It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Challenge for Trump Supporters

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm voting for Trump because I believe he will downsize government, reduce overall spending, and reduce regulations.

I have no illusions about Trump's constitutional knowledge. It ain't much.

I like his list of judicial nominees.

After that, I like that the cocktail Republican establishment hates him.


What regulations do you want removed, or agencies?


If you want details it would literally take weeks to list them all, because our government has exploded the federal bureaucracy. So I'll speak in generalities.

Obamacare - gone

Dept of Energy - gone

Dept of Education - gone

EPA - massive downsize

Dept of Housing and Urban Development - gone

Dept of Commerce - gone

Federal Reserve - massive downsize and no more internal nominations for leadership

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - burned to the ground and ashes urinated upon

Bureau of Land Management - massive downsize

Parks Services, Fish and Wildlife, NOAA - downsized and merged into EPA

IRS - massive downsize

I would like to see every single regulation created by the federal bureaucracy since 1970 but not reviewed and approved by the Congress receive an up or down vote.

Every.

Single.

One.

That'll keep them busy for a while.


You want us to go back to the 1900's with no environmental regs, no health regs?


No.


Seriously what do you consider less regulation?


Seriously, I consider less regulation bringing the federal government down to pre Great Society levels in the 30s and 40s. Meddling in the affairs of the individual States and pushing centralized government has caused nothing but problems.


Slavery back would probably suit you best, but that, even the Donald, can't do.


Why would you say that? Ad hominem and false narratives really aren't a good debate tactic.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
a reply to: Annee

Yes, she also mentions childcare. However, I think Donald Trump's plan is laid out more concretely.


She said that as President she would look for responsible ways to do even more than the great start we’ve seen from the Obama administration – whether it’s providing tax cuts to new parents or grants to states targeted for infants and toddlers.
-Hillary


Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of child, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income. The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.

The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household). This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.

All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.

To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.
Trump

Hillarys paragraph was the most specific detail I could find. Most everything else I could see was non specific to her actual plan. Please share if I have overlooked something.
( posting from my phone so this might not be the most well formatted reply )
( I added the paragraph spacing to the quote from trumps website because my phone jumbled it all together)




I will agree that the Donald's plan is more laid out, but as President he cannot do this, it must be passed by congress. He or she will not do squat their first day in office



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: MrSensible

When i saw the thread title i thought the challenge would be something like recite the alphabet or count to ten . After all they are a bunch of deplorables .


Suck it up, buttercup.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   


Before we get started, let me just say that I'm voting for Superman in this election.


Ben Carson dropped out of the race....so superman is not on the ballot


Here is the issue I have had with Trump:
The president of the United States is the most powerful position planet has ever created…
Whoever occupies this office must be quick to reason and slow to anger…
Not the other way around..

However, Trump is a far superior alternative to Hillary who is a megalomaniacal despot sitting atop a dynastic ruling entity which has seen an amoral leadership example persist at the highest levels of government since 1992..
It is to end the Clintonian fascist rule that I pledge my vote for Donald and do so without hesitation...

And that is to say nothing of his personality which would have him hiring absolute gunners to negotiate with foreign governments...
He won't hand out ambassadorships to donors because he has the personality trait which craves recognition...
And Trump knows this recognition can be realized if his administration negotiates deals which elevate America once again to its rightful place atop the world's social Darwinian ladder..
In fact I would daresay that not since President Reagan has such an ambition persisted in a presidential candidate…
The ambition to win...to once again be the light of the west..

Hope this helps your curiosity...

-Christosterone



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I have no horse in this race , i just like to poke both political parties .



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Exactly my point. You, me and I would assume most of ATS spends a very large chunk of their income for mostly sustaining reasons, if not all. Leaves very little room to have money for a retirement plan or investments. But oh hey, as long as were buying overpriced junk, corporations are happy. Banks are happy.

I am not happy.



I am not happy either, and I live a relative frugal life. Trump wants to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, let wallstreet take the american public for a ride. He represents everything I have fought against in my life. I do not like Hillary either, so writing my dog in for Prez.

I will pay a lot of attention to the down ballot elections as my local politicians affect my life, far more than the national ones.

I see you talking mad #, and calling names. Does this make you feel like youre tough? Id bet money you wouldnt be brave enough to say any of that in person. Or if you did, youd quickly call the police when # got real.

Either way. Do you have anything other than your word to back up your claim?

Keep in mind, im an undecided voter, and your response could sway my vote either way if your response is more than just words.... It can also sway it if it is just words.

So lets see evidence, tangible evidence, to back up this claim of him wanting to give tax breaks to millionaires, and letting walstreet take us for a 'ride'



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.


No that is Bush, I think Obama's job numbers have grown almost every month. This recession wasn't Obama, we can lay this one at Bush's feet.

While you won't get disagreement from me you also won't get Obama praise from me. Any asshole in the office at the time would have achieved the same result.

But yes, Bush absolutely left a destined to fail economy to Obama. So there is that.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.


No that is Bush, I think Obama's job numbers have grown almost every month. This recession wasn't Obama, we can lay this one at Bush's feet.

While you won't get disagreement from me you also won't get Obama praise from me. Any asshole in the office at the time would have achieved the same result.

But yes, Bush absolutely left a destined to fail economy to Obama. So there is that.



...thanks to Democrat 'obstruction.'



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, thanks to brainwashed politics.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, thanks to brainwashed politics.



Including yourself?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

Here are several, and yes I know that not all of this will happen

Cost cutting for medical care. This is the largest cost to the federal government by far, and it is caused because the medical industry has the illegal ability to price fix.

Education choice encouraging competition, no common core

Renegotiation of trade deals, and getting other countries to pay for our military's protection

Lower taxes for citizens, tariffs for imports.

A possible simplification of the tax code

Support for the second amendment

Enforcement of our immigration law


With all that said, he is a flawed candidate, but I would vote for Charles Manson over the psychopath criminal Clinton.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

nope



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Teikiatsu

nope


They always think that.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So disliking one shltty outcome over another makes me that way. Got it.

I won't be voting again this year by the way, and literally could not give a damn about who is elected.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So disliking one shltty outcome over another makes me that way. Got it.


As I recall, our back'n'forth concerned the source of the problem, not the outcome.


I won't be voting again this year by the way, and literally could not give a damn about who is elected.


That is your choice. I am voting for the person who makes me least want to become a prepper.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You aren't one already?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

Douche weasel much, I do taxes for a living, you have no idea what you are talking about...blah, blah, blah...


Ok that's the second time you've told us you do taxes for a living - we get it, and sorry to hear that as it sounds miserable, but what do you want a cookie?

On topic: Fix Infrastructure & Immigration

edit on 1-10-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So disliking one shltty outcome over another makes me that way. Got it.


As I recall, our back'n'forth concerned the source of the problem, not the outcome.


I won't be voting again this year by the way, and literally could not give a damn about who is elected.


That is your choice. I am voting for the person who makes me least want to become a prepper.

Oh ok, so like me you won't be voting.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSensible

Ending free trade pollicies that neuter the middle class at home while raping third world countries.

Reforming immigration so as to force everyone to use the legal means of immigration. Thus protecting american wages as an end result.

Asking more of the world as far as global security. Such would have many bases closed and personnel repositioned at home or in allied territory. Our expenditure on global defence would be better spent on national defence.

Checking people, males from terrorist hot zones as well as radical Islam for suspicious activity.
If anything is found, check their famillies as well (go after)

Stomping PC egg shells.


edit on 10 1 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Trump's opposition to the TPP also gets a nod from me. Despite what some of the supporters of the TPP argue in New Zealand you can support Free Trade while opposing the TPP. In short the TPP isn't a Free Trade Agreement. Instead it is little more then US corporate interests trying to muscle in on New Zealand. Aside from this point I have never worked out what benefit the US would get out of the deal.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join