Nov 20, 2022
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from Canada
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from Brazil
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Germany
Howard Lutnick has revealed Donald Trump’s true plans.
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s billionaire buddy turned commerce secretary, has confirmed that the administration was simply lying to MAGA supporters about not touching Social Security and Medicare.
“Back in October … I flew down to Texas, got Elon Musk to [set up DOGE], and here was our agreement: that Elon was gonna cut a trillion dollars of waste fraud and abuse,” Lutnick told Jesse Waters of Fox News Wednesday night. “We have almost $4 trillion of entitlements, and no one’s ever looked at it before. You know Social Security is wrong, you know Medicaid and Medicare are wrong. So he’s gonna cut a trillion and we’re gonna get rid of all these tax scams that hammer against America and we’re gonna raise a trillion dollars of revenue.”
Just last week, President Trump promised that “Social Security won’t be touched, other than if there’s fraud or something. It’s going to be strengthened. Medicare, Medicaid—none of that stuff is going to be touched.”
Fast forward a week, and he endorsed House Republicans’ budget plan, which is expected to make an $880 billion cut to Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
This is a long cry from the party that was telling its voters—many of whom are elderly conservatives on government benefits—that they wouldn’t lay a finger on the programs they need most.
I say this as someone who once attended CPAC and went through a lot of life as a self-identified Milton Friedman fangirl: You have very clearly only read about postwar US social policies from a conservative perspective. I'm not even saying you have to change your mind, but you need to have the guts to read about things like LBJ's policies and the welfare state from other sources, especially black sources, and not just Thomas Sowell, to form a truly robust opinion. You owe it to yourself.
I read almost everything. LBJ was an avid racist, used the "N"-word liberally and regularly, and basically hated black people - but he was a Democratic pragmatist and understood that the Democrat party needed more black votes in order to gain a lock on power. LBJ therefore dramatically increased the entitlement state in order to buy black votes. Much like Biden is trying to do with the youth demographic in his illegal student loan forgiveness (both Pelosi and the Supreme court has reaffirmed the obvious: THIS IS ILLEGAL & NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH). But the Democrats don't care about what is legal or illegal, they only care about buying votes and almost every entitlement program (not all but almost all) is designed to buy votes, and does little if anything to address the problems. For example, LBJ's Great Society was supposed to (was advertised to) eliminate poverty in a generation. TEN TRILLION TAX DOLLARS LATER, has poverty been eliminated? No, of course not. It's only gotten worse. BUT, 90-95% of black people now vote Democrat. The Democrats are doing the same thing on our borders, opening them up wide -- with the obvious rationale in buying buy votes and a future lock on power. Get off the Democrat reservation. Voting Democrat not only costs you more of your hard-earned money (assuming you earn money), it also solves nothing and ultimately, causes MORE DEPENDENCY and more poverty. That's all it does. #JEXIT
The payment card for asylum seekers is meant to streamline the distribution of benefits. But recipients in Hamburg and a small city in Thuri
Human Activity Displayed in Zoo
Zoos are great for studying animal behavior. The beings who live there watch the show. A scheme overcharging some to make entrance free for others means it’s not those behind fences getting scrutinized. Recognize behavioral patterns such as never recognizing behavioral patterns. Those allegedly on exhibit look outward and wonder what those gawky upright creatures are thinking.
Neither workers nor furry friends are being treated like good neighbors. The Buffalo Zoo provides an inadvertent look at failing to grasp outcomes. Their program creating complimentary admission sounds nice until realizing the price hike is paid for by those who, well, pay for tickets. A benefits card also doubles as a zoo pass if you fretted the definition hadn’t been stretched enough.
Why spend on anything? Free is much cheaper. There can’t possibly be a catch. That little bit about how anything is funded is an avaricious conspiracy promoted by heartless capitalists who insist upon payment for provided goods. Have the compassionate courage to think something can be made to cost as much as shoplifting. It just takes enough faith to defy sense.
I hate to bust up the fun of seeing giraffes’ antics gratis, but a wealth transfer isn’t going to ease the process. Charging more for admittance means more money unless fewer prospective visitors hit the turnstiles. Thinking incentives exist is a bunch of free-market mumbo jumbo. At least, it better be.
A ripoff spurs smirking amongst accomplices. Spot them on campaign signs. The newest type of entitlement means it’s time for a particularly smug style of self-righteousness from sanctimonious politicians who are for some reason involved in decisions regarding an animal enclosure. If it’s run as poorly as government, the zoo’s dwellers are in trouble.
People who think you’re not generous enough are preening about how indigent children will finally be able to see a zebra in person. In prototypical governmental fashion, those with collective urges make it more difficult for whippersnappers with parents who pay bills.
Getting punished for paying sums up human conduct. Scientists observing patterns shake their heads at endless tiresome patterns. Making just enough over the poverty line means punishment, so don’t knock yourself out working for some promotion.
Can you afford to see other species? Entering the Buffalo Zoo will run an adult who makes too much money 30 dollars. It’ll be over a hundred bucks for a family of four, which is a steep price even in the Bidenomics era. Hungry otters shouldn’t have to deal with shrinkflation.
It took me a whole seven seconds, but I came up with a way to help children see animals other than squirrels. Start with a lower ticket price. Offer patrons the chance to donate to an admission stockpile for the less fortunate. There: voluntary help keeps the beast park accessible instead of ironically putting attendance out of reach.
Animals are on the dole. It’s not their fault. Like just about every other area institution, the zoo is already subsidized by taxpayers. The refusal to distinguish between what’s worthwhile and whether involuntary contributions should be used for support is liberalism’s core.
If you really enjoy a cultural institution, feel free to give freely. You certainly wouldn’t make an enriching shed’s future precarious by draining the economy so messianic dolts who won elections can decide who’s worthy of bestowment.
A zoo simply couldn’t start a GoFundMe for expenses: the monkeys would spend gifts on toy cars and chicken fingers. Forget cutting out the middle monkey. The only option is apparently to drive up costs for suckers who work hard enough to not qualify for handouts.
Guilt is the government’s main currency. A one for the price of two deal may seem like a bit of a ripoff. But that’s only because you don’t care about ramen consumers. The problem is that everyone’s eating college snacks for dinner.
Democrats love the underprivileged so much that they they create more of them. Givers away of money belonging to others can’t figure out why things like a zoo trip are unaffordable. It must be corporate greed.
Eggs are a luxury. Forget seeing animals frolic regardless of whether or not they hatch. Prices have run amok like a stampeding buffalo herd because of the same sort of mentality that concludes you can create a benefit through compulsion. Every single maneuver to make things inexpensive cheapens results. Oh, and they make things expensive.
Democrats are so compassionate that they have to force donations. The pushy part refuses to comprehend assisting voluntarily. They’re capable of conceiving of helping others unlike those residing in the penned exhibits, which means there’s no excuse. Conditioning to believe daft things is not in one’s nature.
Beings who live more than 10 miles from a Starbucks learn about cause and effect in a harsh way. Menagerie proprietors are about to discover a similar lesson. Consequences are more dire in the wild. But earners are getting eaten alive.
The entry redistribution scheme will work great as long as ticket-buyers keep doing so. Can the mayor issue an executive order? The county needs a law compelling wildlife enthusiasts to keep purchasing, which only sounds silly until you realize that wouldn’t be that much different from coercing taxpayers.
Everything works out except for seeing animals. Zoo goons just made the place unaffordable for paying customers so they can preen about how much they care. And attendance is about to plummet, which means the program will be nowhere near financed. A philosophical and practical disaster sums up the beliefs of humans who don’t understand their own intrinsic traits.
Animals aren’t just cuter, funnier, and cooler than most humans: when it comes to those overseeing their displays, they’re more sensible, too. Zoology allies who aren’t logical about zoos showed a lack of comprehension regarding their society. Those who have an excuse to not grasp abstract convepts will look at the empty spaces in front of their enclosures and wonder where their pals went. The difference between zoo residents and liberals is that the former learn.
Far-right judges are crafting a theory that would empower courts to strike down trillions of dollars in federal spending.
From the February 9, 2023 analysis:
What does this skirmish over a small financial agency [the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] have to do with hundreds of billions of dollars in annual entitlement spending? The answer: everything. In her concurrence, [Judge Edith] Jones took pains to clarify that her reasoning was not limited to the CFPB. Jones announced that all “appropriations to the executive must be temporally bound.” If Congress does not put a “time limit” on funding, it gives the executive branch too much discretion over spending. Under the Constitution, she claimed, the executive must “come ‘cap in hand’ to the legislature at regular intervals” to ensure that it remains “dependent” and “accountable.” Judge [Cory] Wilson approvingly cited this idea in his own opinion formally invalidating the CFPB, highlighting the “egregious” nature of the agency’s “perpetual funding feature.”
...
Does this principle derive from the Constitution? Of course not. The appropriations clause at question simply states that all money drawn from the treasury must be “in consequence of appropriations made by law.” There is no textual requirement that Congress reauthorize appropriations periodically. In fact, Article 1 of the Constitution suggests the exact opposite: It bars Congress from appropriating money to the Army “for a longer term than two years,” implying that other kinds of long-term appropriations are permissible. If they weren’t, then why would Army appropriations need an explicit time limit?
