A budget that is a nightmare for anyone concerned about the environment, medical care, the poor, immigrants and needless wars.

A budget that is a nightmare for anyone concerned about the environment, medical care, the poor, immigrants and needless wars.

Here's what Trump's budget proposes to cut
Trump's 'hard power budget' increases defense spending, cuts to State Dept, EPA
Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's federal budget would eliminate dozens of agencies and programs

RedShift | 16 maart 2017

We need more nukes! Nice, shiny, American nukes!

Dramsey | 16 maart 2017

My will we survive as a nation and a people without the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program?

Silver2K | 16 maart 2017

US Army Corps of Engineers: $1 billion, a 16.3% cut

I'm guessing nothing was learned from Katrina

Dramsey | 16 maart 2017

The New Orleans problems were not caused by underfunding the Corps of Engineers. The NYT has a nice article on their incompetence here:

In other news, I see Elon is benefitting directly from the current administration's cost-saving measures: SpaceX has won a $90 million contract to launch GPS satellites in 2018. The article in this morning's paper notes that such contracts have traditionally gone to the United Launch Alliance, a consortium of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, but the "current administration's emphasis on cost cutting" has led them to use private contractors, because they con often offer lower costs than traditional government contractors.

Silver2K | 16 maart 2017


You're right, but the feds brought the Corps in to fix problems around the country to avoid the disaster that happened in New Orleans.

How does this administration focus on the country's infrastructure when you cut their funding?

Silver2K | 16 maart 2017


As for Elon benefitting from Administration?

How many contracts did elon get under Obama?

stop giving credit where it's not due please.

Dramsey | 16 maart 2017


I see that the Corps of Engineers is responsible for "designing and building locks and dams", as well as flood control systems. They also provide 24% of our hydropower capacity, but all my greenie friends tell me that hydro dams are evil, so maybe that's not a good thing.

The Obama administration set the Corps 2017 budget at $4.62 billion. Apparently this was a 23% cut from what Congress appropriated:

"The request fits the pattern of the past few years in which the administration has proposed what congressional appropriators regard as unrealistically low spending levels for the Corps, which builds and maintains locks, dams, harbors and flood control infrastructure."

Funny, but I don't remember any progressive outrage about this at the time.

As for credit for the SpaceX thing, I'm just quoting Reuters, dude.

Al1 | 16 maart 2017

Elon pointed SpaceX could launch satellites much cheaper back in 2014. The price was pretty good and so was the timing as US space program dependence on Russia came under scrutiny in the wake of Russian invasion into Ukraine.

There is another area where dependence on Russia is way too risky. It is oil. Even with US oil production at peak US was importing too much of oil, including from Russia. Banning Russian oil would have been the single most effective weapon, which unfortunately could not be used, because we don't have it.

Anyway, regardless of what Reuters believes this started way before Trump.

lilbean | 16 maart 2017

Dramsey, just like there was no outrage when Obama had a travel ban and when he deported illegals.

Silver2K | 16 maart 2017


1. I'll kick your butt!
2. It wasn't as bad as Trump's bans


lilbean | 16 maart 2017

Ok, silver. Here's my butt (..|..) :-)

RedShift | 16 maart 2017

Good god. Take it outside two. And keep this thread rated PG

RedShift | 16 maart 2017

On a more serious note - can any of you conservatives tell me if you agree with 'we need more nukes'? If so, why?

Al1 | 16 maart 2017

I am not really supportive of the idea, but they say aging nukes may create temptation from others, especially China to try and reach parity.

China has apparently created (with the help of Russians) rockets that can reach America. Russia has also recently upgraded its military capabilities, nukes in first place.

Al1 | 16 maart 2017

Increased spending may or may not mean more of the same old. It may mean replacement of aging with new and more capable.

Like I said I am not really supportive of the idea. I'd rather spend that money on infrastructure, such as smart grid, alternative energy generation, electric car charging.

Mike83 | 16 maart 2017

A general needs a $5000 Toilet and a gold plated monkey wretch. Yes more money. YeeHaw.

NKYTA | 16 maart 2017

A|1, "infrastructure" meant roads, bridges, et al. back in the day.

I'm dodging potholes, at 70mph on Hwy 101 in the Bay Area. Rim damaging potholes due to our recent plethora of rain is a bit unnerving.

Could the airports be upgraded? Sure. That too.

Where will the $$ savings come from? Some of the discretionary cuts are tiny. Hmm.

SCCRENDO | 16 maart 2017

@Al1. We have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. Do you reckon that a nation will complain if they get destroyed with an old nuke when we could have used a new one???

Also debatable is whether the military is truly depleted

Bighorn | 16 maart 2017

At least we have the arts.

SCCRENDO | 16 maart 2017

If you call watching Trump's circus performance the arts yes I see a big increase.
For those who care about medical research and science see the following

RedShift | 16 maart 2017

We spend more than next 8 nations combined. And some conservatives seem to think it's not enough.

I think we know what's wrong with our country.

Sorry, I know I am supposed to not be that harsh on folks who 'won', but this is madness. Also, why is there a line item in the budget for the wall? Mexico was supposed to pay for that.

The roads in Fremont are so ghastly I think they might be as horrible as any third world rural roads. What's this obsession with feeling 'safe'? We will NEVER be 100% safe. Sometimes you have to take that risk as part of the price you pay for living in the society. You go out, you have a slight chance of getting killed by cars, guns, lightening, terrorism. It's one part of the equation.

I love how some conservatives like to cite deaths by slips and falls when making the argument against guns and deaths they cause. Should we say the same about when spending on things that ultimately will not make us any safer? More nukes and more military spending are not going to make us safer. I am for increased vetting, less refugees (not zero, as Trumpians would have them) and increased pressure on those who are the real baddies : Saudis and Pakis. No, we don't want to do common sense things about safety, though. Instead chase after a few countries who haven't sent terrorists here. Spend more on nukes. MADNESS!

How about focusing on making our lives better?

rxlawdude | 17 maart 2017

"... increased pressure on those who are the real baddies : Saudis and Pakis."


David N | 18 maart 2017

I feel the title of the thread is a bit misleading.
1. I think it's pretty safe to say that 99% of us are all concerned about the issues you listed in your title.
2. The title gives the impression that those programs are going to be decimated. I'm not a plotical know it all, just an average guy, but budgets have been cut in the past and everyone's survived just fine.
3. What wrong with trying to control costs, tightening the belt we used to say, trim some wasted fat.
4. Perhaps we as citizens can step in and help care for for less fortunate. In days of old when there were no government social programs we took care of each other. Religious groups were ( and still are) a huge part of tending to those in need.
5. There are indeed citizens who need help, no question there.
6. I'm reminded of President Kennedys famous call to us, Ask not what your country can do for you,but what can you do for your country.

Let's all pitch in and help where needed. We'll be a better country, we'll all be better people.

RedShift | 18 maart 2017


First, we aren't 'tightening the belt', if you have been paying attention to the budget.

Two, this is not 'trimming the fat', our environment, our health care, our infrastructure is not 'fat'.

Lastly, your proposal to replace government programs with religious ounces is offensive to an Atheist like me, and I suspect that is why you guys voted for Trump. You see an opening. Sorry, you can call me paranoid or crazy, but the undercurrent is definitely there.

RedShift | 18 maart 2017

Ones, not ounces

SCCRENDO | 18 maart 2017

Sorry man. Nothing misleading. Believing the propaganda from the Whitehouse is misleading.
1. It is is safe to say that many in this country are not concerned about the issues listed. Many on this forum like you perhaps yourself dont even care about science and the environment.
2. The EPA, Education, NIH, CDC and Medicaid are being decimated.
3. Budgets have been cut in the past. I agree. But you put it forward as a good thing. How about cutting your own food, and health budget to pay for a highly paid security to prevent your kids from visiting in a safe neighborhood. Let's take away public school and provide vouchers for schools that force you to deny God.
4. Perhaps you and your church can step up and house some refugees, pay medical costs for those who lose their insurance. Perhaps you can open your own abortion clinics for those denied access. How about funding toilets for transgender individuals denied access. Perhaps you can support all the coal miners whose coal mining jobs are not coming back and are not being retrained for clean energy jobs.
5. More citizens will need help by the time these clowns are done.
6. I guess 50 years from now we will be quoting President Trump. "Ask not what you need from your country but what you can do to enrich the President and his cronies at your expense."

Yes let's pinch in. Let's impeach this Russian lackey. Let's vote out all these useless Republicans at the earliest opportunity. And lets make America Great again.