Trump

[shockfan89_]

I'm a smaller government believer, but I struggle to support lowering taxes in a deficit period. My position is that you cut spending, and then see if you can cut taxes.

Cutting taxes is incredibly popular. That's the easy route to voter nirvana. It also extends and expands the deficit, which is just delaying the inevitable tax increase to begin paying off at least part of it. Cutting spending is incredibly unpopular if politicians have to specify what's going to be cut. In Kansas, all we've heard from the "cut spending" crowd is that we have to cut spending, and in 6 years, never a single specific on what should be cut and where.

The possible exception is that Kansas' "cut spending" crowd wants to reduce the number and pay scales of school administrators. That isn't setting well with local entities who don't think the State should be micro-managing what they do in their community.

That's of some interest, because the "cut spending" group insists that the Federal government should have no control over State policies because the State is better able to deal with local issues than the Feds. When it comes to State vs. local, the "cut spending" group thinks they should be able to control how local communities spend State dollars.

Cutting spending is a great buzzword, but when it comes down to nut-cuttin' time, politicians don't have the stones to do it. It's political suicide.

If the general population ever figures out that AHCA was going to cut $900 billion from Medicaid to fund a tax reduction for an incredibly small number of very high earners (including Trump and his family), it won't be pretty for the Repubs in 2018. I doubt that the general population will figure that out.

Trump asks government agencies for plans to cut spending https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN17E08D

I can't wait to see what the departments propose. Trump is pushing for cuts and we have a Republican controlled House and Senate, if we can't cut the budget now, and by cut I mean less total dollars in next year's budget than in this years, we will never be able to. Might as well just tell our children and grandchildren to get used to living on 50% of their income because the rest will go to taxes. Unacceptable!

BTW, Brownback was so close to getting it right. If he just would have had the guts to cut spending prior to the tax cuts, Kansas could be viewed as a success story. The problem is the main state expenditure is school funding and schools cry and moan and say their funding was slashed if they don't get a 5% increase year over year...

I don't know where people expect spending cuts to come from? Of the Kansas budget, 70% is Education, Health Care, Pensions, and Welfare. I agree you should start elsewhere, but eventually everything but Pensions should be on the table for reductions. Has anyone ever done a personal budget? It isn't easy, in fact most times it is painful and things you don't want to cut have to be cut. This is what it needs to be like at the state and federal level. Yes it is unpopular, do your damn jobs!!!

[jdmee]

No, those were the first four articles I found for each case with a 10s Google search, as I mentioned. The original post I replied to said, and I quote: "You allowed the media to continue their "love affair" with Obama, and not spending any media time on his scandals digging up wrong doing."

In each case, they DID put out a story on each scandal, often with more accurate information than conservative media.

For instance, the Iran "ransom" was badly reported by the conservative media. To put it simply, the money was not given to Iran, it was returned to Iran. Before 1979, Iran sent that money to the US as part of a deal to buy fighter jets. When the Iranian hostage crisis struck in 1979, the money was frozen in US banks even though Iran never received the jets, and it stayed frozen for almost 40 years.

Furthermore, the money issue was negotiated by an entirely separate team of negotiators. In fact, an international court (Iran–United States Claims Tribunal) was set up years before hostage negotiations, and if the US did not resolve the $400M settlement they could have been forced to pay the full $10B Iran was seeking from the tribunal.

But that just wasn't covered by conservative media. Instead, it was reported very simply: Obama gave $400M in taxpayer money as a ransom.

And in response to another criticism (that mainstream news buried or delayed these types of Obama-era scandals), they usually were the first to report such instances. The Iran scandal was first reported by Wall Street Journal.

But anyway, the point was just that the mainstream media did cover scandals, even if people weren't aware of it.

But by reading the articles you posted show the media covered it in a pro-Obama way. If you look at your green energy links. The first talks about Obama not upset about them going bankrupt and hindsight being 50/50. The second talks about how even if these went bankrupt a bunch more didn't and how we can spin it so the ones that did doesn't sound as bad.

The CNN coverage does talk about it being a payout against the FMS settlement, however it does not talk about the fact that the money couldn't have been paid until Obama spent an extra $400 million to pay off (for Iran) a lawsuit of victims families.

There is no such thing as impartial news anymore. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and so on each have there views they want to promote. They all will spin the same story to promote that view. They are all subject to a viewership that they need to catch the attention of and keep that attention. They all sensationalize the stories to pander to their viewership.

[jdshock]

Sessions says he wants to see more police seizures: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1cf7e63c5297

@SHOCKvalue:, isn't this one of the issues you talk about regularly, or am I misremembering? I would bet a significant, bipartisan majority would be opposed to an increase in this type of thing.

[shockfan89_]

Sessions says he wants to see more police seizures: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1cf7e63c5297

I think it all comes down to how it is done. If it is based on a conviction, I have no problem with it. If it is based on accusation or suspicion, I totally disagree with this. The quote in the link from Sessions is hard to disagree with though. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Here is a discussion between a conservative (Tucker Carlson) and liberal (Max Blumenthal)

Two disgusting fools. No thanks.

[wufan]

Two disgusting fools. No thanks.

Tucker Carlson cracks me up in a conservative Daily Show sort of way.

[shockmonster]

Two disgusting fools. No thanks.

Nice open minded discussion on viewpoints that disagree with yours.

I find myself not agreeing with much or maybe most of what they say but, to those who are OBSESSED with Russia, they need to look into why.

Nancy Pelosi would say anything against anyone to help herself politically. Trump is the one in her way.

Thanks for your enlightened opinion.

[Play Angry]

Looks like the repeal-without-replacement approach has already collapsed.

lol good grief

[jdshock]

Looks like the repeal-without-replacement approach has already collapsed.

lol good grief

Prepare for a "Dems are obstructionists" tweet from Trump.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm very open minded to other viewpoints. That doesn't mean I can't identify specific people who have proven they aren't worth listening to.

Max has compared modern day Israel to Nazi Germany, called for all Israelis to either assimilate with Arab culture or be kicked out of the land, and is insanely friendly toward terrorist groups who attack Israel. No, I do not care whatsoever as to what Max has to say on anything. He is a giant turd (on the left)

Tucker is a Trump sycophant. His website, The Daily Caller, is click-bait garbage. He says/implies nasty things about immigrants. He's rude. He is also a giant turd (on the right)

No, I don't care what Max and Tucker have to say, about anything. The two of them having a conversation sounds painful.

[SB Shock]

Looks like Moran has had a "change in heart". Must have been some heavy threats made on him.

[MoValley John]

Looks like Moran has had a "change in heart". Must have been some heavy threats made on him.

moran-1.jpg

No opinion on the subject, just really wanting to post this meme.

[SHOXJOCK]

Sessions says he wants to see more police seizures: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1cf7e63c5297

@SHOCKvalue:, isn't this one of the issues you talk about regularly, or am I misremembering? I would bet a significant, bipartisan majority would be opposed to an increase in this type of thing.

"But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary —*under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently." If true I'm totally against this. Unless there is a conviction "Pay the man his money" As a republican conservative with a son that's a police officer. That's b*ll sh*t. Jeff Sessions would not be in my top 20 list for attorney General.

[Kung Wu]

Sessions says he wants to see more police seizures: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1cf7e63c5297
.

Look, I am all for more inclusive hiring practices, but how will hiring more epileptic cops solve anything?

[jdshock]

Look, I am all for more inclusive hiring practices, but how will hiring more epileptic cops solve anything?

I've always been of the opinion that a cavity search that results in a seizure is bad news for the arrested individual.

You've shed new light on the topic.