It seems to me rather doubtful that President Trump's proposed budget will survive in its present form. Nonetheless, I think that it is very good. There are three immutable points that I would propose: (1) Federal income taxes must not be increased on the American people--on any of the American people. (2) Military spending must be increased--considerably. (3) The national debt must not be increased. (In fact, I would really like to see it lowered.) After that, I would agree to talk. But those three principles should not be ignored--or in any way compromised.
Trump's budget is meaningless in the hands of the GOP. He will sign whatever the Congress puts in front of him.
Between the two houses mostly. Obama never operated with a budget which is why his tenure had so many manufactured budget show downs. It was all done capriciously. Trump has very little say other than yea or nay in the end, and I am not sure he has the balls to say nay because it will unite some factions in the GOP against him that I am not sure he is ready to take on. His relationship with the GOP establishment is tenuous at best as is.
Defense + $54 billion (a 10% increase) EPA -31% Has Trump discovered some new friggin planet he can escape to....
It is my understanding that Barack Obama gutted the defense budget--it was only 2.2 percent of the entire federal budget, when Obama left office--whereas Donald Trump wishes to increase it to 3.6 percent. (Actually, that would amount to almost a 64 percent increase.) For some historical perspective, however, please consider that it was a full 10 percent under JFK...
Federal income taxes should be abolished, period. The military budget should be cut, drastically. All aid to any foreign country should be terminated, period. And that should pretty much take care of increasing the deficit, but then the problem itself remains unless the root issue is addressed.
Trump's budget would be something foreign to congress as Odumbo had no clue what a budget was, but meaningless? Will he sign it, I doubt that he would sign what he doesn't like, better the veto and the ensuing fight because I doubt they can come up with the numbers needed to override. More to follow.
Really and just where do you come up with that conclusion? The constitution only states that bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house, says naught about spending. It does state the the "executive power shall be vested in a President". Congress is only to legislate and has no power over execution.
The POTUS doesn't get to command spending I doubt he has the attention span to read the federal budget.
You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of "execution", the spending part of a budget. Yes the president have total control over spending within the scope of matters funded. Really, are you all there? Trump ran an empire by not reading budgets, that would be a false assumption.
No he doesn't. Even sequestration was established by Congress. There are over 600,000 line-items in the federal budget. So far, the President shows little understanding on how the big parts of government works, so I am doubtful he is going to review and learn about 600,000 parts. The best he can muster is capricious cuts or increases without understanding what those represent.
Yes he does, to what part of the constitution are you referring? Have you ever read the document? The only mention in the constitution is in Article I, Section 7, Clause 1: Raising revenue, not spending. Article I, Section 1 states: And Article II, Section 1 states: That eliminates congress from the execution, that is up to the president. And then there is that little matter of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: Couldn't be any clearer. As this is in Article 1 it applies to the legislature as to the appropriations but it is upon the executive to spend, Treasury, and pay, Treasury, and account, Treasury. Now where the president cannot appropiate, he controls all spending or not spending. So you have spent time with Trump, doubt it so that is all conjecture. Do you really think he cares about 600,000 line items, oh wait why ask you, you haven't a clue. As the chief his only concern is that an agency is appropriately funded and within the agency that overall projects are appropriately funded. The details are left to the staff or are you somehow under the impression the chief does all, but of course you are under that impression as you bought up the 600,000 line items. Also the president has a chief of budget management to keep track of all those little details.
That is just not realistic. Iran is an intractable enemy. Russia--despite President Trump's efforts to make nice to Vladimir Putin--is surely an enemy. North Korea is not only an enemy, but the likely target of an incipient war--perhaps of the pre-emptive nature. In theory, China should be some help in this regard; in practice, however, they are not. (In fact, they seem to revel in the fact that Kim Jong-un, with his undisciplined rhetoric, keeps the US off balance.) And it should be mentioned that China is also our enemy (notwithstanding then-President Nixon's attempts at normalizing relations with that large Asian country, some 45 years ago).
And by what measure do you come up with this jewel? Why because they have no right to be pissed over what we did to them? You mean in spite of the number of times we have threaten and attacked that countries sovereignty they should be an enemy but Putin has always remained the calm one. So how does that make them an enemy? Another false analogy based on propaganda. North Korea extended their hand in peace if we would leave them alone and we bit it like the rabid dog this country has become. Just why is Korea our problem? Yeah, China owes all to us. It was the US that financed Mao as he took over power and killed over 45 million Chinese. Now why would that want to help us? You seem to see enemies behind every little nook and cranny which is bad enough but what makes you think we had any bad relations with China? You have no clue as to world events, do you? Then why is it our enemies are are friends and our friends are our enemies?
I suppose that only America-haters "have [a] clue" as to world events, right? (The rest are simply the victims of "propaganda.") You appear to see America as being analogous to "a rabid dog," and the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un as being, well, a bit of a victim...
If that floats your boat but hope you have a lot of plugs. One thing for certain, you seem to have no clue as to world events other than the talking points fed you by that "fake" media. The rabid dog part is true but then that was in the post you are responding to. The rest is just another figment of your imagination.
And what, precisely, is "fake" about what the media have said in this regard? And can you present convincing evidence that it is untrue? Well, if you really do not see the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-Il as a "victim" of the US, then please elucidate...
I agree, repeal the 16th amendment. That along with repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start allowing the States and the people to regain control of the Federal government.
