Emissions Law

The government is built to have checks and balances in place. Right now, we have a president skirting those checks and balances. I’d like to see him take a bit more pragmatic approach versus what is happening right now. He’s proven we have waste and fraud. Now, let’s build a plan to combat it.

Instead of emasculating other world leaders, maybe come up with, and communicate to everyone, what the peace plan is.

Instead of blindly throwing tariffs around, which will hurt consumers, let’s use our leverage where it makes sense.

I was hopeful when Trump took office but I’ve become very concerned with how this administration is addressing and “fixing” issues. Slow down…you don’t fix year of issues overnight.

^Well said.

I appreciate the efforts to uncover waste/fraud, but doing that while simultaneously saying the government needs MORE money (as Trump’s administration has said with needs to increase spending limits) is about as assanine as it gets.

Our country needs a truly conservative movement in the legislative and executive branches. That’s not what we are seeing and Trump is not a conservative. I couldn’t really care less about 90% of the social issues either, most politicans on both sides just throw crap out related to those topics to hook the emotional people in society.

I guess I trust this man over the previous. Spending money is a given, its HOW you spend it… wisely or foolishly. The foolish are out. If someone in your family was burning $100 bills in the fire pit, would you slowly wean them off, going to $50’s then $20’s and finally $1’s or would you say knock it off now ?

Matt Moen wrote:

I was hopeful when Trump took office but I’ve become very concerned with how this administration is addressing and “fixing” issues. Slow down…you don’t fix year of issues overnight.

Generations of issues.

big_g wrote:

I guess I trust this man over the previous. Spending money is a given, its HOW you spend it… wisely or foolishly. The foolish are out. If someone in your family was burning $100 bills in the fire pit, would you slowly wean them off, going to $50’s then $20’s and finally $1’s or would you say knock it off now ?

Great comparison. Exactly the case. Step #1, put out the fire!

big_g wrote:

I guess I trust this man over the previous. Spending money is a given, its HOW you spend it… wisely or foolishly. The foolish are out. If someone in your family was burning $100 bills in the fire pit, would you slowly wean them off, going to $50’s then $20’s and finally $1’s or would you say knock it off now ?

If someone in your family maxxed out credit cards and was in a financial bind nearing bankruptcy… but realized they needed to change their ways and cut out the $7 coffees each morning, would that mean they should go take out a loan on a sports car?

Musk and Doge are the $7 coffees. Trump’s spending proposals and history of running up the debt at an alarming rate are the sports car.

He’s not a conservative.

big_g wrote:

I guess I trust this man over the previous. Spending money is a given, its HOW you spend it… wisely or foolishly. The foolish are out. If someone in your family was burning YOUR $100 bills in the fire pit, would you slowly wean them off, going to $50’s then $20’s and finally $1’s or would you say knock it off now ?

*missed a key word.

You can do with your money as you wish – don’t burn mine – I do that well enough!

So, were your drinking or not before your post last night at 11:00?

From the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan but leaning conservative public policy organization:

– President Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new ten-year borrowing during his full term in office, or $4.8 trillion excluding the CARES Act and other COVID relief.
– President Biden, in his first three years and five months in office, approved $4.3 trillion of new ten-year borrowing, or $2.2 trillion excluding the American Rescue Plan.
– President Trump approved $8.8 trillion of gross new borrowing and $443 billion of deficit reduction during his full presidential term.
– President Biden has so far approved $6.2 trillion of gross new borrowing and $1.9 trillion of deficit reduction.

We can’t cut the size of the federal government fast enough. I sure hope he doesn’t slow down on that. We’d be fine with the federal government ending up about half the size it was when trump took office. It will be painful in the short term, they told us that. But it absolutely necessary for the long term of our country.

I am glad to hear they plan to start cutting DOD budget soon too.

Stop spending money on Ukraine and other countries and get our country in order. Plenty to fix and plenty to cut.

Our tax dollars are being mostly wasted. We should all be pleased with what is happening right now regardless of political party.

There’s no way we avert financial ruin without pain. Lets face the pain together and get it over with.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

We can’t cut the size of the federal government fast enough. I sure hope he doesn’t slow down on that. We’d be fine with the federal government ending up about half the size it was when trump took office. It will be painful in the short term, they told us that. But it absolutely necessary for the long term of our country.

I am glad to hear they plan to start cutting DOD budget soon too.

Stop spending money on Ukraine and other countries and get our country in order. Plenty to fix and plenty to cut.

Our tax dollars are being mostly wasted. We should all be pleased with what is happening right now regardless of political party.

I agree, but only if it is CUT.

What people keep missing is that cutting from one place and spending it someplace else or spending even MORE someplace else is a step backwards.

Maybe it was all a misunderstanding, Trump won’t want the debt limit extended again, and he didn’t mean what he said previously?

buckybadger wrote:

Maybe it was all a misunderstanding, Trump won’t want the debt limit extended again, and he didn’t mean what he said previously?

For the short term we will have to increase the debt limit simply because of how much interest is accruing. Hopefully that will be short lived with cuts and the money being wasted that can now be shifted to pay down the debt so no further increases will be required.

I think I’m commenting on the correct thread? Haven’t read through 100% of the comments but in regard to Russia. Those of you that think Trump is going about it all wrong with Ukraine and Russia, please read the history of the relationship (specifically agreements made) between the Soviet Union/Russia and NATO starting in about 1990. Then, come up with a different scenario to stop the Russia/Ukraine war that doesn’t escalate into WW3. Do I like us being friendly to Putin? Absolutely not. Can I think of a solution that doesn’t involve capitulating to Putin at least little? Nope. And to those that think Putin invaded Ukraine simply because he wanted Ukraine are completely ignoring the affect NATO’s expansion eastward has had on not just Putin, but Russia as a whole.
The first several paragraphs in this link is a good start to understanding what has taken place over that last 35 years.
NATO expansion

Most instead of reading and understanding will just put a Ukrainian flag up and stand with them because its So much easier.

Here are a couple of screenshots from what Zelensky out on X an hour ago.

He mentions security guarantees. I don’t see that happening but we will see.

I still think Zelensky was out of line when at the Oval Office and I still don’t think Trump and Vance embarrassed us on the world stage.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_4681.png
   

2. 

   IMG_4680.png
   

z-man is way out of his league. As are most of the dems/libs. They enjoyed play time and fake titles for 4 years. Now cutesy time is over and serious people are in charge trying to right the ship.

suzuki wrote:

There’s no way we avert financial ruin without pain. Lets face the pain together and get it over with.

The problem is they are doing it the expense of quite a few people who don’t deserve it. I know a few federal workers who, through no fault of their own, have become scapegoats for the whole DOGE movement. There is a way to cut the federal workforce but not the way it is currently being done.

Also, I mentioned this in an another post and agree with Bucky. If we cut all this spending it needs to CUT. Not diverted to other areas. The devil is in the details here.

The problem is they are doing it the expense of quite a few people who don’t deserve it. I know a few federal workers who, through no fault of their own, have become scapegoats for the whole DOGE movement. There is a way to cut the federal workforce but not the way it is currently being done.

Also, I mentioned this in an another post and agree with Bucky. If we cut all this spending it needs to CUT. Not diverted to other areas. The devil is in the details here.
[/quote]

I’m curious, how?

The thing about the spending cuts is the house needs to put together a Rescission package and get it pushed through Congress. No filibuster on Rescission.

I must be missing something. Isn’t this trunps second term? Why did he not fix the corruption and deficit first time?

[/quote]

I’m curious, how?
[/quote]

By going to the leadership in each of the fed divisions and identifying the lowest performing workers. A target percentage of cuts should’ve been set for each division. Certain divisions, based upon how essential they are, would get different amounts cut. The cuts should be done objectively based upon employees reviews. This process should’ve started with offering buyouts to the most tenured, highest cost federal workers. Once that was done, performance based cuts should be put in place. Federal regulations require each federal employee get an annual review so this wouldn’t have been an issue.

It’s not a hard concept and is done everyday in corporate America.

How’s that EPG?

pass0047 wrote:

I must be missing something. Isn’t this trunps second term? Why did he not fix the corruption and deficit first time?

I would imagine this being due to him being more surprised than Hillary that he won the election in ’16 considering legacy media continued to say he was going to lose in a land slide right up to election day. This of course caused him to scramble to put a cabinet together and it was not done well by any stretch. He has now had 4 years to assemble the team he wants to get things done, and as you can see, he has hit the ground running. Now if half of this country would give this administration a chance (that is no pass to the Republicans who also use the same tactics) vs. bashing every move they make (again, no pass to the Republicans), perhaps we could make some real progress, some much needed progress. I’m not a fan of every move they are making or how they are making those moves, but I do know that Trump knows what he wants to achieve. He knows he has a short window to work towards those goals. I’m now interested to see how he works to get that done.

I have a question for the seemingly non-MAGA actual fiscal conservatives like Bucky and Matt and any others I’m missing. You can simply decline to answer and I would understand that fully, but: did you vote for DT in 24? And if so, what did he do or say during his campaign to convince you that a second term would not leaving you feeling like you’re feeling right now?

dirtywater wrote:

I have a question for the seemingly non-MAGA actual fiscal conservatives like Bucky and Matt and any others I’m missing. You can simply decline to answer and I would understand that fully, but: did you vote for DT in 24? And if so, what did he do or say during his campaign to convince you that a second term would not leaving you feeling like you’re feeling right now?

I’ll answer that. In 2016, I didn’t vote for either candidate. Felt like both were terrible options. Fast forward to 2024 and I felt the same but the democrats are so far out of touch fiscally I felt like Trump was the better option. It felt a bit like a cop out not to vote at all. Also, living in MPLS and seeing what the liberal city council has tried to do to this city led me to vote for a republican president. We’ll never have conservative local politicians but at least we can on a national level.

The other issue are women’s rights, more specifically allowing biological males to play women’s sports. I have a 9 yo daughter and I can’t imagine how anyone could justify allowing boys to play against girls. The democrats are on the wrong of that issue.

By going to the leadership in each of the fed divisions and identifying the lowest performing workers.
Ha! asking the fox to gaurd the hen house. Clearly that’s not working.

A target percentage of cuts should’ve been set for each division. Certain divisions, based upon how essential they are, would get different amounts cut. The cuts should be done objectively based upon employees reviews. This process should’ve started with offering buyouts to the most tenured, highest cost federal workers.
Why wasn’t this done in the past?

Once that was done, performance based cuts should be put in place. Federal regulations require each federal employee get an annual review so this wouldn’t have been an issue.
Why wasn’t this done in the past?

Talk is cheap.

It’s not a hard concept and is done everyday in corporate America.

How’s that EPG?
[/quote]

It’s time to make a statement. This is a statement.
There is collateral damage. Tuff fricken hop.
It’s business, it happens in corporate America every day.
Jack Welsh was king of it and look what he did for GE.

dirtywater wrote:

I have a question for the seemingly non-MAGA actual fiscal conservatives like Bucky and Matt and any others I’m missing. You can simply decline to answer and I would understand that fully, but: did you vote for DT in 24? And if so, what did he do or say during his campaign to convince you that a second term would not leaving you feeling like you’re feeling right now?

I am a conservative and did not vote for DT. I actually wrote in for George Washington.
DW, you can simply decline to answer but to you vote for KH? What brilliant ideas came from her to make you cast your vote?

It kinda feels like a Friday night. Might need a beer.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

By going to the leadership in each of the fed divisions and identifying the lowest performing workers.
Ha! asking the fox to gaurd the hen house. Clearly that’s not working.

A target percentage of cuts should’ve been set for each division. Certain divisions, based upon how essential they are, would get different amounts cut. The cuts should be done objectively based upon employees reviews. This process should’ve started with offering buyouts to the most tenured, highest cost federal workers.
Why wasn’t this done in the past?

Once that was done, performance based cuts should be put in place. Federal regulations require each federal employee get an annual review so this wouldn’t have been an issue.
Why wasn’t this done in the past?

Talk is cheap.

It’s not a hard concept and is done everyday in corporate America.

How’s that EPG?

It’s time to make a statement. This is a statement.
There is collateral damage. Tuff fricken hop.
It’s business, it happens in corporate America every day.
Jack Welsh was king of it and look what he did for GE.
[/quote]

I’ve been in leadership positions for 20 years and collateral damage is never an option. You never make decisions at the expense of your people. If Trump was a good leader he would look in the mirror and realize he could’ve done more 8 years ago but he spent too much time playing gotcha politics.

Welch used almost the same playbook I just described so don’t tell me it can’t work for government.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

It kinda feels like a Friday night. Might need a beer.

I thought you also drank those on Tuesday mornings lol