Trump to sign executive orders after stimulus talks broke down on Capitol Hill

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gaeandilth
gaeandilth

854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 gaeandilth
Member since 2010 • 854 Posts

@comp_atkins: You know how law works with precedence? You do know there was just a case when Trump diverted funds from the military and other various sources to build the wall? You do know the supreme court ruled in his favor?

There are also provisions to back him in the emergency powers section.

And the republicans did not add ANY fat to their bill. That was all Democrat. Republicans bill was simple but the Democrats wanted to play politics and get funding for everything under the sun. Including unconstitutional relief for certain states and not others. That was actually a bail out for their failed policies.

I do not care if Trump had a cure for the Virus and it was proven. The Democrats would tie it up in court. This will be no different and they are going to pay politically if they do.

Avatar image for npiet1
npiet1

3576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#52 npiet1
Member since 2018 • 3576 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@npiet1 said:
@mattbbpl said:
@npiet1 said:
@thegreatchomp said:

@Sevenizz: Stop the lies, it’s Republicans playing politics while Democrats try to help. I will remember that and all Trump has done as I proudly vote against the evil GOP!

@npiet1: You do know social security is funded by payroll taxes he is trying to end?

Yes which is why he explained that 75% is paid by the federal goverment and 25% is paid by the state. Did you even read the article or just TRUMP did something so it's bad.

Just a reminder to everyone, the 75/25 funding split is regarding the boost in unemployment benefits. It has nothing to do with the payroll tax cut, which funds medicare and social security. If those taxes aren't paid, those programs aren't funded unless stipulated otherwise by law (and no such measure has been created or even proposed to this point),

This is clearly explained in the article, despite the misinformation stated above (incredulously followed by a "Did you even read the article?").

"he controversial measure, however, wouldn't do anything to help the unemployed and would likely weaken the already strained finances of Social Security and Medicare."

forgive me if I don't take CNN's word for it. So where does it say it will? Where does it say this is 100% going to happen?

Math. This one is simple addition that anyone can follow.

Inflows - Outflows = net shortfall/surplus

Removing inflows while maintaining outflows results in/exacerbates a shortfall.

If you object to the math, let me know. I'll be happy to go over it again.

Now if there was only someone or a group of people who control the laws and policies. That could change it or maybe a huge drop in the elderly population from a pandemic but who knows? lol.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180152 Posts

@gaeandilth said:

@comp_atkins: You know how law works with precedence? You do know there was just a case when Trump diverted funds from the military and other various sources to build the wall? You do know the supreme court ruled in his favor?

There are also provisions to back him in the emergency powers section.

And the republicans did not add ANY fat to their bill. That was all Democrat. Republicans bill was simple but the Democrats wanted to play politics and get funding for everything under the sun. Including unconstitutional relief for certain states and not others. That was actually a bail out for their failed policies.

I do not care if Trump had a cure for the Virus and it was proven. The Democrats would tie it up in court. This will be no different and they are going to pay politically if they do.

Well this is a damn lie. The Senate added the FBI building in their bill for trump.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@npiet1 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

No sh*t. The payroll tax holiday is the most alarming part to me given its consequences. Then he doubled down and confirmed he would like to make them permanent if he wins reelection.

What does this mean? He want to de-fund Social Security and Medicare, two very popular programs that seniors rely on heavily.

Not to be non sensitive but I think covid took care of the aging population issue.

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

Avatar image for gaeandilth
gaeandilth

854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 gaeandilth
Member since 2010 • 854 Posts

@LJS9502_basic: And a FBI building is Fat for the republicans why? Do not know if you keep up with current events but the FBI has not been exactly Republican friendly lately. Not to mention there is bipartisan agreement the FBI need a new building. The dems just drummed up another thin conspiracy theory on how the location favors Trumps hotel.

But I am sure the Reps would of removed the FBI building if the Dems would of removed the 1 trillion dollars to bail out blue states that are in debt because of ineptness and corruption not because of the corona virus. Suggesting this was the Republicans or even both sides fault that a deal was not made is what is the damn lie.

Avatar image for gaeandilth
gaeandilth

854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56  Edited By gaeandilth
Member since 2010 • 854 Posts
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@npiet1 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

No sh*t. The payroll tax holiday is the most alarming part to me given its consequences. Then he doubled down and confirmed he would like to make them permanent if he wins reelection.

What does this mean? He want to de-fund Social Security and Medicare, two very popular programs that seniors rely on heavily.

Not to be non sensitive but I think covid took care of the aging population issue.

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

Maybe because the leftists talking about Cain were being hateful and disrespectful. That right there shows you the difference between republicans and democrats. Just look at the responses to John Lewis and Herman Cain deaths. Even in death a black republican can not avoid the toxic hate of the left.

Just more proof the modern Democrat party are driven by hate. Even in toxic forums like this I have not seen a single post disrespecting John Lewis by the Republicans. But there is all kinds of hateful crap about Cain. If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful. Think the Dems would be if Trump died?

And to suggest that gamespot is republican biased is laughable. That is like saying CNN is right leaning.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23344 Posts

@npiet1 said:
@mattbbpl said:

Math. This one is simple addition that anyone can follow.

Inflows - Outflows = net shortfall/surplus

Removing inflows while maintaining outflows results in/exacerbates a shortfall.

If you object to the math, let me know. I'll be happy to go over it again.

Now if there was only someone or a group of people who control the laws and policies. That could change it or maybe a huge drop in the elderly population from a pandemic but who knows? lol.

If there are ANY outflows (elderly receiving benefits), zeroing out inflows results in a shortfall. As for making new laws, now that the revenue supporting the program has been zeroed out, what are you asking them to do? Reinstate the revenue source that he just removed?

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

Wow, there really aren't any words to describe how disgusting the left has become and they just keep getting worse and worse.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

42213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 14

#59 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 42213 Posts

@gaeandilth said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

Maybe because the leftists talking about Cain were being hateful and disrespectful. That right there shows you the difference between republicans and democrats. Just look at the responses to John Lewis and Herman Cain deaths. Even in death a black republican can not avoid the toxic hate of the left.

Just more proof the modern Democrat party are driven by hate. Even in toxic forums like this I have not seen a single post disrespecting John Lewis by the Republicans. But there is all kinds of hateful crap about Cain. If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful. Think the Dems would be if Trump died?

And to suggest that gamespot is republican biased is laughable. That is like saying CNN is right leaning.

John Lewis was disrespected when he was ALIVE. The only reason the right came off as "respectful" (translation: RAGE because Obama was at his funeral, giving a eulogy) was because the guy died and they knew the left would be on their cases if they said anything, then Obama showed up and "GASP! How dare HE be here, nevermind being invited!". They'd do the same thing to RBG despite being begged to retire and/or croak.

"If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful." Again, she's disrespected now while she's alive, with much of the radical right buying whatever crap Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore throw at her, so spare me the damage control. In death, it would be either the hypocrisy over John Lewis over again, or dancing on her grave given all the conspiracy theories against her.

Avatar image for gaeandilth
gaeandilth

854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 gaeandilth
Member since 2010 • 854 Posts

@nintendoboy16 said:
@gaeandilth said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

Maybe because the leftists talking about Cain were being hateful and disrespectful. That right there shows you the difference between republicans and democrats. Just look at the responses to John Lewis and Herman Cain deaths. Even in death a black republican can not avoid the toxic hate of the left.

Just more proof the modern Democrat party are driven by hate. Even in toxic forums like this I have not seen a single post disrespecting John Lewis by the Republicans. But there is all kinds of hateful crap about Cain. If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful. Think the Dems would be if Trump died?

And to suggest that gamespot is republican biased is laughable. That is like saying CNN is right leaning.

John Lewis was disrespected when he was ALIVE. The only reason the right came off as "respectful" (translation: RAGE because Obama was at his funeral, giving a eulogy) was because the guy died and they knew the left would be on their cases if they said anything, then Obama showed up and "GASP! How dare HE be here, nevermind being invited!". They'd do the same thing to RBG despite being begged to retire and/or croak.

"If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful." Again, she's disrespected now while she's alive, with much of the radical right buying whatever crap Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore throw at her, so spare me the damage control. In death, it would be either the hypocrisy over John Lewis over again, or dancing on her grave given all the conspiracy theories against her.

Obama was not criticized for being there. He was criticized from turning a funeral into a hateful political speech. And sure he was disrespected when he was alive. So is everyone else. But in death you forget about politics and remember this was a person not his political views. And no Republican I know of disrespected the office of the President because they did not like Obama.

Hillary Clinton gets more respect then she deserves. If a republican pulled the crap she did they would be in jail. Not talking conspiracy theories either I am talking proven facts. Her destruction of subpoenaed evidence alone is enough to give a republican 10 years in prison. And this crime is PROVEN already. She is guilty of much more there just is not solid proof yet. Sure there are conspiracy theories about her but not near as many as there are against Trump.

But even so the Republicans would not be disrespectful if she died. And they damn sure would not stand up at a funeral and criticize a President.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

42213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 14

#61 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 42213 Posts

@gaeandilth said:
@nintendoboy16 said:

John Lewis was disrespected when he was ALIVE. The only reason the right came off as "respectful" (translation: RAGE because Obama was at his funeral, giving a eulogy) was because the guy died and they knew the left would be on their cases if they said anything, then Obama showed up and "GASP! How dare HE be here, nevermind being invited!". They'd do the same thing to RBG despite being begged to retire and/or croak.

"If Hillary Clinton herself died Republicans would be respectful." Again, she's disrespected now while she's alive, with much of the radical right buying whatever crap Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore throw at her, so spare me the damage control. In death, it would be either the hypocrisy over John Lewis over again, or dancing on her grave given all the conspiracy theories against her.

Obama was not criticized for being there. He was criticized from turning a funeral into a hateful political speech. And sure he was disrespected when he was alive. So is everyone else. But in death you forget about politics and remember this was a person not his political views. And no Republican I know of disrespected the office of the President because they did not like Obama.

Hillary Clinton gets more respect then she deserves. If a republican pulled the crap she did they would be in jail. Not talking conspiracy theories either I am talking proven facts. Her destruction of subpoenaed evidence alone is enough to give a republican 10 years in prison. And this crime is PROVEN already. She is guilty of much more there just is not solid proof yet. Sure there are conspiracy theories about her but not near as many as there are against Trump.

But even so the Republicans would not be disrespectful if she died. And they damn sure would not stand up at a funeral and criticize a President.

Yes, he was! For god's sake, maybe his eulogy was political because that was the life of John Lewis, who was part of the civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr? Why didn't Lewis' family care then? Why did only righties like Diamond and Silk, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Charlie Kirk care, to the point of trying to spin that they "never really hated him", when history proves they're lying, and rage when Obama opened his mouth?

On Hillary: what a complete inconsistent thing to say. And also, the current president is linked to crimes right now, but where is the rightie rage on that? Oh right, only a small percentage (such as Project Lincoln) seems to care about that, while the rest damage control what Trump was done and whatabout Democrats. And even swear "what he is different because *insert BS*" (which his push on federal troops in liberal cities has shown).

Avatar image for gaeandilth
gaeandilth

854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62  Edited By gaeandilth
Member since 2010 • 854 Posts

Lol the President is linked to crimes his entire Presidency not a single one even had proof enough to investigate much less found anything. And federal troops in liberal cities in itself is a lie. First of all they are not Troops they are law enforcement, Secondly they are not out in the street targeting protesters randomly they are enforcing federal law on crimes committed against federal property.

And the protests themselves are a Democrat lie. Their race baiting and lies are the real cause of the protests. BLM is based on a lie. Fact is racism and racial injustice has been in decline for 50 years go look at any study. Sure there are outlying cases. But calling it systemic and out of control is irresponsible and dangerous fear mongering. And it is ironic they are condemning an entire group of people for the actions of one. Sounds like the exact definition of racism to me.

Not once has ANY of those commentators(funny if they were democrats they would be called journalists). Have openly expressed hate towards John Lewis as a person. Even on policy they debate it they do not hate.

Obama sit there and called them peaceful protests knowing that was not the truth. And if there is a single person in government that condemned violent protests it was John Lewis. In fact he did. If the protests were peaceful like Obama and the media claim then why did John Lewis have to call for an end to it? And for that matter why did the most prominent figure in civil rights alive not get listened to by the protesters?

Only rage and hate is coming from the left. The right is expressing disappointment and disgust at what the Democrats are trying to do to America. They have no real argument. The only thing left they have as a defense is to call you a racist or some other slur to try to get you to shut up.

Democrat platform is basically HATE TRUMP, HATE AMERICA, HATE THE POLICE, HATE HATE HATE HATE. Yet Nancy Pelosi stands there with her face all distorted in rage and says "I do not hate anyone". And you weak minded people believe every word. The only thing that has that much power over the mind is hate and fear.

Which by the way is what the democrats have always done. Democrats founded the KKK and their tactics were hate and fear. The democrats were the perpetrators of slavery and tried to keep it with hate and fear and it did not work as they had planned. The democrats were the ones that used hate and fear to intern millions of german and japanese americans in WWII. Basically if it is American and bad the Democrats were knee deep in it if not in total control of it.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@gaeandilth said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

Maybe because the leftists talking about Cain

Oh, you're one of those people that say 'leftist'. Go back to turning point USA with the rest of Kirk's goons.

Avatar image for npiet1
npiet1

3576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#64 npiet1
Member since 2018 • 3576 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@npiet1 said:
@mattbbpl said:

Math. This one is simple addition that anyone can follow.

Inflows - Outflows = net shortfall/surplus

Removing inflows while maintaining outflows results in/exacerbates a shortfall.

If you object to the math, let me know. I'll be happy to go over it again.

Now if there was only someone or a group of people who control the laws and policies. That could change it or maybe a huge drop in the elderly population from a pandemic but who knows? lol.

If there are ANY outflows (elderly receiving benefits), zeroing out inflows results in a shortfall. As for making new laws, now that the revenue supporting the program has been zeroed out, what are you asking them to do? Reinstate the revenue source that he just removed?

They could source the money elsewhere.

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@npiet1 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

No sh*t. The payroll tax holiday is the most alarming part to me given its consequences. Then he doubled down and confirmed he would like to make them permanent if he wins reelection.

What does this mean? He want to de-fund Social Security and Medicare, two very popular programs that seniors rely on heavily.

Not to be non sensitive but I think covid took care of the aging population issue.

Remember when the mods closed the last two threads on Herman Cain dying due to COVID? Apparently it's not OK to point out irony/hypocrisy there, but it's OK to see this same sentiment of old people dying in these forums.

I get that my statement might come off like I'm happy people old people are dying. I'm not. The aging population has been an issue for quite sometime.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23344 Posts

@npiet1: Perhaps Trump should. He's the one who unilaterally broke it, and he's the one who can most easily and quickly fix it.

Avatar image for npiet1
npiet1

3576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#66 npiet1
Member since 2018 • 3576 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@npiet1: Perhaps Trump should. He's the one who unilaterally broke it, and he's the one who can most easily and quickly fix it.

I completely agree.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#67 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38934 Posts

@gaeandilth said:

@comp_atkins: You know how law works with precedence? You do know there was just a case when Trump diverted funds from the military and other various sources to build the wall? You do know the supreme court ruled in his favor?

There are also provisions to back him in the emergency powers section.

And the republicans did not add ANY fat to their bill. That was all Democrat. Republicans bill was simple but the Democrats wanted to play politics and get funding for everything under the sun. Including unconstitutional relief for certain states and not others. That was actually a bail out for their failed policies.

I do not care if Trump had a cure for the Virus and it was proven. The Democrats would tie it up in court. This will be no different and they are going to pay politically if they do.

My understanding was the wall funding precedent was narrow in scope and only allowed for diversion of allocated military funds for a national security emergency.

So what is the solution there? To pull 40% of the military's budget to fund this under the guise of a national security emergency?

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#68  Edited By horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127732 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@gaeandilth said:

@comp_atkins: You know how law works with precedence? You do know there was just a case when Trump diverted funds from the military and other various sources to build the wall? You do know the supreme court ruled in his favor?

There are also provisions to back him in the emergency powers section.

And the republicans did not add ANY fat to their bill. That was all Democrat. Republicans bill was simple but the Democrats wanted to play politics and get funding for everything under the sun. Including unconstitutional relief for certain states and not others. That was actually a bail out for their failed policies.

I do not care if Trump had a cure for the Virus and it was proven. The Democrats would tie it up in court. This will be no different and they are going to pay politically if they do.

Well this is a damn lie. The Senate added the FBI building in their bill for trump.

Isn't that because the plans for it were to turn it into a hotel? A hotel that would compete with Trumps own hotel?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180152 Posts

@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@gaeandilth said:

@comp_atkins: You know how law works with precedence? You do know there was just a case when Trump diverted funds from the military and other various sources to build the wall? You do know the supreme court ruled in his favor?

There are also provisions to back him in the emergency powers section.

And the republicans did not add ANY fat to their bill. That was all Democrat. Republicans bill was simple but the Democrats wanted to play politics and get funding for everything under the sun. Including unconstitutional relief for certain states and not others. That was actually a bail out for their failed policies.

I do not care if Trump had a cure for the Virus and it was proven. The Democrats would tie it up in court. This will be no different and they are going to pay politically if they do.

Well this is a damn lie. The Senate added the FBI building in their bill for trump.

Isn't that because the plans for it were to turn it into a hotel? A hotel that would compete with Trumps own hotel?

Yep.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127732 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yep.

Isn't that another violation of a law?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180152 Posts

@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Yep.

Isn't that another violation of a law?

Yeah but laws don't apply to trump.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#72 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127732 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah but laws don't apply to trump.

Ironic for the party of "law and order".

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

58644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#73 DaVillain  Moderator  Online
Member since 2014 • 58644 Posts

I know this thread is a few days old but I want to say is this.

I just find it ridiculous that $600 is “too much” to begin with. In metro cities, that maybe covers 2 bills as many people are still working through this on shortened part-time hours. How long before businesses stop offering health insurance to these people? Surely they will need it if exposed to the public. The problem is that people don’t understand the cost of living varies greatly from urban to rural. Many people living a minimum wage salary where I live could not afford an apartment in my immediate area, let alone a house. The cost of living is just too damn high in this era. Now you are expecting people to travel greater distances, making it more costly.

$600 doesn’t have as much spending power right now either when you factor in the higher prices of groceries and other expenses. It’s somewhat nice to work from home, but our electricity bill is higher because my fiance always works home and that is extra money out of my pocket but that's life I guess. So I mean...it’s pretty give and take.