Biff Tannen as President and Beeteljuice of DOGE making trouble
Biff Tannon is the villain in Back to the Future II, for those too young to remember, Trump is the spitting image. Beetlejuice reminds me of the scary apparation that I saw in the 1980s film that I think about ever time I look at Elon Musk's face
Elon Musk wants to 'delete' a federal agency designed to prevent another financial crisis and protect people from scams
The CFPB (Consumer Finance Protction Board) as the brainchild of my favorite politician, Elizabeth Warren, was designed to protect consumers from the wiles of Wall Street and the caprice of corporate America, who believe that they should be able to do what ever they want, whenever they want without being held to any accountability while denying challengers any recourse. Of course, what be more desired by the billionaire corporate class as having the ability to do whatever they want? Musk is no less of a creep than his "daddy" for having that desire on his wish list.
A little background
https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-do … on-2024-11
Musk attacks the Civil Service and passes on endless threats to career employees with no more concern than that of a child playing in a sandbox. As a former federal employee, thank God that my era of service is well over. We went through this downsizing stuff during the Reagan years, and even as hidebound as he was, he and his right wing apparatchiks realized that out sourcing work to the private sector was far more expensive, so the idea was quietly shelved in the early 1990s. So, is Musk's objective to increase costs to the Government out of sheer spite against Civil Servants? Must one be willing to kiss Trump's arse as qualifications for any Federal job under his upcoming regime?
What is this new rumor of Trump wanting to restrict access to certain mainstream media during his press conferences? I remember Soviet Union and the Tass news agency that spewed out only propaganda supporting the government and tyrants in charge. Is that what Trump has in store for America? He will only entertain questions from those that "like him"? Who else is figuring out how to manhandle the concept of a free-press? Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post has sold out, and Musk has been thinking about buying MSNBC.
Do I need to spell it out folks? This country is no longer a democracy, nor a republic but an Oligarchy. The significance of that should frighten any sane person.
But maybe, just maybe, if I chanted BEETLEJUICE three times Musk would just disappear, one can only hope?
This is what you voted for and I can only hope that you choke on it along with the maraschino cherry.
Meanwhile, I am watching a great performance of the Nutcracker that I have to consider as one of finest pieces of music ever created. Happy ThanksgivingIt’s fascinating how cultural references can be used to highlight frustrations with public figures, but let’s unpack the substance behind the colorful imagery. Comparing Trump to Biff Tannen and Musk to Beetlejuice may be funny, but it risks oversimplifying the deeper issues at play.
Regarding Musk’s criticisms of the CFPB, I think it’s important to balance skepticism of corporate power with a recognition of the challenges inherent in regulatory oversight. The CFPB, as envisioned by Elizabeth Warren, has undoubtedly done significant work to protect consumers, but its operations, like any federal agency, are not immune to inefficiencies or overreach. Dismissing Musk's critique as mere billionaire hubris overlooks potential opportunities to refine the agency's function without compromising its mission.
As for Musk’s broader stance on downsizing the federal workforce, I see your frustration as a former federal employee who lived through the Reagan-era cuts. Outsourcing to the private sector can indeed be more expensive and less effective in some areas, but streamlining operations and rethinking bureaucracy can also save taxpayer money when done thoughtfully. The key question is whether Musk—or anyone proposing these changes—has a plan that prioritizes efficiency without undermining the essential services civil servants provide.
The media access issue surrounding Trump is another layer altogether. Restricting press freedom is a valid concern, but let’s not leap to conclusions without specific evidence about his plans. While it's easy to draw parallels to authoritarian regimes when discussing media access, this topic warrants clarity and context rather than fear-driven assumptions. If true, it’s something that should be debated vigorously, as a free press is foundational to any democracy.
Your conclusion about the United States being an oligarchy echoes a sentiment many share, but I’d argue democracy isn’t lost—it’s being tested. If anything, these debates remind us of the importance of civic engagement and the need to hold leaders, both in the public and private sectors, accountable. That requires less wishing people like Musk away and more engaging with their ideas—agree or disagree—so we can better shape the policies affecting us all.
The Nutcracker holds a special place in my heart. My granddaughter, from the time she was 9 years old, danced in a production of The Nutcracker every year. Now, at 27, she’s a seasoned ballet dancer and instructor. She still finds herself immersed in the magic of the production, not only performing but also choreographing shows for her students. It’s a joy to see how this tradition continues to bring beauty to our lives amid life’s chaos. Happy Holidays to you as well. May our conversations remain thoughtful and productive.“Regarding Musk’s criticisms of the CFPB, I think it’s important to balance skepticism of corporate power with a recognition of the challenges inherent in regulatory oversight. The CFPB, as envisioned by Elizabeth Warren, has undoubtedly done significant work to protect consumers, but its operations, like any federal agency, are not immune to inefficiencies or overreach. Dismissing Musk's critique as mere billionaire hubris overlooks potential opportunities to refine the agency's function without compromising its mission.”
From Musk, he wants to eliminate the agency, does not sound so much like any kind of compromise to me. Conservatives are always about the same thing, limit the power and influence of the man in the street.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 … u-00191994
With Musk’s brilliant solution to resolve the CFPB problem, am I to believe that he really is going to pursue cost efficiency regarding the Civil Service or is he just going to indiscriminately apply a meat ax without any regards as to the consequences?
As I have not substantiated the rumor regarding cherry picking news agencies at press conferences, I will take a wait and see attitude. But, if he gets out of line……….
I believe that this society has always been more of an oligarchy of sorts more than the democracies of Western Europe. Putting mindless billionaires in sensitive government jobs, just because conservatives always believe that the ability of one to line ones pocket make them qualified to carry out public service responsibilities.
Watching ballet has been much like eye candy. So, when we have that cup of coffee we can speak of great music in general and the talents of your daughter in particular.Elon Musk has said he wants to get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calling it an example of unnecessary and overlapping government regulation. He sees the CFPB, which was created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers, as doing the same job as other regulators, making it redundant. Some in the financial industry agree, saying the CFPB creates more problems for businesses and punishes them too harshly.
This idea fits into the larger plan of Project 2025, a conservative initiative focused on scaling back federal agencies and moving the CFPB’s responsibilities to other regulators like the FTC. That said, shutting down the CFPB isn’t simple—it was created by Congress, so getting rid of it would need Congressional approval. Plus, the Supreme Court recently ruled that its funding structure is constitutional, which makes dismantling it even tougher politically and legally.So, much for Musk wanting to just rein in federal overeach, while he basks in million dollar federal contracts. I have had contact with the CFPB as a place where I as a non wealthy citizen can have my complaints heard about abuse from corporate, theft, exploitation etc. the agency is independent and not just an regulatory agency sucking up to Trump and his agenda of allowing the oligarch unlimited power and authority. I hope that the CFPB remains despite the plutocrats desire to dismantle it.
Is this the same Project 2025 that you told me that Trump disavowed?Yes, Project 2025, and other conservative groups, include proposals to dismantle the CFPB. Critics of the CFPB argue it has too much power, operates without enough oversight, and creates expensive regulations that hurt businesses and stifle innovation. Believing scaling it back or eliminating it would reduce government size, lower costs for businesses, and encourage competition.
However, supporters of the CFPB point out that it was created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from harmful practices like predatory lending and hidden fees. They warn that removing it could leave consumers vulnerable to the same abuses and reduce transparency in the financial industry.
My thoughts are a balance between reducing regulation to help businesses grow and ensuring that consumers are protected from financial risks and exploitation. Perhaps an overhaul of the CFPB, rather than dismantling it entirely, would be the wise thing to do.Overhaul cannot mean leaving it toothless. I don't trust the greed and power of corporate America and certain business interests to properly regulate themselves.
No one should, for if they do they will certainly be taken advantage of.
But do you trust the common American, the "man in the street" to take on any responsibility for himself at all? Or is Big Daddy in Washington responsible for all the children, from birth to grave, in the country?
We are certainly headed that way, IMO. Government takes on more and more responsibility for it's citizenry while the citizenry gladly gives up that responsibility. Whether ignorance, stupidity or just plain laziness, few people today seem ready, willing and able to take on responsibility for themselves.I trust the common man as the underdog between the two opposing groups.
1. The corporate/business has the advantage of superior knowledge. I, for example, had to have my alternator replaced, their installation crapped out on me within a month. They agree to install a second one at no cost and it crapped within a matter of days. They say that the supply of alternators and their quality are a crapshoot. So, they claim no responsibility for putting defective parts into my car and expect me to pay for it? I am not a mechanic and there are several angles they could use to lie or take advantage of the fact that I don't repair cars and order parts for a living. No layman can be expected to compete with experts in their lines of work, Google or no Google That would go for your financial manager and anyone else. Because if I did not need their expertise, I could do it myself. How many products and services in this complex world can your really say that you are expert at?
2. There was an incident in Texas a few years ago involving the Koch Brothers, between an Hispanic community and KOch lawyers, accusing this company of polluting a water source used by this Hispanic community. The point of my second reason, is that you should not pravail over complaints like this solely because you have the lawyers and wealth that the man in the street does not have access to. I don't care how much money you have, I expect every charge against a corporate to see a courtroom and justice determined regardless of the financial assets of the parties involved. I don't want to give anyone or anybody the idea that they can do whatever they want with impunity making it impossible for any complainant to have any recourse.
Tinkering around with CFPB and watering it down works only for the fat cats that want a clear path to prevail regardless of what they have done. I like this regulatory agency as having a definite purpose.I was thinking more of the example given that it is supposed to prevent bad contracts such as those variable interest loans that so many defaulted on.
And my comment was about the stupidity of someone taking that kind of loan without understanding it, then blaming government for it happening.
NYC banned Big Gulps because it was not good for the person buying it. We have virtually banned cigarettes because they are bad for us. The list is endless of "victimless" crimes because government is passing laws to protect us from ourselves.
And THAT is what the post was about. The lack of responsibility necessary today for the man in the street - Big Government takes care that we don't hurt ourselves making bad decisions.The banks were greedy in making these many loans to people whose credit wise would not qualify, so don’t just blame the consumers. We know from the meltdown that the banks were complicit as well during that crisis. In my opinion, corporate is not be trusted and is to be closely regulated, period. As you seem to miss the wider point that I am making and it is not about soda pop. You know that I am not talking about victimless crimes, so you can turn off the pilot to your gaslighting. And there are plenty of crimes with victims that the Trump regime will allow the government to ignore while letting corporate America get away without penalty.
I'm sorry, your history needs an update.
Banks were required to make more substandard loans - a wonderful program by Congress so that everyone could buy a home. Banks told Congress what the result would be, Congress didn't listen and insisted on following their pie in the sky program for home ownership.
And as a direct result of actions of Congress, not bankers, we had that recession we all so enjoyed. But hey, we gave houses to people for a short time, and isn't that all that matters?From Investopedia:
The crisis began with a housing bubble, fueled by years of ultra-low interest rates and an increased availability of mortgages. Financial institutions offered “subprime” mortgages to people with low creditworthiness, often with little or no income verification. These high-risk loans, initially affordable because of low introductory rates, became unmanageable when interest rates adjusted upward, causing many borrowers to default.
So, did Congress force bankers to remove their brains along with their discretion in making loans to those that would not qualify? It is as it usual is with the private sector, greed and averice drives it. There has to be some sinister self interest for banks to make the loans in the first place. Do you think that these people are so stupid to take a loss because it was mandated by the government? Bankers don't lose money, they were compensated surreptitiously somewhere. Of course, it is natural for people who are told by finance professionals that they could qualify for the American Dream to partake, right? It is the banks responsibility to crunch the numbers and determine if the prospective client could or could not afford it.
In reality, Everyone gets a piece of the blame:
The subprime mortgage crisis was the collective creation of the world's central banks, homeowners, lenders, credit rating agencies, underwriters, and investors.
Lenders were the biggest culprits, freely granting loans to people who couldn't afford them because of free-flowing capital following the dotcom bubble.
Borrowers who never imagined they could own a home were taking on loans they knew they may never be able to afford.
Investment banks, ratings agencies, and hedge funds also had a role to play in the subprime mess.
Investors hungry for big returns bought mortgage-backed securities at ridiculously low premiums, fueling demand for more subprime mortgages.
All the rest is just Rightwing propaganda and there has been certainly more than enough of that today.Yes, Congress did force banks to make riskier subprime loans. They mandated subprime percentage quotas for banks participating in Fannie and Freddie programs.
Most sources say the issue started around 1990 when the good-to-bad ratio for Freddie and Fannie loans was around 30%. Then they point the finger at the Clinton administration for raising that ratio to 40%. Banks were required to have 40% subprime loans. The government-required ratio finally hit 56% in 2007.
In short, Fannie and Freddie (the government) told banks they couldn't participate in the federal loan guarantee programs if they didn't meet the percentage quota of subprime loans.
That is not right-wing propaganda. It's factual and the links are there for you to find.
GAThere is more to this story than meets the eye, I have to investigate deeply as to why any Congress would mandate putting banks in a position of loss, deliberately. If there is another side of the story, I will find it. The banks agreed to this for a reason, I will find out why.
These tabs were still open from my 'look-about.'
This video from Vidpedia.com is a good non-political explanation. It covers your points about the banks and the complicated circle of greed-driven actors. I think you will like it:
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis explained in 7 minutes - how did the crisis come about?
You might not like this one. It discusses the government's pressure on banks to make subprime loans and includes the 'ratio' information.
But, it is a commentary and has a political bias. So double-check what you accept. I didn't keep the tabs that supported the percentages in the commentary, but you can find them if you need confirmation:
How the Federal Government Created the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Everyone ends up guilty in this one, but it wouldn't have happened without the mentioned government pressure on banks (at least not by subprime).
GAGA, I checked out your sources and oddly enough I like the conservative article better as giving a better and more clear explanation as to what actually happened. While I now recognize that what happened during the crisis can be blamed a great deal on the Government intervention, what about the paragraph below, how was this inequity and disparity to be corrected? This was a ripoff, what "Free Market" solutions were on hand to address it?
"If anything symbolizes the American dream, it is homeownership—an asset that is viewed as part of a route from poverty and exclusion to independence and responsibility. However, as detailed in Part I, for over a century, state and federal governments worked to racially segregate American neighborhoods, promoting homeownership for whites while denying it for African-Americans. The result is that decades after discriminatory treatment in housing was outlawed, the homeownership gap between minorities and whites remains large."I'm, mostly, sticking to the 'what caused the 2008 financial crisis': government intervention.
But, your "paragraph" has the same what-caused-it answer: government intervention (as your blurb noted)
GAWhile I speak of what prompted the application of an erroneous solution in the first place. The illegal and unethical government intervention which I say needed a correction. While conservatives blame government for the 2008 crisis, I blame them for creating the conditions where so many were put behind the 8 ball. One can't be considered without the other, in my opinion.
Your explanation helps but as always with conservatives, it is only half of the story.It still goes back to a corrupt government, a criminal cabal...
They are the ones that overturned Glass Steagall...
During the Clinton Administration, powerful activist groups demanded that banks reduce their lending standards, such as reliance on creditworthiness and higher down payments, and organized protests against those that would not, claiming higher standards disproportionately hurt low-income earners and minorities.
Similar to much of the destructive actions we have seen during the Biden Administration... where a complete detachment from reality guides the decision making and EOs we have seen the last 4 years...
This unwillingness to accept reality [that people who make 40k a year cannot afford payments on a house that cost 400k] cost many Americans their retirement savings or put them in bankruptcy, destroying tens of millions of American lives.
Those responsible were bailed out, by the same criminals in congress that created the problem [theft] the banks and Wall Street only increased their wealth and power.
Both political parties bent the federal mortgage agencies to their will, continually relaxing underwriting standards to promote homeownership.
Just like the trillions of dollars spent the last few years... money went to the wealthy, the financial institutions... it was another fleecing of the American people... then it was the Mortgage Crisis and the crash of property values... today our wealth is stolen in the guise of inflation and increased interest rates.
Rather than a failure of the free market, the federal government was directly complicit in the mortgage market’s spectacular ramp-up and eventual collapse...
Just as they are responsible for creating the wars and economic hardships we face today.
The Party and politicians you so earnestly defend are the ones most responsible for the ills in our society, in our nation today.Nope, it's the whole story. The discussion about what caused the 2008 crisis was just as has been described. That cause—requiring banks to make risky loans, has nothing to do with your complaint.
You're still in that rut. The subprime crisis had nothing to do with white racism. Or segregation, or redlining, or any of the other 'white crimes' that make up the boulder on your shoulder.
GAWhose says that the rut as ever went away? I said nothing about white racism, your CON servative article laid out the the why and wherefores behind the sub prime lending crisis in the first paragraph and I am not going to dismiss a primary reason behind it because Of it seeming irrelevant to you rightwing types, after stealing and cheating so much to just simply let bygones be bygones. I guess that is what YOU guys mean by woke? Well, that attitude will insure that the "dust will never settle" So, yes, there is a boulder and the equivalent of an asteroid belt resting on my shoulders
Congress mandated it for the same reason it often makes such stupid decisions: to buy votes.
When Congress provides a way for the poor to buy a home, guess who gets the vote? Such actions dry tears, "prove" that lawmakers have the interests of "the people" at heart and will make them rich just like everyone else.
And, just as it so often does, anything past the present is ignored. Banks and experts alike told Congress what would happen....but that is for the future and we don't need to consider it now.
And so we had a recession.It was caused by the repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act that was passed by FDR in 1933 to prevent another crash of 1929. The primary crash of 1929 was caused by investment banking merging with commercial banking. That was exactly what the cause of the financial melt down was about. Portions of Glass-Stegal were repealed during the Clinton administration..
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act eliminated the Glass-Steagall Act's restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks in 1999, which some argue sparked the 2008 financial crisis.
With Glass-Stegal repealed commercial banks and investment companies could merge. This opened the door for low interest variable rate sub-prime mortgages with buyers who didn't have to qualify for the loans and were never told the interest rates would increase.
These were then bundled together and sold as Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that were thought to mitigate the risk of the variable interest loans. However, when the those variable interest rate loans increased, people started walking away from the houses they could no longer afford and the MBS that investors were holding became worthless.
That caused a chain reaction for those holding the MBS' and other exotic derivatives that were part of the scheme. The rest is history. That is what happens with deregulated laws and unfettered capitalism.
Here is the whole story about Glass-Stegal and The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.aspSorry, the #1 reason for the crash was insistence by idiot lawmakers that banks increase the number of sub-standard loans. It ballooned from there with banks bundling what they should not have and investors blaming them for what banks were required to sell. It didn't help that mortgagees accepted terms they could not afford, particularly in the variable rate mortgages.
But the #1 cause, the root of the entire mess, was Congress's insistence on making sub-par loans, loans that everyone knew from the start would default. It was not from deregulation; it was from regulation that was at the very core and center unrealistic and unworkable.What do you call repealing a law? In my book that is deregulation. You are saying the same thing as me except you have left out the cause being the repeal of Glass-Stegal byThe Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
That is deregulation by the regulating body being Glass-Stegal If the investment companies were not allowed to merge with commercial banks, there would have been no variable rate sub-prime loans and MBS' or credit default swaps or other exotic derivative instruments.
The CFPB has experienced both successes and setbacks in its efforts to regulate financial practices and protect consumers. While the bureau has achieved meaningful victories, such as securing significant settlements against financial institutions for unfair practices, it has also faced legal challenges and criticisms regarding its authority and structure. These mixed outcomes suggest the CFPB could benefit from strategic adjustments to enhance its effectiveness and address ongoing concerns about its operational framework.
Conservatives and Republicans have been after this agency since its inception, who is going to believe that they should be given any credibility for rightsizing it.? Simply stated, the GOP wants to water down so that oligarch/rich people can just that more easily rip the rest of us off. IMO.
I have just one thing to say—we are no longer the same party we once were. Surprisingly, more people aren’t recognizing that we are shaking things up in ways that should have been addressed decades ago.
Oh, really? I will believe it when I see it. It could be all the same rightwing hash with just a pinch of salt
You already see it, you just want it to be false so close your eyes to the changes. Just as you close them to the massive improvements in discrimination that we have made as a country.
Come on, have we ever in our history seen someone like Trump, after being defeated, come back to secure the nomination again? Why isn’t this fact part of the conversation for those who struggle to understand how and why he won? The reality is that a majority are rallying behind this "blow-it-up" agenda, which is unprecedented for Republicans or conservatives. Blowing it up has never been a typical characteristic of the party.
Sharlee, are we now making Trump into some supernatural figure? A lot of the nutcase fundamentalists are thinking that way already.
I like democracy and rule of law not theocracy. I like the separations of powers in the Constitution, unlike the Project 2025 tyrants cookbook, that Trump disavowed when it was politically inconvenient.
The rightwing reactionaries propose increasing the power of the Executive Branch, with Congress as just a rubber stamp. How much do you want to bet that he will appropriate it in his governance like a bible? Attitudes like this creates an America that will be unrecognizable and one that I won't support as it has deviated from it promise and creed. The is going to be a lot of shrapnel resulting from just blowing things up and when there is more than just me and mine getting hit maybe, we will start to get people's attention."Sharlee, are we now making Trump into some supernatural figure? A lot of the nutcase fundamentalists are thinking that way already.claimed to "
Just pointing out --- Why isn’t this fact part of the conversation for those who struggle to understand how and why he won? The reality is that a majority are rallying behind this "blow-it-up" agenda,
"I like democracy and rule of law not theocracy. I like the separations of powers in the Constitution"
I feel like we’ve been living in completely different realities. The current administration has veered so far from anything resembling democracy that it’s hard to ignore. The list of examples is long, but a few stand out. From executive actions that bypass Congress to policies that seem more aligned with silencing opposition than fostering debate, it feels like democratic principles are being sidelined. The sheer disregard for checks and balances and the growing partisanship in decision-making only add to the sense that democracy, as we know it, is being eroded...
I believe there are several examples where the Biden administration has stepped away from democratic principles. One that comes to mind is the use of executive orders to implement significant policy changes without Congressional input, such as the student loan forgiveness plan, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Another is the perceived targeting of political opponents through legal and regulatory channels, which some see as an attempt to stifle dissent. Additionally, the handling of border policies, where executive decisions have overridden state concerns, has sparked debates about the balance of power between federal and state governments. These actions, in my view, demonstrate a shift away from democratic norms and the checks and balances designed to protect them.
I have nothing to share on what will come in the new administration. I will give respect until for some reason my respect is not warranted....I believe there are several examples where the Biden administration has stepped away from democratic principles. One that comes to mind is the use of executive orders to implement significant policy changes without Congressional input...
But the executive has that power. So it is certainly not violating any democratic principle.
I assume you'll feel that Trump will be stepping away from democratic principal when he comes in with a slew of executive action? Will he be disregarding checks and balances as you have mentioned in your post?Additionally, the handling of border policies, where executive decisions have overridden state concerns,
But it's okay for the federal government to override States concerns over mass deportation efforts?No, a state cannot stop the federal government from deporting migrants. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), federal immigration law overrides state actions. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld that immigration enforcement, including deportation, is a federal responsibility. While states may enact sanctuary policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies, these policies do not prevent the federal government from carrying out deportation orders or immigration enforcement within the state.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) - Governs U.S. immigration and delegates authority to federal agencies like ICE to enforce immigration laws, including deportation.
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) - Establishes that federal law overrides state law, ensuring states cannot obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
States can call themselves anything they please, sanctuary or whatever... The Federal government has the right to remove migrants if they see a legal reason to do so. A state cannot be forced to assist in the removal of migrants. The federal government is solely responsible for enforcing immigration laws, including deportations."A state cannot be forced to assist in the removal of migrants."
As a practical matter, not bound in the letter of the law, I'm not so sure of this. Think back to the 55 MPH speed limit and just why every state in the union was willing to enact it although it left a really sour taste in the mouth of many a state.
Close the federal purse strings and states will do whatever it takes to force people from across the nation to pay for what the state wants but doesn't want to pay for.I agree with your perspective. However, I think Trump will handle the issue, it's likely he'd prioritize cutting funds to sanctuary cities and other areas where state policies directly conflict with federal priorities, particularly around immigration. By doing so, he'd force states to confront the financial reality of their policies. The liberal stance often focused on providing sanctuary and other programs for migrants, might change quickly when it becomes clear that the financial burden is falling on their taxpayers alone. This could create a shift in priorities as people begin to feel the personal impact of such ideologies.
The bully approach . Maybe let the people of each state decide, with their vote, if they feel that their elected officials are acting in their best interest. Let neighbors decide for neighbors, just like the forced birth situation. If citizens of a state want to see cooperation with deportation or other immigration efforts then they can vote accordingly, it may take many, many election cycles but their voice will be heard... Someday.
Sounds good—let them decide and deal with the costs involved. I have no issue with a state holding a vote if they're on board with paying for the consequences of their ideologies. Not a problem at all. I think the migrants would be thrilled to migrate to these states that will fully support them, and all will be just peachy.
As a taxpayer, I have no respect for sanctuary cities—or, frankly, for leftist ideologies in general. But yes, they have rights and should absolutely be heard on the state level. That said, I’m not willing to consider breaking federal laws for these out-there leftist ideas. I’d appreciate it if the Supreme Court would rule that sanctuary states are legal—fine—but if they choose to ignore federal law, they shouldn’t be receiving federal funds.
States do not have the authority to dictate federal immigration laws, and that's the bottom line. Your analogy doesn't hold up; it's exaggerated and doesn't make sense. While abortion laws have been delegated to the states, immigration laws have not been. The abortion laws are a done deal. Immigration laws stand with the Federal government.
"Do I need to spell it out folks? This country is no longer a democracy, nor a republic but an Oligarchy. The significance of that should frighten any sane person." ~ Credence
I think I have been saying that for a while, long before this election.
In fact, wasn't that what this election was?
You have "the establishment"... the bureaucracy within DC, the Pentagon, the NSA, etc.... that have long ago been captured by the corporations they are supposed to monitor and protect the American public from.
This is the fruit of decades of abuse and siphoning off the wealth of the nation and its people.
What do you think 2008 was... and the following bailout of all those institutions that were "to big to fail"?
How did that happen?
Repealing Glass Steagall... passing new laws and creating new programs so that anyone could buy a home... because everyone should be able to buy a home, even those who can't afford it.
What do you think the ACA (Obamacare) was?
Did the cost of drugs go down?
No.
Did the cost of Insurance go down?
No.
Did big Pharma and the Medical Industry at large bring in even more profits and get even more protections?
Yes.
If we have neither a democracy nor a republic, we lost it long ago, it didn't happen in this election... maybe you are willing to accept it now... because you despise Trump, and now Musk.
Maybe you should have despised Biden just as much... and done everything within your power, and then more, to make sure he never became the Nominee for the Party back in 2020...
Then they would not have spent tens of trillions of dollars we did not have... creating 25% inflation... funding multiple wars...
Maybe the Clintons and the Bidens are really bad, really corrupt, really clueless or callous in regards to what the American people need...
The swap out for Harris aside...
Change needs to be made...
Biden wasn't change back in 2020... Biden was the corrupt cronies regaining control and draining trillions from the American people.
The poorest of which lost the most.
And that is why you have Trump 2.0... because enough people realized how badly they'd been screwed by 4 years of Biden & Co.Thank you—It has become clear that many who support the Democratic Party do so blindly. They overlook the significant damage Biden has caused to our nation in such a short time. Many continue to ignore how the party has abandoned the poor, minorities, and the middle class. Meanwhile, they vilify a man who has endured relentless attacks yet remains committed to doing his utmost to address the problems Biden has created for We the People.
Trump has been given a second chance...
He has people like Gabbard and Kennedy in his corner this time around...
No excuses this time around... go in there... drain the swamp... make America better for Americans.
If they don't, the swing back the other way will be like nothing we have seen, and we probably will get a tyrant and the end of democracy in what the Democrats throw up to us next.
It is clear that the extreme elements of the Democrats (and some not so extreme, merely corrupt) is not interested in fair elections or freedom or personal and property rights... they want control, they want change, they want Agenda 2030 and a Great Reset.
They want to control what you can own... eat... where you can go... they want a Social Credit System and CBDC so they can have absolute power over you, and as soon as you do something they don't like, they can take what you have away from you.
And sadly, they disguise their efforts, using social justice movements and the stoking of racism and sexism, to progress those efforts.
Same as they use Climate Change to justify additional taxation, on food, vehicles, the very home you live in will need to be considered carbon neutral or they will tax you for it... or force you to make costly modifications on it.
How many trillions did Biden supposedly pour into his Green New Deal efforts?
Have you seen any positive changes?
Remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
This is the same thing... only on steroids...
A lot of nice talk about all those it is going to help...
Not much in the results category.Trump has been given a second chance and this time, he has the backing of figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and many more--- who bring valuable perspectives to the table. This isn’t the time for half-measures—now that he’s won, it’s crucial that he delivers, drains the swamp, and prioritizes policies that genuinely make America better for its citizens. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
You're absolutely right that failure to follow through could lead to a backlash so severe it might bring us face-to-face with a true tyrant, with even graver consequences for democracy. The extreme elements within the Democratic Party—those pushing for radical changes, suppressing personal freedoms, and favoring globalist agendas—pose a very serious threat. They seem more focused on control than on preserving the principles that make America a beacon of freedom.
The push for initiatives like Agenda 2030, the Great Reset, and centralized systems such as Social Credit and CBDCs are alarming. These policies threaten to undermine personal autonomy by dictating what people can own, eat, or even where they can go. The use of social justice movements and climate change as tools to mask these agendas is deeply troubling, turning important discussions into Trojan horses for control and taxation.
You’re spot on about the Green New Deal and similar initiatives. Trillions of dollars were poured into these programs with little to show for it. They promise transformative change, but instead, they saddle Americans with higher costs and burdens. Just like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, these programs sounded great in theory but failed miserably in practice, leaving us to question where all that money went and who truly benefited.
This is a pivotal moment for America. With Trump in office, bold, decisive action is more important than ever. He must uphold the values of freedom, prosperity, and accountability—or risk the consequences of a disillusioned nation swinging even further toward authoritarianism.
I have faith too that he will come through. Trump has always shown that he's a true fighter, unafraid to stand up against the odds and push through challenges. It's clear he’s driven by a sense of purpose, and I believe that his determination comes from a deeper place—a mission that many might even see as being guided by a higher power. He has a vision for the country and the resolve to see it through, no matter what. His resilience is exactly what America needs right now, and I truly believe he's committed to making things better for the American people.Since 2008 they have spent an awful lot of America's money and burdened us with an incredible amount of debt, while alienating much of the world.
The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of FY 2008, the gross national debt had reached $10.3 trillion, about 10 times its 1980 level.
Between 2008 and 2024 ... the debt has increased to 35.5 trillion.
25 Trillion in 16 years.
Sep 12, 2022 — “Washington Democrats have embarked on a massive, reckless spending spree that has driven consumer prices up 13.7 percent since President Biden took office.
Sep 1, 2023 — The pause in federal student loan payments costs taxpayers more than $5 billion per month. After President Biden signed into law legislation
Jul 2, 2024 — The CBO now expects the debt to be $7.2 trillion higher than it had projected when Trump left office—all because of Biden's reckless spending.
Even as the U.S. economy expands, the federal government continues to run large and growing budget deficits that will soon exceed $1 trillion per year.
Deficit Tracker
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/Here is the problem with DOGE. It is a pseudo position. There is no such department in the government. Trump made it up and put Musk in charge. He is announcing what he is going to do when Trump takes office. His position has not yet been confirmed by the senate and it has not yet been funded.
The same thing goes for the Border Czar. It is a position that Trump has made up and is pending confirmation by the senate as well. Only this one requires major funding to pay for all the major moving parts of a mass deportation, including staff and airplanes.
The people assigned to these positions are trigger happy and jumping the gun in my opinion. So far his picks have died on the vine, in the name of Gaetz and Hegseth and possibly Gabbard. Their lack of character did not make it through the gauntlet of approval or are suspect at this point, in the case of Gabbard.
However, Trump' s lack of character doesn't seem to matter to his supporters. He is thought of being God like by some. However his chances of getting into heaven or pretty slim in my book.I understand your thoughts about the DOGE and Border Czar positions. However, Trump’s decisions often involve unconventional strategies, and these positions, while not yet confirmed or funded, could be significant if he returns to office. The Senate confirmation process and funding are part of the usual political checks and balances, but Trump’s bold choices reflect his willingness to take risks and think outside the box. While some picks have struggled in approval, his supporters may see these as part of a broader plan, even if controversial.
Thank you for your interpretation of what you think Trump is going to do. I don't see them as bold choices and thinking our of the box. I see them as people who are loyal to Trump in either giving him money or paying homage to him.
It's obvious there has not been any vetting of these people to see if they have any qualifications for the offices for which they are being nominated for.
I think this is all part of Project 2025, but they have not given any thought to senate confirmations, including DOGE and Border Czar. I believe this is all symptomatic of group think. It has all the earmarks of it. There is no diversity of thought. It's Trump's way or the highway.For the sake of arguing what some might view as loyalty to Trump could be seen as a strategic alignment with someone they believe can bring about real change. Whether it's financial backing or public support, many of these individuals and organizations might feel that Trump's leadership offers them a unique opportunity to reshape the political landscape, whether through policies or his approach to challenging the status quo. It's not just about paying homage—it's about aligning with someone who, to them, embodies the fight against a system they see as broken or corrupt.
Their choices may stem from a belief that Trump is the figure who can ultimately drive that change.
I must disagree regarding Trump’s out-of-the-box agenda. His proposals for a second term include a variety of bold moves aimed at reshaping U.S. policies across different sectors. He plans to take a hardline approach on immigration and implement an aggressive deportation strategy, building the wall, and using advanced technologies like drones. Trump also wants to cut down the size and influence of the federal government, targeting agencies like the Department of Education for elimination or reorganization. On energy, his focus would be on boosting domestic production by reducing environmental regulations, opening more land for oil and gas drilling, and pursuing energy independence. He has proposed implementing term limits for Congress to limit career politicians' power and bring fresh perspectives to Washington. Trump's economic agenda includes continued protectionist policies, such as imposing tariffs on nations like China, to reduce trade deficits and incentivize U.S.-based manufacturing. Additionally, he intends to strengthen the military and continue his stance on challenging foreign adversaries, while bolstering American nationalism and sovereignty. He has also called for expanding the "America First" foreign policy, prioritizing American interests over international cooperation. These proposals reflect his commitment to disrupting established norms and reshaping the U.S. political and economic landscape. Not sure why you feel he would be status quo. I don't think I have seen an agenda that promotes such change.
My thoughts regarding Trump's team--- I think it’s important to view Trump's strategy from a different perspective. His approach has often been about prioritizing loyalty, proven alignment with his values, and the willingness to challenge the status quo. While traditional vetting focuses heavily on experience within the political establishment, Trump has frequently chosen people who share his vision for shaking up Washington. Many of these individuals may lack conventional qualifications, but they bring fresh views and a desire to blow up the bureaucratic system that Trump criticizes. His focus on loyalty and commitment to his agenda reflects a belief that the old guard hasn’t delivered the change needed.
I get where you're coming from, but I don’t think it’s just groupthink. Trump definitely has a strong vision and tends to surround himself with people who are on the same page, but that’s more about getting a team who shares his goals and wants to shake things up. As for Senate confirmations, I think there’s a strategy behind it—choosing people who will push his agenda forward without being held back by the political establishment. With roles like the Border Czar or something to do with DOGE, it seems like the focus is more on getting things done and loyalty to the mission, rather than following the usual rules. It may feel like "Trump’s way or the highway," but I think it's about breaking away from the status quo, even if it means challenging the norms.I appreciate your view, but your narrative is loaded with buzz words that are about what Trump is going to do without any substantive consequences like tariffs imposed on China and Mexico.
Everything I have read and heard about his Tariffs, the import agencies will pay for them, but that cost will be transferred to the consumer in higher prices for goods ands services.
As far as mass deportation goes, who is going to pay for all the airplanes it requires to move all those people, I heard the money would come from the DOD, but it looks like Hegseth is not going to be available to make that happen. You keep using the word incentivize, but isn't that just another word for money? Where is that going to come from?
Deregulation of the financial institutions has always lead to greed and corruption. Look at what happened when Glass Stegal was repealed. We went into a financial meltdown that we still haven't recovered from. Who was made whole again? The people who issued those subprime mortgages and mortgaged backed securities and then when the interest rates increased, the owners just walked away from their homes while the banks and mortgage companies were made whole again because the financial people wanted their commissions.On tariffs and consumer costs, it’s true that tariffs can lead to higher prices for consumers in the short term, but I see them as a way to incentivize companies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. By reducing reliance on foreign goods, the long-term goal is to create domestic jobs and strengthen the economy. Whether that actually offsets the initial costs is a fair question, and I understand why it’s a concern.
When it comes to mass deportation, I agree that the logistics and funding are complicated. Using DOD funds or even considering the sheer number of resources required raises legitimate questions about feasibility. That said, we also need to consider the significant costs we’re already absorbing due to the millions who have entered the country in recent years. Many were poorly vetted, with some having criminal records or gang affiliations, and the CDC has raised alarms about a resurgence in diseases like TB, measles, and even polio. Deportation is no small task, and I don’t think anyone believes it will be easy, but it’s something I hope to see because the current situation isn’t sustainable.
On the idea of incentives, you’re right that it often comes down to money, but I think of it as strategic spending. If it encourages businesses to bring jobs back or invest in the economy, it could be worth it. Still, it’s fair to ask where that money will come from and whether it will truly deliver the promised results.
Deregulation is another tricky issue. I agree that what happened after Glass-Steagall was a mess, and the financial meltdown is a clear warning. That said, I see targeted deregulation as a way to cut through red tape and allow businesses to innovate without unnecessary restrictions—not as a free pass for greed and corruption. The balance between oversight and freedom is critical, and it’s a conversation we need to keep having."That said, I see targeted deregulation as a way to cut through red tape and allow businesses to innovate without unnecessary restrictions—not as a free pass for greed and corruption. The balance between oversight and freedom is critical, and it’s a conversation we need to keep having."
Most certainly......Here is a reality check. Corporations are about bottom line profits The cheaper the labor, the more the profit. Bringing jobs back here where labor costs would be sky high compared to foreign labor costs would affect the bottom line profits of corporations and I don't think they would like that, regardless of the number of new jobs it could create.
Again it goes back to the division of labor, just like deporting the undocumented people who work the agriculture fields. It's all about bottom line profits. Who is going to work for what they are paid?HERE is the reality check. Corporations are about bottom line profits after paying all costs. The cheaper the transportation, the higher the profit. The cheaper the labor, the higher the profit. The cheaper the taxes the higher the profit. The cheaper the raw materials the higher the profit. Etc. etc. etc.
And if the transportation costs (including import duties and tariffs) are higher than the labor cost savings of being overseas...why then the corporations will go to where the highest profits are. We have driven them out of our country with high labor costs, high manufacturing costs from punitive restrictions and double taxation on all the income they make with their corporations. If we raise the costs to get their goods to market, to the point that it is cheaper to pay higher labor costs that it is to import, does America win with manufacturing coming back home to roost and providing high paying jobs? Or will companies remain overseas and put up with extreme costs to get their goods into the country?Reality Check: Here is a list of US cars made in Mexico:
Chevrolet Silverado (Crew Cab models)
Equinox
Blazer
Ford:
Fusion
Lincoln MKZ
Jeep:
Compass
Cherokee
Honda:
Fit
HR-V
Nissan:
Sentra
Versa
Volkswagen:
Jetta
Tiguan
BMW:
3 Series
5 Series
Audi:
Q5
Kia:
Forte
Mazda:
Mazda3
CX-30
Toyota:
Tacoma
This list includes a variety of cars from different brands, all produced in Mexico.
What do you think the transportation fees will be to bring them into the US? See Trump is at cross purposes. He wants to levy tariffs on Mexico to stop fentanyl coming across the border, but he has no idea that the import to our agencies is going to be higher because our agencies have to pay the tariffs to bring the cars into this country.
As far as fentanyl goes it doesn't come in with immigrants coming across the border. It is brought in at ports of entry by US citizen Truck Drivers who look and act like legitimate workers and drivers. Just for reference, here is the link to the US/Mexico/Canada trade agreement which replaced NAFTA.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free- … orm=MG0AV3"What do you think the transportation fees will be to bring them into the US?"
Currently, very little. If tariffs are set on them, indeterminate, depending on the tariff.
Bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. has a ton of benefits, and I think it’s something we should seriously consider. First off, it creates jobs—real, stable jobs that help local communities thrive. When companies bring their operations back home, it helps boost wages, gives people a chance at good careers, and strengthens the middle class. It also reduces our dependency on foreign supply chains, which is something that’s been a real problem, especially during times of global instability. If we’re making things here, we’re not at the mercy of overseas factories that might be unreliable or closed down due to international tensions.
On top of that, bringing manufacturing back can help with innovation. When you have more factories and industries within our borders, it sparks competition and drives companies to invest in newer technologies and processes. It’s a win for the economy because it encourages growth, investment, and more competitive products on the world stage. Plus, it helps the environment by reducing the carbon footprint from shipping goods overseas. Overall, keeping manufacturing off-shore just seems like a short-term cost-saving measure that ends up hurting us in the long run, both economically and strategically. It’s time we start looking at the bigger picture.
It’s true that bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. might cut into the profits of big business owners in the short term. Labor costs are higher here, and production might not be as cheap as it is overseas, especially in countries where wages are lower. But I think the long-term benefits far outweigh that initial hit. For one, investing in American manufacturing can actually lead to more sustainable growth. When jobs are created and wages go up, people have more money to spend, which boosts demand for products and services. That helps businesses in other sectors thrive, too.
This shouldn't be a concern for liberals. I mean, don't they want to challenge the elites?
Didn’t Joe and Kamala propose increasing taxes on big businesses? Wouldn’t that reduce their profits? History shows that when taxes are raised, big businesses often cut jobs to maintain their profit margins. It seems clear that this aspect was overlooked by those who voted for Joe and Kamala. On the other hand, Trump aims to boost America’s manufacturing sector for all the reasons I’ve mentioned.Is it possible that these points, and similar others, are either ignored or claimed to be false because liberals, at the root, dislike both manufacturing and business large enough to do it? Neither is actually desired by the liberal, with the accompanying assumption that everything is rosy even though we import everything?
In my view, liberals focus more on things like environmental issues, workers' rights, and tech innovation over traditional manufacturing, they seem to completely dismiss the importance of a strong manufacturing sector. Many liberals recognize the value of some domestic industries, especially in areas like renewable energy and tech, which fit with their broader goals of sustainability and fairness. The problem comes when certain policies—like stricter regulations or trade deals—end up hurting the growth of these industries.
Liberal's lack of care about manufacturing likely comes from their focus on a service-based economy and globalization. But it’s important to realize that while some may support globalization.
The real issue is finding a balance between economic growth, fair labor practices, and environmental goals without forgetting the importance of keeping competitive industries in the U.S. The idea that everything is fine even though we import so much might come from a belief in the global economy, but it misses the potential risks of being too dependent on foreign supply chains and not building up our own.
Related Discussions
- 55
What Are Your Expectations for Donald Trump’s Second Presidency?
by Sharlee 2 days ago
As the possibility of Donald Trump’s second term in office remains a topic of discussion, Americans across the political spectrum are weighing what his presidency could mean for the country. Trump’s first term was marked by significant policy shifts, controversies, and a highly polarized political...
- 22
Trump said that he would be a dictator only on “day one” of election!
by Mike Russo 11 months ago
Trump also said, "he would close the border with Mexico and expand oil drilling".What are your thoughts on this?
- 178
To Foreign Hubbers - What are your opinions about President Trump?
by Scott Belford 10 months ago
Donald Trump has been President for 14 days now. In that time he has issued around 14 executive orders, most of which impact the world.The American polls show over 50% of America think Trump is doing a poor jobs.What is your opinion?
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 10 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 18
Weaponization & Fascism: The Dangers of Another Trump Presidency
by Annegray 17 months ago
I realize this is an OP --- I must ask do you have any form of routes to back this comment "Trump has a detailed plan to consolidate power if he retakes the White House. He is planning to completely overhaul how the government works if he wins the 2024 presidential election, which would...
- 220
The Brilliance of America's Oncoming Tyranny
by Ken Burgess 18 months ago
Divide and Conquer.Make the enemy of my enemy support my Tyranny.Control the narrative, change the focus.What was the focus in 2015?"Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club, and stood there in front of the Ford Motor executives, and said, ‘If you close these factories as you’re planning...