The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yeah I know there is hypocricy with Trump tweetstorms about Obama's Saudi visit and now Trump is doing hte same things but I just do not care about that. In the grand scheme of things with so many other stories worth so much more attention this is completely irrelevant to me.

I think that's kinda what Trump wants. He wants that to be your new normal, you just get beaten into the ground with so much ridiculousness that stuff like this gets glossed over.

After 8 years of "everything is Obama's fault", it's pretty good that both sides can see how the other half lives. Maybe this will help us get over this madness that our national politics has become. If Trump actually did that and doesn't do anything especially harmful policy-wise, maybe I'll even call him a success.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We don't have to rush to judgement either. Comey will be testifying under oath soon. Mueller is a pretty straight shooter from everything I've read (both sides seem to have a ton of respect for him) and will put out what he finds. People calling for impeachment are crazy. Let things play out.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are legitimate reasons to vote Trump. If you are wealthy and looking at a massive tax cut, voting in your own self-interest is expected. If you work or own stock in companies that create military supplies his Presidency is going to be a boast. Same goes for energy companies and banks with his push to deregulate the industry.

I can understand the belief that the reports are going too far. For instance, I don't think the Russians were hacking voting machines and I think the election stuff is all sour grapes from the left. Russia played a propaganda game to get the person they wanted elected. Countries do that all the time. Our CIA has a rich history of it.

On the other hand I don't know how someone can believe that there isn't something fishy going on. I mean Flynn was being paid a lot of money by a foreign government and was covering it up. There are a lot of communication between people on Trump's team and the Russian government. And if it was all on the up and up, they wouldn't have repeatedly lied about it or failed to disclose. Plus Trump did stand on stage during the campaign and request that the Russian government hack his opponent.

The truth of what happened probably falls somewhere in the middle. Shady dealings likely occurred (there is too much smoke) but it's not some elaborate plot by Trump and the Russians to steal elections and form some fascist regime as some on the left are crying. It's likely the Russians saw a good mark. Our country has been doing it for years across the globe.

I'm a Democrat and I'm with you on both of these posts. I would like the investigation to go forward as incognito as possible for a couple of months... and then see what we get out of it. Because what we're probably getting right now is that anyone who was even tangentially involved is on Code Red and shredding hard drives and burning down buildings to cover their tracks. At some point, wherever this leads (and it's probably not to Trump because I frankly think that all he's ever been is a guy who craves attention and love so badly he'll do whatever anyone tells him to do to get it), we'll get there but I don't know why it has to be tomorrow. These things take time.

[digamma]

Flynn to exercise 5th Amendment rights rather than testifying before Senate. That will probably make everything go away.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

Flynn to exercise 5th Amendment rights rather than testifying before Senate. That will probably make everything go away.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

Flynn to exercise 5th Amendment rights rather than testifying before Senate. That will probably make everything go away.

Joking aside, doesn't it make sense for him, since they didn't grant him immunity? I mean, it's not like at this point he has a reputation to protect, right?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Joking aside, doesn't it make sense for him, since they didn't grant him immunity? I mean, it's not like at this point he has a reputation to protect, right?

Well, I mean reports are Trump wants to rehire after this is done, so...

[JPhillips]

Even if Flynn's completely innocent regarding Russia, his Turkish ties are seemingly enough to send him to jail, so the fifth makes perfect sense.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm no fan of Trump/Flynn.

But taking the 5th here is a no brainer.

It is such a no brainer that I could make an argument that it would be malpractice for his attorney to advise him otherwise.

You don't talk without immunity. Period. Full stop.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

that's not in response to folks here so much as giddy liberals I see online saying that this "proves" that Flynn/Trump/Pence are guilty.

No, it proves no such thing.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

that's not in response to folks here so much as giddy liberals I see online saying that this "proves" that Flynn/Trump/Pence are guilty.

No, it proves no such thing.

One of the reasons liberals are giddy is that Flynn himself has said that if you want immunity then you probably committed a crime.

[Butter]

Isn't that the cornerstone of the blanket invasions of privacy that we've endured since 2001? "If you're not guilty, what's the problem?"

[molson]

It's the smart thing to do, and it's well within his rights, and it's be completely understandable if it were a private citizen, but it's too bad we don't have more public servants who are willing to put country before themselves. Especially an ex-military guy.

This is an extraordinary circumstance and a matter of national security. We ask people in the military to make sacrifices and put themselves at risk. It's what they sign up for. The ones who rise through the ranks and take positions in the high levels in government should, in theory, demonstrate those values and that willingness to put country first. Despite all of his mistakes, Flynn has a chance to redeem himself and help this investigation, but, again, he puts himself first. Flynn is a coward (and most likely a criminal.) I hope the government doesn't give him immunity because no bought testimony from him has any credibility.

Edit: He's also refusing to hand over subpoenaed documents. The Fifth Amendment doesn't protect him from that. (Edit: It would protect him under a limited set of circumstances, which is the theory he's going with - where the mere possession of, or existence of, the documents itself incriminates him. That's different than the documents providing evidence of illegal conduct, which wouldn't be a testimonial statement subject to Fifth Amendment protection.). But I doubt we'll see any contempt charges, so he can claim whatever he wants and show up or not show up and it doesn't matter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter

Isn't that the cornerstone of the blanket invasions of privacy that we've endured since 2001? "If you're not guilty, what's the problem?"

Some people justify it like that, but I think it's just a sliding scale. Everybody is willing to give up SOME liberty for security, it's just a matter of how much, and that can reasonably vary by person.

[JPhillips]

Pres. Trump says he never mentioned Israel supposedly in reference to Russia meeting after Netanyahu calls intel cooperation "terrific." pic.twitter.com/ssUpw5OT6C

— ABC News (@ABC) May 22, 2017

He never mentioned the word Israel.

Until he just did.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

"Making deals" - seriously, does anyone believe that he 'cut' a billion dollar deal on the spot? ... I'd imagine these things take months if not years to setup, that's obviously something unconnected to his visit which they've chosen to announce to make things look nice.

Sure, I'm just saying he's more of in his wheelhouse talking with foreign leaders about money and business than he is with almost anything else he does or tries to do as president. He's been doing business in Russia since before the U.S.S.R. imploded, and that necessarily involves forging and maintaining relationships with Russian government officials.

[stevew]

If you invoke the fifth, doesn't it apply to everything? Like you can't just pick and choose which questions you can actually answer?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

If you invoke the fifth, doesn't it apply to everything? Like you can't just pick and choose which questions you can actually answer?

Nope, it is on a question by question basis. But for the most part once someone takes the 5th, they do it for all subsequent questions.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Butter

Chief, please read digamma's point and understand one thing that many of us believe. The government is supposed to function this way. The party that is in power presents policies. The party that is in minority objects. The two sides are SUPPOSED to come to an agreement, sometimes a compromise, sometimes the party in power gets what it wants.

When one of the parties finds something particularly disagreeable to its constituents, I would expect them to fight it HARD. What changed sometime in the past 15 years, is that it became OK to just become outright obstructionist. It is not ok. But for me personally as a Democrat, it would be far worse to see some of these more extreme policies enacted. So do what you need to do. What should happen is that we go back to the table and compromise.

But now it has always become a zero-sum game. The GOP wants to push through as much regressive shit as they can as long as they have this control on 2 of the 3 branches, and to gain control of the third. That, IMO, would be disastrous. I'm good with the fight. Can't just rollover on this one until they are willing to play ball like it used to be played. Things got done then, beyond just proving a side right.

I'm real tired of politics the way the game is played now, but make no mistake that if this is what it takes to fight for the soul of the country, I'm up for it. Not going to roll over no matter how much people like JiMGa tell me that I'm going to roll over and I'm going to like it.

Butter, we have a very similar view of how we want government to work, even if the ideals we support don't entirely line up with each other (and for what it's worth, I am not a fan of Trump's health care plan or tax policy either).

I also agree with you that the more obstructionist view which has become pervasive is to the detriment of the country, as is the "get all of our stuff in while we can" mentality of the GOP. They are actually direct opposites and responses to each other.

My issue with today's politics is not that there are different viewpoints, including views that will never find a common middle ground. That is human nature, and our government was founded on taking those viewpoints and, as you say, compromising at a point which can at least somewhat satisfy those differing views.

My issue is that mass communication through the Internet has become so pervasive that each side has essentially become radicalized to their "team." Dems become more liberal, Republicans become more conservative. The two poles drift further apart, and the Venn diagram overlap between the two parties--where compromise as it was originally intended can happen--shrinks or becomes non-existent. Combine that with the self-identity people now attach to being on their "teams", and you end up believing everything on your side is virtuous and perfect and everyone on the other side is demonized, and all of their policies are evil incarnate. Social media and the incessant nature of our communicative online world now has stripped many of their ability (or at least their willingness) to consider differing viewpoints critically. They fear social ostracization if they say anything that goes against what their team advocates, even if that different viewpoint speaks more to their own value system.

My issue with politics isn't that one side or another is right or wrong. My issue is that we as a population no longer determine our own individual perspective on how things should be done (and we fool ourselves into believing we do). We wait to be told by our "superiors" on our team. Clinton, Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, Obama, Trump, Cruz, Romney, Ryan, Hannity. The first question many ask nowadays when they see some issue crop up with which they are not familiar is, who proposed it? Who backs it? And that is as far as they go.

I am a disenfranchised Republican (or more likely Independent to be if I ever get off my ass to re-register). My party has either gone nuts (racist Trumpites) or gone religious and super conservative and hypocritical in their fiscal solutions. But Dems support a system which in many ways is anathema to my value system. I see many things I like, but many things I simply can't stand--they go against everything I have experienced in my life. Like you with some of Trump's policies, I cannot support those policies.

So I am left to judge each issue as it comes up, and determine, against my own value system, what is the best way to handle things. And then be open to change if new thinking or evidence becomes available.

I don't see that from too many others, including most here at FOFC. I see the same crap I see on Facebook. Democrats, die! Republicans, evil!

Critical thinking is a lost art and the lack for it is tearing the country apart.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So I am left to judge each issue as it comes up, and determine, against my own value system, what is the best way to handle things. And then be open to change if new thinking or evidence becomes available.

I don't see that from too many others, including most here at FOFC. I see the same crap I see on Facebook. Democrats, die! Republicans, evil!

Area Man Suffers Tragic Injury After Patting Self on Back

[Brian Swartz]

I think we are more polarized, but I also think the views of things are genuinely farther apart and not just because of the internet or party identification. What conservatism was in the 80s and early 90s when I was one is dying. The move leftward on globalization, social issues, size of government, entitlements, etc. will continue, but for those who hold to those perspectives there is no compromising with the 'new order'. Some of the obstructionism is just obstructionism. A good deal of it is also 'we don't accept or make peace with ANYTHING those people stand for'. I still think they are correct on some of those issues, but the bottom line is that they are on the losing side of history barring a literal act of God, and we're in the middle of them kicking and screaming for all they are worth, some from very patriotic motivations. Change always threatens somebody, and the momentum towards a more prevalent federal role in the economy, away from a traditional understanding of what law is, towards more government intervention on the behalf of certain groups in completely unacceptable to a loud, sizable minority. I think it'll probably be a while until that group is small enough to be marginalized.

[digamma]

I believe our representatives are more polarized than the voting populous due to three or four decades of districting battles which leave us with very few truly contested districts and allow for a push to the extreme candidates. This happens nationally and on the state level, and while there are egregious examples on both sides (California state government, looking at you), the spoils go to the victors in this arena and since the early 90s the Republicans have been kicking the Democrats ass in these local elections, allowing them to generally set the districting rules.

Add to that a 24 hour news cycle with television media shaded to one side or the other and social media and we're able to create some pretty nice echo chambers.

That said, my Congressmen and Senators are fine, so please fix yours!

[molson]

Something new comes out 5:00 ET almost every day, with the New York Times and Washington Post taking turns. Such an exciting presidency!

Michael Flynn Misled Pentagon About His Russia Ties, Letter Says

"While seeking a renewal of his security clearance in early 2016, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn falsely told government investigators that he had only been compensated by 'U.S. companies' for his overseas travels — just two months after he took an all-expense paid trip to Moscow under a $45,000 contract funded by RT, the Russian government television network, according to excerpts from an internal Pentagon report released Monday by a top House Democrat.

The still-secret report also quoted Flynn as telling investigators that 'had not received any benefit from a foreign country' even though RT flew him and his son first class to Moscow and put them up at a five star hotel for the three day trip.

In addition, Flynn told investigators he had had only 'insubstantial contact' with foreign nationals. He failed to mention that he had sat next to Russian president Vladimir Putin at an RT dinner during his Moscow trip, according to the excerpts of the report released by Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee."

I'm not familiar with the relevant statutes here, and you always have to be careful to make sure conduct actually fits the elements of the statute and isn't just behavior we disprove of as a society. But I'd bet it's against the law to willfully make false statements in an application for a top security clearance.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Logan

Area Man Suffers Tragic Injury After Patting Self on Back

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you saw larry make the same joke at me yesterday.

Nice to see my truth makes people uncomfortabe.

[JPhillips]

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

I'm sure this will concern John McCain.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm sure this will concern John McCain.

Trump himself may very well be innocent in this, but his attempts to dictate and control the investigation is what's going to bring him down. I seriously question whether or not he understands that he can be guilty of obstruction even if he's innocent.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by whomario

Donald Trump budget: $800 billion in Medicaid cuts - CNNPolitics.com

Straight as a corkscrew.

I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2015

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump himself may very well be innocent in this, but his attempts to dictate and control the investigation is what's going to bring him down. I seriously question whether or not he understands that he can be guilty of obstruction even if he's innocent.

Yeah, I actually think he's probably innocent in actually doing something himself. He's just surrounded by so many shady people that it'll drag him into it.

The Flynn stuff looks bad but I think the Kushner stuff might end up being worse. Gorkav is a Russian spy who is a figurehead for a shady state-owned bank in Russia. Those dealings could spell a lot of trouble if they get unearthed.

[JPhillips]

Don't forget that the Trump family has spent years talking about all the Russian money they were getting. Trump is so caught up with Russian oligarch and gangsters that he'll probably have problems regardless of whether they can prove some quid pro quo with Putin.

And he did publicly ask Putin to hack his opponent.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And he did publicly ask Putin to hack his opponent.

How does this get left out of nearly all conversations about the "fake Russia story?"

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

How does this get left out of nearly all conversations about the "fake Russia story?"

Because he didnt. It is being spun that way,

Here is the statement:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Because he didnt. It is being spun that way,

Here is the statement:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Maybe you should read that quote over again.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Because he didnt. It is being spun that way,

Here is the statement:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

How do you think they would find these emails? They weren't in a bag at the park.

[digamma]

Policy interjection: the Trump budget being released tomorrow makes some aggressive budget assumptions that most administrations are probably guilty of in order to push policy. However, the Trump budget seems to double count these assumptions. See, the claim is that the Trump tax plan is revenue neutral. THe only way you get to that result is if you build in these growth assumptions. As a result, the budget doesn't include any loss of revenue due to tax cuts. That's one way to do it and you can quibble, but I think other administrations have followed this approach.

But, the Trump budget doesn't stop there. In getting to its deficit reduction plan, the Trump budget includes increased revenue from aggressive growth assumptions. If you're still with me, this is the rub. These growth assumptions have already been used to make the tax cuts revenue neutral.

So, if I'm thinking about this the right way, we end up with what appears to be double counting. We use increased revenue from growth assumptions to pay for the tax cuts, but then we use the same increased revenue from growth assumptions to reduce the deficit.

My buddy has a tweet storm about this which is a little more colorful than my simpleton summary.

[tarcone]

But he didnt tell them to hack her. If they already were, then it would be the natural progression. It is semantics, but it is the same thing you are saying.

He did not explicitly say "Russia, Hack HRC."

[PilotMan]

Mulvaney is already running his mouth about defending the SNAP cuts.

“If you’re on food stamps and you’re able bodied, we need you to go to work,” Mulvaney said. “If you’re on disability insurance … and you’re not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work.”

Before we get deep into the realm of 'you gotta work to get your bennies' land let's set the record straight:

Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) | Food and Nutrition Service

There's already programs in place to get people to work.

From the USDA's own site:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defau...AWD-Info13.pdf

"Most participants who can work, do work"

Also,

two pretty big rulings in SCOTUS. First, that fucking patent trolls can no longer cherry pick which court they file in and second the court ruled that 2 districts in NC were designed based on race.

Tomorrow, the CBO comes out with the new score on the revision to Trumpcare and the full report of the Trump-budget, when all the safety net, and Medicaid cuts hit the main news cycle.

Today though, we'll always have this:

hxxp://gizmodo.com/melania-swats-away-donalds-hand-in-latest-viral-misery-1795426910

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But he didnt tell them to hack her. If they already were, then it would be the natural progression. It is semantics, but it is the same thing you are saying.

He did not explicitly say "Russia, Hack HRC."

He told a foreign adversary to get their hands on 30,000 e-mails from our State Department. Using the word "hack" or not, that's a pretty fucked up thing to hope for as an American.

[tarcone]

My BIL is able bodied. He is in his early 30s. Former military. Worked on a base as a civilian in a cushy job. But is lazy. He is on 50% disability. Tried to get on 100% and was denied. So he went to school to get his GI Bill. He hasnt done anything with it.
He has also been married 3 times and has 4 kids by 3 different women.

He could do may things, but lives on my SIL.

Pisses me off.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He told a foreign adversary to get their hands on 30,000 e-mails from our State Department. Using the word "hack" or not, that's a pretty fucked up thing to hope for as an American.

Okay. But he did not tell them to hack her. And thats the wording that is fueling the fire of the liberals bellies.

[JPhillips]

If the real unemployment rate is 42% how is everyone supposed to find work?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Policy interjection: the Trump budget being released tomorrow makes some aggressive budget assumptions that most administrations are probably guilty of in order to push policy. However, the Trump budget seems to double count these assumptions. See, the claim is that the Trump tax plan is revenue neutral. THe only way you get to that result is if you build in these growth assumptions. As a result, the budget doesn't include any loss of revenue due to tax cuts. That's one way to do it and you can quibble, but I think other administrations have followed this approach.

But, the Trump budget doesn't stop there. In getting to its deficit reduction plan, the Trump budget includes increased revenue from aggressive growth assumptions. If you're still with me, this is the rub. These growth assumptions have already been used to make the tax cuts revenue neutral.

So, if I'm thinking about this the right way, we end up with what appears to be double counting. We use increased revenue from growth assumptions to pay for the tax cuts, but then we use the same increased revenue from growth assumptions to reduce the deficit.

My buddy has a tweet storm about this which is a little more colorful than my simpleton summary.

I believe the numbers they were using for this and the tax cuts use a 3% GDP growth factored in. Trump promised 4% during the campaign. That's also insane. They are either lying about the GDP growth to make the projections look better or have the economic understanding of a High School Junior.

Q1 saw 0.7% growth for comparison.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Okay. But he did not tell them to hack her. And thats the wording that is fueling the fire of the liberals bellies.

How else are they supposed to access 30,000 State Department e-mails without obtaining them illegally?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How else are they supposed to access 30,000 State Department e-mails without obtaining them illegally?

Well, HRC has a history of doing things that arent safe or secure. Maybe they just stumble across them because of her poor decision making or disregard for security?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Well, HRC has a history of doing things that arent safe or secure. Maybe they just stumble across them because of her poor decision making or disregard for security?

Come on. They aren't going to find a link to 30K emails while browsing on Stalin.com.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How else are they supposed to access 30,000 State Department e-mails without obtaining them illegally?

I think e point tarcone is trying to make is this.
Hacking is the illegal gaining of access.

Trump was saying, hey Russia if you have hacked hillary already ( like was the rumor at the time) I hope you find these emails while you are in there.

He wasn't telling them to breach security only look for this after you have already breached it.

That's a vague differentiation for sure,, but I think that's what he is trying to say.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Well, HRC has a history of doing things that arent safe or secure. Maybe they just stumble across them because of her poor decision making or disregard for security?

Even if that's what he meant (it's not), why would any American hope a foreign adversary would gain access to our State Department correspondence?

You and I know what he meant. Trump knows what he meant. Not sure why you want to put yourself through these mental gymnastics. Have a backbone and stand behind what he said or not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Trump was saying, hey Russia if you have hacked hillary already ( like was the rumor at the time) I hope you find these emails while you are in there.

He wasn't telling them to breach security only look for this after you have already breached it.

That's a vague differentiation for sure,, but I think that's what he is trying to say.

The DNC e-mails that were hacked have nothing to do with the 33,000 State Department e-mails he was hoping Russia could uncover.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

“If you’re on food stamps and you’re able bodied, we need you to go to work,” Mulvaney said. “If you’re on disability insurance … and you’re not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work.”

Guys like this make these stupid assumptions and it's probably because they have never had to struggle. Most of these politicians didn't come from a life where they had to live paycheck to paycheck. Most of them had mommy and daddy's help to get a leg up on life. That's what is upsetting.

My fiancee and I both work full time jobs.. But without the help we get from stamps, we would be scraping by with only pennies to save at the end of each month. We get 135 a month I think, for our little family of 3. It helps make it so that we don't have to live with absolutely no savings, which nobody can really afford. We only buy what we can afford and make one major luxury purchase every year, usually with the help of relatives at Christmas time. (We ask for money for Christmas, which we pool together and put toward that big purchase.) We have two cars that we bought used and take care of as well as we can afford to, and both are nearly completely paid off. We do everything we can to live responsibly and only allow ourselves 50 dollars or so a month as entertainment expenses.

From my perspective, we do enough to earn a little kick back. We work hard, we don't miss time, we take good care of our son and spend a lot of our time teaching him why it is important that he take learning seriously because we don't want him to be where we are in life. We make enough to pay our rent and our bills and buy our groceries and I pay for my own health insurance, but the idea that cutting things like food stamps and things like that is going to get people out working is just stupid. Some people are lazy asses and they will freeload as much as they can regardless.. Most people are like us, trying to make it. Sometimes you get a break and get ahead in life, but most of the time employers take advantage of hard workers and give them as much responsibility as they can without giving them anything extra in the way of pay. We have learned the hard way. Work ethic probably used to be worth something, but when it is as hard as it is to find reliable competent help that cares about the quality of work they do, you'd think people like her and I would be in better situations than we are. The reality is that promotions are rare, and generally they go to people with seniority with no regard for the quality of work they do. I've had one job my entire life where I was noticed for doing my usual good work, and in that job I got promoted twice within a year into a management position with talk about moving me even further up the ladder. Unfortunately I got laid off though, because I was the least experienced of the group when it came time to make cuts. I was the best worker, but that didn't matter. Being the best worker don't mean shit anymore from what I have seen.

So what it all comes down to for me personally is that people like us are being kicked back down the ladder that we are trying to climb when stuff like these cuts are made. We're busting our asses every day to climb out of that hole, but there is only so much we can do and every little bit of help we can get goes a long damn way. Our only hope is to ensure our son goes to school and isn't stuck where we are. Our parents couldn't help us (at all), and we came up in a time when college wasn't necessary for a good job. My dad never went to college and ended up making 6 figures and retiring in his early 50's. He and my mom didn't save money to help me out because when I was little it still wasn't necessary to have a diploma to get good work. They didn't foresee or make plans for a life that required college for their kids to be successful. Instead they bought a house that they could barely afford. Holly and I are putting a big chunk of our tax return in a savings account for my son every year to try and ensure he has a better opportunity than we did. Without the food stamps we couldn't afford to do that. We're worried as hell about these cuts.

[Butter]

Why are we still talking about Hillary? Who gives a shit about Hillary any more?

You know who? Trump fans, because Hillary is the only thing that makes him look maybe slightly less crooked by comparison.

But give it up, nobody cares about Hillary any more. I know you're dying for them to go back in and "lock her up", but maybe you could give a shit about, you know, your president who is completely in the pocket of one of our worst historical enemies and is actively trying to cover it up. As opposed to just having some lax security around some e-mails, which contain intelligence that according to your logic is just fine to speak out loud to those same people that were trying to hack in and find it out in the first fucking place.

I mean really, tarcone, these semantics you're talking about are not about getting a hummer in the Oval Office.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by tarcone

My BIL is able bodied. He is in his early 30s. Former military. Worked on a base as a civilian in a cushy job. But is lazy. He is on 50% disability. Tried to get on 100% and was denied. So he went to school to get his GI Bill. He hasnt done anything with it.
He has also been married 3 times and has 4 kids by 3 different women.

He could do may things, but lives on my SIL.

Pisses me off.

I think this is the real story as far as "entitlement" abuse. I deal with far more people on "disability" who are able to work but don't, than people who are on other government assistant that don't try. There needs to be more reform in the area of disability than food stamps/welfare.

If we're going with personal anecdotes, there's an annoying Trump family down the street. They're always talking about how the poor are taking their money and using free phones/cars/etc. Nevermind that neither works. The husband is on work comp but doesn't appear to have any actual injury. The wife is on disability, and doesn't work. Their little girl is the brattiest kid you've ever met. Their house is about $300k, they drive brand new trucks/SUVs, they have extremely nice clothes/Clemson season tickets/all the usual fake-bougie Southern person things. The wife's mom had some money and they're basically bleeding her dry in the woman's last years of life. They either don't notice or don't care that they're literally the people they hate.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Being the best worker don't mean shit anymore from what I have seen.

Preach.