Trump Vowed Not To Run $400 Billion Deficits. Instead He’ll Run A $1 Trillion One.

[heyitsmeallen]

Hypocrite in Chief.  There is literally a tweet or comment of his that goes against his every action as president. 

 

Quote

In the first budget cycle fully under their control, Trump and the Republican-run Congress are likely to run a deficit that will top $1 trillion, some two-and-a-half times as big as the one Trump had complained about at his Sept. 30, 2015, rally in Keene, New Hampshire.

And given how sharply the just-passed tax cuts will reduce revenue in the coming years, those $1 trillion annual deficits could well extend through Trump’s remaining three-to-seven years in office.

“He tried to make it seem that he could cut taxes, raise spending and eliminate deficits all at the same time, to make it seem like he’s a miracle worker,” said Collender, a longtime former congressional budget committee staffer. “It’s impossible. People who believed him really don’t understand how things work.”

 

[freakingeek]

12 minutes ago, heyitsmeallen said:

Hypocrite in Chief.  There is literally a tweet or comment of his that goes against his every action as president. 

 

 

Oh but according to him and his flock of sheep, "he's doing a TREMENDOUS job!!" What a numbskull.

[Mythos27]

1 hour ago, ben4titans said:

 

He IS doing a tremendous job. I expect him to tackle deficits and debt in the future. If not, he will hear criticism from his base. 

No he won't you people are sheep and will bend over backwards to rationalize whatever he does.

[Little Earl]

1 hour ago, Mythos27 said:

No he won't you people are sheep and will bend over backwards to rationalize whatever he does.

Now there is a hypocritical response.    We just spent 8 year listening to you libtards rationalizing away everything Obama did.

[Starkiller]

Trump lied. Nothing new...

[Mythos27]

13 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

Now there is a hypocritical response.    We just spent 8 year listening to you libtards rationalizing away everything Obama did.

Wrong. Many of us criticized his use of drone strikes, expansions of government surveillance, and continuation of the Patriot act and Bush tax cuts. Try that B.S. non-denial denial somewhere else. You probably liked most of these things though.

[Mythos27]

1 hour ago, ben4titans said:

Not true. I was adamantly against his Syrian air strike, and I was proven correct on that. I am firmly against his Amnesty proposal. I am firmly against his debt and deficits. I am against Gitmo. I am against his cozying up to Israel. I am endorse very little of his current foreign policy. Among other things. 

 

The thing is, you guys are irrationally against him, so much so that you praise little rocket man's sister. Therefore, you push the other side to support him almost unconditionally. You cannot own both sides of the teeter totter. 

You may be "against" those things but when push comes to shove, you won't hold him accountable for any of it and give him a total pass. It's not irrational to oppose someone who is constantly pushing policies that are half-thought out and bad for the country. What's irrational is to support him unconditionally just because you believe some people are irrationally against him, which is essentially what you admit to doing in this post. His base has spoken: He could shoot someone in the middle of times square and his poll numbers would likely rise. If you're serious about holding him accountable for policy positions you disagree with then be ready for frustration because your side, "the base" won't make him feel any pressure and as such, he'll keep doing terrible shit.To be clear though, I too disagree with most of what you posted. 

[Mythos27]

2 minutes ago, ben4titans said:

 

I agree, regarding those who support him unconditionally. I was just saying you can't really mock them and then oppose everything he does. 

 

Also, his base is no different than Obama's base. Obama could no wrong in their eyes. Standard operating procedure for most administrations. Most people operate on confirmation bias and aren't helped with not being able to process cognitive dissonance. Actually Dave Rubin has a great interview with Scott Adams regarding cognitive dissonance and Trump's election. You should check it out. About 30 minutes long.

Stop making me agree with you. Seriously though, I agree. Blind political allegiance is harmful to democracy and plenty of people were a part of Obama's cult of personality. It was problematic because he definitely deserved to be criticized at times and when people like Cornell West tried to hold him accountable, people jumped down their throats. Irrational bases aren't going anywhere though so I'm unsure how we work past it to reach meaningful dialogue at this point. Believe me, If Trump started pushing for Universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, and free college, I'd stop "opposing" him in a heart beat.

[Little Earl]

4 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

 Believe me, If Trump started pushing for Universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, and free college, I'd stop "opposing" him in a heart beat.

Gee, why stop with that?    We should offer everyone free homes, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, utilities, and drugs.    Oh, and don't forget free money with universal income.

[Mythos27]

58 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

Gee, why stop with that?    We should offer everyone free homes, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, utilities, and drugs.    Oh, and don't forget free money with universal income.

And this is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy. Conservatives are so busy focusing on who gets what that they don't care whether the policy is good or actually helps people. Never mind the fact that people who aren't saddled with student loan debt would benefit us all because they could contribute more to the economy. Never mind the fact that the current health care system, sucks at caring for people in a cost-efficient manner and that drug companies get to run rough-shod over the rest of us. Who cares that big pharma ensures that Americans pay twice as much for the same drugs to the point that we alone account for 42% of the pharmaceutical companies' profits over a 10 year period http://truecostofhealthcare.org/the_pharmaceutical_industry/. The real problem is that dat dur gubmint is giving some homeless guy $500 dollars to take care of basic human needs. Now that's the real crime.

 

Honestly, I get that some liberals literally blame the rich for all their problems and while that's wrong-headed I can at least understand how they came to that conclusion. How the republicans and conservatives came to understanding that corporations can do no wrong and poor people with no money and no power are the real enemy is incomprehensible. Whose more likely to directly cause you and your family pain, some starving 4 person family in South Bronx or a dickhead like Martin Shkreli deciding to jack up the price of life-saving medications by 5,000%+? Now who do you spend more time railing against and worrying about?

[IsntLifeFunny]

5 hours ago, ben4titans said:

Fair criticism, I'll allow it.

You’re the Kyle of OT. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, Little Earl said:

Gee, why stop with that?    We should offer everyone free homes, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, utilities, and drugs.    Oh, and don't forget free money with universal income.

The 1.5 trillion handout would have went a long way towards universal healthcare, infrastructure upgrades, some debt forgiveness for college students who were sold a bullshit bill of goods...etc. stopping the war on drugs would have also left more money in the coffers. Instead we just gave a handout to the rich and the middle class has little to show for it. Of course the Paul Ryan’s of the world like to proclaim a success when he was a debt hawk for 8 years while touting the $1.50 a week raise for a school secretary. Hey, she can pay for a Costco membership! Hooray! Idiots. 

[OzTitan]

1 hour ago, Little Earl said:

Gee, why stop with that?    We should offer everyone free homes, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, utilities, and drugs.    Oh, and don't forget free money with universal income.

I don't see why it needs to be all or nothing. A competent country and Government can pick a few high impact programs and not go all out stupid like that.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Little Earl said:

Gee, why stop with that?    We should offer everyone free homes, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, utilities, and drugs.    Oh, and don't forget free money with universal income.

Golly gee, I can do this too! Instead of free college, you should get into thousands of dollars of debt to the US government to get an education. You should be unable to afford housing and should accept minimum wage or part-time work--actually, you should work for "experience" instead of wages--work is a privilege! If you are poor, it's the government that should control what you eat! 

 

After all, we want to build a better society right?  

[Mythos27]

3 hours ago, OzTitan said:

I don't see why it needs to be all or nothing. A competent country and Government can pick a few high impact programs and not go all out stupid like that.

It's the only effective way to straw-man the position.