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.

 

Trump budget to increase defense, slash EPA, other agencies

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Quite frankly, you have no way of knowing what it will be ultimately.. stop acting like you do.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Blazemore2000

He's not allowed an opinion I guess

Yal, the anti-trumpers are running out of steam.  Reports are that some 60% of America is liking Trump's actions.  This will continue, and his positive ratings will improve.  His war with the fake news media is priceless.  Its what we have all been saying for years.
Once Trump gets settled in, and his policies start to take effect, there will likely be 4% or higher GDP Growth in the US.  Everyone in the world will see that and start moving in the same direction, just like in 1980's.  That is when Russia fell, OPEC started coming apart, and Japan went into a long recession.  I suspect  China will implode or go into a deep recession within 10 years, they are a paper dragon.  Russia is likely to collapse again, they are spending like crazy on military programs and their economy is fighting to come out of a deep recession.  Russia can not continue to exist as it is without very high oil and natural gas prices.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Blazemore2000

WIth 100% certainty no, but I follow the military and military budgets enough to know what's needed, and what the leadership is concentrating on right now. Enough to say with quite a bit of confidence what it's going towards. If it was a buildup, it would be at least three years, if not closer to five or six before we saw a result from it though.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
A part from the funnies and technical stuff,
On a daily basis, is the ACA a big deal for americans/the american people ?
Simple question



Trump said he would talk about his plans for infrastructure spending in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

“We’re going to start spending on infrastructure big,” he said.

With tax cuts also in the pipeline, it is unclear how he would plan to cut the national debt.

Trump held meetings with state governors and health insurance company executives at the White House on Monday. “I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” he said, about plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.”


Whatever it is,
it seems to complicated for The Don ...
Easy solution : scrap it

out to tender
Private health clinics
only for those that can

Is it good or bad for americans to loose the rights acquired by the ACA ?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unneeded? According to you. The Marines lost something like 16 people last year to accidents that didn't need to happen, and only happened because of lack of funding for maintenance and flying time. So your idea is to keep pushing things and killing people?

To me. Military = war. If we are spending money on it, then we want to use it. I don't want to build up our military and would rather this spending went to that other thing that Trump promised. That thing that is being conveniently ignored now in favor of building up a tool of destruction. Infrastructure.

What evidence do you have that Infrastructure is being ignored?
Why would you make a statement like that?

Do you have any evidence that it is being catered to? You don't prove a negative, mate.


There is evidence in the form of one of the first EO's he signed.
Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects

EO's mean dick. Where is the infrastructure spending allocation in his budget proposal?

Patience. It's coming. If you think EO's are meaningless, no crying about them in the future, deal?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I'd say it's a bit early to call this fiscally responsible. He's proposing at least $54 billion increase to the budget (remember that he also wants to greatly increase infrastructure spending) while the agency whose budget he wants to slash only amounts for $8 billion of the budget. He'd have to completely kill seven EPAs just to fund the increase in defense spending.

On top of that he has already said he won't be touching social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Between the mandatory spending associated with these programs and our debt payments 70% of the budget is already accounted for.

It's going to be hard for him to achieve his goals without increasing the deficit.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




It's going to be hard for him to achieve his goals without increasing the deficit.


And don't forget...Lower taxes.

Someone seems to be mathematically challenged....



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
It's soon enough to call it 'fiscaly unresponsable"
;p



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

It's going to be hard for him to achieve his goals without increasing the deficit.

I don't know that not increasing the deficit was something he campaigned on.
I do know he did make some promises regarding the military and he intends to keep them.
Maybe people aren't used to campaign promises being kept?

If you want to see what he's going to do, you need only look here: FACT SHEET: KEY POLICIES PROPOSED IN MR. TRUMP’S MILITARY READINESS SPEECH

PROPOSAL: Immediately after taking office, Mr. Trump will ask the generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military as soon as he assumes office.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will modernize our nation’s naval cruisers to provide Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.

PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.

PROPOSAL: One of Mr. Trump’s first commands after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, let's just go on killing our own soldiers while they take years cleaning up the waste spending. Let's just let things get even worse, and spend even more money on the repairs that would be needed then, instead of spending less now.

That's what Trump is about to do to the EPA, so you aren't exactly making me feel sympathetic here. By the way, I'm a veteran if you don't know.




Trump is going to kill soldiers by slashing the epa funding???

Trump will be killing FAR more than soldiers by slashing the EPA's funding.


How did you come to that conclusion?

Because the EPA exists for a reason and relaxing standards will only result in more cases like Flint, MI.


I was expecting some actual analysis and projections and stuff, and not a random statement. Because you provided none I assume your support for the EPA is purely political, until proven otherwise.+


(post by IchBinSparta removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

DELETED POST REMOVED


I don't think increasing the budget is necessarily the answer. There's a great deal of waste in the US military, and increasingly it seems the US military is just a gravy train for the private sector to dip into.

The whole system is rotten, and would need extensive reforms to fix. But good luck getting that through.
edit on 27/2/17 by JustMike because: Removed quoted but deleted post.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Xcalibur254

When the Military Industrial Complex AND the Prison Industrial Complex are winning, the people are LOSING.

I hope you're not right about Trump's administration "gearing up for War", but I wouldn't at all be surprised if this were the case.

*quivers


How did you NOT see this coming?

When I first read Trumps policies and found out he wants to "end terror" it was already set in Trumps mind he wants to go on a full out war with something, why do you think he wants to bring jobs back so badly? So he has a workforce capable enough to support some sort of war.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

I'd say it's a bit early to call this fiscally responsible. He's proposing at least $54 billion increase to the budget (remember that he also wants to greatly increase infrastructure spending) while the agency whose budget he wants to slash only amounts for $8 billion of the budget. He'd have to completely kill seven EPAs just to fund the increase in defense spending.

On top of that he has already said he won't be touching social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Between the mandatory spending associated with these programs and our debt payments 70% of the budget is already accounted for.

It's going to be hard for him to achieve his goals without increasing the deficit.


I did not call Trumps +$54bn proposal fiscally responsible.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, let's just go on killing our own soldiers while they take years cleaning up the waste spending. Let's just let things get even worse, and spend even more money on the repairs that would be needed then, instead of spending less now.

That's what Trump is about to do to the EPA, so you aren't exactly making me feel sympathetic here. By the way, I'm a veteran if you don't know.




Trump is going to kill soldiers by slashing the epa funding???

Trump will be killing FAR more than soldiers by slashing the EPA's funding.


How did you come to that conclusion?

Because the EPA exists for a reason and relaxing standards will only result in more cases like Flint, MI.


Will cutting EPA spend and regulations result in more cases like Flint? Do you have any empirical evidence of that?
The EPA might only cost c$10bn a year but the cost to the economy runs into hundreds of billions. I wonder if those costs have really been a valid investment over the years. Last I heard, my liberal friends and the DNC were telling me we're on the brink of the end times because of pollution and it's getting worse - apparently. So either the huge economic cost of the EPA has saved all our lives by buying us a few more years on earth and we'd all have perished long ago without all their regulations, or what they are doing is worth squat. I go with the latter.
edit on 27/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

We Also need to take a hard look at who gets foreign aid from us.That found save a couple billion right there.Including Israel.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, let's just go on killing our own soldiers while they take years cleaning up the waste spending. Let's just let things get even worse, and spend even more money on the repairs that would be needed then, instead of spending less now.

That's what Trump is about to do to the EPA, so you aren't exactly making me feel sympathetic here. By the way, I'm a veteran if you don't know.




Trump is going to kill soldiers by slashing the epa funding???

Trump will be killing FAR more than soldiers by slashing the EPA's funding.



I doubt it but believe what you want.


In any case, the EPA is about protecting our environment and nature that we live in. The military is used to destroy nature and our environment. My priorities lie with the EPA over the military.




Sure by taxing the hell out of the little guy, you sure don't sound like a vet to me, probably dropped out.

Oh I'm sorry I don't live up to your standards of what was and wasn't a military member. Spoken like someone who has never served. If you think the military exists to protect the partisan side in power and not to protect the freedom to voice and have an opinion without the fear of government reprisal, then you CERTAINLY didn't serve. Let alone drop out.


(post by thesaneone removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Look. By no means am I saying that the EPA is perfect. It certainly isn't. It's a product of government bureaucracy. But it certainly DOES function as a good check against rampant business oriented greed at the expense of the environment.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join