Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Who did Trump's Bold Agenda screw this time with his BBB?
Low Income Americans!
Millions of low-income Americans are expected to lose their benefits because of the work requirements and the bill’s other measures affecting Medicaid and food stamps. Notably, few of those dropped from Medicaid coverage would have access to job-based health insurance, according to a Congressional Budget Office report about the House version of the package.
Those in the lowest-income group, earning less than $18,000 a year, would see a $165 reduction in their after-tax, after-transfer income, once the safety net cuts are taken into account, according to Penn Wharton. That’s a 1.1% decrease."
NOTE - Most of those being dropped due to work requirements actually qualify. But the red tape is so difficult (as Arkansas found out) it will prevent qualified people from applying. The Republicans are well aware of this outcome.
Hospitals
“The real-life consequences of these nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts – the largest ever proposed by Congress – will result in irreparable harm to our health care system, reducing access to care for all Americans and severely undermining the ability of hospitals and health systems to care for our most vulnerable patients,” said Rick Pollack, CEO of the American Hospital Association.
This is no surprise to Republicans either.
Clean Energy and EVs Needed to Save the World
The Senate bill still strips tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy projects by 2027 and gives developers stringent requirements to claim them.
The American Clean Power Association slammed the legislation as a “step backward for American energy policy” that will eliminate jobs and raise electric bills.
Deficit Hawks
"The Senate version of the package would increase the deficit by about $3.4 trillion over the next decade, according to CBO.
Adding trillions to the debt risks lifting already elevated interest rates. That in turn will make it more expensive for Americans to finance the purchase of a car or a home and for businesses to borrow money to grow."
Who are the real winners? Youi know who they are and they aren't YOU. They are the uber-wealthy."Clean Energy and EVs Needed to Save the World"
When subsidies are available to all instead of only the rich I might support them. As they are not I agree with Trump - get rid of them.
"Deficit Hawks"
I have heard that the bill will increase the deficit by 3.4T over a decade. I have also heard that it will increase the debt by the same amount. Any idea of which is true (given the same calculations)? Those two words appear to be used as having identical meanings (you appear to be doing the same thing); they most certainly do NOT.
Back to the subject of my thread, Trump's Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Vietnam Tariff deal done.
President Trump's new trade framework with Vietnam marks a significant win for American economic interests. Rather than enforcing a harsh 46% tariff as originally proposed, the agreement now sets a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports and a 40% tariff on goods routed through Vietnam from third countries like China. In return, Vietnam has agreed to drop all tariffs on American exports, finally opening their market entirely to U.S. businesses. This deal is more than symbolic, it's a step toward fair and reciprocal trade, holding other nations accountable while boosting American competitiveness.
Those claiming this “bold agenda” is somehow a con are missing the bigger picture. While critics speculate about price increases, they ignore the flexibility of global markets and the real benefits these policies bring. The current tariffs under Trump's administration are generating approximately $450 million daily. That’s revenue helping fund government operations without raising taxes or increasing national debt.
Compared to the previous administration, which scaled back enforcement and leaned heavily on borrowing, Trump’s strategy is strengthening our financial footing. The goal is clear: make America economically sovereign again. And yes, in some cases that means paying slightly more for foreign-made goods, just as citizens of many other countries already do. But it’s a small price for restoring balance and long-term economic health.
As for those saying this deal isn’t real because it’s still being finalized, nearly all trade agreements begin as frameworks. What matters is that the foundation is being laid and the leverage is in America’s favor. Rather than rushing to criticize, it’s time to recognize this for what it is: another strong step forward in putting America first.So you're pleased with paying more for everything that comes from Vietnam lol?
I already addressed that clearly in my earlier comment, so I’ve copied and pasted it here. I don’t share any view I’m not fully prepared to stand behind. I look at both sides of the coin and stand by my thoughts.
" While critics speculate about price increases, they ignore the flexibility of global markets and the real benefits these policies bring. The current tariffs under Trump's administration are generating approximately $450 million daily. That’s revenue helping fund government operations without raising taxes or increasing national debt.
Compared to the previous administration, which scaled back enforcement and leaned heavily on borrowing, Trump’s strategy is strengthening our financial footing. The goal is clear: make America economically sovereign again. And yes, in some cases that means paying slightly more for foreign-made goods, just as citizens of many other countries already do. But it’s a small price for restoring balance and long-term economic health." SharAll of maga wailed and whined over costs going up during the pandemic. The posts are all here talking about how people were struggling to survive. Yet now, because Trump says it's good for you to pay more for certain goods, there is support for costs on everything going up? Ok.
I am sorry Sharlee, you are fighting against simple math.
Let’s leave ideology aside and just follow the math. A 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports means one thing: someone in the U.S. or in Vietnam — the importer, the seller, or the consumer — is going to pay more.
Example:
Vietnamese factory sells a product for $100. Add to that the Freight, insurance, port & domestic transport, roughly an additional $15–$20
That means the normal landed cost (before tariff) = $115–$120. Typically, this results in a retail price of between $172 and $240. Compare this to a tariff based price below.
Now apply a 20% tariff on the $100 export price: Tariff adds $20
Therefore, the new landed cost = $135–$140
Now, Who Pays That $20 Tariff?
CASE 1. Importer eats the cost
Their Margin drops from ~$60 (on a $180 sale price) to ~$40
That means Net Profit may fall below 5% and that is unsustainable, especially for small businesses
CASE 2. Importer raises prices
Sale price to the retailer rises to $200 or more, assuming the importer passes along 100% of the tariff.
The Retailer will markup that up, typically to $300–$400
RESULT - Consumer pays more — this is the most common outcome
CASE 3. Exporter takes the hit
To cancel out the tariff, they’d need to drop their price to $83
Most operate on slim 5–10% margins — they can’t afford a 17% cut
Over time, they'll raise prices, cut quality, or stop selling to the U.S.
Reality check: A 2019 Fed study found 90%+ of tariff costs were passed to U.S. consumers during Trump’s China tariffs. - That means, of course, Trump caused inflation on the tariffed items.
Bottom Line:
Tariffs don’t make foreign governments pay — they make American businesses and consumers pay more. The math demands it.
Claiming tariffs strengthen our economy is like saying “we’re taxing ourselves into prosperity.” It just doesn’t add up.
Actually, it doesn't. it will cost you money if you buy things from Vietnam. Say thank you to Trump.
Vietnam Tariff Deal Secured – A Big Win for America
President Trump has once again delivered for the American people. His newly established trade agreement with Vietnam is a major breakthrough, prioritizing American industries and jobs. Instead of the initially proposed 46% blanket tariff, the deal now imposes a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports and a 40% tariff on goods funneled through Vietnam from countries like China, a smart move to stop tariff evasion. In exchange, Vietnam has agreed to eliminate all tariffs on U.S. exports, finally giving American businesses full access to its market.
This isn't just a symbolic gesture; it's a serious recalibration of trade in America’s favor. The critics who are rushing to dismiss this as a “scam” or fearmonger about price hikes are missing the larger point. Global markets adapt, and the revenue these tariffs generate, currently around $450 million every single day, goes right into funding government operations without raising taxes or ballooning our national debt.
Where past administrations hesitated, Trump is putting real pressure on nations that have taken advantage of us for far too long. The focus here is long-term strength, restoring America’s economic independence and fairness in trade, even if it means paying a bit more for foreign goods in the short term. That’s a trade-off worth making.
What matters is that the momentum is on our side, and America is finally negotiating from a position of strength. This is another bold, strategic step toward putting America first, and it's working.
He is off and running !
"Finally! President Trump’s bill passed — a huge win for the American people! This is exactly the kind of leadership we need: bold, decisive, and focused on putting our country first. So proud to support a president who gets things DONE!"It is a shame that all MAGA cares about is that he gotten something, anything DONE. It doesn't apparently matter how many people it hurts or that the only ones who really benefit are the wealthy.
To bring everybody down to earth, here is a synopsis of what might happen in these various scenarios:
1, Income $60,000, married, two kids: They lose all the way around and most likely will see a drop in income as well as loss of ACA subsidy or Medicaid eligibility. (More than half of America is in this category or worse.)
2. Income $100,000, married, retired: They have a small gain of about $1,000 to $2,000 annually (1% to 2%), may see growth in Medicare costs in the future.
3. Income $150,000, married, 2 kids: Small tax gain of $1,500 to $2,500 (1% to 1.7%), may be hurt by cuts to schools and healthcare.
4. Income $300,000, married: Nice tax gain of $3,000 to $7,000 (1% to 2.3%)
5. Income $1,000,000 (W-2), married: Great tax gain of about $35,000 (3.5%)
6. Income $1,000,000 (self-employed), married: Huge tax gain of between $75,000 and $115,000 (7.5% to 11.5%)
Just what the doctored ordered to help most Americans - NOT!
Now that the Big Ugly Bill is passed, here is a projected timeline for it to start hurting low income Americans.
Timeline of Impact
1. Immediate health and food aid cuts (1–6 months)
Once enacted and rules are finalized, changes to Medicaid and SNAP take effect quickly. According to the Congressional Budget Office and advocacy groups:
Up to 11.8 million more uninsured Americans over the next decade
taxfoundation.org, montanabudget.org, cbpp.org, americanprogress.org, ft.com, marketwatch.com, marketwatch.com
.
States will begin implementing work requirements or tightening eligibility, which could reduce benefits within a few months .
2. Within 12 months – Rising hardship
Food insecurity spikes as families lose access to SNAP and other nutrition supports
congress.gov, marketwatch.com, democrats-appropriations.house.gov.
Healthcare access deteriorates, especially for low‑income families and older adults who lose Medicaid or CHIP benefits.
3. 1–3 years – Broader economic ripple effects
Higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs lead to deferred care and poorer health outcomes .
Rising medical debt and financial instability push more families into poverty.
Increased unemployment vulnerability as health problems affect work ability and economic participation.More Detail
Immediate to 1 Year (by late 2025)
States like Texas, Florida, Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, and others with finalized fiscal plans are preparing for initial enrollment loss in Medicaid and SNAP next year - politico.com, ctinsider.com, eater.com
Projected by 2029: nationwide, an estimated 10.3 million fewer on Medicaid, and 4.7 million fewer in SNAP .
Economic Shock by 2026–2029
Across all states, cuts to SNAP and Medicaid are modeled to result in:
1.0–1.2 million job losses,
A cumulative $113–154 billion GDP drop - marketwatch.com, commonwealthfund.org, medium.com
Example estimates:
Michigan: up to 41,500 jobs lost and $4.5 billion GDP drop annually .
Florida: approx 45,000 jobs lost and $4.5 billion GDP decline in 2026 - eater.com, orlandoweekly.com, commonwealthfund.org
Summary Timeline
Late 2025 - Initial cuts take effect; states brace for coverage loss (in time for the midterms)
By 2026 First wave of job losses and economic contraction begin (still in time for the midterms)
By 2029 Full impacts realized: millions uninsured/unfed, economic drag evident
Bottom Line
Low-income people will begin experiencing reduced access to food and healthcare as early as late 2025.
Economic harms—like job losses and depressed state GDP—will escalate from 2026–2029.
Impacts will vary by state; those with higher poverty and rural populations are more vulnerable. (Think MAGA states)
something’s not adding up...
ADP said we lost 33,000 jobs in June. Trump’s Labor Dept claimed we gained over 100,000. That’s not a small miss...it’s a red flag and it's happened multiple times already since he took over.
When someone lies about $2 gas and everything else, why would we blindly trust their jobs report? At some point, you have to ask: are they cooking the books? They have earned the scrutiny.Good catch, which made me look. Turns out, the BLS numbers are in two pieces: 73,000 gain in public sector, which ADP does not count and 74,000 in private sector gains.
That is still a 106,000 swing which should at least raise a red flag.
I asked ChatGPT if there is any evidence YET of Trump cooking the books (after all, he turned statisticians into the same status as political appointees - fire a will). - the answer was no, not at this time.
But you are right, given Trump's history, it certainly has earned scrutiny.
Support it...rationalize it... Go ahead, normalize it
https://x.com/wearitlikeadiva/status/19 … 9861791893
This is one morally deficient human beingUpdate on Trump's numbers:
Job Performance: Holding steady at -4.2. 8 of the last 10 polls are negative
Economy: -12.6. The last time he had a positive poll was March 1
Foreign Policy: -11.1 The last positive poll was February 21
Immigration: -2.3 He was positive at the end of May
Inflation: -19.5 Tell me he doesn't have a big problem here
Israel/Palestine: -7.4
Methinks Trump has problems.It sure has... It sort of shows that some can't respect the rules or just need a place to trash Trump and won't take the time to create their threads. I find it disrespectful, sad, and yes, pitiful. But you know my friend--- I take it with a grain of salt, I mean, should we not feel a bit of understanding for those who feel such a loss? Trump's win pushed many over the edge of no return.
And you didn't Trash Biden on every forum you had the opportunity.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about his Bold Agenda (to take down America).
Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America ---
It’s time to let the dust settle and take a closer look at what the Big Beautiful Bill offers hardworking Americans, from seniors and farmers who grow our food to small business owners. This bill truly honors and supports Americans from all walks of life.
New Tax Benefits for Seniors in Bill
Social Security Income Deduction Increased for Seniors
What changed?
The deduction for seniors receiving Social Security was raised from $4,000 to $6,000.
Seniors’ Tax Relief
Adds a $6,000 deduction for taxpayers aged 65+ (phasing out above $75K individual/$150K joint), up from $4,000
Impact:
This means more of a retiree’s Social Security income is not taxed federally, especially helping those on fixed incomes.
Who benefits most?
Middle- and lower-income retirees who still file taxes, especially those with modest retirement savings or part-time work.
Permanent Trump‑era Tax Cuts
Extends 2017 income tax brackets and standard deduction permanently.
Enhanced Child Benefits
Child Tax Credit increased to $2,500 per child through 2028 (reverts after that)
Auto‑Loan Deduction
Deduct up to $10,000/year in interest on loans for vehicles assembled in the U.S., for incomes under certain thresholds ($100K single/$200K joint)
Higher SALT Cap
Raises State & Local Tax deduction cap from $10K to $40K (for incomes below $500K), reverting after five years
Business & Manufacturing Incentives
Restores 100% expensing for capital investment (permanent).
Makes the 20% pass-through deduction permanent.
Encourages immediate R&D expensing
Defense, Border, and Space Funding
Adds $150B for military and $150B for border/immigration, including funding for missile defense, ICE, and wall/detention expansion
Infrastructure & National Security Investments
Allocates $12 B to FAA modernization, improving flight safety, and reducing airport delays
Includes $350 B for defense and border security, supporting military readiness and national safety.
No Tax on Tips and Overtime Pay
Tip Deduction: Workers earning under $150,000 can deduct up to $25,000 of reported tips from their taxable income. This provision is designed to benefit service industry employees, such as restaurant staff, who rely heavily on tips.
Overtime Pay Deduction: Similarly, overtime earnings are deductible up to $25,000 for eligible workers. This aims to provide relief to hourly workers who often earn overtime wages.
Income Caps and Phase-Outs: The tip and overtime deductions are subject to income caps. For individuals, the deduction phases out after reaching certain income thresholds. For joint filers, the cap is set at $25,000, with phase-outs for higher earners. These caps are designed to target relief to middle and lower-income workers.
Under the recently enacted "One Big Beautiful Bill," the tax relief provisions for tips and overtime pay are set to expire at the end of 2028. After this date, unless extended or modified by future legislation, these deductions will no longer be available, and workers will be subject to the standard tax treatment for tips and overtime earnings.
Estate Tax Relief for Farmers
The bill permanently increases the federal estate and gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual (or $30 million per married couple), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. This change allows many farmers to pass on their land and operations to heirs without incurring federal estate taxes.
Additional Support for Agriculture
Beyond estate tax relief, the bill offers several other benefits to the agricultural sector:
Expanded Small Business Deduction: The bill increases and makes permanent the small business deduction to 23%, providing tax relief to family farms and ranches.
Immediate Expensing: Farmers can immediately expense up to $2.5 million in new equipment and production facilities, aiding in the modernization and expansion of operations.
Enhanced Farm Safety Net: The bill strengthens farm safety net programs, including updates to crop insurance and commodity risk management programs, to better reflect current agricultural economics
These measures aim to provide financial stability and facilitate the continuation of family farming traditions across generations.
Making America Great! And He Is Wasting No Time.Overall, I am not very pleased. There is nothing I can see that will aid me personally in any way - while that is not a priority I still feel rather left out. On the other hand cutting parks and rec budgets and selling public lands will affect me personally quite negatively. Those that don't understand this need to visit Lake Tahoe some day, where virtually every inch of lakefront property is privately owned; the public has almost no access to the lake.
Overall, I am generally against tax credits for special groups. Groups like restaurant servers, or workers getting overtime. I am at a loss to understand why a well paid server needs a tax break but the cook making the same or less does not. The farm estate tax relief I DO like, though.
One of the major points I disagree with is the sale of public lands. I have long advised others that an emergency might dictate selling items (toys, cars, even homes) to cover bills, but that it should NEVER be done to cover an ongoing lack of funds. That is exactly what we have in this country as our legislature does not understand limited resources and funding - sale of our precious public lands will not help anything at all, for the idiots in Washington will continue to spend and simply run up the debt once more. It is nothing more than "free" money to the spenders in Washington DC who will give most of it away for no benefit to the country or the people.Dan, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts; your concerns are thoughtful and valid, especially regarding fairness and the importance of protecting our public lands. I want to start by saying I completely understand that not everyone will see direct benefits from this bill, and it’s reasonable to feel left out if your circumstances aren’t addressed. My support for the bill is based on what I see as a step toward helping certain struggling sectors, seniors on fixed incomes, farmers facing increasing regulatory pressure, small business owners trying to stay afloat, and segments of the working and middle class. I don’t think this bill fixes everything, no legislation can, but I believe it reflects an attempt to acknowledge some of the economic fractures that exist across different parts of America. To me, it seems that Trump is trying to take on the extremely difficult task of repairing a deeply divided and broken system. This bill touches on a wide range of issues and reaches many different parts of society, from the poor to the working class, and even elements that affect the wealthy and employers. No one bill will reach everyone, but I see this one as trying to move the needle in a number of areas that have been overlooked or mishandled for years.
Regarding your concern about the sale of public lands and cuts to parks and recreation, this is an important point. I want to clarify that the final version of the bill that President Trump signed did not include those provisions. While earlier proposals from some members of Congress may have suggested land sales as a budget offset, those ideas were removed during the legislative process and were not part of the final law. That said, your concerns are still very relevant. There have been separate administrative actions, like the recent rollback of the Roadless Rule, that could open up more public lands, including near Lake Tahoe, to development. These decisions aren’t in the bill itself, but they do shape public access and conservation in serious ways, and I agree that those deserve scrutiny.
On your point about targeted tax breaks, I hear you. There’s a real conversation to be had about how relief is distributed, especially when similar jobs are treated differently. Why a server but not a cook, for example? These are the kinds of issues that need refinement in future policymaking. Your concern for long-term stewardship and financial responsibility is something I respect.
I am so pleased to have a comment that offers food for thought. Pretty refreshing.I would like to think I'm wrong, but don't think I am. Trump is throwing a few bones out with this bill, to a handful of people that will get a much greater break than others. Servers, for instance, but not cooks or bussers. Cruise ship stewards but not the mechanics. Bartenders, but not the janitor. I see it as a purely political ploy and little more.
I am glad to see that the sale of our lands is gone from the approved bill. That was a really big thorn to me. I don't use the wilderness areas as I once did, but others do and wildlife does. Let's keep all we can for the citizenry, not just a tiny percentage that can afford to buy it all and fence it off.For once, we are on the same page (there are a couple of other issues where that is true as well).
The bottom line for this bill is that at least 53% of American households will suffer more than if they had done nothing.
As I wrote earlier. All that was needed was to let the tax cuts expire, expand the child tax credit, raise the SALT cap a bit, and (now I can't think of the third thing), and America would have been much, much better off.The bill is political, as most bills are. But it’s designed to offer perks to a broad majority of society, rich, middle class, seniors, lower-wage earners, and the poor. Lower wage earners will see changes through expanded child tax credits and slightly better income tax returns. And if the economy takes off, there’s potential for real wage growth. Let’s face it, Trump clearly wants people to work and succeed, not rely on handouts. He seems focused on creating more job opportunities so Americans can move forward. I’ve come to believe this bill will be a home run for many. In my view, it’s a politically motivated bill, but a smart and well-crafted one. I think a lot of people will eventually recognize that it made a positive difference in their own lives, albeit in a small way in some cases. Honestly, I find it almost generous. It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out. This bill was unusual in many ways.
The estimates are anywhere from 12 to 17 million in terms of people who will be without any form of healthcare due to this bill. What effect will that have on the economy?
That is also part of the reason why an astounding 53% of American households will be hurt, on average, by this Big Ugly (to them) Bill. Since a large portion of them will be MAGA, the question is will they leave the Republican Party in disgust?
Yep, that is generous alright.To answer your question more directly.
Here is the likely outcome from Trump's Big Ugly Bill:
1. Reduced Consumer Spending
Why:
- Without coverage, people face higher out-of-pocket costs for medical care.
- Households will divert more money to healthcare and less to consumer goods, housing, or services.
Impact: Could dampen overall consumption, which drives ~70% of U.S. GDP. Particularly affects lower-income households, who have higher marginal propensities to consume.
2. Strain on Emergency Services and Hospitals
Why:
- Uninsured individuals are more likely to delay or skip care, leading to more severe conditions.
- They often seek care in emergency rooms, which are more expensive and less efficient.
Impact: Hospitals (especially rural or non-profit) may face rising uncompensated care costs. Could lead to hospital closures, layoffs, or cost-shifting to insured patients (raising premiums).
3. Increased Health Insurance Premiums
Why:
- If the healthiest people lose subsidized coverage, the risk pool deteriorates.
- Insurers raise premiums for those still insured to cover a sicker average population.
Impact: Higher premiums for small businesses and middle-class families.
Could ripple into the labor market as firms face rising benefit costs.
4. Workforce Productivity Drops
Why:
- People without coverage may miss more work due to untreated illness, chronic disease, or financial stress.
- Preventive care and early treatment—key productivity enhancers—are underutilized.
Impact: Slower productivity growth, especially in lower-income sectors (retail, food service, gig economy). Long-term GDP growth could decline slightly.
5. Medicaid Expansion Rollbacks (If Applicable)
Why:
- If some of the coverage losses come from states reversing Medicaid expansion or winding down pandemic-era flexibility:
- State economies may lose federal matching funds.
- Could cause budget stress, layoffs, or higher state taxes.
6. Job Losses in Healthcare Sector
Why:
- Fewer insured patients → lower demand for non-emergency services.
- Clinics, home health agencies, and outpatient centers lose revenue.
Impact: Slower job growth or net job losses in a traditionally stable industry. Ripple effects in local economies tied to health systems.
7. Long-Term Human Capital Damage
Why:
- Lack of coverage leads to worsening mental and physical health.
- Children missing vaccinations or developmental support = long-term productivity loss.
Impact: Lower educational attainment. Higher long-term disability and public health costs.
What is sad, but this outcome was known to those who voted for the BUB.Thank you, ESO, so let the Trump voter reap what they have sown.
A very comprehensive explanation.
I do get a tax break from the bills relieving taxes for Social Security recipients. But, I would gladly continue paying to spare so many the ill effects of this bills passage. But, being a progressive, I think beyond my own immediate self benefit.I suspect I will as well, but my finances are so complex, I won't know until the rules come out. But I feel the same way, one of the obligations of being a citizen of the United States is to help others when I can; that is why I get about 2 pounds of mail a day asking for donations, lol. (not really, but it is a lot)
Curious; do you also feel that one of your obligations is to do what you can to force others to give up what they have built in order to "help" those you have determined to need the wealth?
It is one of (if not the primary) failures of the liberal faction in our country; the feeling that they have the right, the obligation, the duty, to take (at gunpoint if necessary) the wealth others have earned in order to give it to those that have not earned it.How do liberals take wealth from those who earn it and give it to others who have not earned it and how and when do they do it at gun point?
it's a good thing this is just your opinion.Ever heard of welfare?
Illegal immigrants have been major recipients of it.
Guess what happens if you don't pay your taxes?
It's not good.There is no definitive number for how many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. receive welfare benefits, largely because eligibility for most federal welfare programs is restricted to U.S. citizens and certain categories of legal immigrants. However, here’s a breakdown of what we do know:
Eligibility Rules
- **Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible** for federal welfare programs like:
- **Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)**
- **Medicaid**
- **Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)**
- **Supplemental Security Income (SSI)**
- **Exceptions** exist for::
- **U.S.-born children** of undocumented immigrants, who are citizens and may receive benefits.
- **Emergency Medicaid**, which covers life-threatening conditions
regardless of immigration status.
- **State or local programs**, which may have different rules.
The idea that undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes is a common misconception. In reality, **millions of undocumented immigrants do pay taxes**, though not all do. Here's a breakdown of what we know:
---
How Many Pay Taxes?**
- According to the **Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy**, undocumented immigrants paid **$19.5 billion in federal income taxes in 2022**, and Yale’s Budget Lab estimated **$22 billion in 2023**.
- They also contribute to **Social Security and Medicare** through payroll taxes, even though they are ineligible to collect benefits.
- Many file taxes using an **Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)**. Over **5.8 million people** had active ITINs at the end of 2022.
How Many Don’t Pay Taxes?**
There’s no precise number, but:
- Some undocumented immigrants work in the **informal or cash economy**, where taxes are not withheld or reported.
- Others may not file returns due to fear of detection, lack of awareness, or language barriers.
- However, even those not filing income taxes still pay **sales taxes, property taxes (directly or through rent), and excise taxes**.
Estimated Tax Contributions
| Tax Type | Estimated Contribution (2022–2023) |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Federal Income Tax | $19.5–$22 billion |
| State & Local Taxes | ~$11.7 billion (2022 est.) |
| Social Security (FICA) | $25.7 billion (2022 est.) |
---Bottom Line
While **not all** undocumented immigrants pay income taxes, **millions do**, and their total contributions are substantial—often exceeding those of some major corporations. The narrative that they are a net drain ignores the complexity of their economic role and the taxes they do pay.And the cry that they pay their own way ignores most of the costs of living in the US. As a group they do not even come close; as individuals any one that DOES support themselves and their family does so by violating the law.
It will take the collapse of our economy before conservatives finally figure out they are wrong. If Trump's tariffs don't do it, deporting 10% to 20% of our workforce certainly will.
Another Right-Wing MYTH. Few, if any, undocumented immigrants receive federal assistance, though some do from the more compassionate states.
Do you have data to back up your unfounded myth?How many did Biden transport, house and feed in just the 4 years he brought them into the country?
All following the law which you seem very concerned about or does that only apply to the undocumented? Are you suggesting Biden break the law?
And here was the great answer.
All following the law which you seem very concerned about or does that only apply to the undocumented? Are you suggesting Biden break the law?
Didn't think so. Does that mean you made it up?
You didn't think Biden put them up in hotels, complete with food? Are you living in Machu Pichu or something? A cave in Tibet somewhere?
Instituting welfare. I have better things to do with my money to give away to able-bodied adults. People aren't obligated to carry others financially. If one doesn't earn it, h/she just do without or work for what h/she wants. If one is an adult, one works. If one doesn't work, h/she SHOULD DO WITHOUT, STARVE, or WHAT ELSE.
Is that the ONLY people it goes to - Able-bodied adults?
BTW, what data are you using to conclude you are giving away your money to able-bodied adults. All the data I have says that is pretty rare.
Really? Just my opinion?
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. While you are then sitting in prison you can consider how much of the US budget goes to individuals "because they need help".What led to your comment "try not paying your taxes ..."?
How much do you think of your tax dollar is spent on Means-Tested Assistance.?
Wilderness, I am with you. I believe that each tub sits on its own bottom. I will not help able-bodied people who are in dire socioeconomic straits because of their unintelligent life choices. One reaps what one sows. I planned & strategized my life. I didn't make stupid decisions. Many people are poor because THEY WANT TO BE. No one else should rescue them. They made their beds, let them reap the rewards. The government's job isn't to mollycoddle grown able-bodied people-WORK or STARVE.
How about the many people who are poor because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE? They FAR outnumber those few who think being on welfare is good. It is simply a conservative MYTH that they want to be.
If you recall, the Constitution is a social contract between government of the People and the People of the Nation. You are one of those people whether you think you are or not.
No one in a functioning society has absolute claim to everything they “built.” Every dollar earned is made possible by:
The rule of law that protects contracts and property.
Public infrastructure like roads, education, police, and emergency services.
Stable currency, a financial system, and markets regulated by the state.
If you prospered in the U.S., it wasn’t in a vacuum. You used public goods, often paid for by others before you, and you benefit from a stable, cooperative society.
FURTHER
Helping Others Is Not Coercion—It’s National Interest
Public spending on education, health care, food, housing, and even foreign aid:
Reduces poverty-related crime and public health burdens.
Improves economic productivity, especially for the next generation.
Ensures a functioning labor force, military, and consumer base.
Increases social mobility—something conservatives often claim to support.
In short: it’s not just “helping” the poor; it’s preserving national stability and growth.
FURTHER
Wealth Redistribution Is Embedded in U.S. History
The U.S. has long redistributed wealth:
- The Homestead Acts gave free land to settlers.
- The G.I. Bill created the modern middle class.
- The New Deal built modern infrastructure and stabilized capitalism.
I presume you would have opposed all three of those if you had had the chance
Progressive taxation has been part of the U.S. tax system since the 1913 16th Amendment.
None of this “destroyed capitalism”—it strengthened it.
FINALLY
If a billionaire inherits wealth and pays a lower effective tax rate than a nurse, is that “fair”?
If someone can’t afford insulin or child care in the richest country on Earth, does that reflect a healthy society?
Liberal philosophy doesn’t say, “Take everything from the rich.” It says:
“In a free and prosperous society, no one should be destitute.”
That’s not a failure. That’s the moral compass of a civilized nation.I would assume that your final sentence says it all: Taking from one who earned, then giving to one that did not, is your moral compass. That's what I asked, and while you did not answer directly I think the thrust of this entire post gives the answer quite clearly. And the answer is "Yes. You DO feel an obligation and a right to take what one has earned (by gunpoint if necessary) in order to give it to someone you think needs it more than the owner does".
Thank you. (And no, our Constitution does NOT support such an action).Deleted
A lot of people throw around the phrase “general welfare” as if it means the federal government is supposed to take care of everyone’s needs, including redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. But if you actually read the Constitution and study the arguments from the Founders, it’s clear that the General Welfare Clause was never meant to justify unlimited government spending or social entitlements.
The clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” At first glance, it seems straightforward. But even the Founders couldn’t agree on what it meant. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, believed it was just a general statement describing the purpose of the powers that followed, not a blank check for Congress to do whatever it wanted in the name of “welfare.” He warned that a broad interpretation would destroy the Constitution’s limits and allow government to do anything it pleases. Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton believed the clause gave Congress independent power to tax and spend for the national good, but even he insisted it must be for the nation as a whole, not for local projects or special interests.
So what we’re left with is a long-standing debate, and unfortunately, courts and politicians have increasingly embraced Hamilton’s broader view, especially during the 20th century. That shift has led to an explosion of federal programs that go far beyond what the Founders envisioned.
If you lean toward Madison’s view, and many of us do, it means the government’s job is to create conditions where people can work, thrive, and pay their own way. It’s about protecting liberty, not guaranteeing comfort. The General Welfare Clause isn’t a promise of dependency; it’s a call for a strong, unified country built on personal responsibility.So under your philosophy what do you want to do with:
- Socieal Security (the unfunded part)
- Medicare (the unfunded part)
- Medicaid
- Means-Tested Assistance.
It seems to me if one needs to go, they all do.Next, you are correct about Madison's view. But in the end, Hamilton's view won out.
Adapted from ChatGPT:
As you mentioned, the Supreme Court, particularly in United States v. Butler (1936), affirmed Hamilton’s broader interpretation, ruling that Congress may spend in ways it deems fit for the general welfare—even if those purposes are not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
But well before Butler, there was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which supported Hamilton’s broader interpretation of federal power, and Collector v. Day (1871), which reaffirmed Congress’s authority to tax and spend—even on matters not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. While these cases don’t address the General Welfare Clause directly, they reinforce the principle that the People’s representatives have the constitutional authority to take actions that strengthen the nation.
These ruling paved the way for the New Deal, and later for Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, Pell Grants, and more.
Even conservative justices have refrained from overturning this precedent, because doing so would unravel virtually the entire modern social safety net system—once widely accepted across political lines, but only now in the age of Trump rejected by the MAGA right..
Also in Kansas v. Colorado (1907) the Court acknowledged that the federal government can act in the national interest, even when the Constitution doesn’t enumerate that specific action. Again, this reflects a Hamiltonian lens: national interest trumps local control where Congress deems necessary.
Madison warned that broad spending power would lead to unlimited government.
Hamilton countered that government needs flexibility to meet the evolving needs of a nation, particularly in areas where collective action is more efficient or moral than individual charity.
It’s worth noting that Hamilton won many early constitutional battles—not just on this clause, but on creating a central bank, funding national debt, and building infrastructure—things Madison opposed at the time.
FURTHER
Today’s programs do not guarantee comfort or dependency, as critics often suggest. In fact:
Programs like SNAP and WIC primarily help working families with children.
Medicaid expansion reduces medical bankruptcies and keeps rural hospitals open.
Child Tax Credits reduce poverty, boost educational attainment, and improve long-term productivity.
Means-tested aid is usually modest, temporary, and economically stimulative.
Most people receiving assistance work, have worked, or are caring for someone who needs it.
Bottom line:
You don’t have to love every government program, but saying means-tested assistance is unconstitutional disagrees with the Supreme Court, modern precedent, and the functional needs of a nation with 330 million people. The General Welfare Clause is not a loophole—it’s a foundational tool used (and upheld) to promote national prosperity, stability, and yes, basic decency.The General Welfare Clause is a tool used by some (emphatically including you) to claim that giving money to specific individuals improves the general welfare.
In the numbers we do it, it most certainly does NOT. We might help an Einstein that will one day develop fusion power go to school, but for every one of those there are a thousand that sill simply live their life out using government charity and provide nothing for the country.It proves the opposite. Giving assistance oftentimes makes people lazy & entitled. When people are helped, they lose initiative & drive. As my late father stated, the more you help people, they start to demand that you help them- in essence, you OWE them. When poor people weren't helped by government programs, they worked. They know that if they were to attain something, they had to put the effort. Now what inane government program, people can be comfortable on other's dime.
"It proves the opposite. " - Once again, that conservative myth has been debunked.
You never did answer my question to provide number and sources.Which is why Marxism does not work. When all life is free for the taking, very few are interested in producing anything and the society (government/country/culture/etc) fails. It has happened over and over in history.
Where did I say give money to Joe Six-pack - a specific individual. I didn't, so you are just creating fiction.
"In the numbers we do it"- Do what??
"There are a thousand" - Again, that is debunked and hyperbolic.You did not name names. You ARE happy with our ever increasing level of charity, with it's only failure in your mind that it is not a great deal more.
In the numbers we find people that cannot support themselves. Some 150,000,000 in this country - a little over half that take govt. charity on a steady basis.
Of course. It is all debunked. People living off of charity very often go on to produce great things for the country. Out of the millions that have collected over the last decade, can you name even a dozen that have do this? One to a thousand would be some 350,000, but can you name even a dozen?
You can obviously believe that if you want to but our whole history says you are in the distinct minority.
Now let's put it into unemotional context. First, as I showed earlier, there is a modicum of some middle income people, but not a whole lot compared to the wealthy.
Social Security
The amount of federal tax paid on Social Security income is already low for most low-income seniors. The added benefit is real but modest, and doesn’t apply to seniors who don’t owe taxes to begin with. Who benefits: Retirees with modest savings + part-time income.
Child Tax Credit
Limited: Not fully refundable like the 2021 ARPA version. That limits benefit to lowest-income families. Who benefits: Working middle-income families, not the poorest households.
Car Loans
New and unusual: A deduction for auto loan interest hasn’t existed since the 1980s. Capping it at $10K and income-testing it makes it SEEM somewhat progressive, but…Disputable benefit: The average car loan interest is ~$3,000/year. The $10K cap sounds generous but is irrelevant for most buyers. Who benefits: Middle-income buyers of new U.S.-built vehicles; may favor those buying expensive trucks or SUVs.
SALT
Regressive: Most benefits go to high earners in high-tax states. A person earning $300K+ sees major relief; someone earning $75K sees little or none. Who benefits: High earners, especially in blue states (e.g., NY, CA, NJ). Does not help low-income taxpayers.
Permanent Trump-era Tax Cuts
Highly regressive:[/i] The top 1% received ~20% of TCJA’s benefits, according to CBO and Tax Policy Center. Who benefits: Mostly high-income households, though middle-income earners still get some relief.
{b]Business & Manufacturing Incentives[/b]
Skews to the top: Pass-through and capital expensing [u]overwhelmingly benefit large firms and wealthy business owners.
Defense, Border, and Space Funding
Neutral in tax terms: May stimulate defense-related industries, but doesn’t reduce individual taxes. Who benefits: Military contractors, border agencies, possibly job creation.
Infrastructure & FAA
Indirect benefit: May improve services, reduce delays.Who benefits: General public, not income-targeted
No Tax on Tips & Overtime
New and targeted: Allows up to $25K in deductions for tips/overtime, phased out above $150K income. Progressive: Finally a provision that clearly helps low-to-mid-income hourly workers.Who benefits: Service and hourly workers — waitstaff, delivery, manufacturing, etc.
Estate Tax Relief for Farmers
Extremely regressive: Affects only the wealthiest ~0.1% of estates, including non-farmers. Helps multi-millionaires pass on assets tax-free.
Who benefits: Wealthy farmers and land-rich families, not average farmhands or smallholders.
Other Farm Incentives
Mixed equity: Some measures help all farmers; others disproportionately help larger operations. Who benefits: Mostly mid-to-large-scale farms, not laborers.
In Summary:
$0 - $80,000 (median household income); 56% of pop; -3% of benefits (loss)
$80,000 - $250,000 income; 37% of pop; 15% of benefits
>$250,000 income; 7% of pop; 88% of benefits;
Are you getting the minus 3% Loss or the 15% gain?
That is REALLY FAIR AND GOOD FOR AMERICA; and it raises the Debt only $4 TRILLION. Easy Peasy.I was unable to find what percentage of the total tax burden people earning over $250,000 are paying, but would think it is considerably more than 88% of tax receipts.
Given that it makes complete sense that they get at least 88% of the benefits of a major, across the board, tax cut. Our tax system is not intended to be a wealth redistribution program no matter how many people would use it that way; it is intended to provide for the needs of the country. Not individuals per se, but the needs of the entire country."I was unable to find what percentage of the total tax burden people earning over $250,000 are paying,"
Maybe the following will help.
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update
From the Tax Foundation (Mar 13, 2024)
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/fede … data-2024/
"The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining . . .I actually saw that, but what is the bottom income of each category? What is the minimum income of the top 25% group, for instance? And what "top" group does a bottom income of $200,000 fit into (trying to fit a group into Esoterics >$200,000 income)?
Best I could do was to deduce that anyone earning >200,000 is part of the group paying a lot more than 88% of the total tax bill. That they got 88% of the new tax cuts is unreasonable only because it wasn't greater.It was >$250,000. I asked your question as well and got back the answer $300,000
Wrong, sorry.
ChatGPT
The federal tax system, particularly the progressive income tax introduced in 1913, was explicitly designed in part to help distribute wealth more equitably. While revenue generation has always been the primary purpose, wealth redistribution was a key feature, especially as the system evolved.
Actually, the number you are looking for is between 86% and 89%. Because of the benefits the wealthy get for which are free to them, it should be higher.
More fallout from Trump, the felon and sex offender's Bold Agenda.
Ghost Cities and Ghost Farms.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/04/us/los-a … end_recircIs THIS what you MAGA really want to happen from Trump's Bold Agenda?
ICE detained a mother who was still breastfeeding. Her Marine veteran husband fights for her freedom
"Every time 2-year-old Noah asks about his mom, Adrian Clouatre can only reply: “Mommy will be back soon.” The little one nods with a smile, though his father sees his sadness and tries to be strong – for both Noah and his 3-month-old sister, Lyn, whom his wife was breastfeeding until ICE detained her in May.
Clouatre, a 26-year-old who qualifies as a service-disabled US Marine Corps veteran, described how his family’s life was turned upside down when his wife, Paola, went in for a status hearing May 27. They had hoped she could move forward with her green card process, but it turned into a nightmare for the young family."
Thank you Donald Trump, felon and sex offender. Thank you MAGA.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/05/us/mothe … an-husbandIt is incredible to me to watch as this person and that one are declared unfit to follow our laws. Now it is women that are breastfeeding; for some reason they should not be bound by the laws that everyone else is. Not that they should take their child with them; that they should be able to ignore the law entirely.
The list of such people grows daily as the "sanctuary" crowd screams that we are responsible to support the world. I disagree; we are a nation of laws, not tears. Tears do NOT support a nation or its people.As I said before, once you personally stop breaking any laws, then I can take your complaint seriously. Until then, it is hypocrisy.
Was Trump's Bold Agenda part of the reason for the flooding disaster in Texas? The jury is still out, but it certainly didn't help.
Part of the Agenda was DOGE's effort to slash and burn the federal civilian workforce, including the weather service. As you can see, they are severely understaffed as a result"
"The National Weather Service is seeking to fill 155 positions at offices throughout the country by offering reassignment opportunities for qualified National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employees, who are currently working elsewhere.
The scale of the voluntary reassignments illustrates how depleted the nation’s top weather forecasting agency is as it heads into hurricane season, which begins June 1.
The wave of early retirements, firings of probationary workers and other Trump administration incentives for federal employees to leave government service led to more than 560 departures from the NWS, according to a NOAA employee who requested anonymity for fear of retribution."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/14/weather/ … -vacancies
These cuts impacted the agency involved in predicting and warning about potential dangers in the Guadalupe River basin.
"Four months’ worth of rain fell in just hours as water-laden thunderstorms stalled in place, giving rise to a wall of water that surged down the river in the blackness of night, limiting the number of people who could get the warnings and move to higher ground.
The National Weather Service warned of “life-threatening flooding” along the river in a series of alerts in the early morning hours. But questions remain about how many people they reached, whether critical vacancies at the forecast offices could have affected warning dissemination, and if so-called warning fatigue had been growing among residents in a region described as one of the most dangerous in the country for flash flooding.
The National Weather Service has been hard hit by personnel cuts under the Trump administration, but that may not have significantly affected the forecasts and warnings for this historic and deadly flooding.
The two Texas NWS offices most closely involved in forecasting and warning about the flooding on the Guadalupe River — Austin-San Antonio and San Angelo — are missing some key staff members, but still issued a slew of watches and warnings about the flood danger.
The question is whether the warnings reached who they needed to reach.
Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the NWS employees’ union, told CNN that while he believes the offices had “adequate staffing and resources,” the Austin-San Antonio office is missing a warning coordination meteorologist — a role that serves as a crucial, direct link between forecasters and emergency managers.
This vacancy in the Austin-San Antonio office, along with other key roles, were the result of early retirement incentives offered by the Trump administration to shrink the size of the federal government, a NOAA official told CNN."
Had this been Biden in office, as occurred so many times before, the right would be in full blame mode. I am not built that way and need more data before forming an opinion.
Questions I have are:
1. Did the short staff interfere with predicting that the storm would stall over Texas like it did, or was it simple unpredictable?
2. Did the short staff interfere with realizing what the effects of the stalled system would be?
3. Did the short staff have anything to do with the timing of the notifications? Could people have been notified earlier?
4. Did the short staff impede getting notification out once it was decided it was necessary?
5. Did the warnings that were given reach places like Mystic Camp, where 27 young girls are still missing? If so, why didn't they react sooner?
6. Did the ravaged area have cell service?
This particular paragraph caught my attention although I have read the campgrounds in the area are often populated by out-of-area visitors.
"This particular population is inundated with weather watches and warnings all times of day and night; in Texas Hill Country, where flash flooding is triggered frequently by summertime thunderstorms, warning fatigue can settle in."
It will take a while for the answers to those to come in, but come they will as will the rationalization from the Right if it points fingers at Trump's DOGE.
On this note, the article also points out the problem with Trump's cuts.
"The Kerr County tragedy also shines a spotlight on the limitations of current forecasting technology: It is simply not yet possible to predict that a cluster of thunderstorms dumping months’ worth of rain would stall out over a specific spot. Research efforts to find answers to these forecasting questions could soon slip backwards, experts warn, if the Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal is enacted — just as the country needs to push the limits on what weather models are capable of.
The budget seeks to eliminate all of NOAA’s weather and climate research labs along with institutes jointly run with universities around the country. The entire research division of NOAA would be eliminated under the proposal, which is subject to congressional approval.
This would shut down research and development of new forecasting technologies, including computer modeling and severe weather warning scenarios, and hamper prediction of hazards including flash floods.
One of the NOAA labs slated to be shut down is the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, Oklahoma, which works to improve flash flood forecasting among other hazards from severe thunderstorms.
The NOAA research cuts would come just as human-caused climate change is resulting in more frequent and intense downpours like the ones that led to this tragedy in Texas."
How many deaths might Trump's 2026 budget be responsible for?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/05/climate/ … t-responseLOLOLOLOLOL You TDS guys are really comical at times!
There is no warning system for flooding the Guadalupe river. There has NEVER been a warning system for flooding the Guadalupe river. There are no current plans to install one in the future (although that may change).
But there is an excellent chance that it is Trump's fault that 1. The river flooded, and/or
2. That people had no warning - that they were not woken from their beds and hauled out of their homes/RV's and campgrounds before it ever rained.
Keep looking - I'm sure you will be able to rationalize a theory making it his fault if you just look long enough. It may not make sense to those without TDS, but that's all right for YOU will be happy with your machinations and rationalizations, your fantasies and imaginations.Wilderness, Trump is just trimming the excess nonsense. Except for a few minor things, Trump is doing a great job. Hopefully, all unneeded programs will be eliminated. There are TOO MANY people on the government's dole. No one is obligated to support a grown able-bodied person who through laziness can't sufficiently support himself/herself, let alone the government. Being an adult means having the intelligence, foresight, & the maturity to support oneself efficiently beyond the survival mode.
When medicaid was expanded a few years ago a great hue and cry went up from my state, Idaho. They claimed, over and over, that it would be wonderful for Idaho to join the feds in expanding medicaid...because the state would be a beneficiary; they would gain more federal dollars than they spent. During the summer, when free school lunches are not available and government provides free lunches through giveaways in the park, I watched as every...single...child getting the lunch arrived in a Day Care van. Do you have to question who was benefitting here? Hint: it wasn't the child - they would have been fed with or without the "free" lunch.
This is the legacy of the liberal Robin Hood programs.First, are you saying that Idaho paid more after expanding Medicaid? If so, you are wrong.
Second: I can't quite tell but are you making these assumptions about the kids?
- The kids didn’t need the food because they came in daycare vans.
- The daycare centers benefited at taxpayer expense.
- That aid is being wasted on those who don’t need it.
You'll change your tune when inflation continues to skyrocket and a great recession hits. Those will happen, a mathematical certainty, IF Trump is able to carry out his policies.
Grace, I completely agree. This bill is a step in the right direction by requiring able-bodied individuals to work in order to keep their Medicaid benefits. When you take the time to look at the actual facts, it's clear that no one who truly qualifies is losing coverage. The exemptions have been carefully outlined—I've posted them multiple times, and yet, no one responds.
It would seem that some people hope to turn our nation into one that increasingly relies on social programs, programs that, in the end, eat away at a society’s strength, productivity, and sense of personal responsibility.
I'm with you on this: I’m not willing to support able-bodied people who refuse to contribute. I want to see more people thrive and become self-sufficient, and these new Medicaid rules will help move us in that direction.Since almost ALL Medicaid recipients who can work already do work, what is the point of the requirement other than to create more red tape which as been shown to lead to eligible people not receiving Medicaid and to sound good to the base?
It is all more Trump theater that will bankrupt America like he did his casinos.Laughable—if what they’re saying were true, no one would be losing their benefits. But here’s the deal: if you don’t meet the exemptions, you work… or it’s bye-bye. That’s the law—ya know.
As for me, I’m overjoyed to see Trump getting his way across the board. He’s winning, winning, and winning—and meanwhile, some folks are just whining, whining, and whining.
And for me—I’m lovin’ it!Wait until the hurricanes and tornadoes start in those states that voted for Trump. His one time buddy Musk, dismantled NOAA and weather forecasting by laying off or firing key personnel. Many areas that seek FEMA aid have been cutoff from funding. Trump wants the states to pay for their own disaster relief.
I'm starting to see what Trump's MO is. He acts first with out any planning or regard for consequences and then he comes back and tries to clean up the mess he and his cohorts have made.
The following is from AI research
As of now, no U.S. states have been officially "cut off" from all FEMA funding, but there are **significant delays, clawbacks, and restrictions** that are effectively limiting access to critical disaster relief funds for many states:
###Hurricanes? My comment was addressing Medicaid benefits. Why not stay on subject? It is clear that many divert when they can't defend an issue --- Oh well
No states have been cut off from FEMA. That’s simply not true. Delays and bureaucratic red tape have always existed under every administration. It’s disingenuous to suggest Trump is the first or only one to deal with FEMA funding challenges. In fact, some of the worst FEMA mismanagement happened under past Democratic presidents, and yet I don’t recall the outrage then.
Second, the claim that Trump, or Musk, for that matter, "dismantled" NOAA and weather forecasting is a serious stretch. NOAA continues to function, issue storm warnings, and deploy emergency data just like always. If Musk made staffing decisions in private satellite or tech ventures, that’s not the same as gutting a federal agency. Let’s not conflate headlines with reality.
And this idea that Trump just acts without planning? He’s a disruptor, sure, but calling him reckless ignores the fact that many of his so-called impulsive moves (deregulation, tax reform, foreign policy shifts) ended up producing real results. Like it or not, a lot of voters prefer a leader who acts instead of dithers for years while nothing gets done.
Finally, the notion that red states will somehow suffer more because of Trump is not only unproven, it’s purely political. Natural disasters don’t care how a state voted, and FEMA, like all federal agencies, is still bound by law to respond. If there are funding restrictions or state-level reforms being discussed, those are part of a broader debate on fiscal responsibility, not some petty vendetta.
Let’s stick to facts and avoid turning every weather pattern into a political weapon. Mother Nature is and always has been unpredictable.Shar,
You can look at the left's response to the Texas flood all over the internet.
These individuals are more concerned with making this something that was caused by President Donald Trump rather than mourning and sending sympathy to the victims.
One one forum, NOT this one , a person from the left stated that is all the dead were Trump supporters he was okay with it.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a very real thing. Whey they are more concerned with making a president responsible for a natural disaster than expressing concern for the victims of such a horrible event, something is very wrong.Certainly worthy of investigation to determine if the cuts in the weather service contributed in any way to this tragedy.... I'm certain the "right" wants to see this also.
I think it would show a little more compassion so soon after such a tragedy to focus on the losses and the affected families.
This is what needs to be done right now.
Mike, I agree with you completely. There’s something deeply wrong when a natural disaster becomes another excuse to attack political opponents instead of a moment to come together as human beings. The reaction from some on the left to the Texas flooding has been disturbing, to say the least. Instead of offering prayers, support, or resources to the victims, some are using this tragedy as political ammunition. That kind of response lacks both compassion and decency.
I’ve seen some of those awful comments, too, including the one you mentioned about being “okay with it” if the victims were Trump supporters. That’s inhumane, plain and simple. It goes beyond political disagreement, it’s hatred so deep it overrides basic empathy. The hate runs deep.
TDS is real, and it’s causing people to lose sight of what really matters. When lives are lost or upended by disaster, politics should take a back seat. The fact that some can't see past their hatred long enough to express sympathy shows just how toxic the political climate has become.
It’s not just about Trump, either; it's about the moral compass of those who see tragedy and think only in terms of partisanship. We need more unity in times like these, not more division. But some in our society have gone off the deep end. I can no longer use the word sad for the phenomenon; I can only use the word disgust.I'm sure you'll be supporting an investigation as to whether the cuts by Trump and Doge impacted the response to this catastrophe on Texas. We certainly need to know.
I think I will stick with the National Weather Service for providing the facts. As they have already quickly done. You go with Chuck...
The National Weather Service shared a timeline of alerts sent ahead of catastrophic flooding in Texas after an NYT report questioned whether staffing shortages may have made it harder for forecasters to coordinate responses with local emergency management officials.
The NWS said that on the morning of July 3, the office in Austin/San Antonio held forecast briefings for emergency management and issued a Flood Watch that afternoon. The NWS said Flash Flood Warnings were issued on the night of July 3 and in the early morning of July 4, "giving preliminary lead times of more than three hours before warning criteria were met."
An unedited timeline provided by the NWS is below.
The National Water Center Flood Hazard Outlook issued on Thursday July 3rd morning indicated an expansion of flash flood potential to include Kerrville, TX and surrounding areas.
A Flood Watch was issued by NWS Austin/San Antonio at 1:18PM CT on Thursday, in effect through Friday morning.
The Weather Prediction Center (WPC) issued three Mesoscale Precipitation Discussions for the excessive rainfall event as early as 6:10PM CDT Thursday indicating the potential for Flash Flooding.
The National Water Center Area Hydrologic Discussion (AHD) #144 at issued 6:22 PM CDT on 7/3/2025 messaged locally considerable flood wording for areas north and west of San Antonio, including the city of Kerrville.
The first Flash Flood Warning for the event was issued at 11:41 PM CDT Thursday for Bandera County.
At 1:14 AM CDT Friday: Flash Flood Warning with a considerable tag was issued for Bandera and Kerr Counties. Flash Flood Warnings with the Impact-Based Warning tags “Considerable” or “Catastrophic” denote high-damage threats and will automatically trigger Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) on enabled mobile devices, ensuring only the most life-threatening flash flood events prompt urgent public notifications. All alerts are also sent out over NOAA Weather Radio.
First reports from Kerr County Sheriffs Office of flooding at low water crossings had 201 minutes of lead time (4:35 AM CDT).
Flash Flood Warning was upgraded to a Flash Flood Emergency for South-central Kerr County, Including Hunt, as early as 4:03 AM Friday.
The 5:00 AM CT July 4th National Water Center Area Hydrologic Discussion #146 included concern for widespread considerable flooding through the day. The Flood Hazard Outlook was also upgraded to considerable and catastrophic.
Flash Flood Emergency issued for the Guadalupe River at 5:34 AM CDT.
The NWS said it was "heartbroken by the tragic loss of life in Kerr County" and that it "remains committed to our mission to serve the American public through our forecasts and decision support services."
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Saturday it was difficult for forecasters to predict just how much rain would fall. She said the Trump administration would make it a priority to upgrade National Weather Service technology used to deliver warnings.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nationa … hatgpt.comWe DO know. They did not - there were warnings made. They just didn't reach every door in every home and every camper/camp on the river. Nor would it have done so without Doge.
Here we go again, LOL. The NWS has released information that conveniently glosses over the facts, including the reality that staffing was more than sufficient. They also note long-standing issues that have made it difficult to get warnings out to people, problems that have existed in that flood-prone area for decades. And yet, once again, some are absurdly trying to pin the blame on Trump. It’s so ridiculous that it shouldn’t even warrant a response. Engaging in any back-and-forth on this would only make us look unintelligent.
I, for one, am not trying to pin blame but look unemotionally for the truth.
What IS true and you didn't mention is that the San Antonio weather office did not have, because of Trump, key personnel. Specifically, the person responsible for Warning Coordination Meteorologist was not there. That clearly means that offices ability to coordinate with county emergency staff WAS impaired.
The Science & Operations Officer was missing because of Trump. That impaired staff being prepared to work at full efficiency during crises like this. Important roles like Roles like Hydrologist, Observer Program Leader, Electronic Systems Analyst, and Meteorologist In Charge! That can't be good for a well functioning office - That is All on Trump.
But, it does seem they used extraordinary measures and surged people into the office to try to make up for the loss - and they appeared to have been successful in spite of the roadblocks Trump's policies put in their way.
It is THAT which needs investigating - how much did Trump's personnel cuts impact the efficient operations of that or other offices. It seems they got somewhat lucky in getting a warning out, even though it almost wasn't in time."That clearly means that offices ability to coordinate with county emergency staff WAS impaired."
This is true...IF, and ONLY IF you make the assumption that that particular office was necessary. As the warnings went out without it, the assumption is rather obviously false.Try reading what I wrote instead of making up your own interpretation. The warning went out because NWS surged personnel into that office in order to get the warnings out. Something they wouldn't have had to do if they had been fully staffed. The logic is simple, I am surprised you missed it.
It's funny how often we hear that "wait" stuff. Wait for this, wait for that, and we will all see the devil in Trump. And when "this" and "that" happen, it's "well, wait some more - It will happen"!
In my previous post I had problems with AI. This is the complete AI reply to my questions about FEMA and NOAA.
Wait until the hurricanes and tornadoes start in those states that voted for Trump. His one time buddy Musk, dismantled NOAA and weather forecasting by laying off or firing key personnel. Many areas that seek FEMA aid have been cutoff from funding. Trump wants the states to pay for their own disaster relief.
I'm starting to see what Trump's MO is. He acts first with out any planning or any regard for consequences and then he comes back and tries to clean up the mess he and his cohorts have made.
The following is from AI:
As of now, no U.S. states have been officially "cut off" from all FEMA funding, but there are significant delays, clawbacks, and restrictions that are effectively limiting access to critical disaster relief funds for many states:
Key Developments Affecting FEMA Funding
• Grant Application Freeze: FEMA has missed its statutory deadline (mid-May) to open applications for a wide range of grants that states rely on for emergency preparedness and disaster response. This includes funding that supports rural and low-income counties.
• Rescinded Programs: In April 2025, FEMA abruptly rescinded a major hazard mitigation grant program and withdrew a notice for $600 million in flood mitigation grants.
• New Oversight Requirement: As of June 11, 2025, all FEMA grants over $100,000 must be reviewed by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which could dramatically slow the distribution of funds.
• Trump Administration’s Stance: President Trump has announced plans to “dismantle FEMA as it exists today” after the 2025 hurricane season. His administration has already:
o Fired senior FEMA officials
o Cut staffing by 84% in long-term recovery offices
o Slashed funding for wildland firefighters and weather forecasting support
States Most at Risk
According to the Carnegie Endowment’s analysis of FEMA reliance:
• Florida: Over 500,000 residents apply for FEMA aid annually; more than 2.6 million applied after Hurricane Irma in 2017.
• Gulf Coast & Mid-Atlantic States: These regions are the most dependent on FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program (IHP) and Public Assistance grants.
So while no state has been formally “cut off,” the combination of delays, rescinded grants, and administrative bottlenecks is already straining state and local emergency systems—especially in disaster-prone areas.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is still operational, but its ability to do its job has been **severely compromised** following actions taken by Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) under the Trump administration.
What Happened to NOAA?
- **Massive Job Cuts**: Hundreds of NOAA employees were fired in early 2025, including seasoned scientists and researchers across critical divisions like:
- National Weather Service
- National Hurricane Center
- Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
- National Marine Fisheries Service
- **Budget Slashed by 40%**: The White House proposed cutting NOAA’s budget by nearly half, eliminating entire programs like the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which underpins forecasting, climate modeling, and disaster response.
- **DOGE Raids and Data Access**: DOGE staffers reportedly entered NOAA headquarters, accessed IT systems, and targeted diversity and climate-related programs for elimination.
- **Privatization Push**: Project 2025, the policy blueprint guiding these changes, calls for dismantling NOAA’s core functions and outsourcing them to states and private companies. This includes potentially eliminating the National Weather Service altogether.
Consequences
- **Forecast Accuracy at Risk**: Experts warn that U.S. weather forecasting could regress by a generation. Loss of research capacity means less accurate hurricane tracking, storm surge modeling, and wildfire smoke prediction.
- **Public Safety Threatened**: NOAA’s work supports aviation, agriculture, shipping, and emergency response. Its degradation could endanger lives and cost billions in preventable disaster damage.
- **Scientific Brain Drain**: Longtime experts, including those with 20+ years of experience, were fired. Programs like ocean acidification research and fisheries management are now in limbo.
In short: **NOAA is still standing, but it’s been gutted**. Its ability to protect lives, property, and ecosystems is now deeply impaired.Maybe the focus, at the moment, needs to be on the grieving families and their devastating losses.
There will come a time for complaining but now is not that time so soon after such a horrible disaster.
Does that mean that the 17 million projected to lose their medicaid because they won't work is just another liberal lie? Because, as you say, almost all already work?
I'm sorry, you must be responding to a different comment. Where did I state there was a warning SYSTEM in place. I didn't and you made that up.
Unlike you and your peers, I don't put 100% of the blame on Trump for most things while you did with Biden. Imagine blaming him and him only for CAUSING inflation. Right now, as I said, I am in a wait and see mode until more facts come in (one fact is Trump's policies fired the emergency coordinator in San Antonio. That certainly didn't help now did it)
This is the kind of leader we are dealing with now, boys and girls...
https://news.yahoo.com/news/trumps-braz … 10886.htmlHis lies have become more frequent and more egregious. It's a sickening the way the followers twist themselves to normalize the man and look the other way.
Every one knows Trump is mentally ill - that ads to the evidence.
It is being reported that ---Trump is expected to pressure his Israeli counterpart to finally end the more than 20-month-long war at todays meeting.
"Trump may just feel like, ‘I did you a solid, I participated, I bombed these sites with my B-2s — now you need to help me, and we need to finish this Gaza war already,’'" Makovsky told Fox News Digital. "I think there's obviously leverage there."
Trump is pushing for peace, and hopefully, today's meeting brings some results that will be a step towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.Just wondering, has Trump already visited Texas and how has he responded to the terrible floods.
No he has not. Maybe he'll do a repeat of throwing paper towel at people? The man doesn't have an ounce of empathy in his bloated orange body.
I usually don't read the Fox News page. But I was curious about what they had to say about the disaster that happened in Texas. But no, no mentioning of Trump addressing the Texans. Otherwise it would have been BIG news.
Silence all over. That's why I was asking. Do I miss something? (Perhaps I miss empathy...)I just did some research and found the Texas Republican controlled legislature has been turning down funding to build an early warning system in and around flood-prone Kerr County since 2017 or 2018. The latest was in 2025 where the House in strong bipartisan support for HB13 only to watch the Senate Republicans kill it; it would have helped immensely the next time this happens, which it will as the earth grows warmer.
The local gov'ts tried several approaches but were rebuffed by state and federal politicians and they simply didn't have the money to do it themselves.Odd...CBS interviewed a local mayor or some such who said that had discussed it in the county and couldn't see how they could afford it. Asked if the state would help, he replied that that was the next step - to ask the state for help.
Not sure what kind of system would be effective over hundreds of square miles, though.
No, he was too busy playing golf a Bedminster, I think.
He will visit on Friday. One only needs to do a quick search for his verbal condolences to the people of this stricken community
On July 6 the Texas Governor Greg Abbott publicly praised President Donald Trump for his swift response to the catastrophic flooding in central Texas. In a press release dated July 6, 2025, Abbott expressed gratitude for Trump's approval of a Major Disaster Declaration, stating, "President Trump stands strong with Texas in our time of need, and I thank him for swiftly approving Texas’s disaster declaration request." He emphasized that this federal support ensures local officials, emergency management personnel, and first responders have the critical resources needed to assist Texans in rebuilding and recovering from the devastating floods
Abbott also commended U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her visit to Kerr County, where she received critical updates from local officials and first responders. He noted that this federal involvement is crucial for providing necessary resources to support ongoing response and recovery efforts .
July 5 U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visited Kerr County, Texas, on Saturday, July 5, 2025, to assess the damage from catastrophic flooding and coordinate federal relief efforts. During her visit, she pledged assistance from the Trump administration, emphasizing that help was on the way after Governor Greg Abbott declared a state of disaster following torrential floods that had claimed at least 82 lives .
dallasnews.com
Noem's visit included a press conference in Kerrville, where she, alongside Governor Abbott and local officials, provided updates on the ongoing search and rescue operations. She also addressed concerns regarding the National Weather Service's outdated alert system, which had failed to provide timely warnings for the flash floods
It appears thus far all is being done as should be.Not really, unless you consider slapping each other on the back for a job well done doing everything.
Many, many questions remain to be answered It could be that Trump is found blameless, but not likely (which is more of a benefit of the doubt that you would ever consider giving Biden.)That's good to hear Sharlee. Thank you for the statements of Abbott and Noem.
There was a bit of cynicism in this statement Miebakagh, as I doubt it the Donald gives a sh77 about what happens with the people in Texas.
But everybody has their own ideas...Or in Nigeria which is probably one of his sh77-hole countries.
Donald "TACO" Trump has TACO'd again! This time pushes back his "I will not retreat from this" July 9 so-called deadline to an Aug 1 so-called deadline.
The markets fall, of course.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/07/economy/ … rs-tariffsI think Trump in his last years during his first term try to help Texas when she was burning. But the Texans don't respond at all? So what flooding taking place there stays there?
White House blasts Schumer, Democrats for 'depraved lie' blaming Trump for Texas flash flood
Press secretary insists National Weather Service issued timely warnings before disaster claimed 91 lives
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted Democrats and members of the media who have sought to blame President Donald Trump for the death toll from the flash flooding in Texas on Monday.
Leavitt called out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in particular, accusing him of spreading "falsehoods." She then gave a timeline of warnings issued by the National Weather Service in the days and hours before the deadly flooding, which claimed the lives of at least 91 people, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
"We have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media. Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning," Leavitt said.
"Here are the facts. In the lead-up to this tragic national disaster, the National Weather Service did its job. Despite unprecedented rainfall, the NWS executed timely and precise forecasts and warnings," she added, highlighting a flood watch and press briefings conducted by the NWS in the region on July 3rd.
"Flash flood warnings were also issued on the night if July 3rd and the morning of July 4th, giving preliminary lead time of more than three hours before flash flood conditions occurred," she added.
Schumer demanded an investigation into various vacancies within NWS in Texas related to warning coordination.
"These are the experts responsible for modeling storm impacts, monitoring rising water levels, issuing flood warnings, and coordinating directly with local emergency managers about when to warn the public and issue evacuation orders," Schumer said, speaking of the vacant roles.
"To put it plainly: they help save lives," he added.
Leavitt announced that Trump himself would be visiting Texas later this week, but she did not offer specific details.
"May God bless the great people of Texas—especially the parents who have lost their children. President Trump loves you. We are praying for you, and he will be traveling to see you later this week," she said.
Meteorologists say the Texas flooding was driven by a slow-moving storm system that dumped several inches of rain in a matter of hours, overwhelming local waterways and catching many off guard despite flash flood warnings.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white- … lash-floodYou're quoting bullshit barbie? She is a prolific liar.... Sorry, an investigation needs to be launched ASAP to figure out if Trump and Doge cuts impacted the tragedy in Texas.
The floods in central Texas were predicted with sufficient lead time, and weather alerts were issued promptly before the event. The National Weather Service began escalating flood warnings as early as the afternoon before the floods struck, issuing flood watches and upgrading to flash flood warnings well in advance of the worst flooding. For example, flood watches started Thursday afternoon and were followed by flash flood warnings around 1 a.m. on Friday, with more urgent alerts continuing into the early morning hours.
Meteorologists and experts have confirmed that the forecasts were accurate and timely. While it’s challenging to predict exact rainfall amounts or storm duration days ahead, the severe thunderstorms and potential for flooding were anticipated. The warnings were disseminated via multiple channels, including wireless emergency alerts and NOAA Weather Radio.
Some claims blaming staffing shortages or budget cuts under the Trump administration for failures in forecasting or alerting have been challenged by insiders. During the crisis, NWS offices in Texas called “all hands on deck” to ensure full staffing despite some vacant positions, and staff worked intensively to issue warnings. Key roles that coordinate warnings with local authorities were reportedly maintained during the emergency, and no evidence has emerged showing these vacancies hampered the response.
The main challenge appears to have been the communication and reception of warnings at the local level, especially since many alerts came late at night when people were asleep, and some areas lack outdoor warning sirens. These factors limited how effectively the warnings translated into timely action by residents.
Overall, the available facts show that the National Weather Service provided timely and accurate forecasts and warnings. The flooding was predicted, and alerts were sent out properly. The issue was not with the forecasts or warning issuance but with local communication, emergency response capabilities, and the challenges of alerting people during overnight hours. Assertions that federal cuts caused forecasting failures are not supported by the facts surrounding this event.But did they? How could they with critical people missing?
In April 2025, Paul Yura, the Warning Coordination Meteorologist for the San Antonio office, which was the relevant office here, accepted an early retirement offer amid NOAA staffing cuts instituted by Trump and DOGI. He was a veteran with over 32 years of experience
Around the same time, the office also lost their Science Operations Officer, Jon Zeitler, and left several other positions vacant (6 positions as of early July) - QUESTION - Why did they leave? Was it because of Trump?.
Why It Matters
The Warning Coordination Meteorologist serves as the critical liaison between NWS forecasters and local emergency management, ensuring timely interpretation and amplification of forecasts for community leaders
Experts and lawmakers say those roles are essential for translating data into action, especially before disasters strike.
THAT is what Schumer wants investigated, properly so in my opinion.
[b\What Officials Say[/b]
Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for an investigation, requesting the Commerce Department Inspector General review whether these vacancies led to forecast delays or communication lapses with Kerr County officials, potentially contributing to the tragic outcome
President Trump and the White House maintain the staffing cuts did not hinder preparedness, insisting accurate warnings were issued regardless
.
Current NWS union and forecasters indicate the specific Texas offices were adequately staffed to issue alerts—but warn that other offices nationwide are strained by vacancies
.
On the Ground
Flood watches were issued Thursday afternoon, and flash flood warnings went out early Friday morning—with about three hours lead time before flooding began
However, many communities—especially in Kerr County and remote campgrounds—had inadequate alert infrastructure (no warning sirens or reliable cell service), making official communications less effective
The Mayor of I think Kerr City said he never got a notification on his cell phone. (It might have been another nearby city)
.
Summary
Yes, the San Antonio NWS office lost key coordination staff—roles critical for ensuring forecasts reach decision-makers and the public in time.
Warnings were issued, but questions remain about how effectively they were communicated and acted upon.
Officials are now investigating whether these staffing gaps contributed to delays or breakdowns in alert dissemination.
All of this, of course, is compounded by the Texas State Legislature failure to pass the necessary funding to put in an early warning system that was needed after the 2017 deadly flood. The reason - Republicans didn't think it was worth the money that it would take to build emergency cell towers and sirens.
It is not like they weren't warned Global Warming has caused three 100-year floods; 2013, 2015, 2018. The two so far in 2025 will likely be classified as that. When do you think conservatives will start acting like global warming is real."But did they? How could they with critical people missing?"
Guess they weren't so critical after all, were they? The warning got out just fine without them.But did it? That is why an investigation is needed - to check the passage of information down from the national weather service to the local weather offices to the state and county emergency centers to the people. Clearly something broke down in that chain.
Remember, the critical warning didn't get released until about three hours before the flood; not much time is it, especially in the early morning.No - nothing broke in that chain. There just isn't and never was sufficient warm bodies to knock on every door over hundreds of square miles, all in the space of a couple of hours.
Ever hear of of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? It is a story of what happens when too many false alarms are given, and with weather events there is often very little actual information until very late - until then it is a guessing game and the wrongs guesses can be as deadly as right ones.
But I assume you know this - everyone else does. It's just another "opportunity" to demonize Trump, as I said.You sound like those commissioners in Kerr County who shut down warning sirens because they were would be too noisy if they went off at the wrong time.
And, as I said before, Trump doesn't need us to demonize him - he does a great job doing that himself.
Now The Attorney General & White House are saying there is no Epstein List.... do they really think people are that stupid? Bondi told us just recently she "had the files on her desk" & would be releasing them to the public. Elon told us why he felt they hadn’t released them.... Because Trump was on the list. Now they announce there is no Epstein list! Golly gee folks, I Wonder Why??
Why shouldn't we believe Elon? Be careful, all of the posts glorifying and praising Elon are still here.... Going to be hard to assail his character nowSo pleased to see the NWS step up with the facts... Maybe this will help the left's rumor mill.
The floods in central Texas were predicted with sufficient lead time, and weather alerts were issued promptly before the event. The National Weather Service began escalating flood warnings as early as the afternoon before the floods struck, issuing flood watches and upgrading to flash flood warnings well in advance of the worst flooding. For example, flood watches started Thursday afternoon and were followed by flash flood warnings around 1 a.m. on Friday, with more urgent alerts continuing into the early morning hours.
Meteorologists and experts have confirmed that the forecasts were accurate and timely. While it’s challenging to predict exact rainfall amounts or storm duration days ahead, the severe thunderstorms and potential for flooding were anticipated. The warnings were disseminated via multiple channels, including wireless emergency alerts and NOAA Weather Radio.
Some claims blaming staffing shortages or budget cuts under the Trump administration for failures in forecasting or alerting have been challenged by insiders. During the crisis, NWS offices in Texas called “all hands on deck” to ensure full staffing despite some vacant positions, and staff worked intensively to issue warnings. Key roles that coordinate warnings with local authorities were reportedly maintained during the emergency, and no evidence has emerged showing these vacancies hampered the response.
The main challenge appears to have been the communication and reception of warnings at the local level, especially since many alerts came late at night when people were asleep, and some areas lack outdoor warning sirens. These factors limited how effectively the warnings translated into timely action by residents.
Overall, the available facts show that the National Weather Service provided timely and accurate forecasts and warnings. The flooding was predicted, and alerts were sent out properly. The issue was not with the forecasts or warning issuance but with local communication, emergency response capabilities, and the challenges of alerting people during overnight hours. Assertions that federal cuts caused forecasting failures are not supported by the facts surrounding this event.Let Trump alone. He didn't breath out the floods. Nor the winds. Help him.
Shar,
Look at the disgusting responses from people of the left concerning the flooding in Texas.
This is a newscaster from Australia who can't believe it.
"Lowlife ghouls weaponise flood tragedy to attack Trump"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8tY7h_uVkMike, A new low for Rosey—she clearly seems to be struggling mentally. How can anyone even begin to address such horrific rhetoric? I hope everyone watches this clip because there’s nothing more relevant than seeing and hearing these individuals speak for themselves. The clip truly says it all. The left has gone completely off the rails, and honestly, I think it’s time we cut their mics. There’s no benefit in giving them a platform or entertaining a conversation. They’re angry and cornered, and that makes them dangerous in my view. We’ve already seen the open calls for violence, for blood to be spilled, and even for people to be shot in the name of their cause.
There’s just no reasoning with angry people who ignore facts, reject common sense, and dismiss the will of the majority.It's amazing that Australia, who has no horse in the race, can see things for how they are.
Democrats can't see it no matter who tells them the truth.It’s unfortunate to see some foreign media picking up and repeating the U.S. left-leaning media’s narrative that tries to blame this tragedy on Trump, specifically over claims of staffing cuts. What’s being ignored are the facts laid out by the National Weather Service itself, which stated that staffing was more than appropriate and that long-standing infrastructure and communication issues played a much larger role. The willingness to overlook these facts in favor of pushing a political agenda shows just how far some are willing to go to skew the truth. It’s not just misleading, it’s dangerous, especially when lives have been lost and the focus should be on unity and recovery, not blame.
However, we do have some foreign outlets offering facts and doing a good job, like Sky News.This Texas disaster is just the beginning. Wait until hurricane season begins. It's all about global warming and the science behind it. Oh, it's OK, Trump doesn't believe in science. Just follow the money to "Drill baby drill."
With Trump and company, it's all about the money. That was the motivation for dismantling FEMA and NOAA. It was to rob Peter to Pay Paul. In other words, DOGE saved paying all those salaries so that he could shift the money to fund Stephen Miller's Mass Deportations and Concentration Camps like Alligator Alcatraz and more.
It was done all in the name of reducing the national debt. According to the CBO, the national debt will be increased by 3- 4 trillion dollars with Trump's OBBB.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61486#section0"In other words, DOGE saved paying all those salaries so that he could shift the money to fund Stephen Miller's Mass Deportations and Concentration Camps like Alligator Alcatraz and more."
Considering that the warnings went out as they should have, proving that the salaries eliminated were not doing much anyway, and that your fantasy that the money went to immigration support, we can all recognize that if you are correct it was a great exchange. Always a good thing to see laws enforced.I’ve seen the National Weather Service information shared multiple times, and I trust the source. It seems like some people here don’t accept it, though. Honestly, I don’t think you’ll be able to get past the fact that they won’t accept facts that don’t fit their narrative.
I read your comment, and I get that you’re frustrated, but honestly, a lot of what you said doesn’t line up with the facts. Let’s start with the Texas disaster and hurricanes. Weather events are serious, no doubt. But blaming every natural disaster on global warming and tying it directly to Trump is a stretch. Climate change is complex, and while it's a real issue, there’s no clear data showing that one president’s policies, especially over a short time—are the direct cause of specific storms or weather events.
The part about Trump “not believing in science” has become kind of a lazy talking point. In reality, he supports plenty of scientific initiatives, especially when they align with economic or national goals, like energy tech, space exploration, and pandemic response back during COVID. He might not go along with every climate regulation, but that’s not the same as being anti-science. It’s more about questioning how certain policies affect U.S. industries and energy independence.
Now, the claim that Trump dismantled FEMA and NOAA? That’s just not true. Both agencies are still operating and funded. FEMA continues to respond to disasters, and NOAA is still tracking weather, climate, and ocean data just like it always has. No salaries were “robbed” or shifted, federal budgeting doesn’t work like that. Any money moved around has to be approved by Congress, and there’s zero evidence that money from these agencies went to immigration enforcement.
As for the mention of Stephen Miller and “concentration camps” like “Alligator Alcatraz, that kind of language just inflames people without helping the discussion. Yes, Trump’s immigration policies have been strict, and detention centers have been controversial. But those centers existed under previous administrations too, including Obama. Throwing around loaded terms like "concentration camps" doesn’t change the reality that border enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for decades.
And lastly, about the national debt, yes, Trump’s OBBB (assuming you mean some kind of budget or economic plan) has costs. But so does every administration's agenda. And that $3–4 trillion figure includes spending that was approved for major infrastructure, defense, and economic development. Biden’s first term also saw massive increases in spending. The debt’s a long-term issue, not something unique to Trump.
Bottom line: if we want to talk policy, let’s do it. But throwing out exaggerated claims doesn’t help anyone understand what’s really going on.
What I see from your comment is that you’re mostly echoing what’s been circulating in the media lately. Your view is noted. From my perspective, Trump is actually doing a solid job, and I think it's tough for some people, especially those who strongly dislike him, to give credit where it’s due.
I see a vibrant leader who’s tackling multiple problems at once and finding real success in the areas he’s focused on.Apparently Fox isn't covering the other side of it? Because it's all over every other media....
I know the Naga mantra is we're all going to die... But I feel pretty confident that the parents of the campers who perished, will be calling for a thorough, independent investigation.
‘No warning at all’: Texas flood survivors question safety planning and officials’ response | Texas floods 2025 | The Guardian https://share.google/qldVbxyPT9BwgN80PDOGE—the Department of Government Efficiency—has had a sweeping and controversial impact on federal services across the board. While its stated mission is to eliminate waste and modernize government, the real-world effects have been disruptive, especially in areas like disaster relief, weather forecasting, and international aid.
FEMA: Disaster Relief Undermined
• DOGE has cut roughly 20% of FEMA’s staff and frozen key funding streams, just as the U.S. enters peak hurricane and wildfire seasons.
• President Trump has signaled plans to phase out FEMA entirely, shifting disaster response to the states: “We want to wean off of FEMA… if [governors] can’t handle it, maybe they shouldn’t be governor”.
• These cuts have already slowed emergency response in Texas, where flash floods killed over 100 people. Critics argue FEMA’s weakened capacity contributed to the scale of the tragedy.
NOAA & National Weather Service: Forecasting in Crisis
• DOGE-led layoffs hit hundreds of NOAA and NWS employees, leaving over 20% of forecast offices understaffed.
• During the Texas floods, a critical meteorologist position was vacant, possibly delaying alerts to residents.
• Experts warn that forecast accuracy and emergency communication are at risk, especially as climate-driven disasters intensify
https://www.sacurrent.com/news/trumps-d … r-37909486
https://wade91757.substack.com/p/the-te … ragedy-didWait a minute!
Why would you assume I’m against Trump’s cuts? I supported his agenda from the beginning, and he made no secret about his plans to shrink the federal government. Not only did he campaign on efficiency, deregulation, and cost-cutting, but he won on it. So, to act surprised or paint these changes as some betrayal of government services completely misses the point.
DOGE was created exactly to root out federal waste, modernize operations, and return power to the states. That’s the vision I voted for. Of course, it's going to shake up agencies like FEMA or NOAA, that’s the entire purpose. We’ve had decades of bureaucratic expansion with little accountability. DOGE is finally putting pressure where it belongs: on inefficient programs and unresponsive leadership.
Today, Trump secured a major Supreme Court victory that gives him the authority to fire federal employees as needed, allowing him to properly staff agencies, eliminate overstaffing, and bring real accountability to the bureaucracy.
If FEMA is being downsized and governors are now more responsible for disaster response, good. That’s federalism in action. Trump said it himself: if a governor can’t manage their state in a crisis, maybe they shouldn’t be governor. And I agree. States shouldn’t rely endlessly on federal bailouts.
As for weather forecasting and international aid, those need reform too. Cutting bloated payrolls and redundant positions doesn’t mean Americans are being left unprotected. It means taxpayers are finally being respected.
Bottom line: I don’t just support these changes, I expect them. That’s why I supported Trump. We’ve had enough of a federal government that throws money at problems with little to show for it. DOGE is a step toward discipline, not dysfunction. I’m exactly where I’ve always been: on board with shrinking federal waste and making government answer to the people again.Wait until the hurricane season starts and there are no hurricane hunter aircraft to give warnings of when and where those hurricanes are going to hit. More than likely, they will be in MAGA states. If FEMA doesn't exists, it will be up to the states to provide recovery funds for disaster relief.
FEMA is significantly behind on making payments to disaster survivors, and the delays are causing widespread frustration and hardship—especially in states like Texas that were hit hard by recent disasters like Hurricane Beryl.
What's Causing the Delays?
1. Breakdown in Communication
• In some cases, the White House approved disaster aid without notifying FEMA, leading to delays of up to a week before FEMA could begin distributing funds.
• This reflects a broader pattern of poor coordination between FEMA and the Trump administration in his second term.
2. Grant Program Paralysis
• FEMA missed its statutory deadline in May to open applications for key grant programs that fund state and local emergency operations.
• The agency also rescinded or froze hundreds of millions in previously pledged grants, including $600 million in flood mitigation funds.
3. State-Level Bottlenecks
• In Texas, FEMA-approved funds are being processed and distributed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).
• Survivors report weeks-long waits for their $750 Serious Needs Assistance payments, with many unable to reach the state hotline for updates.
• HHSC admitted to system limitations and staffing shortages, which have slowed the release of over $384 million in aid.
Voices from the Ground
• “I was approved July 18 and still haven’t received my money,” said one Houston resident.
• Another survivor described calling the state hotline as “like trying to reach a rock star—you can’t actually talk to a human”.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state … r-AA1HwBzo
https://www.khou.com/article/news/verif … ace875e2b7PeoplePower --- I think we have both shared our views on this issue, I can appreciate yours, but we clearly are coming at this from different directions.
You wrote this
Now, the claim that Trump dismantled FEMA and NOAA? That’s just not true. Both agencies are still operating and funded. FEMA continues to respond to disasters, and NOAA is still tracking weather, climate, and ocean data just like it always has
DOGE was never approved by congress. True FEMA and NOAA still exist, but they have been rendered impotent by DOGE.
No salaries were “robbed” or shifted, federal budgeting doesn’t work like that. Any money moved around has to be approved by Congress, and there’s zero evidence that money from these agencies went to immigration enforcement.
I thought long and hard about this. DOGE did dismantle those agencies. The purpose was to eliminate paying salaries for those who were removed.
1. Those salaries were paid by tax payers.
2. With Trump's bill, tax payers are still paying taxes, but now those taxes are paying for Trump's bill, including funding for mass deportation and detention camps.
3. He didn't need approval from congress to reallocate those funds from FEMA and NOAA. They are just covered in his bill and the tax payers will blindly pay it. It's now a shell and pea game.
4. Speaking of approval from congress, Trump never got approval from them to drop the bunker buster bomb on Iran. In fact, the only time Trump goes to congress is to bully and threaten them. If they don't comply with what he wants, he states he will sabotage them in their primaries."DOGE was never approved by congress. True FEMA and NOAA still exist, but they have been rendered impotent by DOGE."
Gosh, I did not share this. Not sure why you feel it would change my view. I was pretty clear when sharing my view, and my support for Trump's agenda regarding FEMA, and it goes for any of the changes he is making in Federal agencies.
I believe that if Trump oversteps his boundaries, he will face court challenges or even impeachment proceedings from Congress. But from what I’ve seen so far, Trump has been smart about using the courts to ensure everything he does is within the law. Honestly, I’ve lost count of how many times the Supreme Court has ruled in his favor, reinforcing that he’s acting legally. Sure, you can criticize almost every move he makes, but in my view, he’s a genius at leveraging the judicial system to stay on the right side of the law. You can make endless lists of complaints, but can anyone truly say he’s breaking laws? Meanwhile, the left seems to file lawsuits against his policies almost daily, yet none have held up. The judicial system, in my opinion, often shows bias and unprofessionalism.
You might want to retract that "dismiss the will of the majority" comment. It so applies to your side.
I will agree that Rosey is ignoring facts and rejecting common sense.
That sounds like you guys talking about President Biden, don't you agree.
Rosey O'Donnell doesn't speak for the Left, let alone Americans, she speaks for herself. What she said sounds like Fox News talking or better yet, Tucker Carlson - totally wrong.
Trump's so-called Bold Agenda is like a slow-acting poison to America's health. I have no doubt millions of future American deaths can be traced back to his bold agenda and his choices to lead the various departments.
This is just one example - killing Cancer Research!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/health/n … ealth-newsAs I recall you have already put a million deaths at Trump's feet, all because a new virus entered the world. This is just more of the same - a desperate grab for something, anything that can be said to demonize Trump.
Trump is the demon here, you just can't accept it. His down playing of the seriousness of the virus is what caused those deaths. Trump always has to put a positive spin on everything he says or does, even when the truth would have more than likely save those deaths.
When his con is revealed, he always attacks those who revealed it and he plays the victim to his supporters. Those are the actions of a master con-artist.Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)
Is a VERY real thing.A stock deflection when there is no good rebuttal.
A state of denial impacting the liberal mindset.
Gosh, it is hard to even read some of these posts.
Of course! Were it not for his downplaying the seriousness the virus would have killed no one. Not even those in other countries. Because, we know that downplaying a virus makes it that much stronger and more deadly.
We've been over this before. Again and again and again as the assumption that if we had just locked our doors and stayed home to starve to death the death toll would have been less. As we just assume (even though we know better) that unlimited COVID response without regard to cost was the best way to get through it.MANY nations that are similar to America did MUCH better than Trump did.
And MANY did MUCH worse. Lots (and lots and lots and lots) of factors went into every country and even every city that you are calling "similar".
You really should do your research before offering an obviously wrong answer.
Of the 10 comparable nations (the G10) , seven did measurably better.
Nothing desperate about it. Just rational projections of his actions. As to the Virus, others much smarter than I have put the number in the hundreds of thousands of needless deaths from Covid.
Trump demonizes himself.Well, I think a whole lot of TDS sufferers gave such ridiculous claims. You are not alone.
I see you had nothing at all to say about Trump reducing cancer research. Does that mean you agree with his actions?
Yup. He reduced it. Just as he reduced the warnings for those in Texas.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that federal government is, and has been for years and years, grossly overstaffed for the "work" it does. Whether that is intentional or you actually believe that we need those staffing levels remains unknown.Are saying that in your opinion cancer research by the gov't is not needed? Or, if needed, we have too many scientists working on it? That is what I get from your comment.
You're not upset with cancer research being cut? Not upset with Bondi lying about the Epstein list? The woman went on Fox News saying it was on her desk LOL.... And now? It just doesn't exist.
To quote her . “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That has been a directive by President Trump.”
https://x.com/Uncensorednewsw/status/19 … 8659084326
She clearly acknowledges that the list is on her desk... She acknowledges there is a list
And today? She says there's no such list...
If there's no list then why is Maxwell in jail?
A government that would rather protect child rapists than prosecute them needs to be dismantled immediately... But Hunter was so important right?
Luckily , a very large majority of magas have been interested in this list for a very long time. This issue will not go away quietly. The issue of whether the president is a pedophile is really a bipartisan issue, something finally to bring the two sides together... That's a good thing.If it doesn't exist, how could it be sitting on her desk? I heard her quote from Fox and that is what it sounded like to me - she had the list on her desk.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday said the Jeffrey Epstein client list is "sitting on my desk right now" and she is reviewing the JFK and MLK files as well after President Donald Trump's earlier directives.
"It's sitting on my desk right now to review," Bondi told 'America Reports' host John Roberts on Friday. "That's been a directive by President Trump."
Bondi also stated she is "reviewing" the JFK and MLK files, which the president signed an executive order to declassify at the start of his second term.
"That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies," Bondi said.
When asked if she had "seen anything," Bondi responded, "Not yet."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bondi- … -mlk-files
Vidio provided of interview
Pam Bondi finally got the Epstein files from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) after a whistleblower tipped her off that the FBI was sitting on thousands of pages of evidence that hadn't been released. After she took office as Attorney General in early 2025, she requested everything Epstein-related from the DOJ and FBI. They initially released about 200 pages, much of it already known to the public, and called that "Phase 1." But Bondi wasn’t satisfied.
She said an FBI source told her the SDNY office was withholding a massive trove of materials. So she gave the FBI a hard deadline,8 a.m. Friday, and made it clear she expected full compliance. According to Bondi, they finally complied and delivered what she described as a “truckload” of documents from SDNY. She even assigned FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate why these documents were hidden in the first place.
Bomdi had a real fight getting those records from New York... I would surmise that if they could hang Trump with anything related to Epstein, they would have... I mean, they live and breathe to get Trump. There is no way in hell they would not have used anything they could out of their muddy world to get Trump connected to Epstein.
The files allegedly include “tens of thousands of videos,” although Bondi hasn’t released them yet, citing the need for review and redaction. Meanwhile, the DOJ still maintains that no official “client list” has ever been authenticated or located. This is shaping up to be one of the biggest questions surrounding the Epstein case,what’s real, what’s rumor, and why did it take a new AG to get these materials out of hiding?I am confused. Are you now saying Bondi did say she had "the list" on her desk but is now denying it?
Again, your assumption (without thought, without concern and without even considering it) was that cutting superfluous personnel does not cut the research being done.
Wake up and smell the roses; the federal government is grossly overstaffed in nearly every particular. Cutting the number of people needs do nothing to the work being done.You need to do your research rather than believe in MAGA myths. It is only your very biased minority opinion that that the gov't is grossly, or even moderately overstaffed.
Since you won't research your answers, I let ChatGPT do it for you. Here is what it found:
The question of whether the federal government was "overstaffed" before Trump is subjective and largely depends on ideological perspective, but we can explore it from several objective angles: staffing levels, workload trends, and comparisons to historical norms.
Federal Workforce Size Before Trump (Historical Context)
Year Civilian Federal Employees (non-military) As % of U.S. Population
1969 ~2.9 million ~1.5%
2000 ~1.8 million ~0.6%
2016 ~2.1 million ~0.65%
2020 ~2.3 million ~0.70% (grew a lot under Trump)
2024 ~2.4 million ~0.71%
Clearly, the number of federal employees has been relatively flat since the 1970s, despite:
- Population growth (from ~200M to over 325M by 2016)
- Expanding responsibilities (Homeland Security, Medicare, climate monitoring, cyber defense, etc.)
Federal Hiring Trends Pre-Trump
From 2000 to 2016, federal employment rose modestly—mainly due to:
- Post-9/11 Homeland Security creation
- VA expansion (for Iraq/Afghanistan veterans)
- Aging population (Medicare/SSA workload)
Growth was concentrated in mission-critical areas, not across the board.
Was It “Overstaffed”?
Arguments against overstaffing (pre-Trump):
- The federal workforce as a share of the population shrank over 50 years.
- Private sector outsourcing of federal functions already reduced staffing. (especially in the early Clinton days)
- Agencies like the IRS and SSA were under strain, with decades of funding and staffing cuts causing slower service and enforcement lapses.
- GAO and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studies often found chronic understaffing in regulatory, safety, and service-delivery roles (e.g., FDA, EPA, FAA).
Arguments for overstaffing:
- Critics pointed to bureaucratic inefficiencies and redundancies across federal agencies. (In fact large private companies are worse)
- Some libertarian/conservative analyses claimed functions could be privatized or devolved to states. (Ideology)
- Anecdotal cases of "job protectionism" and misaligned performance incentives in some agencies fed the belief of waste. (turns out to be not true)
Conclusion:
By historical and comparative standards, the federal government was not overstaffed prior to Trump. In fact, its civilian workforce had remained nearly constant for decades while:
- Population grew
- Responsibilities increased
- Technology introduced both new efficiencies and new vulnerabilities
So, the idea of overstaffing reflects more a political narrative than a data-backed assessment.
Also, the fact is, large private companies are often more bloated that the US Gov't is.
The idea that the federal government is uniquely “bloated” is often more ideological than empirical. In fact, when compared to large private-sector organizations of similar size and complexity, the federal government often shows comparable or even greater efficiency in some areas—and greater constraints in others.
So Please, stop believing in right-wing myths that aren't true.
From the totality of his comments over the years I come to learn that he doesn't believe there should be gov't, at least a federal one; that society doesn't benefit from it. Or, if he thinks there should be a federal gov't, it is only needed to provide external security.
Your guy is a pedo... And DOJ Barbie is a liar... RUSSIA IF YOU'RE LISTENING...LOLWhen the midterm comes and sweeps out many Maga, there will be some important investigations launched. The Epstein list should be top of mind. I'm sure everyone would agree, that if the country had a burning need to know if Hunter benefited from the association with his father... We absolutely need to know if the guy sitting in the White House is a pedophile.
Good thing that the Maga faithful have been howling for this list for yearsIf I had to call it, I’d say we’re not going to see any real investigation into that list. As for Hunter, that’s already been buried as “old news.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration just keeps racking up wins. At this rate, we might actually start getting tired of all the winning.
If Maga applies the same criteria they did for Hunter Biden when they were wailing and gnashing their teeth for an investigation then that same criteria will be used to investigate whether or not Trump is a pedophile.... Just makes sense. All of the posts that are documented In This very forum that called for Hunter's investigation make a fantastic case for the investigation as to whether Trump is on The client list...
"If Maga applies the same criteria they did for Hunter Biden when they were wailing and gnashing their teeth for an investigation then that same criteria will be used to investigate whether or not Trump is a pedophile.... Just makes sense. All of the posts that are documented In This very forum that called for Hunter's investigation make a fantastic case for the investigation as to whether Trump is on The client list..." Willow
Not willing to get in the mud with you. I shared my thoughts on
"Sharlee01 wrote:
If I had to call it, I’d say we’re not going to see any real investigation into that list. As for Hunter, that’s already been buried as “old news.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration just keeps racking up wins. At this rate, we might actually start getting tired of all the winning."Sharlee,
I have never seen anyone on the left condemn the violence against ICE agents. Their treatment of law enforcement is absolutely horrible.
I have not seen anyone on the left condemn the horrible things said about the victims and the families of the victims of the flooding in Texas. None of them.
There is a saying that ignorance is bliss. The left and the leaders of the left are some of the most blissfully ignorant upright walking individuals this world has ever known.And you know every single one of us? Personally? You make these judgements based on experience with the majority of us?
I've never heard anyone one the left condemn every single MAGA in the country. Now that would be horrible.Must be nice to have that selective memory. I remember the elected president of the US telling us that ALL Trump supporters were garbage. It must have been pretty horrible for a person to identify as a Democrat after that.
What do you make of this?
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1941173948151984280I dont care for it but since you all have been telling us how the guy is a facist and no better than Hitler I certainly do not blame him. Have you forgotten all the Democrats who said it was too bad that the assasination attempt failed? I think he is a lot more patient with many of the Dems than I would be in his shoes.
Biden weaponized the DOJ to go after MAGA and the FBI to go after Catholics. Are you going to be surprised if Trump ends up doing the same against the Dems?Can they tap dance fast enough to get around that?
Never happened. Did you make up that history?
Should such hateful and bias statements come from the President of the United States? And everybody keeps trying to convince me to give him a chance. So, who keeps telling me that he is bringing people together? But, in reality, I don’t like him either and would not lose any sleep if he disappeared tomorrow.
Are you telling me now that you no longer believe that Biden called Trump supporters garbage?
Hey, in his mind, he can say anything he pleases, and yes, actually believe it...very odd, is it not?
Oh, yes he did call supporters of President Trump garbage.
Here is the news story and the video of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLwcZ6OS9IIIt looks like you are talking about Biden's characterization of the Trump supporter who called all Puerto Ricans garbage. What you call a person like that?
I quote Biden and offer the full context of his statement
“Just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a floating island of garbage. Well, let me tell you something, I don’t, I don’t know the Puerto Rican that I know, the Puerto Rico where I’m fr -- in my home state of Delaware. They’re good, decent honorable people,” he said.
The president then added: “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American. It’s totally contrary to everything we’ve done, everything we’ve been.” AP
Donald Trump did not say any of that. Instead, it was the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe—a speaker at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally—who made the "floating island of garbage" comment . Trump himself later tried to downplay the uproar and described the event as a "lovefest," but he never used that language. In short: that quote belongs to Biden, not Trump.
This comedian is responsible for his words, as is Biden. Biden clearly made that statement.
I remember when he said it, and I even commented on it here at the time, he was clearly inappropriate, likely due to his serious cognitive decline. Honestly, he was inappropriate much of the time. I gave him some slack because of that condition, which I had noticed even before he won the 2020 election. You kept defending his state of mind constantly… but now it’s strange to see that even his closest aides are finally acknowledging what I saw all along.Now let's look at his statement: "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un‑American.”
Why didn't he say "THEY" if he meant all Trump supporters??? He didn't, he meant the guy who demeaned Puerto Rico.
It also seems reasonable to me the word "supporters" was referring to the supporters of the noncomedian or those in the audience who found the nonjoke funny and laughed and cheered.
He made that very clear in his clarification - "“Earlier today I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump’s supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage... That’s all I meant to say.”
No, and any reasonable person realizes that it did happen and it was even covered on US national news. Did you not see Trump driving around in a garbage truck because of that comment? I am afraid that you think that anything that your liberal buddies at CNN do not cover did not happen. Guess what, there are things happening out there that CNN does not cover. Are you even aware that a bunch of Trantify shot up some ICE agents in Texas, or is that false history too since it does not fit your narrative?
It was covered extensively by the media. Odd to think anyone could have missed it. I mean, the White House added to the mess by altering the transcript.
You must be talking about when Biden applied the same term to the Trump supporter who called all Puerto Rican's garbage.
Are you trying to equate some lame comedians joke about Puerto Rico to a statement by the sitting president of the united states? Oh, considering that the president of the U.S. was a joke at the time...
Yes, he is... When cornered, some change the context to fit their narrative.
Did you hear him say supporters or supporter's when he spoke? Maybe I'm missing the subtle nuance of how those two words are pronounced??
I posted the full statement. The context is very clear to me. I wrote it off as he was confused, and inappropriate when I saw it live. The entire speech was all kinds of crazy. Who cares. It would seem a more important problem to note that we had a confused man in the White House.
Are supporter's and supporters pronounced differently in Trump World? A quality of the maga ear that the rest of us don't have?
Speaking of all kinds of slurring spitting crazy...
https://x.com/Travispratt87/status/1940970377095860557
Trump is a hateful, vengeful spiteful manLOL my gosh, I couldn't care less about your opinion of Trump. It has become very clear, we have very different opinions regarding President Trump.
I have to ask—some time ago, you were very concerned about the death and destruction in Gaza, much of which happened during your side’s time in power. I imagine you must be pleased that my guy was able to secure a ceasefire to stop the killing, and he’s only been in office for a short time. Trump is doing a wonderful job, I could not be more proud of him or more pleased at what I see.What ceasefire? There is no ceasefire.
Israeli strike kills 40 Palestinians in Gaza as Netanyahu and Trump meet over a ceasefire...
At least 40 Palestinians were killed in Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, hospital officials said Wednesday, as international mediators raced to complete a ceasefire deal...Negotiations between Israel and Hamas in Qatar on a new Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal have stalled after three days of indirect talks, a Palestinian official has told the BBC....
If Bibi wants to keep on killing, he will keep on killing...
Israeli strike kills 40 Palestinians in Gaza as Netanyahu and Trump meet over a ceasefire | PBS News https://share.google/yFCzRzvymNZ58tllgYes, I just read the ceasefire failed due to Hamas aggression. I would not expect that Israel would fight for respect it when taking fire. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Hamas will not stop, and it would seem they will need to be stopped. Trump can only do so much when dealing with terrorists.
"On Wednesday, crowds of people bid farewell to the 10 members of the Shaaban family killed in an Israeli strike while they were inside their tent in Khan Younis.
“I found all my children dead, and my daughters’ three children dead,” said Um Mohammad Shaaban, a nickname that means Mohammad Shaaban’s mother. “It’s supposed to be a safe area where we were.”
Even with talks of peace taking place, she said that strikes have intensified and she fears for her life. “The hospital last night was jam-packed,” she said.
My alliance is with Israel; they have always been a peaceful nation. The Palestinians have always been a warring people."My alliance is with Israel; they have always been a peaceful nation. The Palestinians have always been a warring people"
History does not support that statement. I'm anti- genocide."My alliance is with Israel; they have always been a peaceful nation. The Palestinians have always been a warring people," Shar
History does not support that statement. I'm anti- genocide." Willow
Yes agree, Oct 7th should have never happened. But the Palestinians have no problem killing the innocent. all for their hate of Jews.The Palestinians, eh? All Palestinians, even the babies? How does the saying go, the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian? (that was sarcasm).
Personally, I am able to discern the difference between a peaceful Palestinian and a terrorist Hamas.
Well, more people are killed by the muslim faith than the jewish one. Compare Judaism with Islam and it's obvious that the Islam (together with Christianity) is a highly aggressive religion.
What Israel is doing today is out of proportion but seen over millennia it's not much.
The problem is that Israel is surrounded by lunatic extreme Islamic cults like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic state, ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc.
The big question is, how do you defend against such extreme thinking groups who want to kill all the Jews between the river and the sea?
How do you bring peace in this region? As these groups won't stop until all the Jews are gone. They won't stop with kidnapping people, suicide bombings and attacks.
How do you stop this? I don't know, Israel gave Gaza an election in 2006. Hamas won and started to kill people from the opposite party Fatah. And after 2006 Hamas has never aloud an election again. It's a pure religious one party system.
People are indoctrinated with hate against Jews (not difficult to do) and with no birth control the population is exploding like crazy.
Basically I think it's situation that is an accumulation of years on end of injustice on both sides. And as always when two extreme political views fight it are the ordinary people who suffer.
Hamas could have stooped the war a year ago by returning all the prisoners.. But they don't give a shit about their own people. They see it as a sacrifice for the greater good....
Difficult fighting against religious nutcases.
It's one big mess.So agree with your sentiments --- In my view, religious wars are often seen as the worst kind of wars because they hit people on a really personal level. When it’s about religion, it’s not just about land or politics; it’s about someone’s core beliefs and identity. That makes folks way less likely to back down or find middle ground. Plus, religious conflicts usually come with a strong sense that one side’s beliefs are the absolute truth, which leads to a lot of intolerance and little room for peace. These kinds of wars can leave deep scars that last for generations, because faith and the hatred tied to it get passed down through families. Also, since religion is tied to entire communities, innocent people often get caught up in the violence, sometimes on a massive scale. On top of that, because faith is so sacred, it’s way harder to find real compromises compared to regular political wars.
If Netanyahu had his way, and the fallout didn't spill over into Israel, he would nuke Gaza. That is how much he hates Hamas and Palestinians.
Hamas will never be satisfied if killing all the Jews mean anything. They'll never be satisfied also if they destroy the Jewish religion. These two actions is a pointer to kill all other religion.
Jumping the gun aren't you?? When and if a ceasefire comes about, I will give Trump credit for it. Unlike the credit you DIDN'T give Biden for his ceasefire in January.
And that, dear lady, seems to be what MAGA loves about him.
Did you hear him say supporters or supporter's when he spoke? Maybe I'm missing the subtle nuance of how those two words are pronounced??
Trump clearly and with great grotesque emphasis declared... I HATE Democrats.... That's what y'all are supporting
Oh, you mean statements like these?
* “When Mexico sends its people, they’re … bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
* In a January 2018 Oval Office meeting, Trump called Haiti, El Salvador, and some African nations “shithole countries”, suggesting the U.S. should pivot toward immigration from places like Norway.
* During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly described undocumented immigrants as being “not people,” “animals,” and accused them of “poisoning the blood” of the country—a phrase noted by experts for its racist overtones
* In Arizona in 2024, he called ALL OF AMERICA garbage.
* How about his inciting violence: “If someone throws something, 'knock the crap out of ’em… I’ll pay for the legal fees.”
But you get upset when Biden calls the person who called Puerto Rico garbage, "garbage". Interesting.He called Trump supporters garbage. Get your facts straight.
Somebody else will have to correct you. The moderator doesn't like this back and forth.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/0 … t-00186762
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/us/p … cript.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-h … =115402839
"Serious concerns" are being raised by the White House Stenography Office over what it called a "breach of protocol" in distributing an edited transcript of President Joe Biden's controversial "garbage" comment that former President Donald Trump seized on and Vice President Kamala Harris had to distance herself from earlier this week.
Issues were pointed out in an email from the Stenography Office to White House press and communication officials obtained and reviewed by ABC News and first reported by the AP.
Biden's gaffe drew the fury of Republicans over comments he made on Tuesday night's Voto Latino campaign call – which seemed to refer to Trump supporters as "garbage" and happened as Harris was delivering her high-profile campaign "closing message" on the Ellipse near the White House.
"Just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a 'floating island of garbage.' Well, let me tell you something. I don't -- I -- I don't know the Puerto Rican that -- that I know -- or a Puerto Rico, where I'm fr- -- in my home state of Delaware, they're good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters -- his -- his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been."
The stenography office transcript reflected that the president told those on the call, "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters -- his -- his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American."
The published White House version has apostrophe in "supporter's," which the White House has pointed to as Biden referring to comedian made by Tony Hinchcliffe at Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday.
Oh forgot this one
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/29/politics … rs-garbageSo, you are talking about when Biden applied the same term to the Trump supporter who called all Puerto Rican's garbage. Wouldn't you do the same? It is also not calling all Trump supporters garbage like what was inferred.
When he spoke the statement did you hear supporter's or supporters???
When Trump spoke... I clearly heard "I hate Democrats"
Not nearly as horrible as identifying as a MAGA after the last five months.
He definitely has a bad memory since Biden never said that about Trump supporters.
Even Kamala was embarassed by it. It does not work to come by all these months later and say it did not happen. There is this thing called the internet, when things you say even months and years later come back to haunt you.
Yes, and the internet shows Biden was talking about the supporters of the comedian, not Trump.
Mike, that’s incredibly well put, and I couldn’t agree more. I also believe many on the left don’t feel bliss; what I see is torment, plain and simple. The online behavior I see, especially on social media, reveals, in my view, a level of bitterness and unrest that’s hard to ignore. What I see is that much of the left's compassion appears to be highly selective, extended only to those who fit their narrative. Others, like law enforcement or even flood victims, are often dismissed or exploited simply to reinforce their harsh, biased talking points.
The way some rush to blame, often without any clear basis, is not only unfair but deeply unsettling. And as you pointed out, the lack of acknowledgment for the flood victims speaks volumes. It’s as if moral judgment has replaced empathy. That kind of mindset doesn’t come from a place of peace; it comes from internal conflict. The louder and more aggressive the rhetoric, the more it feels like they’re trying to silence something within themselves.
Trump is doing many things that are pissing MAGA off. This turning on their conspiracy theories about Epstein is one and agreeing to sanction Russia while deciding to rearm Ukraine is another.
In the wake of every hurricane, wildfire, or flood, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend: people immediately pointing the finger at Donald Trump, as if he’s somehow responsible for acts of nature. Let me say this as plainly as I can: In my view, blaming one man for a natural disaster isn’t just dishonest, it’s disgraceful.
Natural disasters don’t check party affiliations. They aren’t created by executive orders or campaign speeches. These events are shaped by complex systems, atmospheric, environmental, and sometimes even global in scale. Yet somehow, for a certain group of people, the default reaction is to scream, “This is Trump’s fault!” without a shred of introspection or factual backing.
You don’t have to support Donald Trump. You don’t even have to like him. But when your first instinct is to weaponize a tragedy for the sake of scoring political points, you’re not helping anyone, not the victims, not the country, and certainly not the truth.
At this point, it’s not even about Trump anymore. This is about a level of blind hatred that overrides logic and erases context. If your first reaction to a disaster is to find a way to link it to the man you despise, maybe it’s time to ask yourself what that says about your own motivations.
We’re all entitled to our political beliefs, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts reveal all was done accordingly to warn people of the storm. In my view, the Trump-bashing session doesn’t make you informed; it makes you part of the problem.He and Elon are responsible for cutting a lot of crucial services... An independent investigation needs to be launched to determine if those cuts hindered the response in Texas.
You might want to take a moment to look up what the National Weather Service has actually shared about the Texas flood, including what actions were taken, how they were staffed, and the timeline of events. From everything I’ve read, they followed protocol to the letter and had more than enough personnel in place. I’m fully satisfied they did their job responsibly and professionally
It seems you’re having a hard time accepting that our new president has every right to carry out the agenda he was elected on. Trump didn’t hide his intentions, he ran on cutting government bloat, increasing efficiency, and restoring accountability. And he won. I support that agenda fully. So yes, if cuts have been made to federal agencies, that’s exactly what he promised to do. What’s puzzling is your refusal to acknowledge the facts, specifically, that the National Weather Service itself has stated there was no short staffing and nothing that hindered them from doing their job during the Texas floods. Are you disputing their own reports? Because it feels like you’re more interested in clinging to a narrative than facing what the actual agencies are saying. Your obsession with ignoring these facts is what truly doesn’t make sense.
It does seem his downsizing of FEMA and continuing threats to eliminate it, while allowing initial disaster support to work, the follow-through is showing weakness—in grant support, mitigation funding, and bureaucratic agility. (During Trump's first term when Kerr applied for funds to install a warning system, it was turned down, just like the State of Texas did.
"“Effective today, to increase competition to the Credit Score Ecosystem and consistent with President Trump’s landslide mandate to lower costs,...
You frequently see lies like that made by Trump appointees (and supporters on this forum) - that is how propaganda works. It is done so often, it is impossible to correct so just like that old quote says, you tell a lie often enough, people begin to believe it.
The TRUTH, of course, is Trump has no mandate, he didn't even win the majority of the votes.Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America--- Sick Of Winning Yet?
This is leadership at work and working for all Americans — great solutions to lower costs and expand homeownership. Honestly, does the Trump administration ever sleep? LOL.
On July 8, 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William J. Pulte announced a significant policy shift regarding credit scoring for federally backed mortgages. In a post on X, he stated: “Effective today, to increase competition to the Credit Score Ecosystem and consistent with President Trump’s landslide mandate to lower costs, Fannie and Freddie will ALLOW lenders to use Vantage 4.0 Score…” While his announcement gained attention for its political framing, the change itself is rooted in long-standing regulatory processes. The FHFA, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had already approved VantageScore 4.0 as an acceptable credit model through its formal validation process, designed to foster competition and broaden credit access. The policy officially went into effect on July 8, making it a factual change, not just a public statement. This means lenders working with Fannie and Freddie can now use VantageScore 4.0 alongside traditional FICO scores, which could expand homeownership opportunities and reduce costs for consumers, especially those with limited credit histories. The announcement marks the culmination of a multi-year regulatory process, not just a declaration by the director.What I am "sick" of Trump continually breaking the law, lying, being a royal bully, and making policy that hurt regular Americans.
I am also sick of his sycophants lying for him about his non-mandate.
BTW - what "lower costs" are you referring to?? Costs are only going up, not down if you haven't noticed.
"Hegseth did not inform the White House before he authorized pause on weapon shipments to Ukraine, sources say"
Yep, old Trump, that felon and sex offender, knows how to pick the best and brightest! Imagine, thinking it was OK to change foreign policy without letting your boss know. ROFL
Maybe this will get the idiot fired.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/politics … pons-pauseYep, sources say - in this day of Trump retribution and revenge would you put your name to information you may be sharing?
What I rely on is that extremely few of those "sources" that give information to journalists have been proven wrong. Consequently, when reported by trusted journalists like from CNN and other nonRight-wing outlets, I don't question what they report.
As nuts as TACO Trump's tariffs are, this may be the most nuts of all. Copper is an input into many products...think electric wires, plumbing and yes, batteries. Tariffs won't result in more copper being produced here...
it will just raise prices. Please, tell me more about how we're winning.Donald Trump recently announced a major new policy move involving copper tariffs. During a Cabinet meeting, he declared that the United States would impose a 50% tariff on copper imports, citing national security concerns and the need to support domestic mining and production. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed the tariff would likely go into effect by late July or August 1. This policy is not part of a deal to purchase copper from another country; rather, it’s a strategic protectionist move intended to make imported copper more expensive, which would theoretically encourage investment in U.S.-based copper production. Copper is critical for a wide range of modern technologies, including electric wiring, batteries, plumbing, and green energy infrastructure, so securing a domestic supply is a national interest issue.
In the short term, these tariffs are expected to raise prices for manufacturers and industries that rely on copper. In fact, U.S. copper futures surged over 12% to a record high shortly after the announcement.
Supporters of the policy contend that the tariffs are necessary to reduce dependence on foreign sources, many of which have lower environmental standards or are geopolitical rivals. This is not a plan to purchase copper but rather a long-term effort to stimulate U.S. mining and manufacturing capacity. The emotional and sarcastic online comments criticizing the tariff often ignore these strategic goals and oversimplify the issue by focusing only on short-term price increases.
And who said he does not go after the very rich...
The other side of the coin --- Copper is undeniably essential to modern infrastructure, energy systems, electric vehicles, and countless other technologies. However, that fact alone isn’t a reason to oppose tariffs outright. In reality, it can actually be a strong argument in favor of using tariffs to support domestic mining and secure our own supply. While tariffs may raise prices in the short term, they serve several strategic purposes that are often overlooked in emotional or sarcastic critiques.
Tariffs can incentivize domestic production by making it more financially viable for American companies to compete. They protect U.S. producers from being undercut by cheaper, often heavily subsidized materials coming from countries like China. Most importantly, they encourage long-term supply chain independence, something that’s critical for national security and economic resilience. Without tariffs, there may be little to no incentive for investors or companies to take on the massive cost and regulatory hurdles involved in developing new U.S. copper mines.
Given the extremely slow permitting process in the United States, which can delay mine development for over a decade, some form of market protection is often necessary to get projects off the ground. Tariffs help create a more level playing field, especially when competing against foreign producers that benefit from weak environmental standards and government subsidies. In this context, tariffs are not simply a tool to raise prices; they are a strategic lever to rebuild domestic capability in an area vital to our future.So I can surmise that you feel pleased with paying more for everything copper goes into.. and that's an awful lot.
"So I can surmise that you feel pleased with paying more for everything copper goes into.. and that's an awful lot." Willow
I believe I've answered that question several times already. Yes, I'm fully on board with making this small sacrifice. I still stand by the principle: Don't ask what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."
The comment I shared already sums up my position well. I believe Trump's vision for building a stronger America stands in stark contrast to the left's agenda, which I feel is tearing at the very fabric of our nation. I'm optimistic about his tariff plans, which could attract major international companies to our shores and motivate American businesses to bring their operations back home. Plus, we're on the brink of a new era with AI—an unprecedented opportunity. It's critical that we capture this technological boom and keep it rooted here in America. Trump is a doer, and in my view, he's doing greatBut Trump's version of that is "Don't ask what Trump can do for you, ask what you can do for Trump". One of these days, I hope, that will sink in.
Long-term as well.
I wonder how many friends of Trump recently purchased copper futures.
Anyway, here is what is likely to happen if Trump doesn't TACO; none of it good.
Short-Term (Now to ~6 Months)
- Price spike—but a U.S. glut: Copper futures on COMEX surged 13‑17%, reaching record highs ($5.68/lb), while global LME prices fell due to re-routing of metal and surplus inventories
The Guardian, Financial Times, Barron's, Reuters, The Australian
.
- Rising costs for consumers and manufacturers: Manufacturers (electronics, appliances, EVs, construction) face higher input costs, passing them to consumers—fueling inflation fears
CBS News
.
- Inventory buildup at U.S. warehouses: Importers are front-loading shipments before the tariff, creating a glut that may later depress domestic prices
The Guardian, Reuters, Bloomberg, .
Net effect: Elevated short-term domestic price + immediate inflationary boost + market volatility.
Medium-Term (6 Months to ~2 Years)
- Domestic producers benefit—temporarily: U.S. miners like Freeport-McMoRan and Southern Copper could profit from higher prices and reduced foreign competition
Business Insider
.
- Global price distortion: U.S. consumers pay more, while excess copper is diverted abroad—so global LME prices could decline, eroding the U.S. premium
The Guardian, AInvest, Reuters
.
- Investment and supply-chain uncertainty: Manufacturers delay expansion; mining companies weigh domestic projects (e.g., Arizona). Retaliatory threats could disrupt supply chains
The Australian
.
Long-Term (2+ Years)
- Elevated costs & suppressed demand: Persistent tariffs likely reduce U.S. manufacturing growth, especially in infrastructure and energy sectors. High input costs may shift production overseas and hinder innovation .
- Economic drag and efficiency loss: Tariffs represent a regressive cost—hurt consumers more than they help producers—and lead to allocative inefficiencies, reducing U.S. GDP by ~0.4–0.9% over time
Wikipedia, The Budget Lab at Yale, Wikipedia
.
- Global realignment and retaliation: Major suppliers (Chile, Canada, Peru) may secure carve-outs. But China or others could retaliate, leading to broader protectionist fragmentation and trade blocs
WON'T WE HAVE FUN, lol
Measles cases in the U.S. have hit a three-decade high, reaching the highest yearly total since 1992 in less than seven months...MAHA! With the hourly chaos of the Trump administration, junior is really flying under the radar. He may be the most dangerous fool of the cabinet.
Signs of the Time:
* Five months in office and the Ukraine shows no signs of ending any time soon - BIG TRUMP FAILURE
* After destabilizing the world with his tariff threats, his retreats have resulted in ZERO DEALS and three "Frameworks" which so far have resulted in - not much other than a lot of heartache, ill-will, and lost opportunities. Trump's TACO dance has left the markets numb to his machinations and take a "will he" or "wont he" posture.
* His promise to not touch Medicaid was broken.
* He is falling way behind in deporting the 20 million he said he would.
This doesn't take into account his failing to:
* Kill ACA
* Have an Infrastructure Bill (Biden had to do that)
* Finish his useless border wall
* 53% of his other campaign promises.
What he has managed to do so far is Make America Miserable Again.Maga voted for this guy because he was going to end the war in one day.
They also voted for him because they wanted America first... Meaning no more American dollars supporting a foreign war.
Failed on both counts.President Trump, didn't promised to fullfil all his campaign promises in a day. Did he?
Some he did, specifically Ukraine and one I forgot, bring costs down.
In any case, let highlight some words you obviously missed - Five months in office One day indeed.Have you ever heard of "puffing"?
Best I ever heard was when Obama promised the ACA and, on the day he took office, announced it would require a second term. That one was over the top IMO.
Breaking....The Trump administration has enacted a 50% tariff on imports originating from Brazil.....
Another corruption pipeline. Tariffs are nothing but tools to enrich Trump himself by getting favours from countries and companies who will pay him personally to navigate the tariffs. (Of course in untraceable crypto currency. Or in plain site with giving an airplane as a gift.) Trump is the most corrupt president of the US ever.
Tariffs are basically taxes on imports, something pretty much every president has used at some point, not just Trump. The idea is to protect American businesses or get better trade deals, not to line a president’s pockets. The government collects the money from tariffs, not the president personally, so the idea that Trump was making secret cash from them just doesn’t make sense. If foreign companies or countries were paying him off, especially in crypto or fancy gifts like airplanes, that would be a huge scandal and probably illegal, and we would have seen real evidence or investigations proving it by now. As for calling Trump the most corrupt president ever, that’s a pretty big claim and depends a lot on your perspective. Sure, he’s had controversies, but labeling him that way without clear proof feels more like political opinion than fact. Is it really fair to throw around serious accusations like this without solid evidence? I think this kind of thing is part of why the country feels so divided. Nowadays, anyone can say anything just based on a gut feeling or suspicion, and that only makes it harder to have honest conversations or find common ground
"Tariffs are basically taxes on imports, something pretty much every president has used at some point, not just Trump." - A lesson on how to make a false equivalency to make your guy seem sane.
Trump's corruption? You can't see the fire because of all the smoke it is causing.
1. Direct Financial Gain & “Pay-to-Play” Concerns
A House Oversight Committee report found that judges, ambassadors, pardon-seekers, and other officials spent around $300,000 at Trump’s D.C. hotel, with stays coinciding with pending appointments or pardons—raising “pay-to-play” allegations
The Guardian reports Trump leveraged cryptocurrency ventures—especially the $Trump memecoin and related deals—to benefit financially during his presidency, while his administration eased regulations to suit his interests
ABC’s Stephanopoulos called it “brazen corruption,” citing pardons (including Paul Walzcak’s) following high-dollar fundraisers and SEC dropping a lawsuit against Binance after it listed a Trump-linked coin
2. Conflicts of Interest & Emoluments Issues
Ethics watchdogs like CREW note Trump continued profiting from his business empire (hotels, crypto, international ventures) while in office—without divestment or blind trusts
He appointed high-level donors and allies (e.g. Elon Musk, crypto backers), sometimes granting them business favors (Starlink rural broadband)
Abuse of Official Office
Trump pressed Secretaries to influence federal investigations, pushed for DOJ interference, and attempted to hold the 2020 G7 Summit at his Doral resort—benefiting his property
He frequently dismissed and sidelined inspectors general and top FBI/CIA staff—undermining checks on executive abuse
4. Campaign & Election Interference
The Ukraine scandal (2019) led to one impeachment—Trump was accused of leveraging $391M in military aid to pressure Ukraine for politically favorable investigations
Investigations found seeking foreign assistance for campaign advantage broke federal law
Document & Records Obstruction
Trump was found to systematically destroy documents, flush them down toilets, shred official records, and illegally remove classified material—violating the Presidential Records Act
6. Financial Fraud & Business Misconduct
In New York v. Trump (2023–24), a judge ruled the Trump Organization and Trump personally engaged in extensive financial fraud, inflating asset values to secure loans and get better terms—ordered to disgorge $355 million
The Trump Foundation was ordered to close after it was found to have committed fraud and misappropriation of fundsI did not read your post, too long, and to repetative. I mean it is not like your posting anything new or current. Just your same old complaints.Not sure why you waiste yourtime posti ng replies to my comments. But have at it.
But to some, it needs to be ignored because it reflects poorly on their chosen hero.
just an article of today in the Guardian:
Lobbyists linked to Donald Trump paid millions by world’s poorest countries
Some of the world’s poorest countries have started paying millions to lobbyists linked to Donald Trump to try to offset US cuts to foreign aid, an investigation reveals.Peter, while this article presents factual information about lobbying contracts between poor nations and Trump-linked firms, it’s written with a clear bias and heavy editorial tone. The contracts mentioned can be verified through FARA disclosures, but the article jumps to dramatic and speculative conclusions, such as claiming 14 million deaths, without citing concrete evidence. Plus, it’s no secret that Trump has prioritized securing critical minerals from around the world, especially given their strategic importance in countering China’s dominance, so I don’t find that odd or surprising.
What is surprising is the article’s framing, which makes long-standing and legal lobbying practices seem uniquely corrupt simply because they involve Trump. In reality, this form of lobbying is universal in Washington, both parties have deep ties to lobbyists, and neither is a stranger to using influence to secure favorable deals. A more balanced article would have acknowledged this instead of pushing a one-sided narrative.
Building on that, it’s important to recognize why rare minerals are such a key focus in Trump’s agenda. These minerals, like lithium, cobalt, and coltan, are essential for modern technologies, including batteries, electronics, and defense systems. With global supply chains heavily reliant on China, Trump wants to secure these minerals to enable the U.S. to supply what’s needed to manufacture critical products right here in America. I don’t think many people realize that his plan is really about more manufacturing, more business, and more jobs in the U.S. Strengthening access to these resources is a strategic move to boost American economic growth and national security, and it’s a vital piece of his broader vision for the country’s future.Why is everything that is negatively reported upon having to do with Trump always labeled bias? We all know that this story would have been accepted 100%, wholeheartedly without hesitation if the name were Biden.
" it’s written with a clear bias and heavy editorial tone. "
Or maybe you just don't agree with it so it must be biased and editorialized.Biden? So it's because of Trump, that it's being bedin or accept 100%?
"it’s written with a clear bias and heavy editorial tone." - is that because Trump's actions are problematic?
I just read it and there is absolutely no bias and I am not sure what an "editorial tone" is. It was simply a listing of facts and linkages. Nothing more
Please provide examples of the bias and "editorial tone" you saw..Bias is a an invention. Everything is in a way bias. In other words to say something is bias is not always an argument.
Some things are 100% bias other things are 2% bias, and that's a difference.
I was using this article simply to say that everyday there is a story out that shows the corruption of Trump. Now you can finger point to Biden but that is an "if" story....
Biden was in many things not a great president, but that is a begone story. To finger point every time to Biden does not make the corruption of Trump right.
Does Biden have it's own crypto currency?
My Esoteric wrote an whole list of corrupt actions Trump did. And the list is much longer and still growing. Now, one case is not evidence, but it is the pattern.
The same as his sexual predator pattern. Being good friends with Jeffrey Epstein the child sex offender. Buying his airplane..
Being at Epsteins Parties
Trump co-owned the Miss Universe Organization...
His sexual affair with Stormy Daniels.
The sexual misconduct allegations.
With one thing you can say, ok it was a mistake, but it simply is to many things that is connected with highly aggressive sexual predatory bahaviour.
It is the whole package. You have to look at the pattern of Trump's behaviour that begun long before he was the POTUS.Here is the Rosetta Stone as to when Trump's actions go south and how he blames others for his bad decision making and actions. He does it at the expense of others to make himself look masterful and in control.
https://theconversation.com/why-trump-b … url_buttonI copied a piece out of you link to drive home the point to those that are simply blind to how bad Trump really is:
"It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasised his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.
This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.
But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House."Or this from JFK
Yes, Kennedy suggested, the administration’s views might clash with those of its inquisitors. But, he added, “I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: ‘An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.’ We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.”
———-
Truman and Kennedy, examples from REAL Presidents…….
Just to emphasize the point that 90% of the world knows, let me paste the begining of the article:
"It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasized his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.
This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.
But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House."
In order to stop a trial against a fellow dictator to boot!!
More proof of Trump's mental instability and weakness.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/economy/ … ters-trumpAre you keeping up with the recent wave of people coming forward—through books and interviews—revealing that Biden wasn’t actually running the White House? Some are even sharing firsthand accounts of his inability to do the job. This is all current and deeply disturbing. I honestly believe it will go down as one of the most serious and revealing scandals recorded in our history books. You defended Biden’s cognitive ability when I brought it up here, even before he won the election. I think that’s one of the main reasons I lost respect for your views.
So, when you attempt to place mental instability on anyone, I suggest you remember all the times you defended Biden cognitive state.So what is your point? We have two presidents who both suffer from cognitive disability? That doesn't preclude Trump's cognitive state.
I have seen nothing to suggest that Trump is suffering from cognitive decline. He has taken cognitive tests and even pledged to take them annually. Meanwhile, Biden has refused to take such tests. Comparing these two men in this regard seems unfair. Biden has exhibited clear signs of cognitive issues during his term yet has consistently refused to undergo cognitive testing. It feels inappropriate to criticize the current president and imply he has cognitive problems without evidence. From my own experience and perspective, I’ve noticed that when some on the left realize they were wrong, they sometimes lash out and project unnecessarily. To me, this reveals a deeper mindset flaw. I’m not trying to be rude, but truthful. Your comment opened a space where I felt I could honestly share my view, that your position seems to be based on conjecture rather than evidence.
Trump is visible every day and actively working on the problems he was elected to address. He’s not hiding or relying on others to do the job of the president, as we often saw with Biden. You may want to take a moment to reflect on why you so strongly defended Biden’s cognitive abilities throughout his term, instead of now trying to project Biden’s clear cognitive struggles onto Trump. Sadly, this comes across as the reaction of a very poor loser.I read Original Sin which provides a thorough review a of the years leading up to when he bowed out; to be kind, it was not flattering.
The book convinced me that Biden was in no shape to run for president, and he hadn't been from as early as 2022. It became very clear old age was catching up with him. That said, as I read through the anecdotes presented, I recall doing the same thing myself from time to time. I don't think there was a single example presented that didn't apply to me.
And I just asked my wife if she thought I had the same type of dementia those on the right claim Biden has. I got a thoughtful NO! (thankfully). The book made it very clear that those who knew him best and was around him enough did not think Right is correct even though most thought that Biden wasn't fit enough to serve another four years.
Further, I don't claim Trump has dementia either. I, and a whole bunch of professional mental health experts, think Trump is dangerously mentally ill. What is ironic is that when people went and counted the number of gaffes, misstated names, and similar events that the right points to saying that PROVES Biden has dementia, Trump won. His rate of fumblingly is worse than Biden's; I was not expecting that outcome.
You see signs of that mental illness almost every day and worse, it is becoming more frequent. It is clear that man is a hot mess.
I read Original Sin which had many, many first, second, and third-hand accounts. What other ones do you recommend?
"Bondi (, Noem), and Hegseth might be messing up — but they’re doing what Trump picked them to do"
Certainly not the best and the brightest are they? ROFL
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics … edy-powellHere is a good explanation of why Trump's Bold Agenda inflation haven't shown up in the broad numbers Yet. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just means Trump's chaotic introduction of tariffs mitigated the timing of the increases. Here is what has increased:
* The May Consumer Price Index showed that several tariff-sensitive categories saw price increases:
- The price of appliances rose by 0.8% in both April and May, the highest monthly increase in nearly four years.
- Toy prices climbed for the second consecutive month, leaping by 1.3% (matching a four-year high).
- Household furnishings, tools and sporting goods showed an acceleration in price hikes after post-Covid years when prices fell.
* A DataWeave analysis of 200,000 products on 13 major US e-commerce sites show that prices have risen since January:
- Home and furniture prices have accelerated for the past five months as compared to January: up 1.1% in February, 2.1% in March, 2.8% in April, 3.7% in May and 4.7% in June.
- Toys showed a similar trajectory, but on a smaller scale: Prices were up 3.8% in June versus January.
-
Apparel and footwear prices were fairly flat in February through May but shot a little higher in June, up 1.7% from January.
- Some price hikes are even greater at some retailers: For example, toys at Walmart and Target were up 7.4% and 6.1% from January, versus the average increase of 3.8%, respectively.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/economy/ … -inflationA little diversion to the subject of tariffs
It is obvious that their application has nothing to do with economics but with Trumponomics applying tariffs for political purposes and at his caprice.
Case in point: Brazil
Trump in support of his brute counterpart in Brazil, former President Bosonaro, is raising tariffs from 10percent to 50 percent even though the US has a trade surplus in regards to Brazil.
“In his letter Wednesday to Lula, Trump also referenced “insidious attacks on Free Elections” (Brazil’s next general election is in 2026, and Bolsonaro has been deemed ineligible) as well as “Censorship” by Brazil’s Supreme Court against U.S. social media companies (the country at one point banned Elon Musk’s X platform before restoring it after a $5 million fine).
Trump announced that the tariff rate on Brazil, which was initially set at 10% in April, would be raised to 50% as a result of these issues, as well as to “rectify the grave injustices of the current regime” and make the U.S.-Brazil trade relationship more “Reciprocal,” despite the U.S. in fact running a trade surplus with Brazil.”
He is using the government and the people of the United States as his footstool.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazil-lula- … 30662.html
I am glad that Lula basically tells Trump to “pi$$ off”.In addition, because that trade surplus is large, America will be on the losing end of that trade war.
Good food for thought --- my side of the coin
While it's fair to criticize tariffs when used haphazardly or solely for personal vendettas, it's important to recognize that the application of tariffs, especially under Trump, is not just about short-term economic numbers or even personal politics, but about recalibrating the global playing field, including confronting ideological and structural concerns in foreign governments. In the case of Brazil, raising tariffs may appear contradictory given the U.S. trade surplus, but Trump’s move could be interpreted as a broader strategy rooted in national sovereignty and reciprocity, not just raw economics.
From this perspective, the increase in tariffs isn't simply about Bolsonaro or Lula, it reflects concerns over censorship, democratic integrity, and the treatment of U.S. companies abroad. When a foreign government censors American platforms or aligns itself with practices that run counter to free speech or fair elections, it’s not irrational to use economic tools as leverage. Tariffs have long been a tool not just of protectionism, but of diplomacy and signaling, especially when traditional diplomatic channels have failed to protect American interests.
Furthermore, Trump’s base sees these actions as a form of economic nationalism, prioritizing the long-term strength of American industry and values over short-term cost savings or surplus figures. The idea is that even countries we have a surplus with should treat the U.S. fairly and not abuse their power domestically in ways that undercut U.S. interests abroad. One could argue this isn’t caprice; it’s conditional engagement. You want access to the U.S. market? Then don’t silence American businesses or platforms.
So while Lula’s rejection may win applause in some circles, there’s another side of the coin: Trump’s tariffs may be less about punishment and more about restoring leverage in a global system where the U.S. has often been expected to play nice, even when others don’t.
Hey, thanks for the diversion, it’s refreshing to see something current. Not much for me to respond to here, but I appreciate it. The forum's gotten pretty stale lately, so I’m hoping more people will follow your lead.In my fact-supported opinion, that is really a poor defense of Trump.
1. He put the tariff on to stop the trial of his fellow dictator; that is the ONLY reason. It just so happens that the trade surplus with Brazil puts America in the losing column.
2. Tariffs should NEVER be about what you claim. Tariffs should be narrow, not broad-based like Trump's (they ALWAYS fail), and tailored to solve a specific problem. It is obvious to all other than his enablers that Trump doesn't know what he is doing.."In the case of Brazil, raising tariffs may appear contradictory given the U.S. trade surplus, but Trump’s move could be interpreted as a broader strategy rooted in national sovereignty and reciprocity, not just raw economics."
From this perspective, the increase in tariffs isn't simply about Bolsonaro or Lula, it reflects concerns over censorship, democratic integrity, and the treatment of U.S. companies abroad."
I know you like to use facts, but when You use a conditional phrase like " could be", you are going into the hypothetical. You are very good at taking anything negative about Trump and turning into a positive and then expounding on it, to the point of overwhelming your reader's. You have missed your calling. You would have made a great press secretary for Trump.Yes, when I use phrases like "in my view" or "could be," it’s to provide context and show that I’m sharing a perspective or hypothesis. I make a point of using those words to clarify that what I’m expressing is my own interpretation. I believe I’m careful in understanding the full context of what someone is saying before forming my opinion. Sometimes I do defend certain things Trump says, but I always try to consider the complete context before sharing my thoughts.
I think my profession as a nurse exposed me to people from every kind of background. I had to learn how to navigate different forms of communication. Some patients weren’t articulate at all, while others were overly so. But at the end of the day, I was dealing with human beings, and I wanted to understand them, regardless of how they expressed themselves. I also wanted to be able to understand the context behind what they were saying, so I could respond appropriately and meet their needs in the best way possible.In political parlance, it's called a pivot and takes the reader in another direction. You call it a hypothesis; I call it a hypothetical. A hypothesis deals with data and predicts outcomes based on the data.
"I know you like to use facts, but when You use a conditional phrase like " could be", you are going into the hypothetical. You are very good at taking anything negative about Trump and turning into a positive and then expounding on it, to the point of overwhelming your reader's. You have missed your calling. You would have made a great press secretary for Trump. PeoplePower
Yes, when I use phrases like "in my view" or "could be," it’s to provide context and show that I’m sharing a perspective or hypothesis. I make a point of using those words to clarify that what I’m expressing is my own interpretation. I believe I’m careful in understanding the full context of what someone is saying before forming my opinion. Sometimes I do defend certain things Trump says, but I always try to consider the complete context before sharing my thoughts.: Sharlee
I share information from my perspective, and it's mostly grounded in facts. Naturally, as a human being, I also bring in my own thoughts and feelings. I used the word "hypothesis" because my views typically develop from data that points me toward a particular conclusion. I rarely form or express an opinion without first starting from a factual basis.
How can I say this-- My hypothesis is the starting idea based on facts, and my view is the result of exploring it further.
The words are very much related. A hypothesis is a specific idea or educated guess that you propose based on evidence. It's something you intend to test or explore. A hypothetical is broader; it refers to a situation, idea, or scenario that is imagined or assumed, often for the sake of argument or exploration. Did you know both come from the Greek root hypotithenai, meaning “to suppose.”
A hypothetical situation is often based on a hypothesis, an assumption you're considering, not yet proven or confirmed.
Hey, you always offer some great food for thought. I find your comments genuinely interesting—they add depth to the conversation and challenge me to think carefully about my response.
Here is what confounds us all with your defense of Trump and this Brazil thing is a glaring example of what PeoplePower just said.
It is a FACT that the ONLY reason Trump put the tariff on Brazil was to get them to drop their prosecution of his fellow dictator, Bolsonaro
Jul 9 - "“Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on free elections, and the fundamental free speech rights of Americans … starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all sectoral tariffs.” “I knew and dealt with former President Jair Bolsonaro, and respected him greatly … This trial should not be taking place. It is a witch hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!”.
I don't see anything in his words that speak to "broader strategies"; the meaning is clear.
Yet you write what in truth is a non-sequitur ""In the case of Brazil, raising tariffs may appear contradictory given the U.S. trade surplus, but Trump’s move could be interpreted as a broader strategy rooted in national sovereignty and reciprocity, not just raw economics."
I fail to see what you wrote has any bearing on what Trump actually said.
Thanks Sharlee,
What does recalibrating the global playing field mean?
The executive branch has been delegated some authority from Congress to raise tariffs in emergencies surrounding national security or of an economic sort.
\
So what is the broader strategy? Is it to attack Brazil in trade arrangements just because Trump does not care for Lula? I understand the need to use tariffs to deal with inequitable trade balances, but not for sheer political reasons in an attempt to control another country who voted in their present leader through democratic processes. Especially if there is a trade surplus with Brazil, so why are they being punished?
All of what you say flows ever so smoothly, but there is not evidence to support what you are saying. It is none of this administration’s business as to the political environment of another country, particularly one that has not posed any threat, neither economic nor in regards to national security.
while Trumps base sees this as economic nationalism, I see it as a one man vendetta against an foreign administration that he is against for ideological and personal reasons. I find that extremely disturbing and arrogant.
What evidence is there that Brazil treats America unfairly besides Trump say so? Maybe it would be more appropriate to determine WHY those platforms were adversely affected? I believe that the Trump explanation regarding platforms is just an excuse. Regardless, I don’t buy the any of the administrations mumbo jumbo when the increase in the tariff rate is so drastic.
Brazil is not the United States
“Judge Moraes of Brazil had blocked access to the platform, owned by Elon Musk, after it had refused to ban several profiles deemed by the government to be spreading misinformation about the 2022 Brazilian Presidential election.”
Could Brazil call that a threat to its national security? We threaten to deport people here in America for far less….Cred, Hey, thanks for your thoughtful response, truly, you raise sharp and necessary questions. I’ll start by acknowledging your point that my original comment may have come across as a bit too smooth, perhaps even lacking in hard evidence. That’s a fair critique. But I’d also point out that, when it comes to this specific issue, Trump’s approach to Brazil, tariffs, and broader global positioning, we’re operating in a space with few concrete facts available to the public. Much of what’s happening is opaque, and as a result, my earlier comment was necessarily more view-oriented. I tried to connect the dots using public information and patterns in Trump’s past actions, not present irrefutable data.
When I said “recalibrating the global playing field,” I was referring to what appears to be a shift in how the U.S. under Trump seeks to assert influence, not just through traditional diplomacy, but through bold economic signals that, while controversial, resonate with many Americans who feel past administrations tolerated unequal partnerships. Whether you or I agree with the method, I think it’s clear that Trump sees tariffs as leverage, not just against economic imbalances, but also as a tool to push back against governments who lean into censorship or ideologies that conflict with free expression, which is where Brazil enters the discussion.
I do see your concern that this might be personal, a vendetta, even. But I think there’s another way to view it. If the U.S. perceives that Brazil’s government is engaging in censorship that reflects a growing global trend, especially on platforms like X, Trump’s response may not be about punishing Brazil economically for its leader, but sending a message about protecting open discourse, even internationally. Whether that’s the right method or not is debatable, and I respect your skepticism. But I don’t think we can dismiss the strategic undercurrent entirely just because the motivations seem politically charged.
Finally, while I agree that Brazil has every right to define its own national security threats, it’s also fair for the U.S. to react when American platforms or interests are caught in the crossfire. The balance between respecting sovereignty and defending open platforms is delicate, and messy, no doubt. But I don’t think it’s arrogant to respond, it’s part of the ongoing struggle to define how nations interact in a world where speech, tech, and politics are deeply intertwined.
I appreciate this exchange; it’s the kind of dialogue that moves beyond headlines and into real questions of principle and policy.Credence, in the MAGA world, spreading mis and disinformation is a positive.
"While it's fair to criticize tariffs when used haphazardly or solely for personal vendettas," - And that is EXACTLY what Trump is doing - everybody knows it.
I know I have reported this before, but it bears repeating.
"FEMA’s response to Texas flood slowed by Noem’s cost controls"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/politics … flood-noemInternal DOJ messages bolster claim that Trump judicial nominee spoke of defying court orders
Another pristine Trump appointee - he lies just like Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/1 … s-00446225The best and the brightest are being fired. China is trying to hire them.
Cowpareing biden with Trump, is not wisdom, but foolishness. Both presidents have nothing in common.
Correct - Biden is thoughtful, detailed, and competent while Trump is the opposite knee-jerk, surface, and incompetent with a criminal record. Which would you rather have?
"Biden is thoughtful, detailed, and competent"
You have completely detached yourself from reality.
"Voters distrust Biden administration on president’s mental fitness
52% support investigating Biden advisors use of an autopen, including 27% of Democrats
Voters say they were aware of former President Joe Biden’s decline, and believe the administration lacked honesty and transparency about his mental fitness, with many wanting Congress to investigate the matter.
A new survey finds more than half, 52%, think it is important to investigate whether Biden advisors used an autopen without the president’s awareness, while 46% say it’s time to move on.
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer is pursuing investigations against former Biden administration staff for allegedly covering up Biden’s mental decline and using an autopen for executive actions.
Overall, 68% of voters believe the previous administration was dishonest about Biden’s condition, including 52% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans.I don't particularly care what voters "believe", that only counts in the election. I care about objective facts. Those facts prove that Biden was is thoughtful, detailed, and competent while Trump is none of those things.
One must laugh--- still depending Biden's cognitive state. Even though those close to him are being truthful about it.
And you keep ignoring Trump's obvious mental illness and decline. Interesting.
You have been very polite about not pointing out another posters obvious mental illness, but it seems like someone is trying to provoke you to get you banned. You gave me some good advice several months ago: just ignore him and walk away. I did not do so, unfortunately.
If only Trump's cognitive state would decline.
It is. He just covers it up with energetically bashing everybody. Biden was tired, and it showed. Trump is not tired but loony-tunes in spite of that.
You hardly noted and realized that 'old man' joe biden, was a puppet.
Trump. Trump, is human. He has his own faults. So does biden, and anyone else.
Compareing biden with Trump, is not wisdow. It is foolishness. Both presidents have nothing in common.
You have never made a more accurate comment.
BEHIND THE NUMBERS
The June jobs report showed better than expected job gains. That was all Trump and company, including those here, bothered to read. But not so fast.
It turns out that about 45% of that growth was from State jobs and 49$ was from the Healthcare sector. Healthcare was the driver for the March, April, and May reports as well. While the March and April reports showed growth in many sectors, the May and June reports had it limited to just two or three.
On the other hand, Manufacturing, a bell weather for where the economy is going, has declined in April, May, and June for a total of 15,000. Wholesale Trade was down in May as well. NOT GOOD.
On the other hand, trying to find a job once you have lost one is getting more difficult.
"That report also showed that job seekers are staying unemployed for roughly six months, and the share of unemployed workers who have been out of a job for 27 weeks or longer rose to 23.3%, edging closer to a three-year high, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows."
That, along with higher inflation showing up anecdotally, are signs the economy is stalling out.Hey, Willowarbor. I am starting to come around to your way of thinking. The more this Epstein thing goes south, with the deputy FBI director threatening to resign because Bondi accused him of leaking stuff to NewsNation or NewsMax, I forget which one, the more I am starting to think Trump was on that list.
Trump's own reversal in wanting the list published goes a long way to making me think that.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/11/politics … tein-filesWhy So Many Died in the Central Texas Floods: A Timeline and Assessment
Most of the essential facts are now available to draw a reasonable conclusion about why over 120 people are dead and more than 160 remain missing following the catastrophic Central Texas floods. The first question we must ask is: Should this disaster have been as devastating as it turned out to be?
The answer is a resounding no.
Responsibility lies at every level—federal, state, and local. Below is a timeline and analysis of what went wrong and why so many lives were unnecessarily lost.
Timeline and Analysis
Early Morning, July 3, 2025
The National Weather Service (NWS) issued a Hazard Outlook highlighting elevated flash flood risks across the Hill Country, including Kerr County.
12:26 a.m
.
The Weather Prediction Center (WPC) released a Mesoscale Precipitation Discussion (MPD), warning of rainfall rates of 2–3 inches per hour in Kerr County—clearly indicating life-threatening flash flood potential.
Around Noon
The NWS San Antonio office updated forecasts to predict 1–3 inches per hour, with isolated areas receiving as much as 5–7 inches.
1:18 p.m.
An official Flood Watch was issued for the area, effective through the morning of July 4. It was disseminated through standard channels: radio, social media, the NWS website, and automated alert systems.
Typically, a Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM) would directly contact local emergency management officials at this stage. However, due to staffing cuts under a federal buyout program, the WCM position had been vacated and not filled. No direct outreach was made to Kerr County officials.
Kerr County Emergency Response
There is no public evidence that Kerr County emergency management staff received, acknowledged, or acted upon any of the above warnings.
Around 6:30 p.m.
The San Antonio NWS office issued a Hydrologic Alert significantly elevating flood risk projections. Again, there is no indication that Kerr County authorities responded.
Broadcast Media
Local radio and TV stations repeatedly aired flood warnings throughout the day. Despite this, no county official—whether emergency services, the sheriff’s office, fire or police, the County Judge, or city and county managers—acted on or acknowledged the threat.
Role of NWS San Antonio
The absence of a WCM created a dangerous communications void. Although surge support was available from other offices, no one stepped in to ensure Kerr County was reached directly, compounding the failure.
Contributing Factors
1. No Warning System—Despite Repeated Attempts
Since the 2017 floods, Kerr County Commissioners had sought funding for sirens, river gauges, and cell towers. The county lacked the tax base to fund them independently.
2017 & 2018: Applied to the Texas Division of Emergency Management/FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program—both applications rejected. Reasons included the City of Kerrville pulling out and the absence of an approved hazard mitigation plan.
2019: A county report labeled the $1M flood-warning system—including gauges, sirens, barriers, and control platform—as “deferred.”
2021: Kerr County received $10.2M in federal American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds. Despite multiple discussions, the Commission declined to allocate funds for the warning system. Some residents and officials opposed the use of “Biden’s money,” and the opportunity was lost.
2. Political and Cultural Resistance
Community pushback played a key role in derailing siren projects. Objections centered on noise, aesthetics, and libertarian distrust of government systems.
One resident typified this sentiment: “If it’s bad enough, I’ll hear it from the neighbors.”
These voices—prioritizing personal comfort and ideology over public safety—overruled the voices of reason advocating for life-saving infrastructure.
3. Missed Opportunities in Real-Time Monitoring
Mo-Ranch began actively monitoring upstream river gauges and forecasts over 24 hours in advance and evacuated 70 campers and staff in time.
Camp La Junta received a phone call from a neighboring camp further upriver (likely Heart O' the Hills), then checked river gauges and moved campers into cabin rafters—saving everyone on-site.
Camp Mystic, tragically, had no such alert or monitoring system in place. Over two dozen died when floodwaters overwhelmed the camp at night.
4. Warning Fatigue and Public Complacency
Years of false alarms had numbed the local population. Even those who heard or saw flood warnings didn’t take them seriously.
This "cry wolf" effect contributed to widespread inaction, even when credible warnings were finally issued.
Conclusions
Federal responsibility: The Trump-era Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) buyout program eliminated key NWS personnel—specifically the Warning Coordination Meteorologist—crippling local-to-federal communication at a critical moment.
Local failure: Kerr County and City of Kerrville officials failed in their duties to monitor, assess, and act on widely available alerts.
Policy negligence: Repeated state and federal funding denials—combined with local political resistance—left the county without a robust warning system despite being in a known flood-prone area.
Complacency: Residents and some officials had grown desensitized to flood warnings after years of false alarms, resulting in delayed or nonexistent response.
Final Toll and the Hard Truth
At the time of this writing, 129 people are confirmed dead, with approximately 160 still missing. The loss of life is staggering—but it is also explainable and preventable.
This disaster was not an act of God. It was the result of:
- Federal budget cuts that removed key public safety roles
- Local and state failures to fund infrastructure
- Political obstinance and cultural resistance
- A community lulled into disbelief by past inaction
We owe it to the victims and their families to face these truths—and finally act.This is unbelievable!!
"FEMA removed dozens of Camp Mystic buildings from 100-year flood map before expansion, records show"
The initial waiver was in 2013, then again in 2019, and finally in 2020. And now over two dozen children and camp counselors are dead.
There needs to be a huge investigation into this to find out how many other children are at risk.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/12/us/texas … amp-mystic
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 6 weeks ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...