Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey

[redwood66]

I have a simple question. When I donated money to my son's school district, they sent me an itemized report of how it was spent. The same with Melbourne Art Gallery.
That was all. Be it donations or taxes, I never ever got an itemized report of how my money was spent.
Same with the government. How can we discuss their spending, if we do not even know their budget? At.least I do not. Perhaps if we do, we can talk about government spending? Take military budget. Everyone says it is extreme. I would like to know another issue, how many jobs does it create? Is there outsourcing? Are we donating to other countries and supporting useless regimes? Things like this. I suspect there are some parasites who we do not need to support (but support, at the expense of own people), but at the same time, figires are not published. So we can not talk about "expenses".

We can talk about expenses because it is public information if you care to look or ask for it. All government agencies waste money.

Every year at the end of the fiscal year there is a scramble to spend the rest of the money they are given for their budget because they did not use it. Depending on the agency it could be millions or billions. They buy things they do not really need because if they do not use the money their budget will be reduced for the next fiscal allotment.

Have you ever been to a government auction? Pallets stacked with never used items, vehicles with little miles because it was time to get new ones, all with original purchase information because that is part of the accountability so we can see how much was really spent. Items sold for pennies that cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands.

Hiring consultants at 10X what it would cost staff to do the same thing. I don't by into the argument that the government should subsidize businesses by hiring them to do what staff could do. There is a certain percentage of work that is hired out with this idea but it should not be at 10X the staff cost. Negotiate a better deal. Government contracts should not be a gravy train. That goes for all contracts - military, environmental, healthcare, etc.

Those are things I have seen with my own eyes.

Then there is the fraud in all programs. Take care of that before you add new programs.

Subsidies. I am against the government subsidizing any industry be it energy or farming or whatever. If an industry cannot survive on its own it should fail. Because continued subsidizing leads to the gravy train mentality discussed above.

Grants for things that local areas should be paying for themselves.

There are some doozies here and it is equally spread across party lines.
https://www.cagw.org/

 

[t-c]

We can talk about expenses because it is public information if you care to look or ask for it. All government agencies waste money.

Every year at the end of the fiscal year there is a scramble to spend the rest of the money they are given for their budget because they did not use it. Depending on the agency it could be millions or billions. They buy things they do not really need because if they do not use the money their budget will be reduced for the next fiscal allotment.

Have you ever been to a government auction? Pallets stacked with never used items, vehicles with little miles because it was time to get new ones, all with original purchase information because that is part of the accountability so we can see how much was really spent. Items sold for pennies that cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands.

Hiring consultants at 10X what it would cost staff to do the same thing. I don't by into the argument that the government should subsidize businesses by hiring them to do what staff could do. There is a certain percentage of work that is hired out with this idea but it should not be at 10X the staff cost. Negotiate a better deal. Government contracts should not be a gravy train. That goes for all contracts - military, environmental, healthcare, etc.

Those are things I have seen with my own eyes.

Then there is the fraud in all programs. Take care of that before you add new programs.

Subsidies. I am against the government subsidizing any industry be it energy or farming or whatever. If an industry cannot survive on its own it should fail. Because continued subsidizing leads to the gravy train mentality discussed above.

Grants for things that local areas should be paying for themselves.

Would love to see you numbers on this -- specially the ones that show Democrats waste more than Republicans, because what your wrote above doesn't seem to make a distinction between the two parties, but you have posted previously that it is the Democrats that are such egregious wasters that the country can't afford to have them in power.

 

[redwood66]

Would love to see you numbers on this -- specially the ones that show Democrats waste more than Republicans, because what your wrote above doesn't seem to make a distinction between the two parties, but you have posted previously that it is the Democrats that are such egregious wasters that the country can't afford to have them in power.

I am not making a distinction between the two and I said as much. But the dems are more likely to spend on feel good programs without reining in the other waste.

 

[Calliecake]

We can talk about expenses because it is public information if you care to look or ask for it. All government agencies waste money.

Every year at the end of the fiscal year there is a scramble to spend the rest of the money they are given for their budget because they did not use it. Depending on the agency it could be millions or billions. They buy things they do not really need because if they do not use the money their budget will be reduced for the next fiscal allotment.

Have you ever been to a government auction? Pallets stacked with never used items, vehicles with little miles because it was time to get new ones, all with original purchase information because that is part of the accountability so we can see how much was really spent. Items sold for pennies that cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands.

Hiring consultants at 10X what it would cost staff to do the same thing. I don't by into the argument that the government should subsidize businesses by hiring them to do what staff could do. There is a certain percentage of work that is hired out with this idea but it should not be at 10X the staff cost. Negotiate a better deal. Government contracts should not be a gravy train. That goes for all contracts - military, environmental, healthcare, etc.

Those are things I have seen with my own eyes.

Then there is the fraud in all programs. Take care of that before you add new programs.

Subsidies. I am against the government subsidizing any industry be it energy or farming or whatever. If an industry cannot survive on its own it should fail. Because continued subsidizing leads to the gravy train mentality discussed above.

Grants for things that local areas should be paying for themselves.

There are some doozies here and it is equally spread across party lines.
https://www.cagw.org/

Red, The items listed above that are considered waste (spending money left over in budgets at the end of the year, selling vehicles used for company business at very low cost, etc) also happen in Corporate America. This isn't just a government issue.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Actually the big social programs have been passed by Dems--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Drug insurance program was passed by George Bush, which was a surprise move on the Republicans part. (or maybe the Dems were in power in either the house or senate.)

The democrats look to push social programs. Look at the schools-free lunch-free breakfast, affirmative action, school loans-never ending. Block Grants for everything.

But the best for me is how staunchly they stand up for a woman right to choose. She must control her own body. It is her right. She is mature enough to make this decision.

But, the Gov't or her insurance must pay for her birth control pills. They should be free and paid for by the Gov. Child birth the same now. Medicaid pays for that. People on Medicaid in my state pay from $1 -3, but our liberals insist it should be free.

Of course values can change. We use to of one mind in some things. This is no longer the case. So we will continue to have a divide. And constantly telling people they are wrong leads to dysfunction in lives and Gov't.

Annette

 

[t-c]

I am not making a distinction between the two and I said as much. But the dems are more likely to spend on feel good programs without reining in the other waste.

Okay, so not debt (Repubs generate more), not waste (can't differentiate between the two), but actually the "feel-good programs" that make you say that we cannot afford to have Dems back in power. You should have said so in the first place.

What programs are you specifically against?

 

[redwood66]

Red, The items listed above that are considered waste (spending money left over in budgets at the end of the year, selling vehicles used for company business at very low cost, etc) also happen in Corporate America. This isn't just a government issue.

I am not giving my earned $ directly to corporate America because they demand it of me. And if anyone is running a business this way by buying things they don't need just to spend $ then that is ridiculous. Do you run your household that way?

 

[redwood66]

Okay, so not debt (Repubs generate more), not waste (can't differentiate between the two), but actually the "feel-good programs" that make you say that we cannot afford to have Dems back in power. You should have said so in the first place.

What programs are you specifically against?

Why don't you make some lists and do some research yourself? I think you get the idea on my end. If you are fine with everything being run the way it is then good for you. I am not and have listed a few of my reasons.

 

[Calliecake]

I am not giving my earned $ directly to corporate America because they demand it of me. And if anyone is running a business this way by buying things they don't need just to spend $ then that is ridiculous. Do you run your household that way?

No I don't run my household that way but you would seriously be amazed at how things are done in Corporate America. My husband and I are fiscally responsible when it comes to our money. We have never had a balance on a credit card the entire time we have been married and we have worked closely with a financial planner for well over 20 years.

 

[redwood66]

No I don't run my household that way but you would seriously be amazed at how things are done in Corporate America. My husband and I are fiscally responsible when it comes to our money. We have never had a balance on a credit card the entire time we have been married and we have worked closely with a financial planner for well over 20 years.

I am glad to hear that and everyone should be so responsible. We have a right to demand responsibility in how the government spends money that we the taxpayers give them. Corporate America is responsible to shareholders or owners and if they are fine with what I think is irresponsibility then that is on them.

 

[t-c]

Why don't you make some lists and do some research yourself? I think you get the idea on my end. If you are fine with everything being run the way it is then good for you. I am not and have listed a few of my reasons.

The reasons you listed changed a couple of times (debt, waste, then programs) so I was asking for more detail and clarity. If you're not willing or able to provide a list of wasteful programs started by Democrats, I can't provide it for you -- I have a different view of government, afterall. But perhaps I can generalize that because Democrats tend to champion programs that benefit the poor and minority, that those are the programs you are against.

 

[redwood66]

The reasons you listed changed a couple of times (debt, waste, then programs) so I was asking for more detail and clarity. If you're not willing or able to provide a list of wasteful programs started by Democrats, I can't provide it for you -- I have a different view of government, afterall. But perhaps I can generalize that because Democrats tend to champion programs that benefit the poor and minority, that those are the programs you are against.

I am for those programs if they are run in a manner that actually helps only the truly poor and unable. With no special consideration to minorities specifically. Don't we want to help all equally?

So you are of the opinion that it all runs smoothly? You have no issues with government other than Trump is the president? Why don't you provide some detail and clarity on your views?

 

[Dancing Fire]

The reasons you listed changed a couple of times (debt, waste, then programs) so I was asking for more detail and clarity. If you're not willing or able to provide a list of wasteful programs started by Democrats, I can't provide it for you -- I have a different view of government, afterall. But perhaps I can generalize that because Democrats tend to champion programs that benefit the poor and minority, that those are the programs you are against.

Really??...then why under Obama we have so many millions of Americans living in poverty? I'll say it a million times..."social programs is not a road to prosperity"

 

[MollyMalone]

Returning to the designated topic of this thread... I was startled to hear Trump say yesterday that he might announce his pick for the permanent position of FBI Director by Friday; a "fast" decision is possible because those being interviewed are well known, "have been vetted over their lifetime, essentially."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKBN1881YJ
Good idea to rely on previous vetting & not bother with any in-depth, renewed scrutiny; that MO played out sooooo well in the case of Michael Flynn

Here's the roster of 11 identified candidates that Reuters compiled & posted last night:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-candidates-factbox-idUSKBN1882Y9
Sessions and Rosenstein reportedly interviewed 7 people yesterday: Alice Fisher, Alan Lee, Acting FBI Director Adam McCabe, Senator John Cornyn, Frances Townsend, Mike Rogers, and Michael Garcia. Based on what I've heard about him & been able to see for myself, I think Michael Garcia (a former US Attorney, now on NY's highest state court) would be a great choice. But it's hard for me to imagine that he's chomping at the bit to assume the position, or that Trump would choose him.

 

[Calliecake]

He wants to find a replacement for Comey assigned quickly.

If you listen and believe the Sunday morning news programs, Trump is considering firing some of his cabinet members, possibly Bannon, Preibus, and Spicer. Of course all the problems with his administration are always someone else's. Everyone knows Trump isn't the problem LOL.

 

[t-c]

Really??...then why under Obama we have so many millions of Americans living in poverty? I'll say it a million times..."social programs is not a road to prosperity"

Because there are people like you in government.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Because there are people like you in government.

If I was POTUS I can guarantee you there wouldn't be so many people living in poverty. Thanks to the liberal policies of the past 8 yrs. we now have more people living in poverty since the Great Depression .....Again, social programs does not solve poverty it'll only prolong poverty. Getting more Americans back to work is the only solution.

 

[t-c]

If I was POTUS I can guarantee you there wouldn't be so many people living in poverty. Thanks to the liberal policies of the past 8 yrs. we now have more people living in poverty since the Great Depression .....Again, social programs does not solve poverty it'll only prolong poverty.

Yeah, they would all be dead. But sure, humor me. Give me details on how you will solve poverty.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Yeah, they would all be dead. But sure, humor me. Give me details on how you will solve poverty.

A good start would be If Trump can bring millions of jobs back into the U.S...More jobs means more people will be off social programs which also will bring more tax $$$ into The U.S. Treasury.

 

[redwood66]

Yeah, they would all be dead. But sure, humor me. Give me details on how you will solve poverty.

You ask others to give lots of details but provide none yourself on your ideas. Why don't you join in with yours instead of just dogging others to explain themselves?

 

[t-c]

I am for those programs if they are run in a manner that actually helps only the truly poor and unable. With no special consideration to minorities specifically. Don't we want to help all equally?

So you are of the opinion that it all runs smoothly? You have no issues with government other than Trump is the president? Why don't you provide some detail and clarity on your views?

Where did you get the idea that I think it all runs smoothly and that I have no issues with government other than Trump? I'm well aware of Obama's policy shortcomings.

You want details? Here are programs that I would like:

• Universal health care - get rid of the insurance middle man. Administrative costs are a disproportionate part of US healthcare cost and are higher in the US than in countries with nationalized health care. This will also remove the cost of providing health insurance for businesses. Having healthcare decoupled from jobs will give workers power to move jobs perhaps resulting in higher wages. Allow the government to negotiate drug prices.
  
• Retirement benefits - I would shore up social security by increasing or removing the income contribution limit. Expand 401K benefits to anyone who wants to participate.
  
• Low-cost education and free job (re)training - increase financial support of state colleges and universities so tuition costs are low; most increases in tuition are because of drastic cuts in funding. Introduce an apprenticeship track for those not interested in going to college. Free job retraining for those whose industry has become obsolete - make unemployment benefits contingent on participating in a retraining program.
  
• Welfare support - housing, counseling, child care, contingent on participating in a retraining program.
  
• Family leave, child care - all these will also enable those on welfare to continue working.
  
• Increase funding for research and support innovation - innovation is a sign of a healthy economy. New industries will create jobs.
  
• Support the EPA and National Parks - everyone benefits from clean air, water, having sanctuaries.
• Infrastructure spending - roads, rails, bridges, dams, airports have been neglected for too long. Infrastructure spending will create jobs. Improve public transportation to reduce the pressure to own a car. This will also help the poor who can't afford to buy a car so they have a way to get to work.

Those are what I can come up with off the top of my head. And yes, I will pay for this with tax increases on individual and businesses (remove loopholes). There is data that say tax increases and increased GDP are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the largest growth tend to coincide with a higher taxes. I would also simplify the tax code so that people don't need to file (I think this is a Trump idea).

You ask others to give lots of details but provide none yourself on your ideas. Why don't you join in with yours instead of just dogging others to explain themselves?

Have some patience. My computer is unusually slow today.

 

[AGBF]

If you listen and believe the Sunday morning news programs, Trump is considering firing some of his cabinet members, possibly Bannon, Preibus, and Spicer.

Technically none of those three are cabinet members. They might be referred to as "kitchen cabinet" members, however. That is a term that has been used since Andrew Jackson was president to refer to an informal group of presidential advisors. The Cabinet is a formal term. The Cabinet was established in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution to provide a source of key advisors to the President. Today, the Cabinet includes the Vice President and 15 executive departments. Here's a primer on the departments, in order of their succession to the Presidency. Here are the Cabinet positions:

Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General (Department of Justice)
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

AGBF

 

[redwood66]

Where did you get the idea that I think it all runs smoothly and that I have no issues with government other than Trump? I'm well aware of Obama's policy shortcomings.

You want details? Here are programs that I would like:

• Universal health care - get rid of the insurance middle man. Administrative costs are a disproportionate part of US healthcare cost and are higher in the US than in countries with nationalized health care. This will also remove the cost of providing health insurance for businesses. Having healthcare decoupled from jobs will give workers power to move jobs perhaps resulting in higher wages. Allow the government to negotiate drug prices.
  
• Retirement benefits - I would shore up social security by increasing or removing the income contribution limit. Expand 401K benefits to anyone who wants to participate.
  
• Low-cost education and free job (re)training - increase financial support of state colleges and universities so tuition costs are low; most increases in tuition are because of drastic cuts in funding. Introduce an apprenticeship track for those not interested in going to college. Free job retraining for those whose industry has become obsolete - make unemployment benefits contingent on participating in a retraining program.
  
• Welfare support - housing, counseling, child care, contingent on participating in a retraining program.
  
• Family leave, child care - all these will also enable those on welfare to continue working.
  
• Increase funding for research and support innovation - innovation is a sign of a healthy economy. New industries will create jobs.
  
• Support the EPA and National Parks - everyone benefits from clean air, water, having sanctuaries.
• Infrastructure spending - roads, rails, bridges, dams, airports have been neglected for too long. Infrastructure spending will create jobs. Improve public transportation to reduce the pressure to own a car. This will also help the poor who can't afford to buy a car so they have a way to get to work.

Those are what I can come up with off the top of my head. And yes, I will pay for this with tax increases on individual and businesses (remove loopholes). There is data that say tax increases and increased GDP are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the largest growth tend to coincide with a higher taxes. I would also simplify the tax code so that people don't need to file (I think this is a Trump idea).

Thanks for posting this. My issues aren't with Obama specifically but the entire bureaucracy of government.

You have a lot of spending in that list that increased taxes and tax reform won't cover. Government cannot run efficiently now and more entitlements won't be any better. Sure for some, but I see no entitlement reform in your list or requirements for qualifying for them. How would this all be paid for? How much taxes without write-offs are you willing to pay? Who has to pay these increased taxes, the middle class? How do businesses afford to expand or pay people more with exorbitant taxes that removal of healthcare premiums won't cover?

Why does more research need to be government funded? Innovation works much better if government is not in the way trying to control it, or providing grants with no obligation for ROI. Why does public transportation all need to be government funded? My city has a privately owned bus system that is thriving. Uber and Lyft are an innovations and people thinking out of the box. But the government and unions don't like that.

I can get on board with infrastructure spending because the decay is evident all over the country. But the contracts need to be localized as best they can to help the communities where the work is being done.

The tax code should be much simpler so lawyers and CPAs are not needed to figure them out.

I guess it boils down to the fact I don't trust the government with the money they get now and surely don't want to provide more opportunity for waste and fraud.

We have surely gotten off the rails of the original OP on this thread. Sorry Deb.

 

[partgypsy]

I just wanted to mention, that universal healthcare coverage for all citizens when implemented, is actually LESS expensive (for both consumers, hospitals and the overall economy) than the current system. So that is cost neutral or even cost effective change.
Removing the income limit will actually bring more money into social security.
As far as education, that will mean more spending, but compared to how much the current admin wants to spend on increases in defense, a drop in the bucket.
EPA, national parks: funding for those is already in current budgets and they provide amazing returns for what they cost. Defunding them is penny-wise, pound foolish.
European and other countries who invested in research have benefited from that investment, including Germany after WWII. http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/germany-innovation.html
We are going to be left behind if we do not invest in education and research in this country.

 

[redwood66]

Thanks for your thoughts partgypsy.

More money spent on education than most other countries but there are still too many who can't read, write or finish high school, which is already free. I fail to see how more money will help that except increase already ballooning salaries of administrators. EPA regulations are crippling which is why it is known as the Employment Prevention Agency. Just because you are against overreach of a government agency does not equate that you want dirty water or air. That is a democrat spin to cause outrage on the left. National parks are wonderful and should be funded but the federal government claiming even more land to prevent anyone from using it for any purpose is not necessary.

 

[t-c]

Thanks for your thoughts partgypsy.

More money spent on education than most other countries but there are still too many who can't read, write or finish high school, which is already free. I fail to see how more money will help that except increase already ballooning salaries of administrators. EPA regulations are crippling which is why it is known as the Employment Prevention Agency. Just because you are against overreach of a government agency does not equate that you want dirty water or air. That is a democrat spin to cause outrage on the left. National parks are wonderful and should be funded but the federal government claiming even more land to prevent anyone from using it for any purpose is not necessary.

Many (most) of those programs have high initial cost, but result in savings in the long run. Universal healthcare is one: when people can see a doctor regularly or before health issues become serious the population becomes healthier and healthcare becomes cheaper.

Welfare programs should be holistic, not just handing out money but giving people opportunity to get work and keep it (through education, job placement, by providing childcare, reproductive planning, transportation, housing, healthcare, etc...). This provides the best chance to break the cycle of dependency and poverty.

Research and innovation is expensive, risky, and takes a long time to come good. Most companies driven by profit don't want to take that on (notice that pharmas only make drugs for conditions that can generate money for them). When companies produce novel ideas, they demand exclusivity (and rightly so). So really, the government or academia funded by the government is in the best position to take on that risk and and share new knowledge, which drive innovation and therefore job creation.

With regards to EPA regulations, there are countless examples of corporations being initially against regulations (seatbelts, emissions, fuel economy) that turn out not to be such a hardship.

 

[ABKIS]

He is a danger because he is a Republican?

Out of everything in that post...that's the one thing you focused on?

Well...ok then.

Edited to add: I find it quite interesting what people will latch on to when it comes to the president. But I get it. He doesn't care to understand any fact that do not align perfectly with his point of view so why would anyone still defending him do things differently.

 

[Tekate]

Doesn't the government sell seized property and cars? I know they sell property that goes to foreclosure with Fannie Mae.

As to scrambling at the end of the year, I have never seen this when I was married to my first husband who was a federal worker.. but I do know that at IBM we did that, every year we scrambled to spend all of our budget, because if we didn't next year we we allotted less. I recognize that the government isn't a business (its a non profit).. but Trump wants to run the government like a business.

https://www.usa.gov/auctions-and-sales#item-36607

We can talk about expenses because it is public information if you care to look or ask for it. All government agencies waste money.

Every year at the end of the fiscal year there is a scramble to spend the rest of the money they are given for their budget because they did not use it. Depending on the agency it could be millions or billions. They buy things they do not really need because if they do not use the money their budget will be reduced for the next fiscal allotment.

Have you ever been to a government auction? Pallets stacked with never used items, vehicles with little miles because it was time to get new ones, all with original purchase information because that is part of the accountability so we can see how much was really spent. Items sold for pennies that cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands.

Hiring consultants at 10X what it would cost staff to do the same thing. I don't by into the argument that the government should subsidize businesses by hiring them to do what staff could do. There is a certain percentage of work that is hired out with this idea but it should not be at 10X the staff cost. Negotiate a better deal. Government contracts should not be a gravy train. That goes for all contracts - military, environmental, healthcare, etc.

Those are things I have seen with my own eyes.

Then there is the fraud in all programs. Take care of that before you add new programs.

Subsidies. I am against the government subsidizing any industry be it energy or farming or whatever. If an industry cannot survive on its own it should fail. Because continued subsidizing leads to the gravy train mentality discussed above.

Grants for things that local areas should be paying for themselves.

There are some doozies here and it is equally spread across party lines.
https://www.cagw.org/

 

[Tekate]

We do help people equally..

I am for those programs if they are run in a manner that actually helps only the truly poor and unable. With no special consideration to minorities specifically. Don't we want to help all equally?

So you are of the opinion that it all runs smoothly? You have no issues with government other than Trump is the president? Why don't you provide some detail and clarity on your views?

 

[Arkteia]

I am not making a distinction between the two and I said as much. But the dems are more likely to spend on feel good programs without reining in the other waste.

Redwood, these days, these are not "feel-good programs".

Yesterday we were driving past I-5, the major highway running along West Coast, from CA to BC. And my son (for the first time) saw the tent house under the bridge. He asked who lived there, and my husband said, "homeless".

And then my 13-year old said an amazing thing.

"Orphans," - he said. ""Society's orphans".

I doubt he understood it himself.

Most of people living under that bridge are mentally ill...

Deinstitutionalization was a good idea, but it failed badly. Especially when it affected people with developmental disabilities. State hospitals were not the best facilities, but at least people were washed daily, fed (not too badly), given medications, had libraries, and had no access to drugs.

Then almost overnight, these people, many of whom had been living like this for 20 years, ended up on the street. (Or in halfway houses, and then on the street).

The next step was jail. In fact, the system is like communicating vessels, the more live under the bridge, the fewer in jails, and vise versa. And jails are not like mental care facilities.

What I see in our state are efforts of the Mayor of Seattle - a Democrat! - to somehow resolve the housing crisis and move people from under the bridge into the apartments. He is very proactive.

The "feel-good" programs, the way I see it, are geared to prevent people from living under the bridge.