Trump to cut taxes on Social Security

I hope the Democrats keep doing what they are doing. Let them keep singing, protesting, filing lawsuits, and acting like lunatics. All they are doing is creating their own death knell for the midterms.

While all the waste, fraud, and corruption that has been exposed so far is interesting and troubling, it pales in comparison to the treasonous behavior of those in our own government.

 
welkin said:
I hope the Democrats keep doing what they are doing. Let them keep singing, protesting, filing lawsuits, and acting like lunatics. All they are doing is creating their own death knell for the midterms.

While all the waste, fraud, and corruption that has been exposed so far is interesting and troubling, it pales in comparison to the treasonous behavior of those in our own government.
Click to expand...
Democrats must think the general population is really stupid, since they claim that a person with a $392 billion net worth is snooping around government files in order to steal money and enrich himself.
 
Mark_A said:
unless you think he stole the election and/or that Trump is not a legitimate president (for which I expect to see some evidence to support that).
Click to expand...
Oh, he didn't steal this one - it was bought and paid for by First Friend Elon. Evidence? Will 277 million pieces of it suffice? ;)
 
stealthy1 said:
Oh, he didn't steal this one - it was bought and paid for by First Friend Elon. Evidence? Will 277 million pieces of it suffice? ;)
Click to expand...
This according the NBC news:

"Vice President Kamala Harris' political operation spent more than $880 million since the start of 2023 (including spending when President Joe Biden was at the top of the ticket, as well as joint fundraising committees aligned with the campaign and the Democratic National Committee). President-elect Donald Trump's political operation, including his campaign, the national party and affiliated joint fundraising committees, spent about $425 million on ads.

Overall, the Democratic campaign and pro-Democratic outside groups spent almost $1.8 billion, while the Trump campaign and pro-Republican outside groups spent $1.4 billion."
www.nbcnews.com

The final price tag on 2024 political advertising: Almost $11 billion

That includes more than $3 billion in ad spending on the presidential race alone, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Lots of Democrats like Bill Gates and Steve Balmer spent about the same as Musk promoting the Democratic ticket. Balmer even created his own YouTube channel and produced videos trying to convince people that deficit spending does not cause inflation, and that illegal immigration is not a problem.

Interestingly, Elon Musk voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but finally saw light.
 
stealthy1 said:
Oh, he didn't steal this one - it was bought and paid for by First Friend Elon. Evidence? Will 277 million pieces of it suffice? ;)
Click to expand...
BTW, since Musk is worth $394 billion as of today, giving $425 million to political candidates is the equivalent of a person with a net worth of $2 million giving about $1,406. I believe that the PAC created by Musk raised $425 million, but I don't think he personally gave that much (maybe half of that much personally), although as I said, even $425 million is a tiny percent of his net worth. He certainly did not do that to get rich, since he already has more money than anyone can possibly spend. Same is true for Democratic donors like Gates, Balmer, Soros, Reid Hoffman, Mike Bloomberg, and many others.

Elon Musk and his co-investors have lost about $26 billion on Twitter (now called X), according to an estimate by Yahoo Finance. This is based on a 78.7% drop in the value after the $44 billion buyout of Twitter. Musk did it in order to preserve freedom of speech, obviously not to make money.
 
Tax Counsel said:
You have your facts wrong. The Department of Education was indeed created by Congress in the The Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88). While JFK created the USAID it was later established as a separate agency by Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277). Thus as those two federal government agencies exist they were both created by acts of Congress and the president can't simply get rid of them by executive order.
Click to expand...
It has taken me a while to read through The Dept of Education Organization Act and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, but I made it. How boring and repetitive.

You are correct in that the Dept of Education agency was established by Congress.

TITLE II—ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENTSEC. 201. ø20 U.S.C. 3411¿ There is established an executive department to be known as the Department of Education. The Department shall be administered, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, under the supervision and direction of a Secretary of Education. The Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Click to expand...

However, you are not correct on USAID. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA) did not create the agency by an act of Congress. The act refers to its creation by JFK's Executive Order although it had a different name and purpose. There is no establishment clause in the Act as an independent agency. The FARRA was a reorganization plan to consolidate agencies on foreign affairs and reallocate their functions. All the FARRA did (with respect to USAID) was change the name and give oversite and control to the Secretary of State.

Specifically says the following:


CHAPTER 2—REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY
SEC. 611. REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY.
Click to expand...
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized, subject to the
requirements of this division, to allocate or reallocate any function transferred to the Department under any title of this division, and to establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue such organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out any reorganization under this division, but this subsection does not authorize the Secretary to modify the terms of any statute that establishes or defines the functions of any bureau, office, or officer of the Department.
Click to expand...

(b) REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON REORGANIZATION
PLAN.—The reorganization plan transmitted under section 601 may not have the effect of—
(1) creating a new executive department;
(2) continuing a function beyond the period authorized
by law for its exercise or beyond the time when it would
have terminated if the reorganization had not been made;
(3) authorizing a Federal agency to exercise a function
which is not authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to Congress;
(4) creating a new Federal agency which is not a component
or part of an existing executive department or independent
agency; or
(5) increasing the term of an office beyond that provided
by law for the office.
Click to expand...
https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ277/PLAW-105publ277.pdf
 
welkin said:
You are correct in that the Dept of Education agency was established by Congress.
Click to expand...
I doubt that really matters very much whether Congress established an Executive Branch department. I would guess that the Trump Administration would be satisfied with cutting the budget of some of these departments by 90-95%, even if the Departments remained.

Federal agencies don't have to spend all of the discretionary spending money budgeted to them. Federal spending is divided into these categories:

  • Mandatory spending - This type of spending is required by law and includes programs like Medicare and Social Security. The law that authorizes the program also determines the funding. Although Congress doesn't always know exactly what it will cost, the Executive branch must disperse the money according to entitlement program laws in effect that were passed by Congress and signed by a President.

  • Discretionary spending - This type of spending is subject to annual appropriations by Congress. Congress decides how much to fund these programs each year, but the money does not have to be spent. Most of the agencies that receive this money are in the Executive Branch and the President can legally cut discretionary spending in most cases.

  • Interest on Federal Debt - The federal budget also includes interest payments on debt.
 
The problem, as I see it, is that Elon and His Muskrats are focusing on small apples, budget-wise. How about checking the waste in, I dunno, the military? The ones who pay thousands for... a hammer.

Maybe consider the token gesture of saying, "I'm sorry, FOTUS, but spending millions for a photo op at the SuperBowl and Daytona isn't the best look while we're trying to cut wasteful spending."

But that's all too much to ask, apparently. "Let's just start firing people willy-nilly. We can hire them back if we have to..." Those nuked nuclear staffers? The ones we apparently need to rehire? Can't find them all! LOLOLOL Government Efficiency, indeed!
 
stealthy1 said:
The problem, as I see it, is that Elon and His Muskrats are focusing on small apples, budget-wise. How about checking the waste in, I dunno, the military? The ones who pay thousands for... a hammer.

Maybe consider the token gesture of saying, "I'm sorry, FOTUS, but spending millions for a photo op at the SuperBowl and Daytona isn't the best look while we're trying to cut wasteful spending."

But that's all too much to ask, apparently. "Let's just start firing people willy-nilly. We can hire them back if we have to..." Those nuked nuclear staffers? The ones we apparently need to rehire? Can't find them all! LOLOLOL Government Efficiency, indeed!
Click to expand...
US Foreign aid spending (via USAID and other agencies) jumped from about $45 billion in 2020 to about $72 billion in 2023. I guess you don't consider that to be a lot of money, but I do.

As far as military spending, here is a story you may like:
Trump Sends Shockwave Through Defense Stocks, Says Military Spending Could Be Halved

The problem as I see it is that Democrats are resorting to personal name calling and unscrupulous attacks because the Trump administration is trying to cut government waste. I don't know why the are focusing on Elon Musk, as he is just one of 2.4 million government employees at this point (although not sure if he is even getting paid).
 
Mark_A said:
No, that's not the reason. You could Google that story and find many reports of what Trump said about cutting military spending that were not behind a paywall. I am not your errand boy.
Click to expand...
Well, I would posit that the person offeringan item (story) is the one responsible for maing it generally accessible. Oooh! I get it - accessibility - that's part of the dreaded DEIA!
 
stealthy1 said:
Well, I would posit that the person offering an item (story) is the one responsible for making it generally accessible. Oooh! I get it - accessibility - that's part of the dreaded DEIA!
Click to expand...
I posted this headline to the story in my comment above:

"Trump Sends Shockwave Through Defense Stocks, Says Military Spending Could Be Halved"

What else do you want? He hasn't been in office for 30 days yet, so details are not available on what the proposed cuts will be. However, we do know that Trump likes to exaggerate a lot, so not likely to be anywhere near a 50% cut.

Not sure what you mean by accessibility? Are you handicapped and can't operate a keyboard to do a Google search?
 
Zigner said:
It's incumbent on you to make sure what you share is accessible.
Click to expand...
It was accessible, I posted what Trump said in my comment:
"Trump Sends Shockwave Through Defense Stocks, Says Military Spending Could Be Halved"

There really are no other details, since Trump has only been in office 4 weeks.

I find it amazing that on a legal forum someone would claim it is my responsibility to make sure a link I provided can be fully accessed without a subscription (which I have no way of knowing because many sites allow some free views before the demand a subscription). Why don't you go ahead and sue me for damages.
 
Mark_A said:
It was accessible, I posted what Trump said in my comment:
"Trump Sends Shockwave Through Defense Stocks, Says Military Spending Could Be Halved"

There really are no other details, since Trump has only been in office 4 weeks.
Click to expand...
Wait, really? You think there are no more details? I did happen to Google this and found more information. I can assure you there is more to it than the incomplete headline.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top