Trump to Propose $4.8 Trillion Budget With Big Safety-Net Cuts

Anything to excuse Trump. Ho hum.

 

More Trumper BS. Three statements, three whoppers.

 

PROPAGANDA ALERT!

"The same stability holds true for Trump's approval rating among black Americans. Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."​

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268517/analyzing-black-support-president-trump.aspx

 

IOW, your claim Congress decides doesn't hold water.

 

1. The President submits a budget request to Congress
2. The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
3. House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees "markup" appropriations bills
4. The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
5. The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law

 

Has nothing to do with Trump, the man is a RINO, just what it is.

 

Orange Man Bad. ^^^^

 

Do your homework instead of Orange Man Bad.

 

I'm glad more people are supporting Trump. I hope games stop being played and people can start working together if he receives a second term. If a democrat gets in office I hope the same thing but if a socialist gets in office i hope they get the same treatment or worse than Trump

 

1. It seems both of us missed LangleyMan's post #282, in which he supplied THREE links and extracted this from the first of them (relating to Trump's tax plans as outlined by him in 2016)

"Releasing a long-negotiated and long-awaited Republican tax plan this week, the Trump administration made three promises.

First, the plan would not cut taxes for America’s richest households. 'The wealthy are not getting a tax cut under our plan,’ Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic advisor, said on Good Morning America. Second, the plan would slash taxes for America’s middle class. 'Our framework includes our explicit commitment that tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected,' President Trump said in a speech in Indiana. 'They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help. I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me. Believe me.' Third, the tax plan would not increase the deficit. 'We think this tax plan will cut down the deficits by a trillion dollars,' Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said on Fox Business Network. 'That’s a large number.'”

The next 2 links relate to articles from 2017.

Here is the course of the debate from LangleyMan's #275:

LangleyMan: (#275):
"As an economist, I agreed with Trump saying he wouldn't cut taxes for rich people. They don't need or deserve a tax cut when they greatly profit from corporate tax cuts that were justified.
Tax cuts for people making less than $400,000 a year could have averaged six times higher if the brackets at the top had remained the same".

In #276, Fatback asked for links "after all that posting"; (I don't known what he meant by that): so LangleyMan supplied the links in post 282, noted above.

Oddly enough, in #287 LangleyMan still replied (to Fatback's comment in #276) with: "So what? I'm not your research assistant".....even though LangleyMan had already supplied 3 links and the extracted quote from the first of them, in his post #282, which FatBack appears to have missed entirely.

[I would have thought LangleyMan had every right to be exasperated with FatBack after supplying 3 links and a quote].


Meanwhile you - AFM - were carrying on another debate with LangleyMan about political matters eg in #285, followed by #298, which is difficult to read because you stuffed up the formatting.

Now in post #295, LangleyMan had directed Fatback to another link re Trump's latest budget (that increases DoD spending and cutting social services)….

...and in #299 you comment on LangleyMan's post to FatBack with "So you have nothing. Only a reading assignment. Too afraid to provide quotes".

………...

See what's happening here? I still don't know if there is a deliberate strategy of misrepresentation on your part, to avoid reading the links supplied, or if the fast flow of posts is responsible.

Anyway I'll supply some quotes so you can't simply ignore the material.

First we already have the long extracted quote from the first link, in post #282 (quoted above)

Second, here is the argument form the second link in #282

Trump Says His Tax Plan Won't Benefit the Rich—He's Exactly Wrong
When the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed the proposal, it found that the vast majority of benefits would go to corporations and the top 1 percent of earners.
…...
All three of those statements are false, according to an analysis of the Republican framework by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), a nonpartisan think tank. The plan would add about $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade, discounting any effects on growth, the TPC found. Nearly 90 percent of earners would see their tax burden fall or remain unchanged in 2018. But the richest families would get the biggest tax cuts in both dollar and percentage-of-income terms, with upper-middle-income families facing significant tax increases in time.

Annie Lowrey September 29, 2017

Third, here is the argument from the third link:


Trump's promise: 'The rich will not be gaining at all' from the U.S. tax plan. Reality: They will.
There's the claim — advanced most famously by Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — that the bill won't cut taxes on people at the top of the income scale. It will.

The reality: Middle-income groups will get a tax cut — as will people above and below the middle — though some individual households will likely pay higher taxes because of provisions that include the elimination of personal exemptions and a limit on state and local tax deductions.

But the greatest benefit is for corporations. The corporate rate cut will cost US$1.35 trillion over the next 10 years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. That’s more than the estimated US$1.2 trillion from individual rate cuts. Moreover, the plan’s corporate tax cuts are permanent. Most individual changes — including those for owners of pass-through businesses — expire after 2025. One change that won’t go away: The bill imposes a new annual adjustment mechanism that will push Americans into higher tax brackets more rapidly.

Mnuchin said Sunday that the bill is “all about” the middle class.

(You will need to read more, because my copy and paste function refuses to continue working...)

Finally, from the link re Trump's recent budget:

Interestingly, the link in LangleyMan's #295 just directs me back to his #282, so I have found my own link on the same topic (Trump's latest budget):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-get-thumbs-down-from-congress-idUSKBN204170

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s $4.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 is likely to get a chilly reception from lawmakers on Monday over its proposals to slash spending on foreign aid and social safety net programs.

Democrats are expected to object to the deep spending cuts on domestic programs, while some Republicans may raise concerns over debt and deficits.

The budget calls for a 21 percent cut in foreign aid to $44.1 billion, down from $55.7 billion enacted in fiscal year 2020. It would make savings in outlays to safety net programs including $130 billion in Medicare through drug pricing reforms, $292 billion to food stamp and Medicaid programs by enacting new work requirements for beneficiaries, and $70 billion through a clamp-down on eligibility for federal disability benefits.

….

And so we come full circle to Fatback's ideology that : "the rich are the employers and producers", .....and my contention that, judging from the outcomes for the community, their ideology is indeed ugly.

 

Meaningless. ^^^^^

 

1. in #325 you say

'"Absolutely. And that is reflected in the polls which indicate black America Trump approval rating over 40%. That means a Trump landslide".

You did not supply a link to said polls.

2. In #328, LangleyMan supplied a link showing different numbers:

"The same stability holds true for Trump's approval rating among black Americans. Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."

3. .....To which you replied (in #333) "

Do your homework instead of Orange Man Bad.

revealing your debating style, for all to see, in all its fraudulence...

and confirmed by your one word comment above to my post

"Meaningless".

You are lucky the moderators let your sort of fraudulent debating style stand on this forum.

 

Rasmussen.

 

Criticism[edit]
FiveThirtyEight[edit]
In 2010, Silver wrote an article entitled "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?" in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[82] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from those of other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[83] He went on to explore other factors that may have explained the effect, such as the use of a likely voter model,[84] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[85]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[70] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[86]

Jonathan Chait[edit]
Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[87] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example in which Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was actually whether to limit the amount of salt only in pre-processed food.[88]

Other[edit]
The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[89] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[90]

In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[91] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency."[92] In 2012 The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[93]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[94][95] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[96] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[95]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[44] A New York Times article claims Rasmussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[97]

A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[98]

A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[99]

The Associated Press has also addressed Rasmussen's methodology. In 2018 journalists for the Associated Press noted that Rasmussen's telephone methodology systematically omits adults, many of them young people, without cell phones. The Associated Press also noted that Rasmussen does not provide details regarding its online-panel methodology.[100]

In an article for The Hill titled Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias, panelist discussed Rasmussen's practice of adjusting results by party identification. In addition to providing professional criticism from Ipsos, the article cited methodological concerns from Frank Newport of Gallup.[1]

So....propaganda all along!

 

Meaningless. ^^^^

 

meaningless to an ideological hack, certainly.

 

Your posts are examples of the fact that you can find anything to confirm any belief on the vast wasteland aka the internet. Google 2+2=5 sometime.

 

I suspect you came to this conclusion because he doesn't slobber over Trump.

 

It figures where you're concerned.

 

I did. You quoted it.

 

Orange Man Bad. ^^^

 

Orange Man Bad. ^^^^^

 

Have a nice day.

 

Have a nice day.

 

That's all you can do when your Orange Man Bad bias is exposed and your argument destroyed.