It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Obama raises debt by $8T - Republicans call him a traitor.

Trump raises debt by $7T - Republicans say 'no big deal, MAGA!!'





posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Not a single Republican? Quit lying LOL. So all of the registered Republican voters who voted for him in the primaries don't count?


OK you win... ONE Senator (Sessions) and 12 Reps...BIG numbers...



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

LOL I think you mean:

4 now-former US Senators (including Sessions, since he's in the Trump admin now)
15 current or former members of the US House of Representatives
6 Former Executive Branch officials (including Bat Buchanan)
3 current State Governors
1 current territorial Governor (Northern Mariana Islands)
3 former Governors (including Palin & Jan Brewer)
49 current State legislators
19 former State legislators
15 current or former Mayors and county leaders
25 prominent business figures, including the powerbroker Carl Icahn & Dana White of the UFC

And that's not even the halfway point in the article. It goes on to list a lot of celebs, religious leaders, and more who endorsed Trump during the primaries. Just admit it, you you were dramatically wrong. You said "not a single republican supported him until he won the nomination", yet I've summarized more than 130 prominent ones who did before he won the nomination.

This is easily provable stuff so I don't know why you keep doubling down on it. Oh, that's right! It's to deflect so people won't talk about why the Republican Party constantly claimed they wanted a balanced budget amendment in their party platforms, yet haven't made the slightest effort to actually pass one now that they control both chambers of Congress, the Presidency, and the majority of governorships & State legislatures.
edit on 14-2-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Xtrozero

LOL I think you mean:



Retired and non-important...What I'm talking about is current Washington big players...ya 27% voted for him and a string of who ever supported him, but the people who mattered was 1 out of 100 and 12 out of 435... Come on, if you feel the need for some win in this then take it, but Trump was not backed until he took the nomination and then it was not by desire.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

gender reassignment surgery can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and can take months if not years to recover from. its not fair to sign up for a 4 year hitch if you planning on being unable to report for duty for a year or two after elective surgery. now if they want to serve post surgery or if the promise to wait till they out for surgery that sounds ok to me.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

1. You're wrong about the costs. From the following article (HERE):

Sex change surgery is expensive. The cost for male to female reassignment is $7,000 to $24,000. The cost for female to male reassignment can exceed $50,000.


2. Here are some actual facts about how much per year is spent on transgender medical issues (from this Forbes article). If you can provide better numbers, then please feel free to do so.:

What medical costs and disruption do transgender individuals cause in the military? ...
$8.4 million out of an estimated Defense Department expense of $50 billion. That’s approximately 0.017%


Using private health insurance claims, the cost of gender-related care for trans service members would be $2.4 to $8.4 million annually, out of Defense Department healthcare expenditures of $49.3 billion in 2014


For argument’s sake, let’s increase all of those potential numbers and say that all 7000 trans service members will seek transition care that interferes with their ability to serve. Let’s say that “transition” costs $40,000 per person. That’s $280 million. Still out of a Defense Department healthcare estimate of $50 billion for a percentage of 0.56% and remember, I grossly inflated all of those numbers and the percentage is still miniscule. The actual scientific study’s highest estimate comes to 0.017%


3. Here's another detailed article that compares the actual stats for transgender soldier expenses and compares it to the military's costs for Viagra and other male infertility products (HERE). It shows the military costs for transgender medical issues t o have 2 separate estimated price ranges; from $2.4 million to $8.4 million per year and from $4.2 million to $5.6 million in 2015. Now compare those figures to the costs of yearly erectile dysfunction expenditures:

This post and others referred to a Feb. 13, 2015, Military Times analysis of Defense Health Agency data that showed in 2014, the Pentagon spent $84.24 million on 1.18 million prescriptions for eight different erectile dysfunction drugs like Cialis and Levitra. That accounts for the comparison being 10 times higher than the RAND Corp.’s high-end estimate of $8.2 million.

Yes, the military currently spends at least 10 times more per year on erectile dysfunction prescriptions than on the highest yearly estimates of actual transgender reassignment surgeries.

4. As you saw in the OP of this thread, this budget proposal is asking for an increase of $195 billion over 2 years. That's more than enough money to pay for all of those Viagra prescriptions, gender reassignment surgeries, and still afford our wasteful empire of bases and pork-barrel projects.

5. Don't forget that transgender citizens are still tax payers, voters, employees, etc. I think it's incredibly telling that people have no problem taking their tax money and using it for "non-LGBT medical issues", but suddenly balk at allocating that tax money towards LGBT medical issues.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did you even read the article you posted?

“In keeping with another Trump campaign promise, the budget provides for $200 billion in federal funds intended to spur $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investments with state, local and private partners over the next 10 years - an ambitious program that will have to be approved by Congress.“

“Beyond social programs, the plan calls for deep cuts in non-military spending that the White House said would lower the federal budget deficit by more than $3 trillion over 10 years.”

Both of the above are from what you posted, not sure it sounds all that bad really

edit on 17-2-2018 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Let's use monopoly money, because monopoly money.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I have don’t really have a problem with spending money on health care for anyone serving in the military.

But I do think comparing erectile dysfunction and a “sex change” is apples and oranges

One is voluntary and one is a health problem.




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join