"Posterity Has No Vote"

[Kathianne]

The President (Party of Trump) and the Democrats have a bi-partisan agreement for 2 years on spending. Cute.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-announces-bipartisan-budget-agreement-would-raise-spending-by-320-billion


Trump announces bipartisan budget agreement, would raise spending by $320 billion
by Zachary Halaschak
| July 22, 2019 06:25 PM

After negotiations with both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, President Trump announced the parties had come to a compromise on a two-year budget agreement.


“I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills...


“...This was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!” Trump tweeted Monday evening.

The agreement would increase spending by $320 billion and lift the government’s debt ceiling with spending on domestic and military programs increasing equally. Some conservatives in the House expressed concern for the concept and the effect it would have on the deficit.


“I have communicated consistently there will be a large number of conservatives in the House who will not be able to vote for the deal, if these are indeed the terms,” Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana and head of the Republican Study Committee, told the Washington Examiner on Monday.








What really matters, no problems with caps until after both new Presidential and Congressional terms are set. That's what they care about.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The President (Party of Trump) and the Democrats have a bi-partisan agreement for 2 years on spending. Cute.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-announces-bipartisan-budget-agreement-would-raise-spending-by-320-billion



What really matters, no problems with caps until after both new Presidential and Congressional terms are set. That's what they care about.
Was thinking exactly that ---^^^--- as I read this. I was going to say, "amazing what kind of bipartisan things they can do when there's a major election coming up on 11/20."

[Kathianne]

Was thinking exactly that ---^^^--- as I read this. I was going to say, "amazing what kind of bipartisan things they can do when there's a major election coming up on 11/20."


Hell's bells, what's few hundred more billions when the debt is already $22 TRILLION? Seriously though, please let's not call this President a conservative.

[Elessar]

I view it as an act to get away from the constant 6-months budget fights since when GWB
and Obama were in office.

Grow up and move forward!

[Kathianne]

I view it as an act to get away from the constant 6-months budget fights since when GWB
and Obama were in office.

Grow up and move forward!

Like Rush, now that we have President Trump, debt growth is no longer a problem? Interesting.

I guess it's the new start of the Democrats showing bi-partisanship! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Hell's bells, what's few hundred more billions when the debt is already $22 TRILLION? Seriously though, please let's not call this President a conservative.

I will say I think they re ALL wrong, too much! I say that with everyone though.

As I wrote in the past, this is one of those things that requires reaching across the aisle reaching and bipartisanship or unfortunately it just won't work. I disagree with the numbers but unfortunately neither side will ever get what they want without compromise. It's usually only monster deals like this where I say there's no choice. But by no means is President Trump the one responsible here. He shares his responsibility for signing, absolutely. And then every person in Congress that wrote this that didn't do it with the most proper intentions is wrong. And then both sides do it until the bill is passed.

And yes, while I hold for Obama ultimately responsible as well, I did not blame him for each individual bill and said that it required compromise back then as well. But then they got full control and we were screwed but at least with one on each side it was able to be compromise. (house/senate).

President Obama was a far-left liberal. If I ever enjoyed anything that happened in his administration I certainly still consider him a liberal. Just as I have no doubt that Trump is a conservative but not everything comes out smelling like conservative roses. I wish every last thing would be conservative but unfortunately that's not going to ever happen. At least not unless he was a true dictator.

[Kathianne]

I will say I think they re ALL wrong, too much! I say that with everyone though.

As I wrote in the past, this is one of those things that requires reaching across the aisle reaching and bipartisanship or unfortunately it just won't work. I disagree with the numbers but unfortunately neither side will ever get what they want without compromise. It's usually only monster deals like this where I say there's no choice. But by no means is President Trump the one responsible here. He shares his responsibility for signing, absolutely. And then every person in Congress that wrote this that didn't do it with the most proper intentions is wrong. And then both sides do it until the bill is passed.

And yes, while I hold for Obama ultimately responsible as well, I did not blame him for each individual bill and said that it required compromise back then as well. But then they got full control and we were screwed but at least with one on each side it was able to be compromise. (house/senate).

President Obama was a far-left liberal. If I ever enjoyed anything that happened in his administration I certainly still consider him a liberal. Just as I have no doubt that Trump is a conservative but not everything comes out smelling like conservative roses. I wish every last thing would be conservative but unfortunately that's not going to ever happen. At least not unless he was a true dictator.


What else do you remember seeing such compromise? What else do you think we'll see it? This is another omnibus spending coming into and lasting until after the next federal elections. There is no 'compromise,' everyone gets what they want, to spend and no worrying about repercussions til after the people vote.

That's not compromise and that's not conservative.

[Kathianne]

At least this is honest, still wrong, but honest. "I know it's important. I know none of them care-NONE of them."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336733/



JULY 23, 2019
DAN MITCHELL: Trump’s a Big-Government Big Spender. (https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/reckless-and-irresponsible-trump-is-making-big-government-even-bigger/)
He’s right, notwithstanding Trump’s excellent deregulatory efforts, but that’s what the American people seem to want, and keep electing. As I’ve written before, it’s not that I don’t care or worry about the booming debt, it’s just that I don’t think anything will be done about it until there’s a crisis. And as the Insta-Dad said about the stimulus back in 2008, the bad news is, that exercise convinced the federal government that it could borrow a lot more money than it had previously thought it could.

[jimnyc]

What else do you remember seeing such compromise? What else do you think we'll see it? This is another omnibus spending coming into and lasting until after the next federal elections. There is no 'compromise,' everyone gets what they want, to spend and no worrying about repercussions til after the people vote.

That's not compromise and that's not conservative.

So much of what Trump has accomplished have been conservative goals. But not with these funding bills much. I am speaking overall as a president.

And unfortunately, one side has declared obstruction like a war, so there hasn't been much work reaching across from the OTHER side.

But it's not like we have a liberal president.

[Kathianne]

So much of what Trump has accomplished have been conservative goals. But not with these funding bills much. I am speaking overall as a president.

And unfortunately, one side has declared obstruction like a war, so there hasn't been much work reaching across from the OTHER side.

But it's not like we have a liberal president.

So, he's conservative but being 'outplayed'? Even I don't think that.

[jimnyc]

At least this is honest, still wrong, but honest. "I know it's important. I know none of them care-NONE of them."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336733/

I see funding as one animal, and most other things individually as they come as well. But the funding bills are like dropping money off the top to lower tier, and everyone scrambles around like crazy for their portion. WAY more crap involved in 99% than should be. And no, when it comes to spending, they all seem guilty. But someone closed the government over things once and everyone/most blamed Trump. He shares blame in this, without a doubt, I'm only saying that it's not entirely his fault, and I don't think he is a liberal.

[jimnyc]

So, he's conservative but being 'outplayed'? Even I don't think that.

Said nuttin about being outplayed. Like I said in the past, with these bills their MUST be compromise, or it'll never happen. It should STILL be much better than this, but Trump isn't the one negotiating here. He could potentially veto or shut things down again - but based on reactions from the crazy media, and some republicans, he didn't/wouldn't risk the same again, IMO, even if he or others would threaten as much.

[Kathianne]

Said nuttin about being outplayed. Like I said in the past, with these bills their MUST be compromise, or it'll never happen. It should STILL be much better than this, but Trump isn't the one negotiating here. He could potentially veto or shut things down again - but based on reactions from the crazy media, and some republicans, he didn't/wouldn't risk the same again, IMO, even if he or others would threaten as much.

I'm not being snarky. I have said, repeatedly, that many of his policies have been good-though few 'conservative' in the sense of keeping the federal government from expanding and spending like it's ok to just keep printing dollars.

How bad is this? Remember that Obama did have his own omnibus spending pass, along with Obamacare. Yet, here's where things stand regarding spending-thus far: (https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/reckless-and-irresponsible-trump-is-making-big-government-even-bigger/)


...

I’ll close with a chart I prepared based on the numbers for domestic discretionary spending from the Mid-Session Review, as well as Table 8.1 from the Historical Tables, both from the Office of Management and Budget.


The numbers show that we had more fiscal restraint under Obama (blue line) than Trump (orange line). And Trump’s numbers will now be even worse with the new deal...

https://i1.wp.com/freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Jul-22-19-OMB-Domestic.jpg

[Kathianne]

Whistling in the wind... No chance any mitigating this, doesn't matter that there will be repercussions down the road, for our posterity:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/gop-budget-deal-trump-1425878


House conservatives urge Trump to reject budget deal
By MELANIE ZANONA 07/22/2019 05:23 PM EDT Updated 07/22/2019 06:32 PM EDT

...

“You should veto this bill because it is fiscally irresponsible," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Trump, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO. "It blows well beyond what was intended with the 2011 caps. Furthermore, it continues spending hundreds of billions more than what we take in a year and does not put our nation on a path towards a balanced budget."


And, they added, "it raises our debt ceiling for two years, indulging our national spending addiction."

...

Fiscal hawks are angry that the cost of spending increases are only partly offset. While White House acting budget director Russell Vought had pushed for at least $150 billion in cuts, the deal only includes around $75 billion worth. Conservatives also don't like that there are[B] nearly equal increases for both defense and non-defense spending programs under the compromise.


...

[jimnyc]

Already stated I agree with funding/spending bills. The republicans are growing to be just as guilty as the democrats in that department. They also allow WAY too much by the left, so that they can get the stuff in there they want. That's what they consider reaching across the aisle and working together. But it's not, not at where they should be. Ultimately, by both sides, they get funding for things they think are important. Usually the left is almost all pork BS entirely, and can be done without. The right somewhat the same, often unneeded crap from them too, and of course some decent things, but generally not a lot, and the MOST important things often get set aside.

2nd amendment
economy
serve your constituents who voted (both locally, and in this case, the country aka America)
No Robin Hoods
Help for veterans finally?
Huge and effective "stick"
NO to socialism crap
...

Those are things I wanted, 1/10th actually, same as I posted in the past. Most goals reached, a few failed, a few stalled & a few just can't get by democrats. But not all fault leaves home, he certainly hasn't been perfect, far from it, but still very good, IMO.

I'll give a few links of things I have been reading, some older than others - many repeating the lists of accomplishments I have already posted, or lists of conservative agendas and what has been met and/or failed. And a ton all around the net, of accomplishments we have heard very little or nothing about - thank you CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC - or reading the news: NY Times, CNN online, Huffington Post, Poltico, Buzzfeed, (rest of TV's online versions), Yahoo news Google, WSJ, Anything on FB or Twitter (as right things get censored too often), Bloomberg, NPR, Washington Post, USA Today, Vox, Slate... I'm sure quite a few more, but those are some you see being used and believed and widespread by the left quite often, and of course get traction.

--

Anyway, here's an oldie/goodie. Accomplishments, not all conservative, but a many are.


138 things Trump did this year while you weren't looking

Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017.

In Donald Trump’s first act as president, he signed a high-profile executive order intended to dismantle Obamacare, instructing federal agencies to take any measures they could to roll back the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, the vaguely worded directive was only symbolic. The Trump administration did eventually make moves to obstruct the law, but they took months and another executive order to implement. For all the theater, it’s hard to say whether that order had any effect at all.

Less noticed on Inauguration Day was a surprise move by the Federal Housing Administration to scratch a planned reduction in mortgage insurance premiums. That change helped shore up the financial health of the FHA’s mortgage insurance fund —but came at a real cost to homeowners, who would have saved an average of $500 a year if the Obama-era plan had stayed in place.

If you didn’t hear about the $500 you may have lost that day—well, that’s how the year went. The attention gap between the empty executive order and the real-life mortgage insurance rollback turned out to be representative of the whole first year of the Trump administration.

Again and again, Trump has taken the stage to an adoring crowd and declared victory on some issue, or announced lavish new promises, without any real results or plans to back them up. Meanwhile, very steadily, and almost totally separately from Trump’s speeches and tweetstorms, his administration has been ushering in a new conservative era of government—taking specific aim at Obama-era rules, and broader aim at the big regulatory mission of government.

At The Agenda, we’ve been tracking these policy changes weekly since June, ignoring the noise and explaining what the Trump administration actually accomplished each week. This week, we’re pulling them all into one mega-list—a portrait of a quiet but very serious Republican push against the scope and ambition of government.

What does it look like? There are a few consistent themes: Rolling back President Barack Obama’s legacy on everything from labor regulations to environmental protections, and more broadly tearing down rules across the government. Some topics have been largely missing: his infrastructure push has gone nowhere. Many of the rules are still in progress, or being delayed so long that it’s anyone’s guess what will really happen. (As you’ll see, some of our items are recurring episodes in long-running dramas, like what will finally happen to Obama’s fiduciary standard, which required stockbrokers to act in the best interest of their clients.) And finally, there are some perplexing surprises. After all the rhetoric against China and Mexico, the year’s big trade-war enemy has been … Canada?

Welcome to the annual wrap-up of our weekly guide to what Trump did while you weren’t looking.

June 3-9

1. A boost for Uber and McDonald’s
It’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.

In 2015, the Obama administration gave workers a win on this one: It issued a guidance document explaining how the Department of Labor would interpret the law, outlining the economic tests it employed in determining whether an employer was misclassifying its workers. The agency had been using that policy in enforcing the law, but putting it in writing sent a clear message to employers across the country that the Obama administration was serious about cracking down on worker misclassification.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration withdrew the guidance document. This was a win for business owners in any number of sectors — not just Uber, but industries such as farming and construction, which increasingly use independent contractors. The withdrawal of the document doesn’t change the underlying law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the DOL’s current interpretation of it but sends a strong signal to employers that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta plans to interpret it differently than his predecessor. “The big story is not that, for whatever reason, they pulled down guidance,” said David Weil, who issued the document under Obama. “The real question is what else comes with this.”

Acosta also withdrew another Obama-era guidance document on how the department will determine whether a parent company, like McDonald’s or Subway, is jointly responsible for its franchises’ labor violations. As with worker misclassification, the Obama-era DOL interpreted the joint employment standard favorably for workers; its withdrawal is a victory for businesses.

2. A trade war with Mexico averted—for now
Trump has stormed on about the North American Free Trade Agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with Mexico may be on the horizon. But on Tuesday, the United States and Mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on Mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with Canada, seek to preserve and update NAFTA later this year.

The sugar deal is a quintessentially in-the-weeds trade agreement: It raises the minimum prices for raw and refined sugar and cuts the percentage of Mexico’s sugar exports that are refined from 53 percent to 30 percent, while redefining the purity level for refined sugar. The U.S. sugar industry objected to the deal, arguing that it did not address loopholes that give Mexican producers an unfair advantage in the U.S. market. It wasn’t the win that industry wanted, but many experts were encouraged that the administration’s first big dispute with a major trading partner had an amicable ending.

3. The end of a DOJ “slush fund”
Three years ago, when the Department of Justice settled a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by Bank of America’s wrongdoing. Many other DOJ settlements with financial institutions during the Obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.

Conservatives have long objected to this practice, which was used by Obama and, before him, George W. Bush: They see it as a way for a president to direct money to his favored organizations, illegally sidestepping the congressional appropriations process. The Obama administration argued that so-called third-party settlements were simply another tool for reparations: The money, they said, didn’t go to random organizations but to groups that could help repair the damage caused by financial misdeeds. Opponents called it a “slush fund.”

That ended Wednesday , when Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo prohibiting U.S. attorneys from including such third-party payouts in any settlements. When the Department of Justice settles a case from now on, third-party groups won’t get a dime.

4. A win for nursing homes
Last October, the Obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.

The nursing home industry fought the rule, suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In November, it won a temporary injunction against the regulation, so it never actually took effect. And now it may be dead. On Tuesday, the Trump administration signaled its view on arbitration agreements: the DHS issued a new proposed regulation that rolled back the Obama rule. Because it’s not final, the new rule doesn’t immediately overturn the ban on arbitration agreements; it has to go through the same process as any other rule. But it sends a strong signal for where the administration will ultimately land.

5. Get THAAD out of here
Not every major policy change affecting America originates in Washington. On Wednesday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in blocked the deployment of an American missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from North Korea.

The Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system became a hot-button issue in Asia: China sees the North Korea angle as a cover story for a system that’s really intended to block Chinese missiles, an incursion on its sovereignty. (The Pentagon disputes that argument.) It already was a delicate issue in South Korea; Beijing had been successfully using state media to persuade Chinese consumers to boycott South Korean stores and cancel vacation plans, which has hurt many Korean businesses. Then Trump rattled relations with its ally by insisting in April that South Korea foot the $1 billion bill for the system, an idea later walked back by his national security team.

Moon — a left-leaning leader who supports a more open dialogue with North Korea than his scandal-plagued predecessor—was already reluctant to host THAAD at all, but allowed its continued deployment until he discovered last week, to his surprise, that the Pentagon had sent four more launchers into the country. On Wednesday, he stopped any further deployment of the system—just a day before North Korea conducted its 10th missile test of the year.

June 10–16

1. U.S. and China make nice on beef, dairy and poultry
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against Chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But Trump backed off his promise to officially label Beijing a “currency manipulator.” And in May, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the U.S.-China 100-Day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”

Still, trade experts who looked at the details of the agreement, were less convinced. Many of the ten policy changes were already underway; on the new changes, China made few firm commitments.

This week, a trio of trade announcements revealed there was more substance to the deal than originally thought, if not quite “herculean.” On Tuesday, the Department of Agriculture announced it had finalized an agreement with its Chinese counterparts to allow U.S. beef imports into China, breaking a 14-year ban that Beijing has more-than-once promised to end. On Thursday, the U.S. and China signed a memorandum to promote U.S dairy products in China , and , on Friday, the USDA published a proposed rule to allow Chinese poultry products into the U.S.

These aren’t huge changes to the U.S.-China trade relationship, and some were in the works long before Trump took office. In fact, China promised last September to lift the ban on U.S. beef exports; the dairy agreement wasn’t actually part of the “100-Day” trade deal. But the trio of agreements show that even as Trump rails against Beijing’s trade policies, the two sides are still capable of compromising. For all the eye rolls that Trump’s initial “100-Day” deal invited, it’s looking a lot more real two months later, especially once beef shipments actually arrive in China, which Ross estimated could be as soon as 10 days. “Everyone has been justified in taking a wait and see attitude,” said Bruce Hirsh, a former assistant U.S. trade representative. “Even now, until actual shipments are accepted, it's best to wait and see.”

2. Education Department targets Obama-era student protections
With student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the Obama administration announced a new policy last October that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed Obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.

One problem: The rule wasn’t scheduled to take effect until July 1—and now it looks like it will never take effect. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced this week that the agency was delaying the implementation of the so-called “defense to repayment” rule indefinitely, on the grounds that it is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In effect, this means the idea is almost certainly dead: DeVos also announced that the department intends to rewrite the rule altogether, along with another major Obama-era education rule, known as “gainful employment,” that required colleges to meet certain standards or risk losing access to federal student loan dollars.

Unlike “defense to repayment,” the “gainful employment” rule was finalized in 2014 and had already taken effect, so the Trump administration will have to undertake a full rulemaking process to rewrite it, a time-consuming process.

The changes are a defeat for defrauded students and a big victory for for-profit colleges, which are disproportionately represented among both loan-fraud cases and colleges that leave students with high debt levels. For-profits loudly argued that the Obama administration was effectively trying to choke out the industry altogether. This week, DeVos gave it new life.

Rest - https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/12/29/138-trump-policy-changes-2017-000603


A little more recent, from March 2018


The Incredible Trump Agenda – What Most Americans Don’t Know About the War the President Has Waged

KEY TAKEAWAYS


The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball.


President Trump’s style has dismayed many on the right as well as the left. But when it comes to actions, conservatives find much to delight them.

While the 2016 presidential elections were underway, policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation (my employer and one of the nation’s leading think tanks) compiled a six-volume series of conservative, research-based policy recommendations for the next president.

The recommendations were calculated to help the incoming president and Congress jumpstart the economy, strengthen national security and halt the increasing centralization of power in the federal government.

At the end of 2017, we reviewed all 334 recommendations presented in our “Mandate for Leadership” series and found that the Trump administration had embraced fully 64 percent of them. That’s nearly two out of three – and that’s very good indeed.

Most Americans are already familiar with some of the conservative agenda items adopted in the last year.

The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December, for example, reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code from one that penalized economic growth to one that promotes it. Already, the American people have begun to reap the benefits: higher take-home pay, tax cut-fueled bonuses and a burgeoning job market.

And many are aware of how Congress acted on another key recommendations to exercise its authority under the long-ignored Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn ill-considered rules implemented by regulatory agencies. During the first few months of its session, Congress used CRA resolutions to eliminate 14 major rules finalized by the Obama administration in its waning days.

But relatively few Americans are aware that the president has waged his own war on over-regulation. For example, President Trump has lifted the Obama-era moratorium on coal leases on federal lands. And he has instructed executive branch agencies to review and reconsider pending rules, with a goal of eliminating two regulations for every new one implemented.

By year’s end, the Trump administration had withdrawn or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations. It has made a difference. On Dec. 14, the administration reported that the regulatory rollback had saved the American economy $8.1 billion, and would save another $9.8 billion in fiscal 2019.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court. And President Trump followed this up with many other outstanding judicial appointments.

By the end of 2017, the Senate had confirmed 12 circuit court of appeals judges – the largest number of appellate judges confirmed during the first year of any president in history. Why does that matter? Because most federal cases stop at the appellate level. Only one of every 700 cases heard by these courts goes on to the Supreme Court.

President Trump has eschewed President Obama’s practice of filling these slots with activist judges who interpret the laws as what they think the laws should say, rather than as they are actually written. It’s a huge change – and a tremendous boost for the rule of law.

From pulling America out of the unaffordable and unworkable Paris Protocol on Climate Change to ending the damaging Obama era regulations on net neutrality, the Trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.

Yes, there is much more work to do. The Senate badly fumbled ObamaCare repeal last year, leaving millions of Americans saddled with increasingly unaffordable health coverage. Welfare reform remains a major challenge, and restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to Washington seems as elusive as ever.

But make no mistake, 2017 was a banner year for conservative policy victories. On that score, President Trump can confidently stack his record right up there next to President Reagan’s first year.

The politicians and pundits of the left would lead you to believe that the administration has been just as distracted and discombobulated by the president’s tweets as they have been. But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball. The conservative agenda is marching forward.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-incredible-trump-agenda-what-most-americans-dont-know-about-the-war-the

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yeah all this spending... I think most in Washington have come to the conclusion that the debt is already past paying off, so they're just spending like drunken sailors until it blows up. When we can no longer pay the interest on the debt, then they'll just try and wipe it out. Wave a magic wand and start all over, insto-presto, all debt is gone. That's actually what it would take, because trying to pay off the debt in real money, it isn't going to happen, ever.

[Kathianne]

Yeah all this spending... I think most in Washington have come to the conclusion that the debt is already past paying off, so they're just spending like drunken sailors until it blows up. When we can no longer pay the interest on the debt, then they'll just try and wipe it out. Wave a magic wand and start all over, insto-presto, all debt is gone. That's actually what it would take, because trying to pay off the debt in real money, it isn't going to happen, ever.

Then we should take this mulligan now. Poof! I like it. I mean, what could go wrong?

[Kathianne]

already stated i agree with funding/spending bills. The republicans are growing to be just as guilty as the democrats in that department. They also allow way too much by the left, so that they can get the stuff in there they want. That's what they consider reaching across the aisle and working together. But it's not, not at where they should be. Ultimately, by both sides, they get funding for things they think are important. Usually the left is almost all pork bs entirely, and can be done without. The right somewhat the same, often unneeded crap from them too, and of course some decent things, but generally not a lot, and the most important things often get set aside.

2nd amendment
economy
serve your constituents who voted (both locally, and in this case, the country aka america)
no robin hoods
help for veterans finally?
Huge and effective "stick"
no to socialism crap
...

Those are things i wanted, 1/10th actually, same as i posted in the past. Most goals reached, a few failed, a few stalled & a few just can't get by democrats. But not all fault leaves home, he certainly hasn't been perfect, far from it, but still very good, imo.

I'll give a few links of things i have been reading, some older than others - many repeating the lists of accomplishments i have already posted, or lists of conservative agendas and what has been met and/or failed. And a ton all around the net, of accomplishments we have heard very little or nothing about - thank you cnn, cbs, nbc, abc, pbs, msnbc - or reading the news: Ny times, cnn online, huffington post, poltico, buzzfeed, (rest of tv's online versions), yahoo news google, wsj, anything on fb or twitter (as right things get censored too often), bloomberg, npr, washington post, usa today, vox, slate... I'm sure quite a few more, but those are some you see being used and believed and widespread by the left quite often, and of course get traction.

--

anyway, here's an oldie/goodie. Accomplishments, not all conservative, but a many are.


138 things trump did this year while you weren't looking

behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017.

in donald trump’s first act as president, he signed a high-profile executive order intended to dismantle obamacare, instructing federal agencies to take any measures they could to roll back the affordable care act. In retrospect, the vaguely worded directive was only symbolic. The trump administration did eventually make moves to obstruct the law, but they took months and another executive order to implement. For all the theater, it’s hard to say whether that order had any effect at all.

Less noticed on inauguration day was a surprise move by the federal housing administration to scratch a planned reduction in mortgage insurance premiums. That change helped shore up the financial health of the fha’s mortgage insurance fund —but came at a real cost to homeowners, who would have saved an average of $500 a year if the obama-era plan had stayed in place.

If you didn’t hear about the $500 you may have lost that day—well, that’s how the year went. The attention gap between the empty executive order and the real-life mortgage insurance rollback turned out to be representative of the whole first year of the trump administration.

Again and again, trump has taken the stage to an adoring crowd and declared victory on some issue, or announced lavish new promises, without any real results or plans to back them up. Meanwhile, very steadily, and almost totally separately from trump’s speeches and tweetstorms, his administration has been ushering in a new conservative era of government—taking specific aim at obama-era rules, and broader aim at the big regulatory mission of government.

At the agenda, we’ve been tracking these policy changes weekly since june, ignoring the noise and explaining what the trump administration actually accomplished each week. This week, we’re pulling them all into one mega-list—a portrait of a quiet but very serious republican push against the scope and ambition of government.

What does it look like? There are a few consistent themes: Rolling back president barack obama’s legacy on everything from labor regulations to environmental protections, and more broadly tearing down rules across the government. Some topics have been largely missing: His infrastructure push has gone nowhere. Many of the rules are still in progress, or being delayed so long that it’s anyone’s guess what will really happen. (as you’ll see, some of our items are recurring episodes in long-running dramas, like what will finally happen to obama’s fiduciary standard, which required stockbrokers to act in the best interest of their clients.) and finally, there are some perplexing surprises. After all the rhetoric against china and mexico, the year’s big trade-war enemy has been … canada?

Welcome to the annual wrap-up of our weekly guide to what trump did while you weren’t looking.

June 3-9

1. A boost for uber and mcdonald’s
it’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like uber and postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.

In 2015, the obama administration gave workers a win on this one: It issued a guidance document explaining how the department of labor would interpret the law, outlining the economic tests it employed in determining whether an employer was misclassifying its workers. The agency had been using that policy in enforcing the law, but putting it in writing sent a clear message to employers across the country that the obama administration was serious about cracking down on worker misclassification.

On wednesday, the trump administration withdrew the guidance document. This was a win for business owners in any number of sectors — not just uber, but industries such as farming and construction, which increasingly use independent contractors. The withdrawal of the document doesn’t change the underlying law, the fair labor standards act, or the dol’s current interpretation of it but sends a strong signal to employers that labor secretary alexander acosta plans to interpret it differently than his predecessor. “the big story is not that, for whatever reason, they pulled down guidance,” said david weil, who issued the document under obama. “the real question is what else comes with this.”

acosta also withdrew another obama-era guidance document on how the department will determine whether a parent company, like mcdonald’s or subway, is jointly responsible for its franchises’ labor violations. As with worker misclassification, the obama-era dol interpreted the joint employment standard favorably for workers; its withdrawal is a victory for businesses.

2. A trade war with mexico averted—for now
trump has stormed on about the north american free trade agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with mexico may be on the horizon. But on tuesday, the united states and mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with canada, seek to preserve and update nafta later this year.

The sugar deal is a quintessentially in-the-weeds trade agreement: It raises the minimum prices for raw and refined sugar and cuts the percentage of mexico’s sugar exports that are refined from 53 percent to 30 percent, while redefining the purity level for refined sugar. The u.s. Sugar industry objected to the deal, arguing that it did not address loopholes that give mexican producers an unfair advantage in the u.s. Market. It wasn’t the win that industry wanted, but many experts were encouraged that the administration’s first big dispute with a major trading partner had an amicable ending.

3. The end of a doj “slush fund”
three years ago, when the department of justice settled a $17 billion settlement with bank of america over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by bank of america’s wrongdoing. Many other doj settlements with financial institutions during the obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.

Conservatives have long objected to this practice, which was used by obama and, before him, george w. Bush: They see it as a way for a president to direct money to his favored organizations, illegally sidestepping the congressional appropriations process. The obama administration argued that so-called third-party settlements were simply another tool for reparations: The money, they said, didn’t go to random organizations but to groups that could help repair the damage caused by financial misdeeds. Opponents called it a “slush fund.”

that ended wednesday , when attorney general jeff sessions issued a memo prohibiting u.s. Attorneys from including such third-party payouts in any settlements. When the department of justice settles a case from now on, third-party groups won’t get a dime.

4. A win for nursing homes
last october, the obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.

The nursing home industry fought the rule, suing the department of health and human services. In november, it won a temporary injunction against the regulation, so it never actually took effect. And now it may be dead. On tuesday, the trump administration signaled its view on arbitration agreements: The dhs issued a new proposed regulation that rolled back the obama rule. Because it’s not final, the new rule doesn’t immediately overturn the ban on arbitration agreements; it has to go through the same process as any other rule. But it sends a strong signal for where the administration will ultimately land.

5. Get thaad out of here
not every major policy change affecting america originates in washington. On wednesday, south korean president moon jae-in blocked the deployment of an american missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from north korea.

The pentagon’s terminal high altitude area defense system became a hot-button issue in asia: China sees the north korea angle as a cover story for a system that’s really intended to block chinese missiles, an incursion on its sovereignty. (the pentagon disputes that argument.) it already was a delicate issue in south korea; beijing had been successfully using state media to persuade chinese consumers to boycott south korean stores and cancel vacation plans, which has hurt many korean businesses. Then trump rattled relations with its ally by insisting in april that south korea foot the $1 billion bill for the system, an idea later walked back by his national security team.

Moon — a left-leaning leader who supports a more open dialogue with north korea than his scandal-plagued predecessor—was already reluctant to host thaad at all, but allowed its continued deployment until he discovered last week, to his surprise, that the pentagon had sent four more launchers into the country. On wednesday, he stopped any further deployment of the system—just a day before north korea conducted its 10th missile test of the year.

June 10–16

1. U.s. And china make nice on beef, dairy and poultry
throughout his campaign, trump railed against chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But trump backed off his promise to officially label beijing a “currency manipulator.” and in may, commerce secretary wilbur ross announced the u.s.-china 100-day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”

still, trade experts who looked at the details of the agreement, were less convinced. Many of the ten policy changes were already underway; on the new changes, china made few firm commitments.

This week, a trio of trade announcements revealed there was more substance to the deal than originally thought, if not quite “herculean.” on tuesday, the department of agriculture announced it had finalized an agreement with its chinese counterparts to allow u.s. Beef imports into china, breaking a 14-year ban that beijing has more-than-once promised to end. On thursday, the u.s. And china signed a memorandum to promote u.s dairy products in china , and , on friday, the usda published a proposed rule to allow chinese poultry products into the u.s.

These aren’t huge changes to the u.s.-china trade relationship, and some were in the works long before trump took office. In fact, china promised last september to lift the ban on u.s. Beef exports; the dairy agreement wasn’t actually part of the “100-day” trade deal. But the trio of agreements show that even as trump rails against beijing’s trade policies, the two sides are still capable of compromising. For all the eye rolls that trump’s initial “100-day” deal invited, it’s looking a lot more real two months later, especially once beef shipments actually arrive in china, which ross estimated could be as soon as 10 days. “everyone has been justified in taking a wait and see attitude,” said bruce hirsh, a former assistant u.s. Trade representative. “even now, until actual shipments are accepted, it's best to wait and see.”

2. Education department targets obama-era student protections
with student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the obama administration announced a new policy last october that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.

One problem: The rule wasn’t scheduled to take effect until july 1—and now it looks like it will never take effect. Education secretary betsy devos announced this week that the agency was delaying the implementation of the so-called “defense to repayment” rule indefinitely, on the grounds that it is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In effect, this means the idea is almost certainly dead: Devos also announced that the department intends to rewrite the rule altogether, along with another major obama-era education rule, known as “gainful employment,” that required colleges to meet certain standards or risk losing access to federal student loan dollars.

Unlike “defense to repayment,” the “gainful employment” rule was finalized in 2014 and had already taken effect, so the trump administration will have to undertake a full rulemaking process to rewrite it, a time-consuming process.

The changes are a defeat for defrauded students and a big victory for for-profit colleges, which are disproportionately represented among both loan-fraud cases and colleges that leave students with high debt levels. For-profits loudly argued that the obama administration was effectively trying to choke out the industry altogether. This week, devos gave it new life.

Rest - https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/12/29/138-trump-policy-changes-2017-000603


a little more recent, from march 2018


the incredible trump agenda – what most americans don’t know about the war the president has waged

key takeaways


the once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in december reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code.
conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of neil gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the u.s. Supreme court.
but the scores of principled conservatives president trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball.


president trump’s style has dismayed many on the right as well as the left. But when it comes to actions, conservatives find much to delight them.

While the 2016 presidential elections were underway, policy analysts at the heritage foundation (my employer and one of the nation’s leading think tanks) compiled a six-volume series of conservative, research-based policy recommendations for the next president.

The recommendations were calculated to help the incoming president and congress jumpstart the economy, strengthen national security and halt the increasing centralization of power in the federal government.

at the end of 2017, we reviewed all 334 recommendations presented in our “mandate for leadership” series and found that the trump administration had embraced fully 64 percent of them. That’s nearly two out of three – and that’s very good indeed.

most americans are already familiar with some of the conservative agenda items adopted in the last year.

The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in december, for example, reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code from one that penalized economic growth to one that promotes it. Already, the american people have begun to reap the benefits: Higher take-home pay, tax cut-fueled bonuses and a burgeoning job market.

and many are aware of how congress acted on another key recommendations to exercise its authority under the long-ignored congressional review act (cra) to overturn ill-considered rules implemented by regulatory agencies. During the first few months of its session, congress used cra resolutions to eliminate 14 major rules finalized by the obama administration in its waning days.

but relatively few americans are aware that the president has waged his own war on over-regulation. For example, president trump has lifted the obama-era moratorium on coal leases on federal lands. And he has instructed executive branch agencies to review and reconsider pending rules, with a goal of eliminating two regulations for every new one implemented.

by year’s end, the trump administration had withdrawn or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations. it has made a difference. On dec. 14, the administration reported that the regulatory rollback had saved the american economy $8.1 billion, and would save another $9.8 billion in fiscal 2019.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of neil gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the u.s. Supreme court. and president trump followed this up with many other outstanding judicial appointments.

by the end of 2017, the senate had confirmed 12 circuit court of appeals judges – the largest number of appellate judges confirmed during the first year of any president in history. Why does that matter? Because most federal cases stop at the appellate level. Only one of every 700 cases heard by these courts goes on to the supreme court.

president trump has eschewed president obama’s practice of filling these slots with activist judges who interpret the laws as what they think the laws should say, rather than as they are actually written. It’s a huge change – and a tremendous boost for the rule of law.

From pulling america out of the unaffordable and unworkable paris protocol on climate change to ending the damaging obama era regulations on net neutrality, the trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.

yes, there is much more work to do. The senate badly fumbled obamacare repeal last year, leaving millions of americans saddled with increasingly unaffordable health coverage. Welfare reform remains a major challenge, and restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to washington seems as elusive as ever.

but make no mistake, 2017 was a banner year for conservative policy victories. on that score, president trump can confidently stack his record right up there next to president reagan’s first year.

the politicians and pundits of the left would lead you to believe that the administration has been just as distracted and discombobulated by the president’s tweets as they have been. But the scores of principled conservatives president trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball. The conservative agenda is marching forward.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-incredible-trump-agenda-what-most-americans-dont-know-about-the-war-the


maga!

[jimnyc]

Then we should take this mulligan now. Poof! I like it. I mean, what could go wrong?

Not much really. No worse than replacing every building in this country, every car in this country and MUCH more to the tune of $93 trillion more, and then pay people who don't wanna work (how many low paid workers would quit?), make schools free & of course wipe out all current student loan debt. No borders, less laws and less enforcement of various things. Kill the current debt, do all of those things, then just kill that debt too! We'll be in a frickin state of Utopia, I can't wait!!

[jimnyc]

maga!

Well, at least we were both civil, no fights, and apparently we disagree - and this is apparently where I move on to another thread. :)

[Kathianne]

Not much really. No worse than replacing every building in this country, every car in this country and MUCH more to the tune of $93 trillion more, and then pay people who don't wanna work (how many low paid workers would quit?), make schools free & of course wipe out all current student loan debt. No borders, less laws and less enforcement of various things. Kill the current debt, do all of those things, then just kill that debt too! We'll be in a frickin state of Utopia, I can't wait!!


Hey, compromise! :coffee:

[Kathianne]

Well, at least we were both civil, no fights, and apparently we disagree - and this is apparently where I move on to another thread. :)

I thought that was the correct response to the list? I'm trying to go along. ;)

[jimnyc]

I thought that was the correct response to the list? I'm trying to go along. ;)

Well, although we disagreed, I remained sarcastic free and spent quite a bit on that last post to express myself with facts/opinions - and get a one worder of sarcasm in reply. I have no desire to go sarcastic or defensive/offensive mode, and certainly not with friends. That's how bad feelings get started, with sarcasm often.

[STTAB]

I mean I suppose that actually working together is progress, but yeah this totally contradicts Trump's "I'll never sign another bill like this" bullshit from last year.

Puts Democrats in some kinda bind too, on the one hand they most definitely want to bash Trump for not keeping his word, on the other hand they don't want to draw too much attention to the fact that they actually worked with him on something.

Myself I'm sick of omnibus spending bills, they should be outlawed. Congress should be forced to each year fund each department of the government in a separate bill. Why the fuck is military spending in any way tied to , for example, welfare? I'm sick of "okay well we had to give millions to Guatamala to get Democrats to agree to fund the millitary" or what have you. Put them on separate bills. Now of course I realize that scum being scum these guys would just make back room deals "you vote for my bill I vote for yours" but at least we'd have the illlusion of straight up votes

[Kathianne]

Well, although we disagreed, I remained sarcastic free and spent quite a bit on that last post to express myself with facts/opinions - and get a one worder of sarcasm in reply. I have no desire to go sarcastic or defensive/offensive mode, and certainly not with friends. That's how bad feelings get started, with sarcasm often.

I apologize for going to snark, but I thought the same when you went to 'accomplishments' instead of staying with the budget, or rather lack thereof. I've said repeatedly, even earlier in this thread, that the President has accomplished things that I agree with. That doesn't take away from the many that are not conservative. When you post a list of tens, if not over a hundred things, there's no way to turn that into a discussion.

[jimnyc]

I apologize for going to snark, but I thought the same when you went to 'accomplishments' instead of staying with the budget, or rather lack thereof. I've said repeatedly, even earlier in this thread, that the President has accomplished things that I agree with. That doesn't take away from the many that are not conservative. When you post a list of tens, if not over a hundred things, there's no way to turn that into a discussion.

I was simply replying to the part that it was stated that Trump was not a conservative. I admitted that the republicans have all agreed to yet more spending, and I disagree with that, and that Trump isn't vetoing things nor trying the approach he did last time, shutting things down. That he was not entirely responsible for this latest bill, but shares his responsibility of course - so he's not innocent. The whole collective bunch are responsible. I agreed fully here and explained why, with my caveats.

But I disagreed with this making him some form of leftie or liberal, and further explained why, and how I was looking at the totality of things, and each individually. But then you even asked me - WHERE ELSE did I see any compromise, and what else/when will we see it. I assume you were of course speaking of this bill, and then some, as you asked where else. Then even you pointed out things about deregulatory. While a different subject, it was about spending.

So I went on to explain that I had thought he had accomplished conservative agendas in addition to this and pointed some out. I stated at that point - I am speaking overall as a president. You mentioned his policies again as a whole, and accomplishments, just that 'few' were conservative.

I then listed a few things that I had long ago stated I wanted, and looked at as conservative myself, if not common sense. Then a posted a few supporting articles of accomplishments, but more importantly, a few that listed accomplishments that were conservative.

I didn't write all that again to be snarky, no way, you're a friend Kath! I just laying out important things as I saw them, and I had zero issue with the conversation. Neither was posting what I did in ANY way meant to be snarky or sarcastic to you. The 'prior to articles' writing was top of my head thoughts, nothing to note of sarcasm or whatever, just normal stuff. Then just followed by the 2 articles. Within them, I scanned and tried to highlight what I thought were good conservative things. I'm confident that not everyone would agree, but that's to be expected in political discussions. And then the maga comment.

Admittedly all those things aren't on topic with strictly this budget bill. But I also don't think this one thing makes him a liberal, or not a conservative. And admittedly once again, I know that's solely my opinion only.

No need with the sorry, we're friends, but that's whay I walk away at times, whether you or others, as I'd rather not take chances as I know I "can" get into moods and post things I regret, and I'm trying to avoid that right now, especially with my friends, and sometimes with long time members, depending. :)

[Kathianne]

I was simply replying to the part that it was stated that Trump was not a conservative. I admitted that the republicans have all agreed to yet more spending, and I disagree with that, and that Trump isn't vetoing things nor trying the approach he did last time, shutting things down. That he was not entirely responsible for this latest bill, but shares his responsibility of course - so he's not innocent. The whole collective bunch are responsible. I agreed fully here and explained why, with my caveats.

But I disagreed with this making him some form of leftie or liberal, and further explained why, and how I was looking at the totality of things, and each individually. But then you even asked me - WHERE ELSE did I see any compromise, and what else/when will we see it. I assume you were of course speaking of this bill, and then some, as you asked where else. Then even you pointed out things about deregulatory. While a different subject, it was about spending.

So I went on to explain that I had thought he had accomplished conservative agendas in addition to this and pointed some out. I stated at that point - I am speaking overall as a president. You mentioned his policies again as a whole, and accomplishments, just that 'few' were conservative.

I then listed a few things that I had long ago stated I wanted, and looked at as conservative myself, if not common sense. Then a posted a few supporting articles of accomplishments, but more importantly, a few that listed accomplishments that were conservative.

I didn't write all that again to be snarky, no way, you're a friend Kath! I just laying out important things as I saw them, and I had zero issue with the conversation. Neither was posting what I did in ANY way meant to be snarky or sarcastic to you. The 'prior to articles' writing was top of my head thoughts, nothing to note of sarcasm or whatever, just normal stuff. Then just followed by the 2 articles. Within them, I scanned and tried to highlight what I thought were good conservative things. I'm confident that not everyone would agree, but that's to be expected in political discussions. And then the maga comment.

Admittedly all those things aren't on topic with strictly this budget bill. But I also don't think this one thing makes him a liberal, or not a conservative. And admittedly once again, I know that's solely my opinion only.

No need with the sorry, we're friends, but that's whay I walk away at times, whether you or others, as I'd rather not take chances as I know I "can" get into moods and post things I regret, and I'm trying to avoid that right now, especially with my friends, and sometimes with long time members, depending. :)


Here's where I see our understandings being different. I have not seen any efforts by Democrats to 'compromise' on one thing-good or bad-until this 'budget' or rather funding for spending, since last year's. That alone should give anyone pause. NOTE-I've not said that the President hasn't tried for compromise, he just hasn't succeeded at finding any.

No matter how we see this, it won't likely be our problem, but will be for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren-our posterity.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/23/a-budget-disaster-of-epic-proportions/

[STTAB]

I apologize for going to snark, but I thought the same when you went to 'accomplishments' instead of staying with the budget, or rather lack thereof. I've said repeatedly, even earlier in this thread, that the President has accomplished things that I agree with. That doesn't take away from the many that are not conservative. When you post a list of tens, if not over a hundred things, there's no way to turn that into a discussion.

I would hazard a guess that many of his voters realized Trump wasn't an actual conservative when they voted for him .

That is actually what is so frustrating about the God damned Democrats, this IS the President that could have convinced conservatives to give in on some issues in order to get some things they want. But the fucking Democrats, that's not good enough for them, even when they lose elections they expect to get everything they want without compromising a bit.

[Kathianne]

I would hazard a guess that many of his voters realized Trump wasn't an actual conservative when they voted for him .

That is actually what is so frustrating about the God damned Democrats, this IS the President that could have convinced conservatives to give in on some issues in order to get some things they want. But the fucking Democrats, that's not good enough for them, even when they lose elections they expect to get everything they want without compromising a bit.

Even funnier, I've been called 'liberal and leftist' repeatedly since opposing his election. Now I'm the one who has a problem with the compromising on something most would have railed against not so long ago.

[Kathianne]

I'm not alone:

http://patterico.com/2019/07/23/post-budget-deal-rant-what-is-the-point-of-the-republican-party/


...

My question is: what is the point of the Republican party any more? The TEA party supposedly consisted of people outraged by the size of government, who wanted to return to our founding principles so much that middle-aged white guys were going around in tri-cornered hats. Now those people are all Trumpers, and it looks like the support for small government was a passing fancy — just one of several ways to trigger the libs.


Republicans are OK on the budget (relatively speaking; in absolute terms they are still terrible) when a Democrat is in office. Witness the Budget Control Act, which Republicans crammed down Obama’s throat. But they spend like drunken sailors when the GOP takes over the Oval Office. Can you imagine Republicans forcing the Budget Control Act on Trump?


My core concerns for the federal government are 1) excellent judges who apply the law, 2) preserving the free market, and 3) shrinking the debt and deficit by reducing spending and the size of government. (I know: quaint, right?) Donald Trump is good on judges. I always said he would be. But with his love for tariffs, he is horrible on free markets. And he is giving Obama and Bush a run for their money in the race for being the president who cares least about spending.


Budgets like this mortgage our children’s future. They are an outrage and should motivate any sensible person to stand up, scream, and throw the bums out.


That doesn’t mean I will vote Democrat. As long as the president picks judges, I can’t go that far. (Turn over picking judges to Congress and I might vote for Joe Biden to get Trump the hell out of there. But that will never happen.) So I’ll be sitting out the next presidential election.


But this is not what I signed up for when I became a Republican some 30 years ago.


It is, however, precisely what I expected when I left the party over three years ago.


This party stands for owning the libs and for nothing else. This budget deal proves it. And aside from a handful of sensible people, nobody will care. Meanwhile, our kids are screwed.


This is why people become disgusted with Washington D.C. To hell with the people involved in this travesty. Each and every one of them.

[jimnyc]

I would hazard a guess that many of his voters realized Trump wasn't an actual conservative when they voted for him .

That is actually what is so frustrating about the God damned Democrats, this IS the President that could have convinced conservatives to give in on some issues in order to get some things they want. But the fucking Democrats, that's not good enough for them, even when they lose elections they expect to get everything they want without compromising a bit.

I believed home wholeheartedly, and then he thanked me by going out and getting much done, and accomplishing the majority he said he would, and I'm thankful in return for that. I have zero doubt that he is running and continuing so the best he can on conservative agendas, and hopefully any accomplishments going forward will have additional. I think HE definitely bent too many times in compromising with democrats, when they too have an agenda - called obstruction, IMO.

For me, I look at them as different animals - the funding bills and the rest, for reasons pointed out earlier. And they all suck all the way around for continuing to put us in debt, and continuing to make demands of their own in return for votes - it should be plain old good things being funded & any discussions should be about that funding. Instead, things generally get added to get a vote here and there, then add something else for this one... repeat... crappy bloated funding in the end. And they ALL go along with it.

[STTAB]

Even funnier, I've been called 'liberal and leftist' repeatedly since opposing his election. Now I'm the one who has a problem with the compromising on something most would have railed against not so long ago.

Funny enough Kath I think that's one of Trump's strongest suits in a lot of ways. Not talking about this particular issue, but on something like say gay marriage, how many Trump voters were adamantly anti gay marriage before Trump but now because he doesn't give a shit, they don't give a shit?

He's actually nullified a big portion of the hard right On most issues that's a good thing. Heck even in term of spending remember last week when we all agreed Rand Paul shouldn't be pinching pennies when it comes to 911 survivors?

Lord knows the Democrats desperately need a national politician who's willing and able to neutralize the hard left.

[jimnyc]

Funny enough Kath I think that's one of Trump's strongest suits in a lot of ways. Not talking about this particular issue, but on something like say gay marriage, how many Trump voters were adamantly anti gay marriage before Trump but now because he doesn't give a shit, they don't give a shit?

He's actually nullified a big portion of the hard right On most issues that's a good thing. Heck even in term of spending remember last week when we all agreed Rand Paul shouldn't be pinching pennies when it comes to 911 survivors?

Lord knows the Democrats desperately need a national politician who's willing and able to neutralize the hard left.

I can only speak for 2 conservative, myself and my wifey, and we are both still against gay marriage! Maybe partly anyway, because not a lot of court cases or crap in congress going on to make it national news? Can't say for sure - and I agree with you that some of the thinking went that route. Just not all, and not me for sure.

I think on that spending issue, ya gotta admit that particular issue is a leeeeeetle different than the rest, and I think should have been fully funded regardless any cost. I am of the same opinions about healthcare and support for veterans. They should be getting very fast care, the cost being no object & no man or woman left behind. Only a few things, to me, are so sacred as such to have any amount spent on.

[Kathianne]

This is harsh: https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2019/07/23/the-swamp-wins-again/

True but harsh.

[Noir]

This is harsh: https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2019/07/23/the-swamp-wins-again/

True but harsh.


[Trump]signed a $1.3T budget in 2018 before swearing he’d never do it again.

Okay okay - but *this* time he really really swears he’ll never do it again :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Already stated I agree with funding/spending bills. The republicans are growing to be just as guilty as the democrats in that department. They also allow WAY too much by the left, so that they can get the stuff in there they want. That's what they consider reaching across the aisle and working together. But it's not, not at where they should be. Ultimately, by both sides, they get funding for things they think are important. Usually the left is almost all pork BS entirely, and can be done without. The right somewhat the same, often unneeded crap from them too, and of course some decent things, but generally not a lot, and the MOST important things often get set aside.

2nd amendment
economy
serve your constituents who voted (both locally, and in this case, the country aka America)
No Robin Hoods
Help for veterans finally?
Huge and effective "stick"
NO to socialism crap
...

Those are things I wanted, 1/10th actually, same as I posted in the past. Most goals reached, a few failed, a few stalled & a few just can't get by democrats. But not all fault leaves home, he certainly hasn't been perfect, far from it, but still very good, IMO.

I'll give a few links of things I have been reading, some older than others - many repeating the lists of accomplishments I have already posted, or lists of conservative agendas and what has been met and/or failed. And a ton all around the net, of accomplishments we have heard very little or nothing about - thank you CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC - or reading the news: NY Times, CNN online, Huffington Post, Poltico, Buzzfeed, (rest of TV's online versions), Yahoo news Google, WSJ, Anything on FB or Twitter (as right things get censored too often), Bloomberg, NPR, Washington Post, USA Today, Vox, Slate... I'm sure quite a few more, but those are some you see being used and believed and widespread by the left quite often, and of course get traction.

--

Anyway, here's an oldie/goodie. Accomplishments, not all conservative, but a many are.


138 things Trump did this year while you weren't looking

Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017.

In Donald Trump’s first act as president, he signed a high-profile executive order intended to dismantle Obamacare, instructing federal agencies to take any measures they could to roll back the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, the vaguely worded directive was only symbolic. The Trump administration did eventually make moves to obstruct the law, but they took months and another executive order to implement. For all the theater, it’s hard to say whether that order had any effect at all.

Less noticed on Inauguration Day was a surprise move by the Federal Housing Administration to scratch a planned reduction in mortgage insurance premiums. That change helped shore up the financial health of the FHA’s mortgage insurance fund —but came at a real cost to homeowners, who would have saved an average of $500 a year if the Obama-era plan had stayed in place.

If you didn’t hear about the $500 you may have lost that day—well, that’s how the year went. The attention gap between the empty executive order and the real-life mortgage insurance rollback turned out to be representative of the whole first year of the Trump administration.

Again and again, Trump has taken the stage to an adoring crowd and declared victory on some issue, or announced lavish new promises, without any real results or plans to back them up. Meanwhile, very steadily, and almost totally separately from Trump’s speeches and tweetstorms, his administration has been ushering in a new conservative era of government—taking specific aim at Obama-era rules, and broader aim at the big regulatory mission of government.

At The Agenda, we’ve been tracking these policy changes weekly since June, ignoring the noise and explaining what the Trump administration actually accomplished each week. This week, we’re pulling them all into one mega-list—a portrait of a quiet but very serious Republican push against the scope and ambition of government.

What does it look like? There are a few consistent themes: Rolling back President Barack Obama’s legacy on everything from labor regulations to environmental protections, and more broadly tearing down rules across the government. Some topics have been largely missing: his infrastructure push has gone nowhere. Many of the rules are still in progress, or being delayed so long that it’s anyone’s guess what will really happen. (As you’ll see, some of our items are recurring episodes in long-running dramas, like what will finally happen to Obama’s fiduciary standard, which required stockbrokers to act in the best interest of their clients.) And finally, there are some perplexing surprises. After all the rhetoric against China and Mexico, the year’s big trade-war enemy has been … Canada?

Welcome to the annual wrap-up of our weekly guide to what Trump did while you weren’t looking.

June 3-9

1. A boost for Uber and McDonald’s
It’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.

In 2015, the Obama administration gave workers a win on this one: It issued a guidance document explaining how the Department of Labor would interpret the law, outlining the economic tests it employed in determining whether an employer was misclassifying its workers. The agency had been using that policy in enforcing the law, but putting it in writing sent a clear message to employers across the country that the Obama administration was serious about cracking down on worker misclassification.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration withdrew the guidance document. This was a win for business owners in any number of sectors — not just Uber, but industries such as farming and construction, which increasingly use independent contractors. The withdrawal of the document doesn’t change the underlying law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the DOL’s current interpretation of it but sends a strong signal to employers that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta plans to interpret it differently than his predecessor. “The big story is not that, for whatever reason, they pulled down guidance,” said David Weil, who issued the document under Obama. “The real question is what else comes with this.”

Acosta also withdrew another Obama-era guidance document on how the department will determine whether a parent company, like McDonald’s or Subway, is jointly responsible for its franchises’ labor violations. As with worker misclassification, the Obama-era DOL interpreted the joint employment standard favorably for workers; its withdrawal is a victory for businesses.

2. A trade war with Mexico averted—for now
Trump has stormed on about the North American Free Trade Agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with Mexico may be on the horizon. But on Tuesday, the United States and Mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on Mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with Canada, seek to preserve and update NAFTA later this year.

The sugar deal is a quintessentially in-the-weeds trade agreement: It raises the minimum prices for raw and refined sugar and cuts the percentage of Mexico’s sugar exports that are refined from 53 percent to 30 percent, while redefining the purity level for refined sugar. The U.S. sugar industry objected to the deal, arguing that it did not address loopholes that give Mexican producers an unfair advantage in the U.S. market. It wasn’t the win that industry wanted, but many experts were encouraged that the administration’s first big dispute with a major trading partner had an amicable ending.

3. The end of a DOJ “slush fund”
Three years ago, when the Department of Justice settled a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by Bank of America’s wrongdoing. Many other DOJ settlements with financial institutions during the Obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.

Conservatives have long objected to this practice, which was used by Obama and, before him, George W. Bush: They see it as a way for a president to direct money to his favored organizations, illegally sidestepping the congressional appropriations process. The Obama administration argued that so-called third-party settlements were simply another tool for reparations: The money, they said, didn’t go to random organizations but to groups that could help repair the damage caused by financial misdeeds. Opponents called it a “slush fund.”

That ended Wednesday , when Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo prohibiting U.S. attorneys from including such third-party payouts in any settlements. When the Department of Justice settles a case from now on, third-party groups won’t get a dime.

4. A win for nursing homes
Last October, the Obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.

The nursing home industry fought the rule, suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In November, it won a temporary injunction against the regulation, so it never actually took effect. And now it may be dead. On Tuesday, the Trump administration signaled its view on arbitration agreements: the DHS issued a new proposed regulation that rolled back the Obama rule. Because it’s not final, the new rule doesn’t immediately overturn the ban on arbitration agreements; it has to go through the same process as any other rule. But it sends a strong signal for where the administration will ultimately land.

5. Get THAAD out of here
Not every major policy change affecting America originates in Washington. On Wednesday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in blocked the deployment of an American missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from North Korea.

The Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system became a hot-button issue in Asia: China sees the North Korea angle as a cover story for a system that’s really intended to block Chinese missiles, an incursion on its sovereignty. (The Pentagon disputes that argument.) It already was a delicate issue in South Korea; Beijing had been successfully using state media to persuade Chinese consumers to boycott South Korean stores and cancel vacation plans, which has hurt many Korean businesses. Then Trump rattled relations with its ally by insisting in April that South Korea foot the $1 billion bill for the system, an idea later walked back by his national security team.

Moon — a left-leaning leader who supports a more open dialogue with North Korea than his scandal-plagued predecessor—was already reluctant to host THAAD at all, but allowed its continued deployment until he discovered last week, to his surprise, that the Pentagon had sent four more launchers into the country. On Wednesday, he stopped any further deployment of the system—just a day before North Korea conducted its 10th missile test of the year.

June 10–16

1. U.S. and China make nice on beef, dairy and poultry
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against Chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But Trump backed off his promise to officially label Beijing a “currency manipulator.” And in May, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the U.S.-China 100-Day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”

Still, trade experts who looked at the details of the agreement, were less convinced. Many of the ten policy changes were already underway; on the new changes, China made few firm commitments.

This week, a trio of trade announcements revealed there was more substance to the deal than originally thought, if not quite “herculean.” On Tuesday, the Department of Agriculture announced it had finalized an agreement with its Chinese counterparts to allow U.S. beef imports into China, breaking a 14-year ban that Beijing has more-than-once promised to end. On Thursday, the U.S. and China signed a memorandum to promote U.S dairy products in China , and , on Friday, the USDA published a proposed rule to allow Chinese poultry products into the U.S.

These aren’t huge changes to the U.S.-China trade relationship, and some were in the works long before Trump took office. In fact, China promised last September to lift the ban on U.S. beef exports; the dairy agreement wasn’t actually part of the “100-Day” trade deal. But the trio of agreements show that even as Trump rails against Beijing’s trade policies, the two sides are still capable of compromising. For all the eye rolls that Trump’s initial “100-Day” deal invited, it’s looking a lot more real two months later, especially once beef shipments actually arrive in China, which Ross estimated could be as soon as 10 days. “Everyone has been justified in taking a wait and see attitude,” said Bruce Hirsh, a former assistant U.S. trade representative. “Even now, until actual shipments are accepted, it's best to wait and see.”

2. Education Department targets Obama-era student protections
With student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the Obama administration announced a new policy last October that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed Obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.

One problem: The rule wasn’t scheduled to take effect until July 1—and now it looks like it will never take effect. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced this week that the agency was delaying the implementation of the so-called “defense to repayment” rule indefinitely, on the grounds that it is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In effect, this means the idea is almost certainly dead: DeVos also announced that the department intends to rewrite the rule altogether, along with another major Obama-era education rule, known as “gainful employment,” that required colleges to meet certain standards or risk losing access to federal student loan dollars.

Unlike “defense to repayment,” the “gainful employment” rule was finalized in 2014 and had already taken effect, so the Trump administration will have to undertake a full rulemaking process to rewrite it, a time-consuming process.

The changes are a defeat for defrauded students and a big victory for for-profit colleges, which are disproportionately represented among both loan-fraud cases and colleges that leave students with high debt levels. For-profits loudly argued that the Obama administration was effectively trying to choke out the industry altogether. This week, DeVos gave it new life.

Rest - https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/12/29/138-trump-policy-changes-2017-000603


A little more recent, from March 2018


The Incredible Trump Agenda – What Most Americans Don’t Know About the War the President Has Waged

KEY TAKEAWAYS


The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball.


President Trump’s style has dismayed many on the right as well as the left. But when it comes to actions, conservatives find much to delight them.

While the 2016 presidential elections were underway, policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation (my employer and one of the nation’s leading think tanks) compiled a six-volume series of conservative, research-based policy recommendations for the next president.

The recommendations were calculated to help the incoming president and Congress jumpstart the economy, strengthen national security and halt the increasing centralization of power in the federal government.

At the end of 2017, we reviewed all 334 recommendations presented in our “Mandate for Leadership” series and found that the Trump administration had embraced fully 64 percent of them. That’s nearly two out of three – and that’s very good indeed.

Most Americans are already familiar with some of the conservative agenda items adopted in the last year.

The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December, for example, reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code from one that penalized economic growth to one that promotes it. Already, the American people have begun to reap the benefits: higher take-home pay, tax cut-fueled bonuses and a burgeoning job market.

And many are aware of how Congress acted on another key recommendations to exercise its authority under the long-ignored Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn ill-considered rules implemented by regulatory agencies. During the first few months of its session, Congress used CRA resolutions to eliminate 14 major rules finalized by the Obama administration in its waning days.

But relatively few Americans are aware that the president has waged his own war on over-regulation. For example, President Trump has lifted the Obama-era moratorium on coal leases on federal lands. And he has instructed executive branch agencies to review and reconsider pending rules, with a goal of eliminating two regulations for every new one implemented.

By year’s end, the Trump administration had withdrawn or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations. It has made a difference. On Dec. 14, the administration reported that the regulatory rollback had saved the American economy $8.1 billion, and would save another $9.8 billion in fiscal 2019.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court. And President Trump followed this up with many other outstanding judicial appointments.

By the end of 2017, the Senate had confirmed 12 circuit court of appeals judges – the largest number of appellate judges confirmed during the first year of any president in history. Why does that matter? Because most federal cases stop at the appellate level. Only one of every 700 cases heard by these courts goes on to the Supreme Court.

President Trump has eschewed President Obama’s practice of filling these slots with activist judges who interpret the laws as what they think the laws should say, rather than as they are actually written. It’s a huge change – and a tremendous boost for the rule of law.

From pulling America out of the unaffordable and unworkable Paris Protocol on Climate Change to ending the damaging Obama era regulations on net neutrality, the Trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.

Yes, there is much more work to do. The Senate badly fumbled ObamaCare repeal last year, leaving millions of Americans saddled with increasingly unaffordable health coverage. Welfare reform remains a major challenge, and restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to Washington seems as elusive as ever.

But make no mistake, 2017 was a banner year for conservative policy victories. On that score, President Trump can confidently stack his record right up there next to President Reagan’s first year.

The politicians and pundits of the left would lead you to believe that the administration has been just as distracted and discombobulated by the president’s tweets as they have been. But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball. The conservative agenda is marching forward.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-incredible-trump-agenda-what-most-americans-dont-know-about-the-war-the
Here is what Trump faced starting with day one in office. A steaming pile of shit spread so wide, so high and so deep that to even attempt to reverse most of it would consume over 90%of his time energy, and goals. And while engaging in that he got 99% stalling, uncooperative agenda from the socialist dem party --that went into a full on war -mode. A war mode that gave zero percent consideration for this nation, its security, its future or the the sworn oath to defend and protect our Constitution..
Thus I say and know without any doubt that, the ffing totally unpatriotic, corrupt dem party is nothing but GD TRAITORS.
And I pray each and every day they eventually get justice delivered unto them.. ffking maggots...
Cold, hard , naked truth-- sometimes a man (to maintain his honor) simply must put it out there come what may.. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

Here is what Trump faced starting with day one in office. A steaming pile of shit spread so wide, so high and so deep that to even attempt to reverse most of it would consume over 90%of his time energy, and goals. And while engaging in that he got 99% stalling, uncooperative agenda from the socialist dem party --that went into a full on war -mode. A war mode that gave zero percent consideration for this nation, its security, its future or the the sworn oath to defend and protect our Constitution..
Thus I say and know without any doubt that, the ffing totally unpatriotic, corrupt dem party is nothing but GD TRAITORS.
And I pray each and every day they eventually get justice delivered unto them.. ffking maggots...
Cold, hard , naked truth-- sometimes a man (to maintain his honor) simply must put it out there come what may.. --Tyr

Given that, did he need to go along with the swamp?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Given that, did he need to go along with the swamp?
Off hand I'd say the answer is no.
Yet with political considerations, coming election and other needs/goals he sees as more important in the current state this nation is in-- he had to compromise IMHO.
I think sometimes a very revolting compromise is forced in certain situations.
A man may be beset by just so many obstacles before he starts to try to shed a few worries.
No other President in our history has been so vehemently and viciously attacked , lied about and stubbornly opposed as has been President Trump.
And yes it disappoints me-- but I see and know that mortal flesh can only stand so much before it weakens-- been there -done that myself.
Every principle I refuse to ever break has cost me dearly all of my life. You would not believe just how dearly my friend. A fact...-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Off hand I'd say the answer is no.
Yet with political considerations, coming election and other needs/goals he sees as more important in the current state this nation is in-- he had to compromise IMHO.
I think sometimes a very revolting compromise is forced in certain situations.
A man may be beset by just so many obstacles before he starts to try to shed a few worries.
No other President in our history has been so vehemently and viciously attacked , lied about and stubbornly opposed as has been President Trump.
And yes it disappoints me-- but I see and know that mortal flesh can only stand so much before it weakens-- been there -done that myself.
Every principle I refuse to ever break has cost me dearly all of my life. You would not believe just how dearly my friend. A fact...-Tyr


I keep seeing that he 'compromised,' but where? Compromise that means giving the Democrats all they want is not compromise. Sure, he got 'more spending' to spread around at election time, but that is hardly swamp draining.

Winners and Losers

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/454414-winners-and-losers-in-the-trump-pelosi-budget-deal

[jimnyc]

Off hand I'd say the answer is no.
Yet with political considerations, coming election and other needs/goals he sees as more important in the current state this nation is in-- he had to compromise IMHO.
I think sometimes a very revolting compromise is forced in certain situations.
A man may be beset by just so many obstacles before he starts to try to shed a few worries.
No other President in our history has been so vehemently and viciously attacked , lied about and stubbornly opposed as has been President Trump.
And yes it disappoints me-- but I see and know that mortal flesh can only stand so much before it weakens-- been there -done that myself.
Every principle I refuse to ever break has cost me dearly all of my life. You would not believe just how dearly my friend. A fact...-Tyr

Agreed! :clap:

And to answer both - the deal I see - was done by congress. I don't think Mcconnell and others pushed enough, nor do I think Trump pushed them hard enough. But that's them, until they come to him with final version, and then ultimately to sign. His compromise was allowing that, to believe that if they came together and then to him, that he would sign. I doubt he sat and read it in its entirety. And he knows, shut down the government again, that would likely cost him the election. If he sends it back, big chance of the same issues arising - although that would have been my choice - tell them continue. But as I said before, 90% of this or more is on those writing and negotiating, then shaking hands and bringing it to the president. His responsibility lies with signing and the most attention. But just a the dems sucked during Obama years for this, and the republicans sucked for adding to it - and then many blaming Obama. I blamed him overall for the debt, but not for writing funding bills - and have always said they ALL suck here. Same here. Congress is the issue, but the president shares his portion - but I wouldn't be laying it all at his feet and blaming him entirely. Crappy all the way around and more than enough money spent to blame every last one involved equally. Bottom line IMO - congress, both sides, no one cares about spending money much. :(

I would have shut her down again, if me! But then I'd be unemployed. :) Maybe he would do so in 2023. And elections shouldn't influence decisions, but they do, always have, big time.

[STTAB]

Given that, did he need to go along with the swamp?

Sadly the answer is yes, Trump HAD to go along with this bill and pretend like we should all be grateful for it, because A) The President has very little power over the budget anyway and B) The swamp has done everything in its collective power to further diminish THIS President's powers.

What was the alternative, no budget deal, or veto and see if Congress could over ride it? Either of those things is a political win for Democrats. Once again Trump's mouth is what cost him here, he should not have said "I"ll never sign another budget deal like this again" last year.

[Kathianne]

Sadly the answer is yes, Trump HAD to go along with this bill and pretend like we should all be grateful for it, because A) The President has very little power over the budget anyway and B) The swamp has done everything in its collective power to further diminish THIS President's powers.

What was the alternative, no budget deal, or veto and see if Congress could over ride it? Either of those things is a political win for Democrats. Once again Trump's mouth is what cost him here, he should not have said "I"ll never sign another budget deal like this again" last year.


:laugh2: Sadly.

[STTAB]

:laugh2: Sadly.


You don't think it's sad that Trump really had no choice but to agree to this bill?

[Kathianne]

You don't think it's sad that Trump really had no choice but to agree to this bill?

No. That you even ask that when the 'big sell' of this man was to 1. Drain the swamp 2. Shake the system up. 3. Was the ultimate deal maker-because. Rich. Mega rich! Maybe richer than even possible for someone to do entirely on their own!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I keep seeing that he 'compromised,' but where? Compromise that means giving the Democrats all they want is not compromise. Sure, he got 'more spending' to spread around at election time, but that is hardly swamp draining.

Winners and Losers

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/454414-winners-and-losers-in-the-trump-pelosi-budget-deal

Maybe he thought getting that out of the way and getting this ( quoted below ), was enough.
As that is a 127 billion dollar increase in the military budget. You know the one budget the dems want to be so reduced as to bring this nation to its knees when dealing with other nations..' kinda important....
Myself, I think he should have forced building the entire wall on top of that but one could likely not get that in addition.--Tyr




The Pentagon

When Trump was voted into office, military spending stood at roughly $611 billion a year. In 2020, it will be $738 billion.

Those investments are going into bigger, better boats and airplanes, higher pay for troops, and more military personnel, not to mention research.

[jimnyc]

No. That you even ask that when the 'big sell' of this man was to 1. Drain the swamp 2. Shake the system up. 3. Was the ultimate deal maker-because. Rich. Mega rich! Maybe richer than even possible for someone to do entirely on their own!

Maybe he should have the a 25 foot wall with his own money, right, if that's what he wants? And he should have fired everyone, and left thousands of positions open! And while he couldn't get that one done apparently, now is the time for him to do so, either lay off hundreds to honor his word on that subject, and veto this bill instantly, to also honor his word. He didn't do enough shaking up! He wasted too much time on investigations and obstructing things, and basically ignored firing the whole lot. Nevermind that firing one person gets screams of impeachment! And if vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, if either should end up costing him the election, that's fine as that's a long time away, and no way the Democrats remember anything, and no way they change any funding, they'll likely save us money if we get this Maga nut out of there and someone in there to fix our economy finally, and worry about more than only the super rich people out there. Us upper class, middle class and lower class matter not. The numbers for hispanics and blacks and young folks matters not. All that matters to this clown is the super elite class! The Mega rich! He's lied about himself every step of the way, and I believe he has been a liberal since about 1987 or so.

Going to get me a coffee! So much for me to take in, in such a quick amount of time. But the good news is - when the democrats take the presidency in 2020, they'll do a MUCH better job of draining any perceived swamp, and toss out lifers & get rid of all the bad eggs. They'll sure as hell make a better budget, and no worries at least if they fill it with crap and don't have to worry much about the other dummies stopping them! And once they prove to the nation just how awesome their policies are, perhaps it will be time for AOC time! Imagine the wonderful possibilities if we were to put her in charge. :laugh:

[STTAB]

No. That you even ask that when the 'big sell' of this man was to 1. Drain the swamp 2. Shake the system up. 3. Was the ultimate deal maker-because. Rich. Mega rich! Maybe richer than even possible for someone to do entirely on their own!

That's kind of my point. Trump IS a great deal maker. That really is beyond question. But what do you do when the other side just sticks their tongue out and says "nope we aren't working with you?" I truly believe that he thought that he would be able to walk in on day one and because of his personal relationship with people like Chuck Schumer be able to hammer out some common sense fixes for some of the problems that ail this country . Instead he's figured out that those in power see actually fixing a fucking thing as a danger to their own positions. What will Chuck and Nancy run on if they actual solve problems? Better to just rely on stupid voters reelecting incumbents who have done nothing for them.

That is what is sad, they have done everything in their power to NOT work with Trump. Not just to the point where they're like "no we can't reach a compromise" but to the point where they are "nope, we're not even gonna try to negotiate, give us what we want or forget it" knowing ful well that Trump can't and won't cave completely.

And the media eggs that shit on and further confuses stupid Americans by blaming Trump for Democrats refusing to even budge on almost anything.

[STTAB]

A clear example of this "must be against Trump at all costs" is hi fucking border wall. In terms of adding to the debt, the cost of that God damned wall would have been nothing. Fucking Obama spent more on a website for his the fucking ACA than the entire wall would cost. Not one Democrat was actually concerned about the cost. Nor was the "walls don't work " bullshit true, these morons have on several occasions voted to have US build border walls in other countries. Hmm, so border walls work, but not in the US, got it. Of course the average American being a moron, that shit actually worked.

The point being , what could the Democrats have extracted from Trump in exchange for his wall? Amnesty for all of the illegal aliens already in this country who they claim that they are worried about? Probably, Trump really wanted that wall. But no, can't compromise with Trump, and again the dishonest media blamed Trump and the moronic Americans echoed "Trump is a bad man"

[Kathianne]

Maybe he should have the a 25 foot wall with his own money, right, if that's what he wants? And he should have fired everyone, and left thousands of positions open! And while he couldn't get that one done apparently, now is the time for him to do so, either lay off hundreds to honor his word on that subject, and veto this bill instantly, to also honor his word. He didn't do enough shaking up! He wasted too much time on investigations and obstructing things, and basically ignored firing the whole lot. Nevermind that firing one person gets screams of impeachment! And if vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, if either should end up costing him the election, that's fine as that's a long time away, and no way the Democrats remember anything, and no way they change any funding, they'll likely save us money if we get this Maga nut out of there and someone in there to fix our economy finally, and worry about more than only the super rich people out there. Us upper class, middle class and lower class matter not. The numbers for hispanics and blacks and young folks matters not. All that matters to this clown is the super elite class! The Mega rich! He's lied about himself every step of the way, and I believe he has been a liberal since about 1987 or so.

Going to get me a coffee! So much for me to take in, in such a quick amount of time. But the good news is - when the democrats take the presidency in 2020, they'll do a MUCH better job of draining any perceived swamp, and toss out lifers & get rid of all the bad eggs. They'll sure as hell make a better budget, and no worries at least if they fill it with crap and don't have to worry much about the other dummies stopping them! And once they prove to the nation just how awesome their policies are, perhaps it will be time for AOC time! Imagine the wonderful possibilities if we were to put her in charge. :laugh:

Are you implying I'm saying he should pay for the increases? I'm not. Truth is that there were and still are that 'seal the deal' of his being more than qualified for the presidency, proven by his propensity for making all his money. Even the 'blips,' such as bankruptcies were considered proof of his ability to get things done and keep going. That was all.

[Kathianne]

A clear example of this "must be against Trump at all costs" is hi fucking border wall. In terms of adding to the debt, the cost of that God damned wall would have been nothing. Fucking Obama spent more on a website for his the fucking ACA than the entire wall would cost. Not one Democrat was actually concerned about the cost. Nor was the "walls don't work " bullshit true, these morons have on several occasions voted to have US build border walls in other countries. Hmm, so border walls work, but not in the US, got it. Of course the average American being a moron, that shit actually worked.

The point being , what could the Democrats have extracted from Trump in exchange for his wall? Amnesty for all of the illegal aliens already in this country who they claim that they are worried about? Probably, Trump really wanted that wall. But no, can't compromise with Trump, and again the dishonest media blamed Trump and the moronic Americans echoed "Trump is a bad man"

Note I purposefully did not address the wall promise and this non-budget, spending wallapolooa.

My disagreement is my opinion, it seems to be upsetting some friends. I will hold my 'tongue' anymore on this unless something makes it of more importance.

[Abbey Marie]

I don’t know the particulars, but I’m willing to bet that the budget increase was needed for our military alone. Thanks to Obama’s depletion of same. And I am all for doing that ASAP.

As for whether Trump is Conservative or not, I am looking at actions over labels. And I see a lot of good stuff happening as a result of this President’s actions, regardless of long-standing philosophical tenets of conservatism. I think we need to move past labels and parties and such (which seem fractured anyway) and do what’s actually best for this country. We can debate the bad impact of increasing the debt, but I think it may help to leave the labels aside for now?

[Abbey Marie]

Maybe he should have the a 25 foot wall with his own money, right, if that's what he wants? And he should have fired everyone, and left thousands of positions open! And while he couldn't get that one done apparently, now is the time for him to do so, either lay off hundreds to honor his word on that subject, and veto this bill instantly, to also honor his word. He didn't do enough shaking up! He wasted too much time on investigations and obstructing things, and basically ignored firing the whole lot. Nevermind that firing one person gets screams of impeachment! And if vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, if either should end up costing him the election, that's fine as that's a long time away, and no way the Democrats remember anything, and no way they change any funding, they'll likely save us money if we get this Maga nut out of there and someone in there to fix our economy finally, and worry about more than only the super rich people out there. Us upper class, middle class and lower class matter not. The numbers for hispanics and blacks and young folks matters not. All that matters to this clown is the super elite class! The Mega rich! He's lied about himself every step of the way, and I believe he has been a liberal since about 1987 or so.

Going to get me a coffee! So much for me to take in, in such a quick amount of time. But the good news is - when the democrats take the presidency in 2020, they'll do a MUCH better job of draining any perceived swamp, and toss out lifers & get rid of all the bad eggs. They'll sure as hell make a better budget, and no worries at least if they fill it with crap and don't have to worry much about the other dummies stopping them! And once they prove to the nation just how awesome their policies are, perhaps it will be time for AOC time! Imagine the wonderful possibilities if we were to put her in charge. :laugh:

I suspect the funding they’d want for Tranny-related programs alone, could easily construct three border walls.

[Abbey Marie]

To your point, Kath, sure as you know what, posterity has no say in that which will affect them most. Kind of like soon-to-be -aborted fetuses.

[Kathianne]

To your point, Kath, sure as you know what, posterity has no say in that which will affect them most. Kind of like soon-to-be -aborted fetuses.

As you know, I too care about abortion. I also care about my living children, grandchildren, and theirs, as well as hopefully your future grandchildren. ;)

[STTAB]

Note I purposefully did not address the wall promise and this non-budget, spending wallapolooa.

My disagreement is my opinion, it seems to be upsetting some friends. I will hold my 'tongue' anymore on this unless something makes it of more importance.

Kath, maybe this is my fault, But let it be known. NEVER think that you giving your opinion will upset me. Even if my words are harsh and bunt I would never be angry at you for having a differing opinion. I joke around about me always being right (I'm not ALWAYS right) but as long as an opposing opinion is honestly and intellectually put forward (which yours always are) then I never have a problem with the person issuing said opinion.

Others may have differing opinions on that issue. But I stand by mine.

[STTAB]

Note I purposefully did not address the wall promise and this non-budget, spending wallapolooa.

My disagreement is my opinion, it seems to be upsetting some friends. I will hold my 'tongue' anymore on this unless something makes it of more importance.

Also, the only reason I brought up the wall was because its a pretty clear example of Democrats refusing to even compromise with the President, and of them using every bullshit excuse in the book for not doing so.

[jimnyc]

My disagreement is my opinion, it seems to be upsetting some friends. I will hold my 'tongue' anymore on this unless something makes it of more importance.

Disagreement has never once upset me or disappointed me. That's what we do here, differ/discuss/debate. Claiming that's all it was, and not mentioning the oozing sarcasm, is a little dishonest there.

But your opinion of Trump, his administration, decisions.... I have no issue with disagreement there, and was and am glad to discuss such things with you. It was a nice change to have a lengthy discussion with someone, without the fighting and sarcasm and back and forth. I watched it at times with Drummond and yourself for a bit. I thought it was good reading. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me, and would be bored to death here without it.

It's the back and forth, the sarcasm when people have had enough, the fightings, the crud going personal at times. I find that sometimes the :poke: of people is what starts harsh feelings, although not fights always. The threads and debates between you, myself, Drummond & others, and all with one another, not all with you, is so much better when it's a lot of disagreeing that leads to good discussions/debates. And hell, far be it from ME to say sarcasm has no place here. It sure as hell does!! We'd go nuts without that too! So not even sure what I'm trying to say here, without being a hypocrite, as I know I'm guilty as fuck as being sarcastic and 'putting them up' with others! https://i.imgur.com/DvVeWzP.gif It's dumb to not post, or hold your tongue, because I pointed out sarcasm. Again, I guess I expect it at times when already in the back and forth with someone I won't mention who has been busy for months now, when I had started, or when he has popped in and started.... I guess with seemingly normal discussion taking place, I didn't expect it a few times even if not directed at me every time. That doesn't make you any more wrong than when I or the other one does the same. It was unexpected, I made a post with a ton of sarcasm oozing, with a laughing little guy at the end, but seems you now want to bite your tongue and refrain from certain posts as a result? I don't get that one. Nor do I get you not understanding that it was that sarcasm, which I then did as well, that prompted me. But as usual, we move on, and I forget before the index page loads and I seek the next thread. Until I came back to this one.

[Kathianne]

Also, the only reason I brought up the wall was because its a pretty clear example of Democrats refusing to even compromise with the President, and of them using every bullshit excuse in the book for not doing so.

Within the legislative works, including funding, I agree.

The budget/spending we're discussing is different. I see little to know evidence of anything non-swampy. Indeed, little compromise could be called-as it was, from all appearances a meeting of the leadership of both parties and the President. We do know that McConnell told Trump, 'No President ever lost an election by spending money...'

Swamp.

[jimnyc]

I suspect the funding they’d want for Tranny-related programs alone, could easily construct three border walls.

Oh my! LOL

But probably true. I could make a list that would make your head spin, that would show things they wasted money on in the past 3 decades. Waste after waste. A lot of waste from BOTH sides, but the democrats have mastered the entire plan to do a legal "pay for vote" way of getting crap inserted.

[STTAB]

Within the legislative works, including funding, I agree.

The budget/spending we're discussing is different. I see little to know evidence of anything non-swampy. Indeed, little compromise could be called-as it was, from all appearances a meeting of the leadership of both parties and the President. We do know that McConnell told Trump, 'No President ever lost an election by spending money...'

Swamp.

I agree, and I think in many ways the swamp has simply wore Trump down. And I mean who wouldn't be wore down by this point? The fucking guy has sausage with his eggs in the morning and by noon Chuck Schumer is on the Senate floor crying about Trump destroying the bacon industry.

Trump

"Today I have signed an executive order ordering the Department of Health & Human Services to invest $10B over the course of 10 years to cure cancer"

Chuck Schumer

"what we saw from Trump today was a disgrace, doesn't he care about cancer doctors at all?"

Federal judge in Hawaii

"The court rules in favor of the plaintiff and puts an injunction on the Trump Administration doing anything to try to cure cancer"

The Squad

"Uh like having cancer is a human right derrr, this occupant of the White House is a terrorist"

CNN

"what Trump attempted to do here undermines our American values, and shows his complete disregard for the law"

Nancy Pelosi

"Today in the House we will vote on a bill that would completely shut down Health & Human Services because by God we just can't afford to spend $10B over 10 years on cancer research"

Adam Schiff

"look , between lying to the American people about what classified materials I've seen, and lying to other members of the House , I simply don't have time to worry about cancer. Also, Trump is clearly a traitor"

Average American idiot

"Herp de derp, we know the swamp in DC is full of liars and criminals and that none of them have done anything to make our lives better, but we hate Trump cuz they tell us to even though he's absolutely done things that have positively impacted our lives"

Who the hell wouldn't be beat down after 3 years of that?

[Kathianne]

I don't think there's anyone interested in this, just want to add it for possible future reference:

https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2019/07/24/budget-deal-looks-even-worse/

[STTAB]

I don't think there's anyone interested in this, just want to add it for possible future reference:

https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2019/07/24/budget-deal-looks-even-worse/

My honest opinion is that 99% of the members of Congress don't even know what is in this bill. Same a with any large bill. They aren't interested in reading a bill this large line by line and even if they did have interest, it's obvious that the time frame from the bill being written until the time it's voted on is never long enough for them to do so.

This is why I say the law needs to be changed so that no bill may be more than two regular typed pages long. Every single Agency within the government could be funded with a 2 page document, and would be much more likely to actually be read by the people actually voting on the damn thing to begin with.

Example

Department of Defense spending.

The Department of Defense is hereby funded to the amount of ________ for the fiscal year _____ , monies to be spent in accordance to the needs of the Department of Defense as outlined in the proposed budget presented to Congress by the Secretary of Defense

And that is all it should say, does ANYONE truly believe that the members of Congress have any real knowledge on the subject of where the Department of Defense should be spending money? It's' ridiculous that they waste their fucking time arguing about the purchase of new rifles or whatever, when as a whole most of them have no idea about rifles to begin with.

Of course this system would require a much more robust auditing of each agency year to year to enure that money authorized is being pent correctly by each agency but we need that anyway.

[Kathianne]

Here's how it got done. It's practical and telling. Mnuchin went to Pelosi and said, 'How much will it cost to get this done for 2 years?' Worked with McConnell, upped military spending and just called it done.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/how-trump-shut-down-the-gop-deficit-hawks-1433475

[Kathianne]

Ok, hopefully this is the last one. I'm considering writing a paper for a class on this change. This piece is great for me, since it reflects so much of my own thinking over the past few years.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/how-trump-shut-down-the-gop-deficit-hawks-1433475


7/23/2019
Post-Budget Deal Rant: What Is the Point of the Republican Party?
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

DRJ had a headline (http://patterico.com/2019/07/22/trump-and-democrats-agree-on-big-spending/) about the new budget deal but I want to talk about what it says about the Republican party. New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/politics/budget-deal.html)

White House and congressional negotiators reached accord on a two-year budget on Monday that would raise spending by $320 billion over existing caps and allow the government to keep borrowing, most likely averting a fiscal crisis but splashing still more red ink on an already surging deficit.
. . . .
t is another sign that a Capitol once consumed by fiscal worries simply no longer cares — even as the government’s deficit approaches $1 trillion a year. Still, the accord would lift the debt ceiling high enough to allow the government to keep borrowing for two more years, punting the next showdown past the 2020 elections.


“It’s pretty clear that both houses of Congress and both parties have become big spenders, and Congress is no longer concerned about the extent of the budget deficits or the debt they add,” said David M. McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, a conservative group that advocates free enterprise.
. . . .
But with the top-line figures all but secured, the deal would be the end of the Budget Control Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law after House Republicans pushed the government to the brink of defaulting on its debt. That law, once seen as the Republicans’ crowning achievement in the Obama era, set strict spending caps, enforced with automatic spending cuts.
. . .
And this time around, the approach of the debt limit hardly caused a ripple of consternation about the rising red ink. “I’ve seen no evidence that it’s even being discussed,” said Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma. “That’s the hard part for me.”


Meantime, the federal debt has ballooned to $22 trillion. Despite healthy economic growth, the federal deficit for this fiscal year has reached $747 billion with two months to go — a 23 percent increase from the year before.


“It appears that Congress and the president have just given up on their jobs,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which blasted out a statement arguing that the tentative deal “may end up being the worst budget agreement in our nation’s history.”
My question is: what is the point of the Republican party any more? The TEA party supposedly consisted of people outraged by the size of government, who wanted to return to our founding principles so much that middle-aged white guys were going around in tri-cornered hats. Now those people are all* Trumpers, and it looks like the support for small government was a passing fancy — just one of several ways to trigger the libs.


Republicans are OK on the budget (relatively speaking; in absolute terms they are still terrible) when a Democrat is in office. Witness the Budget Control Act, which Republicans crammed down Obama’s throat. But they spend like drunken sailors when the GOP takes over the Oval Office. Can you imagine Republicans forcing the Budget Control Act on Trump?


My core concerns for the federal government are 1) excellent judges who apply the law, 2) preserving the free market, and 3) shrinking the debt and deficit by reducing spending and the size of government. (I know: quaint, right?) Donald Trump is good on judges. I always said he would be. But with his love for tariffs, he is horrible on free markets. And he is giving Obama and Bush a run for their money in the race for being the president who cares least about spending.


Budgets like this mortgage our children’s future. They are an outrage and should motivate any sensible person to stand up, scream, and throw the bums out.


That doesn’t mean I will vote Democrat. As long as the president picks judges, I can’t go that far. (Turn over picking judges to Congress and I might vote for Joe Biden to get Trump the hell out of there. But that will never happen.) So I’ll be sitting out the next presidential election.


But this is not what I signed up for when I became a Republican some 30 years ago.


It is, however, [I]precisely what I expected when I left the party over three years ago.


This party stands for owning the libs and for nothing else. This budget deal proves it. And aside from a handful of sensible people, nobody will care. Meanwhile, our kids are screwed.


This is why people become disgusted with Washington D.C. To hell with the people involved in this travesty. Each and every one of them.


*OK, not technically “all” — although I do suspect that the guys in tri-cornered hats are wayyy more likely to be Trumpers today than the average TEA partier.

[Kathianne]

Time to celebrate! The Senate passed this bi-partisan bill! Woot!!! :rolleyes:

[STTAB]

Time to celebrate! The Senate passed this bi-partisan bill! Woot!!! :rolleyes:

^ The sarcasm is strong in this one

[Kathianne]

Deficit and debt? WTF? No worries! Dobbs can't answer at all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK8ctZaTkQQ&feature=youtu.be