Biden's Already Saved the U.S. $1.5 Million

1. 75

   Valeantposted 4 years ago

   Estimates say Trump costed around $36 million a year in golf, so that's $3 million a month.  Biden's been President for two weeks and hasn't golfed once.  So half a month without golf equals $1.5 million in savings so far.
   
   https://trumpgolfcount.com/

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am pleased to hear he is not out on the golf course. This man appears very lethargic most of the time.  Not a good idea to have him out doing much of anything. Very pleased to see he is staying close to home. And yes, he will be offsetting all the other money we have lost in the past three weeks.  Did you ever have a look-see on the cost of belonging to WHO and Pairs Climate Accord?  And then there is his huge nonsensical stimulus package.  Oh well.  Maybe we should just put him in a golf cart after all. ("Weekend At Bernies" comes to mind).

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         The guy who jogs over to the press and is out biking all the time appears lethargic to you?  Remind me the last time Trump jogged...that's lethargy.  And didn't Biden just set a new record with Executive Orders to start a Presidency?  Not bad for a lethargic guy, I guess. 
         
         For someone who claims to base posts on facts, the evidence seems to be going against your claim.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I think Trump is very overweight, and one can see he could care less about his health.  But his energy level seems pretty good.
            
            I had a look-see on Youtube. There are several clips of Joe running and biking... I will give this one to you. Who knew!
            
            I noticed you ignored Joe's spending habits. He has been on a real spree for just being in office for three weeks. The facts are he sighed us up to spend a ton of cash on "Old Boy" Club Organizations"  That money could be put to better use.
            
            "While the U.S. had been the largest funder of the WHO, providing between $400 million to $500 million each year, the Trump administration suspended financial support to the organization last year, pending a review of its COVID-19 response, and initiated a process to formally withdraw U.S. membership. On his first day in office President, Joe Biden reversed this decision, and the administration has indicated it will restore U.S. funding to WHO."  https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-1 … anization/
            
            "Who funds the Paris climate agreement?
            In 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks." So far, the Green Climate Fund has received over $10 billion in pledges."
            
            I would think these two organizations will be very glad to see us in the fold once again.
            
            Joe is spending like a drunken sailor.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I cannot argue with Joe spending like a drunken sailor.  Accurate. 
               
               Expecting viruses or climate to just get better on their own hasn't been a solution.  And he was elected on being pro-science and to fight climate change, so allocating monetary resources to those causes will likely be supported by the 81 million in his base. 
               
               We'll have to see if he increases the national debt by $7.9 trillion in his four years.  That's the mark just set.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Some right here at HP's forum have commented on "Trump adding so much to the National Debt. When I pointed out no one could not have predicted a pandemic and its outrageous costs, and that Trump certainly should not be blamed for the bulging National Debt.
                  
                  WHO was a very big part of why the virus got so out of control over the world. And do some research into the PCA. Climate change is no joke, but the PCA is.
                  
                  Well in regard to Biden increasing the debt he added 1.9 trillion and ticking, and all In three weeks. Or do we only count COVID stimulus cash if Trump had to spend it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Correction, he's willing to spend $1.9 trillion, which Congress has not approved yet.  And of course whatever is allocated will count for Biden's tally.
                     
                     As for the WHO and PCA, I trust your position on those as much as I trust claims on systemic election fraud.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, it has not been approved yet. I have never supported the theory that there was systemic election fraud. I felt there was voter fraud, as we know occurs in most elections in America, and it would not be enough to change the election.  I noticed some liberals seem to feel they can say whatever comes into their mind. It seems to give them some form of satisfaction, even if the statement is untrue. Very odd

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           And I notice that Trump supporters seem to want to attack most government organizations and think that living in constant chaos is the best way to conduct a civilized society.  That's very odd as well.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Conservatives and liberals just look at things differently, always have.  I have always had a problem with WHO, as well as CDC. Being in the medical field for so many years I witnessed these organizations were to put it kindly flawed. Maybe due to bureaucracy. But, they need looking at.  I think both were needed but they have failed us for many years.  At this point a waste of money.  I would rather see that money put somewhere else, where it might benefit us.

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 Understandable.

                                 replyreport
               2. 82

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I am so sure you are aware that science conflicts with what causes true climate changes. So, I won't go there. And as I implied I don't hold COVID stimulus expenditure against either Trump or Biden. Although we both know lots of the last stimulus cash has not yet been spent, and once again we have a lot of non-related Covid cash clinging to the new package.
                  
                  Science is a funny animal when it comes to climate changes, not as simple as the Government would like you to think it is. Have a long look at the Pairs Climate Accord.  It is not all that cracked up to be what it pronounces to be. They set out lots of proclamations and goals. They do nothing to enforce those goals. Very expensive club to belong to, one gets very little for all the dues. Seems Biden is spending money to keep votes in place.  I  find this form of politicking practice distasteful. Just my view

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Remember, Trumpers judge people very differently than others do. They look at a calm, intelligent, thoughtful person like Obama or Biden and see "boring" and "lethargic." Conversely, they look at a lying, bullying,  braggart like Trump and see "confident" and "decisive." As for describing Trump as "energetic," that one really makes me chuckle. The guy rarely put in more than 4-6 hours of real work per day. Oh, I forgot, Trumpers think "executive time" spent watching TV and tweeting counts as work.
            
            But, back to the subject of your OP....I am gloriously happy we are no longer supporting that lazy a$$'s golf and TV habits.
            
            Edit: Remember when Trump rode in a golf cart while the other G7 leaders walked? Ah....the memories. lol

            replyreport
   2. 73

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Wow... that's awesome.
      
      Back in the 90s our government passed NAFTA which allowed businesses (jobs) to flow freely out of the US by the millions.
      
      Trump actually kept his pledge to amend NAFTA and make it more US friendly.  Something the other nations as well as many corporations fought him on.
      
      https://apnews.com/article/222da26d3fe4 … 194addfc6f
      
      Then there was the ACA, also known as Obamacare, that wonderful bit of work helped make the major Insurance companies into regional monopolies while making the smaller more niche Insurance companies go out of business... which in turn allowed the "only game in town" Insurance companies to increase their rates by over 100% a year,
      
      https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/10/25 … -premiums/
      
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec … -premiums/
      
      And if you couldn't afford to pay those rates, that's OK you can go without Insurance, you just have to pay a small penalty at the end of the year, a couple thousand dollars, no big deal.
      
      Trump did away with that "penalty" fee, but our caring government will soon reinstate it (if Biden hasn't done so already).
      
      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/05/joe-bid … nalty.html
      
      But what happened to the Small Insurance companies and competition within the business is nothing to how this Pandemic has crushed Small Business in particular in the retail and services industries... but hey, no restrictions on those Walmart or Target chains baby, too big to fail, too big to hold them to any standards that the small guy has to contend with.
      
      Gotta love Biden though, his first acts are targeting some of the remaining businesses that have not been scuttled by this pandemic, bless his heart for being so quick and decisive to go after them.
      
      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … -in-space/
      
      https://kvia.com/news/texas/2021/01/28/ … gulations/
      
      https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-01-22/ … -relations
      
      But, hey, you're right, its awesome that he is saving so much money by not being out golfing.  That makes a huge difference when considering the bigger issues, doesn't it?

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, totally agree with your premise.   The Biden blinders are on with some people.  Biden like Obumler are disaster but Biden will be a wrecking ball for America.   In 4 years, you will not recognize America- as it will become a cesspool.  Then there will be a Republican president who won't take any nonsense from the current Liberals & put the latter in their place. Oh yes, Biden is a joke.   A bubbling, mediocre joke.  Don't respect him at all.

         replyreport
      2. 75

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         First off, Musk was having issues with government regulation already back in December.  Remind us who was President in December?  Biden's FAA gave him clearance, after SpaceX got into compliance, to perform his latest test this past Tuesday.  You linking to an article claiming Biden grounded SpaceX is disingenuous, at best.
         
         And those poor oil and gas companies with their $55 billion in profits.  Let me get out my tiny violin about those added regulations.
         https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural … s-profits/
         
         NAFTA to the USMCA moved a few percentages, that's about it.  It'll likely just mean that Mexican workers get a pay raise in union jobs.  As you've argued ad nauseum, manufacturing has been under pressure from China and many economists actually argue that NAFTA helps North American companies compete by lowering costs, increased productivity, and improving cross-border supply chains.
         
         https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact
         
         As for the ACA, you're discussing nongroup markets which encompass about 10.6 million Americans.  Health insurers have been gauging Americans for decade as noted by the growth in premiums: The total average family plan cost increased by 43 percent from 2008 to 2016, but it went up more than double that rate — 97 percent — from 2000 to 2008.  No denying that deductibles have increased however.  It's part of the reason many are pushing for a public option.
         
         https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/emplo … d-the-aca/

         replyreport
2. 71

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   Nice.  Had he not offset that by allowing thousands of people to freely enter the US, thus putting millions at unnecessary risk (millions who have been quarantining, wearing masks, losing their businesses to mandatory shutdowns) by possibly bringing more cases across our borders; we might think he had really saved us money.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Would love to see the proof that thousands have crossed the border in the last two weeks.  Please provide that, otherwise I think you're just making a false claim.
      
      It appears border crossings were already increasing under the Trump Administration:
      https://apnews.com/article/mexico-coron … d80be1c130

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Lol. The executive order he signed,  if challenges fall short, will certainly result in a higher number than I suggested.
         
         Time will tell if golfing savings will offset costs involved in allowing virtually unfettered entry into this country.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with you that granting amnesty to the 11 million or so already here illegally sends the wrong message, one that says if you can get past our border laws, you will be granted citizenship.  That's not the right policy, a slap in the face to those who go through the process of legal immigration, and a divergence from Obama who deported the most people in history.
            
            Biden's certainly not openly stating he will allow people unfettered entry if they are not already here, that's a pretty big exaggeration.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with both parts of your comment, but I think Pres. Biden is facing a huge challenge in coming up with a plan to deal with the numbers that are and will be drawn to the U.S. based on the perception, (due to the campaign and new administration's comments), that they will not be barred from the gates.
               
               I don't think we have the logistical structure to handle new immigrant efforts in the manner the president is proposing. It will be interesting to see what he does differently from previous administrations. (no, that was not an opening to bash Trump's policies.  It was a plural reference that also includes Obama's time and was an honest admission that this will be a major challenge)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  It's pretty easy to correctly predict a very large influx of illegals into the country.  Whereupon the ranks of both DACA and others will grow while Congress does nothing about it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, I think it is easy to predict larger numbers coming our way, but I am having trouble getting a handle on just what the president's EO means for folks, (both the illegals and our DHS personnel), on the ground.
                     
                     His declaration: Stop deportations for the next 100 days seems pretty clear, but I have found too many conflicting interpretations and guidances to have a clear understanding of just who those stopped deportations apply to.
                     
                     According to the official DHS directive, all the really bad guys, (the felons, criminals, and national security risks, etc.), will still be deported. And that same directive says the order only applies to folks that got here before Nov. 1, 2020. So it appears the stopping of deportations won't apply to those that came/come after that date.
                     
                     Then there is the confusing "Release them all" email chain and the inference of very conflicting action messages to the rank and file of DHS and ICE at the border. This particular message confuses things even more. It turns out that the action was directed at Covid-19 positive risks, but it doesn't differentiate between new arrivals and pre-Nov. 1 arrivals. So, if a new arrival is Covid positive do they too immediately get released?
                     
                     It does seem clear that the boots on the ground may be as confused as I am. I can easily see them erring on the wrong side and letting more be released than should be.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Then there is the confusing "Release them all" email chain and the inference of very conflicting action messages to the rank and file of DHS and ICE at the border. This particular message confuses things even more. It turns out that the action was directed at Covid-19 positive risks, but it doesn't differentiate between new arrivals and pre-Nov. 1 arrivals. So, if a new arrival is Covid positive do they too immediately get released?
                        
                        I dont think that's what it meant. It is not about people who might have Covid, but people who are at high risk if they get it.
                        
                        
                        Also, I believe that directive was retracted the same day.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           You may or may not be right about the targeted Covid folks. If you are I think that means even more folks would be immediately released.
                           
                           The "memo" that you spoke to wasn't a directive, at least not as officially as the "Directive" that the acting, (or assistant?), DHS director released., but that memo was ordered retracted the same day. However, I think that retraction was ordered because of the entirety of what was in the memo.  I think the clarifying emails in that chain did confirm that "Release them all" was the official instruction for the Covid HRD folks.
                           
                           I am not standing firm on that interpretation because I didn't go back and confirm my understanding. I will just wait for more clarifications to hit the news cycle.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 68

                              IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              That email highlights the instruction to “Release them all” followed a line that read, “Check the HRD at 1300hrs for new review decisions.” The email said “HRD” is a reference to a cohort of “high risk detainees” (or "Fraihat cases") who had to be evaluated for release under an ongoing federal lawsuit called Fraihat v. ICE.
                              
                              In that lawsuit, a federal judge in California had previously ordered ICE to individually review detainees and identify those who were at high risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 and prioritize their release. In October, the judge in that case noted ICE had “established a pattern of noncompliance or exceedingly slow compliance.”
                              
                              A review of ICE detention records by the AP show the population in ICE custody has been falling for months, a trend that accelerated due to policy changes related to the pandemic. In the final days of the Trump administration, the population in ICE custody had fallen to less than 15,000, a steep drop from the 55,000 who were detained 18 months earlier.
                              
                              A statement issued by ICE that was shared with the AP on Tuesday confirms the agency is not under orders to free everyone from ICE custody.
                              
                              “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to make custody determinations on a case by case basis, in accordance with U.S. law and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy,” reads the statement.
                              
                              “During the course of routine operations, individuals can be released from custody based on the facts and circumstances of their cases. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ICE continues to release detainees when possible or when directed by court order to maintain a detention capacity at or below the 75% recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”
                              
                              https://apnews.com/article/fact-checkin … 9940393384

                              replyreport
                              1. 84

                                 GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 That is good information, but I don't see that it changes the point of my previous comments. HRD folks are released into the U.S. whether by the actions of this court order, or the directions of the ICE memo.
                                 
                                 The bottom line is that more border detainees are being released into the U.S. pending case review.
                                 
                                 I don't see that as an improvement to our current, (or pre-Biden), situation.
                                 
                                 Am I missing something?
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                  2. 84

                     GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     That was one of the things I credit former Pres,. Trump with. His actions intended to force Congress to do their job. Alas, that effort failed. And, apparently, is still failing under Pres. Biden.
                     
                     This, (the DACA solution), is not the responsibility of the president, it is the responsibility of our Congress. And they are continuing to fail to meet their responsibilities.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
            2. 76

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Except that if they can get by the border guards (easier without a physical barrier) then they can stay, for he has told ICE to stand down everywhere else and ignore the requirements of the law and his oath of office.  And the more illegals in the country the higher the cost; that 3M he supposedly saved by never taking a weekend pales in front of the billions illegals cost us.

               replyreport