that a car that doesn't start could put someone's life at risk. This is silly, adds tons of cost in fuel and pollution. Simple fix, put a jump pack in every car, they could even use it to help the public.

My wife works for Utah DHS. She is the highest performing agent in her department (statewide) and has been for over a decade straight. She works 4 hours a day max. So what do the rest of the people do who perform way below her? Well, they make EXACTLY the same wage. Cox, love him or hate him, took a portion of the COL increase budget and ear marked it for high performers. She got a performance bonus this year for the first time in her 20 years working for the state. This is how you entice people to do a better job and reduce the number of people required, without taking anything from anyone.

These are examples in Utah, in my sphere that I consider government waste that a DOGE could improve.

Not to mention the "Spend it or you'll lose it mindset" when it comes to budgets. At my school we are funded largely by the .gov. We are a very expensive program and spend tons of money every year. I don't think there has been a year that we haven't gone over budget but that is almost entirely on operating costs and we are really using it.
In comparison, we have a similar program that has much lower operating costs year by year. But near the end of every fiscal season we are sitting down as a team and trying to figure out what this course should spend all their budget on. So they've built up 10s of thousands of dollars in equipment that rarely, if ever, gets used because they're afraid the budget will be cut if they don't use everything that's allotted to them.

 

[Pike2350]

I agree on wasteful spending that is outlined here so far. I think what Houndoc was getting at, is that most people consider .gov bloat ONLY the other teams programs. Let's get real...we have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem. The 2 biggest areas to cut that will actually make a difference is Defense and Entitilements.

Most Trump supporters would be PISSED if they cut SS and Medicare. The argument will always be "We paid into the system" This is all true, but you can't cut spending now by only cutting future entitlements. People, all over the country are a bunch of NIMBY's. But that really relates to almost every aspect of their lives, not just their backyards.

Defense is another one. I hear "rebuild the military" quite often from Trump supporters. Rebuild it? It didn't go anywhere, it still takes A HUGE portion of our budget....way more then is actually needed. The argument you will hear is "if we stopped nation building" Again, true, but if we stopped that and cut the spending on the military a ton of the Military supporters are likely affected and they will act like we have to keep spending ridiculous amounts of money on defense because "It's in the Constitution"

Our spending is out of control, both on wasteful pet projects and inefficiencies, but those will make very little impact on the budget deficit. You can't get out of debt, making $150k/year by cutting the $5 Starbucks and still maintain a $4000 car payment and $6000 mortgage payment....but no one wants to live in a $2k mortgage payment house anymore, and no one wants to drive a $600/month car after experiencing the "luxuries"

I am 46, almost 47 and do not count on SS for retirement. If they cut it off, while it sucks that I paid in for the past 30 years, I understand and will accept it. It is what is really necessary to get rid of the deficit and excessive spending....but I will also file for it and take what is granted to me if it is around because I did pay into it....but I will file at 62 for the lowest overall amount for retirement.

 

[jeeper]

Not to mention the "Spend it or you'll lose it mindset" when it comes to budgets.

My good buddy was a recruiter for the Army for many years. They bought all kinds of junk at the end of the year to spend their money. Including a pontoon boat one year for 'team building equipment'.

 

[glockman]

I agree on wasteful spending that is outlined here so far. I think what Houndoc was getting at, is that most people consider .gov bloat ONLY the other teams programs. Let's get real...we have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem. The 2 biggest areas to cut that will actually make a difference is Defense and Entitilements.

Most Trump supporters would be PISSED if they cut SS and Medicare. The argument will always be "We paid into the system" This is all true, but you can't cut spending now by only cutting future entitlements. People, all over the country are a bunch of NIMBY's. But that really relates to almost every aspect of their lives, not just their backyards.

Defense is another one. I hear "rebuild the military" quite often from Trump supporters. Rebuild it? It didn't go anywhere, it still takes A HUGE portion of our budget....way more then is actually needed. The argument you will hear is "if we stopped nation building" Again, true, but if we stopped that and cut the spending on the military a ton of the Military supporters are likely affected and they will act like we have to keep spending ridiculous amounts of money on defense because "It's in the Constitution"

Our spending is out of control, both on wasteful pet projects and inefficiencies, but those will make very little impact on the budget deficit. You can't get out of debt, making $150k/year by cutting the $5 Starbucks and still maintain a $4000 car payment and $6000 mortgage payment....but no one wants to live in a $2k mortgage payment house anymore, and no one wants to drive a $600/month car after experiencing the "luxuries"

I am 46, almost 47 and do not count on SS for retirement. If they cut it off, while it sucks that I paid in for the past 30 years, I understand and will accept it. It is what is really necessary to get rid of the deficit and excessive spending....but I will also file for it and take what is granted to me if it is around because I did pay into it....but I will file at 62 for the lowest overall amount for retirement.

I don't know a single Trump supporter that would object to cutting military spending in the right ways. Like not leaving billions of dollars of equipment in other countries is a good start along with not obsoleting equipment that if functional. What normally gets proposed is cutting military peoples wages, that along with SS should be at the bottom of the list, but it is always first to fire up the emotional response.

Medicaid costs will be dramatically reduced by stopping illegal immigration and slowing inflation.

 

[Pike2350]

I don't know a single Trump supporter that would object to cutting military spending in the right ways. Like not leaving billions of dollars of equipment in other countries is a good start along with not obsoleting equipment that if functional. What normally gets proposed is cutting military peoples wages, that along with SS should be at the bottom of the list, but it is always first to fire up the emotional response.

Medicaid costs will be dramatically reduced by stopping illegal immigration and slowing inflation.

"the right way" is very subjective and why there will never be a consensus. While I agree, wages should be last (depending on scale and job duties) There are many more ways to waste money. Leaving billions of dollars of equipment was dumb....however, how much does it cost us to transport all that equipment back to US bases? Even going to the closest base would cost a TON, not to mention storage, movement of equipment to other locations, etc. etc. Logistics is one of the biggest expenses that no one things about. Moving and storage of all the surplus is a huge issue, so it kind of hits both of your points. If they didn't obsolete things that are functional, they would end up with a lot more surplus because things that are no longer functional don't sell as easily. Plus, we already overspent on all that crap in the first place, so balancing what/how much of things are needed is a hard balancing act.

It's not an easy answer. I am simply pointing out there are a lot of other costs that come with your idea of cutting spending in the "right way"

 

[Spork]

The military surplus marked has dried up, as a kid every town had a military surplus store where you would find bizarre stuff that the military didn't need anymore. Smith and Edwards used to be a great place to visit, you could wander the yard looking for treasures and stuff that you didn't even know you wanted. Now it's just another Ace hardware. I think there is money that can be recovered sticking equipment on a transport and shipping it back. Example might be the videos where you see of soldiers destroying pallets of ammunition. at 50 cents a round it doesn't take a lot to cover cost of transport (is military surplus ammunition even a thing anymore?) How much money does it cost to fly a Blackhawk helicopter to a transport ship vs buy a new one? Government waste is a real thing.

 

[Cody]

I'm intentionally staying out of this, but the irony of creating a new government program to reduce government programs is not lost on me.

As an anecdote, there is a LOT of bloat in the government. I would say especially the military, but really in all levels of government. A close friend of mine has been a defense contractor specifically working on a single program contract for 20+ years (renewed every year). This year they opened that contract up to bidding, which they weren't allowed to bid on for some reason, and the winning bidder turned around and hired my friends company to continue to do the work. So now we're all stuck paying 25% more to have the exact same people do the exact same job. There is shit like that everywhere....

....but is Elon really the guy? Under the guise of saving Twitter from censorship, he's just made it so he gets to decide what (and who) to censor and has slowly declined X use for the last few years. He's consistently over promised and under delivered all across his businesses, and has this weird argument about populating the solar system being a benefit for humanity as a way to explain or justify his breeding kink. He's been successful, partly due to timely (lucky? who are we to say) investments into fledgling tech businesses, but I'm not sure when it's all said and done we'll look back at his career as if he was some kind of oracle or guru. There's a good chance he runs his empire into the ground. He's only got a half dozen bankruptcies before he can compare to the financial acumen of his homie DJT.

Also, I really like my wife's Tesla

 

[Pike2350]

The military surplus marked has dried up, as a kid every town had a military surplus store where you would find bizarre stuff that the military didn't need anymore. Smith and Edwards used to be a great place to visit, you could wander the yard looking for treasures and stuff that you didn't even know you wanted. Now it's just another Ace hardware. I think there is money that can be recovered sticking equipment on a transport and shipping it back. Example might be the videos where you see of soldiers destroying pallets of ammunition. at 50 cents a round it doesn't take a lot to cover cost of transport (is military surplus ammunition even a thing anymore?) How much money does it cost to fly a Blackhawk helicopter to a transport ship vs buy a new one? Government waste is a real thing.

absolutely. I'm just point out that spending cuts are not as simple as most people want to make it sound. Cutting programs and other stupid shit will only save so much. The big cuts are in places people start to get very emotional and ignore some of the other factors.

As to your Blackhawk scenario. What if the Blackhawk is 10 years in, has a few bullet holes, has required a few thousand man hours to repair or maintain in the past few years? Is spending $100k to transport it out of an area, another $100k in storage fees, etc, when it may have a short lift span left? Again, I'm not saying they can't cut, of course they can....but it's never as simple as people want to make it sound. I say just cut the budget to the military as a whole by a flat % and make them figure it out. Pointing out areas you (can be anyone) as wasteful without any background knowledge is missing the point. It's easy to say "cut in the right places" But what are the right places? One man's right place is the wrong place to another.

Cut a flat % and make them make due.

 

[Gravy]

What's the easiest and cheapest way make a race car faster?
Add horsepower or drop weight?

How do you get out of debt with the same income?
Decrease spending or increase income (taxes)?

This country needs less takeout food and more home cooked meals.
Fewer entertainment subscriptions and more board games.
Wear out the shoes. Wear the stained shirt and holey jeans.
Fix the car instead of new one.
Tighten the belt. A few lean years for the government isn't a bad idea.

I think we can all agree that hiring 100,000 more IRS agents and weaponizing them is not the answer...

And the Acronym is just funny 🤣

 

[glockman]

absolutely. I'm just point out that spending cuts are not as simple as most people want to make it sound. Cutting programs and other stupid shit will only save so much. The big cuts are in places people start to get very emotional and ignore some of the other factors.

As to your Blackhawk scenario. What if the Blackhawk is 10 years in, has a few bullet holes, has required a few thousand man hours to repair or maintain in the past few years? Is spending $100k to transport it out of an area, another $100k in storage fees, etc, when it may have a short lift span left? Again, I'm not saying they can't cut, of course they can....but it's never as simple as people want to make it sound. I say just cut the budget to the military as a whole by a flat % and make them figure it out. Pointing out areas you (can be anyone) as wasteful without any background knowledge is missing the point. It's easy to say "cut in the right places" But what are the right places? One man's right place is the wrong place to another.

Cut a flat % and make them make due.

Let me preface this a little. I have moved $200 million dollars worth of equipment from my building to other parts of the world, then reordered and installed another $200 million dollars worth of new, similar but different equipment to the same place in the last 3 years. I fully understand how this stuff works. Logistics is a nightmare, however, it was still cheaper to de-install, ship to another site in the world, then re-install a $200K piece of equipment than to just push it into a dumpster.

Look at how many vehicles are on govplanet with less than 1K miles on them? Those were all purchased improperly and most likely to spend the rest of that years budget so they don't lose it next year. That mentality needs to be reversed.

The example @Cody gave is VERY common. Several agencies I or my family have worked for would try and outsource work. The private contract would be half what it cost the .gov to support the same activities. Then the contracts would be so poorly written that the majority of the activities aren't covered so the private firm agrees to do x for this much more and y for this much more in the end costing 2x what it cost the .gov. This is both by design from the players and by incompetence on the part of the government employees. Most of them retire and go work for the private firms with their .gov friends still making decisions, I wonder who gets these lucrative contracts? I saw this over and over. If I made a multimillion dollar error in my job, I'd be gone. Not so if you are a government employee. That needs to change before anything will change.

So ya, it's complicated and any move to cut costs will be labeled with some emotional title, like "kill the poor kids" if you propose reducing the budget increase for school lunch from a $100 million increase to a $50 million increase. At the same time, the "military spending reduction bill" will award $1 billion in new contracts to friends of politicians.

I have little faith any of this will change, but I can hope.