State of the Union 2025 Edition

#653
#653
walkenvol said:
Obviously this is only my opinion, but do the democrats think their behavior last night appealed to any voters outside of their committed core democratic folks? They just lost the election by a fairly substantial margin. To become competitive in the midterms, they have to win favor with the swing voters. These swing voters recently sided with Trump so his policies had to of been more appealing to them as his personality is an acquired taste which I’ve yet to find very palatable. Instead of the Dems supporting issues that are highly popular such as secure borders, men banned from women’s sports, and cutting government waste / fraud they are simply wholesale opposing everything Trump does. I just don’t see how this strategy improves their future situation at the voting booths.
Click to expand...
couple all that with the post speeach polls about the approval ratings of all his talking points...Slow train meet broke bridge.
 
#657
#657
McDad said:
Luther knows what he is. He gets what he wants.

Those times he acts like a real person, I interact with him like a real person.
Click to expand...
Yeah. He's a normal guy if you catch him early in the morning before he remembers Trump is president. I've admitted before that I'd sit and drink a beer with him. You just have to accept his TDS and hope it is in remission when you catch him at the A&P.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#658
#658
McDad said:
How many posters would you estimate are agreeable to equal percentage cuts in spending (not in rate of growth) in every budgetary item even if their own sacred cows suffered?
Click to expand...
I proposed that very thing on here a few years ago.

Of course I said the defense cuts should be double the %.

My position was 2% cuts per year for 5 years. Defense would be 4% cuts per year for 5 years.

It would at least be a start and reverse the direction on the catastrophic road which Reagan put us on.
 
#660
#660
McDad said:
How many posters would you estimate are agreeable to equal percentage cuts in spending (not in rate of growth) in every budgetary item even if their own sacred cows suffered?
Click to expand...
I'm of the belief we need a balanced budget regardless of what has to be cut. I think our military can be much leaner. Our government is waaaaay too big in every aspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, Vol since 77, whodeycin85 and 4 others
#661
#661
lawgator1 said:
Let me ask you, have you checked what the percentage of viewers was who were Democrats? I think if you dig a little deeper you will see why the numbers are tipping into the 70's.

Having said that, the Dems predictably handled this very poorly, especially with the not being willing to applaud folks who deserved it. I think it reflects the reason I dropped my party affiliation, and that is that the leadership of the Dem party is undisciplined and so caught up in being anti-Trump (which believe me, I get) that they can't help but maker a spectacle out of their disdain for him even when that spectacle boomerangs and makes them look bad.

They need to let the social issues go for the moment and focus on what worked last election cycle so well for the GOP, which is the economy. I heard so little from pre and post debate commentary about the tax cuts favoring the wealthy and just ephemeral, non specific talk of rising prices.

They need to get specific. They need to show projections of what the tariffs could cost, depending on how far the potential trade wars might go. They need to show proof that the back and forth on tariffs, having them for 48 hours and dropping them, how that wreaks havoc in the markets and makes us vulnerable. They need to show drops in value of 401k's caused by Trump's mania about economic policy.

Fact is, everyone at this point knows that Trump lies a lot and is prone to unjustified hyperbole, which often gets him into trouble. Its long past time to stomp your feet and yell that he's lying, its now time to show the effects of the lying on our daily lives.
Click to expand...
So, CBS made an abrupt change of course and only interviewed Trumpers for those polls?
 
#663
#663
luthervol said:
I proposed that very thing on here a few years ago.

Of course I said the defense cuts should be double the %.

My position was 2% cuts per year for 5 years. Defense would be 4% cuts per year for 5 years.

It would at least be a start and reverse the direction on the catastrophic road which Reagan put us on.
Click to expand...

Why not bigger cuts for all? Why bigger cuts in defense than the rest?

I don't know why we couldn't but 10% or more out of every budget item.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, walkenvol, GroverCleveland and 2 others
#664
#664
luthervol said:
I proposed that very thing on here a few years ago.

Of course I said the defense cuts should be double the %.

My position was 2% cuts per year for 5 years. Defense would be 4% cuts per year for 5 years.

It would at least be a start and reverse the direction on the catastrophic road which Reagan put us on.
Click to expand...
You didn't. You did that thing where you didn't read or didn't comprehend, again.

I said, "equal percentage". Double is not equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, walkenvol, Orange_Crush and 2 others
#665
#665
luthervol said:
I proposed that very thing on here a few years ago.

Of course I said the defense cuts should be double the %.

My position was 2% cuts per year for 5 years. Defense would be 4% cuts per year for 5 years.

It would at least be a start and reverse the direction on the catastrophic road which Reagan put us on.
Click to expand...
So, still fund sesame street in the middle east, just on a smaller scale?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and InVOLuntary
#667
#667
hog88 said:
Why not bigger cuts for all? Why bigger cuts in defense than the rest?

I don't know why we couldn't but 10% or more out of every budget item.
Click to expand...
What's the upper limit in percentage you would agree to? 20%?? 25%???
 
#668
#668
GVF said:
So, CBS made an abrupt change of course and only interviewed Trumpers for those polls?
Click to expand...


My understanding is that they polled people who actually watched the speech, and the percentage of those that did who listed as Dems was 27 percent, obviously skewing the result heavily in favor of Trump. That is based on extended discussion this morning on the Smerconish show on the POTUS channel on XM.

My larger point is that the person who posted it on X omitted that rather critical fact to make it appear as though these were the numbers across the country, regardless of prior political leanings, and its way out of context and does not stand for the proposition for which it is cited.
 
#669
#669
lawgator1 said:
My understanding is that they polled people who actually watched the speech, and the percentage of those that did who listed as Dems was 27 percent, obviously skewing the result heavily in favor of Trump. That is based on extended discussion this morning on the Smerconish show on the POTUS channel on XM.

My larger point is that the person who posted it on X omitted that rather critical fact to make it appear as though these were the numbers across the country, regardless of prior political leanings, and its way out of context and does not stand for the proposition for which it is cited.
Click to expand...
So only 27% of those pollsters admitted to being Dem? The larger point is at the rate dems are vacating the party as a whole, there's just less of them to poll. THey are losing in droves those demographics they thought they had a stronghold on. Maybe those younger kids are smarter than they thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#670
#670
McDad said:
What's the upper limit in percentage you would agree to? 20%?? 25%???
Click to expand...

It really depends on how the cuts are managed. Smart precise and well researched cuts, I might go upwards of 40% because I truly believe there is that much waste and stupidity in the federal government. If we're just lopping off chunks maybe 15-20% because I think that can be done without many issues.

The problem with just throwing out numbers is when you tell career bureaucrats to cut x amount from their department they will make sure the cuts will cause the most pain for us citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, walkenvol, whodeycin85 and 6 others
#672
#672
hog88 said:
Wife says I have an extremely short fuse and can't understand how I can be mad as a hornet one minute and over it the next.
Click to expand...
ive found that you're less likely to get stung if you intimidate hornets/wasps, rather than being afraid
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#673
#673
hog88 said:
It really depends on how the cuts are managed. Smart precise and well researched cuts, I might go upwards of 40% because I truly believe there is that much waste and stupidity in the federal government. If we're just lopping off chunks maybe 15-20% because I think that can be done without many issues.

The problem with just throwing out numbers is when you tell career bureaucrats to cut x amount from their department they will make sure the cuts will cause the most pain for us citizens.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm likely not in your 10% community. I'm okay with budget cuts, but I'm way more in line with "smart spending." I do think 10-20% could be lopped off right from the start.

However...

Like you said, they're just find the wrong ways to spend the remaining money. Like the DoD for example. There's plenty of fraud, waste and abuse there. But that's not going to stop just because someone says "you get X less next year." They'll spend it on stupid things without ever having to justify the "what do you need this toy for and why" of budget items.

It's almost to the point that each and every budget needs a line item review and has to justify every expenditure. Pretty much what DOGE is doing, but doing it every year and for every federal agency. I know it adds "manpower" costs, but sometimes you have to spend a little money up front to save a lot more money down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, whodeycin85, YankeeVol and 2 others
#674
#674
Grand Vol said:
This.

I'm likely not in your 10% community. I'm okay with budget cuts, but I'm way more in line with "smart spending." I do think 10-20% could be lopped off right from the start.

However...

Like you said, they're just find the wrong ways to spend the remaining money. Like the DoD for example. There's plenty of fraud, waste and abuse there. But that's not going to stop just because someone says "you get X less next year." They'll spend it on stupid things without ever having to justify the "what do you need this toy for and why" of budget items.

It's almost to the point that each and every budget needs a line item review and has to justify every expenditure. Pretty much what DOGE is doing, but doing it every year and for every federal agency. I know it adds "manpower" costs, but sometimes you have to spend a little money up front to save a lot more money down the road.
Click to expand...

What we need is zero based budgeting. Every department starts at zero and builds their budget line by line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, Vol since 77, whodeycin85 and 3 others
#675
#675
hog88 said:
What we need is zero based budgeting. Every department starts at zero and builds their budget line by line.
Click to expand...

I might agree if you didn't have multi year contracts built into a system. Not that I agree with them and could be fine with single year contracts, but that would add manpower issues in the long run by having to have teams to sort that out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top