DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Campaign Promises Part 5

You are spreading disinformation. Nothing but lies. Please show sources to back up your claims that the funds of USAID didn't go for food, vaccines and to help with shelter to save starving children. Saving children from starvation isn't trying to "solve the world's problems." It's simply trying to stop innocent children from dying.........................

USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths over the next five years, researchers say

The analysis found that, from 2001 through 2021, USAID-funded programs prevented nearly 92 million deaths across 133 countries, including more than 25 million deaths from HIV/AIDS, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases, 8 million from malaria and nearly 5 million from tuberculosis.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...hs-five-years-researchers-say-rcna216095

And rather than just continuing to spew crap, tell me which nations get USAID funding which this describes....... "There are governments that oppress their people by starvation and other means that is who is responsible for taking care of their people and they get left off the hook. Most of them are Socialist dictators, Muslim extremists, etc... It is a tragedy what they do to their people, but I do not see why the American taxpayer has to fit that bill."

Does it matter who is starving children when children are dying? Allow children to starve because of who runs their country? You do realize that Netanyahu is currently cutting off aid to Gaza which is starving their people as well right?

One of my favorite charities is World Central Kitchen. They feed children in Ukraine and in Gaza. This is when Netanyahu doesn't lock down the borders where no aid can get in. Because they understand that people are people. Starvation is starvation. Unlike many self professed Christians they don't allow politics or religion determine who they're willing to help save and who they are not.

That would be cruel and inhumane.

I think you need to re-read that tweet (particularly the highlighted text). This decision doesn't "greenlight" any cuts. It simply said that the EO he signed was legal in that it laid plans for a RIF. Dude still has to get Congress to do its job.

It cleared a hurdle but set another right behind it.

That is what it looks like when you get your news from the Twitterverse as you call actual journalists fake news.

It's about damn time.

Wrong thread. This isn't the political joke thread.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...ggest-conservative-victory-three-decades

This opinion piece illustrates besides fighting crime and removing illegal aliens and making our Country safer another reason why Trump won the election.

And still refusing to address how many things they are doing that has nothing to do with that. "opinion" But that's how opinions usually work.

So how does taking citizenship away from babies born in the U.S make us safer? Are they born criminals? And before you answer that, remember babies and children aren't punished in this country because their parents commit a crime.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

So as people on medicaid and SNAP just had programs that help them cut, trump increased military spending to over a trillion dollars. He claimed he wanted to cut waste and fraud, yet the very people he gave more money to have now failed seven audits in a row. yet people still believe this clown........

Pentagon fails 7th audit in a row but says progress made

The Pentagon on Friday failed its seventh audit in a row, with the nation’s largest government agency still unable to fully account for its more than $824 billion budget, though officials stress they are making good progress toward a clean audit in 2028.

The Department of Defense technically earned a disclaimer of opinion, meaning it failed to provide sufficient information to auditors to form an accurate opinion.

The goal is to earn an unmodified audit opinion, or a clean audit that says the financial statements are accurate. A qualified opinion says there are omissions and concerns but the finances are generally reliable.

Michael McCord, under secretary of Defense comptroller and chief financial officer, said that despite the disclaimer of opinion, which he expected, the Defense Department “has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges.”

“Momentum is on our side, and throughout the Department there is strong commitment — and belief in our ability — to achieve an unmodified audit opinion,” he said in a statement.

The Defense Department’s report card as a whole is made up of 28 entities operating under the Pentagon that conducted independent audits.

Of those, nine received an unmodified audit opinion, one received a qualified opinion, 15 received disclaimers and three opinions remain pending. The Pentagon expects the final number of clean or qualified audits to be roughly around what it was last year.

The Pentagon has never passed an audit since the agency became legally obligated to carry them out in 2018. A major challenge in auditing remains a full accounting of the sheer number of systems the Defense Department employs.

The Pentagon said it is firmly committed to achieving a clean audit by 2028, as mandated by the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

At a Friday briefing with reporters, McCord explained the number of clean audits indicated progress and disputed the characterization that the Pentagon had failed another audit.

“I do not say we failed, as I said, we have about half clean opinions. We have half that are not clean opinions,” he added. “So if someone had a report card that is half good and half not good, I don’t know that you call the student or the report card a failure. We have a lot of work to do, but I think we’re making progress.”

He added that a 2028 clean audit was possible, but the department would have to “make enormous progress” to get every agency over the line.

“Is 2028 achievable? I believe so,” he said. “But we do have to keep getting faster and keep getting better.”

The audit was conducted by independent auditors along with the department Office of the Inspector General.

Agencies that earned a clean audit include the Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Defense Health Agency.

The Defense Information Systems Agency, Military Retirement Fund, National Reconnaissance Office, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Civil Works and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency also achieved a clean audit.

Eight agencies also closed or downgraded their material weakness associated with their funding balance with the Treasury Department, meaning they have accurately balanced their spending with money held in a government account or achieved a positive report on tracking it.

Those agencies were the financial management systems for the Army, Navy and Air Force, along with the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

McCord likened the correction of material weaknesses to balancing a checkbook, and said it was “the biggest sign of progress” toward clean audits across the Pentagon.

He added the Pentagon has improved from less than 7 percent to more than 82 percent of its funding being free of material weaknesses since 2021.

“This now means that the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force have gotten their house in order on all of their funding, or cash,” he said.

The Pentagon is continuing to work toward a clean audit through modernizing the workforce, improving financial data systems and increasing interoperability between systems.

The goal of a clean audit in 2028 means the Pentagon will have to pass on its strategy to the incoming Trump administration, but McCord said he was hopeful they “can keep a lot of that continuity of the strategy” he has seen in the past.

“Our strongest path forward is to keep a lot of continuity in what we’re doing,” he said, saying it was “not a classic political” issue between administrations. “There’s different ways to get at solving that problem, but there’s not different ways to define the problem.”

This year, the audit cost the Defense Department $178 million and involved some 1,700 auditors.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon-fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/

So after seven straight failed audits you mean 'the Defense Department “has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges.”'? It only took seven failures to figure that out? And I'm sure they'll be given more and more money until we wait until 2028 to see if they will be able to accomplish what they will then have failed at ten times.

Pam Bondi Fires DOJ Staffers Who Worked On Trump Cases Amid Chaos At Agency

Attorney General Pam Bondi fired at least nine Justice Department prosecutors and staffers who worked on criminal cases against President Donald Trump this week, according to multiple reports, the latest terminations of administration staff believed to be against the president—and coming as Bondi herself also comes under fire from the right.

Bondi fired at least nine DOJ employees who worked on the criminal cases against Trump in recent days, The New York Times and Reuters report citing anonymous sources, while Axios reports the attorney general fired more than 20 people.

The firings came out of Bondi’s “Weaponization Working Group,” according to Axios, which the agency has described as an effort to root out “abuses of the criminal justice process,” but has also been criticized as a way for the DOJ to carry out retribution against Trump’s perceived enemies.

Prosecutors who worked with Special Counsel Jack Smith on the criminal cases were fired, along with support staff who provided logistical help on the investigations, which the Times reports marks the first time that support employees on the criminal cases are believed to have lost their jobs.

The DOJ previously fired approximately 15 prosecutors from the cases in January, before Bondi was confirmed as attorney general, and Reuters reported two more employees were fired in June.

That brings the total number of fired employees who were involved with the criminal cases to at least 26, per Reuters’ count, while Axios pegs the number at 35.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to a request for comment.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...tm_campaign=forbes&utm_term=se-staff

More to the article at the link.

China posts better-than-expected Q2 growth in face of Trump tariffs

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/14/business/china-gdp-q2-economy-intl-hnk

GDP data shows U.S. economy shrank more than previously thought in early 2025

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gdp-report-first-quarter-2025-declined-commerce-department/

The U.S. government does not get money from tariffs.

[quote=PitDAWG
The U.S. government does not get money from tariffs.[/quote]

It doesn't?

"Where does the tariff money go?

The money from tariffs, paid by American companies, goes to the U.S. Department of Treasury and enters the general affairs budget, said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University in North Carolina. From there, it can be used “essentially for anything.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/03/05/where-does-tariff-money-go/81375235007/

Now, I am not saying tariffs are good or bad. But, yes, the gov't. (according to USA Today) does get the money.

So it's nothing but another tax on Americans inflicted upon them by trump? So in reality the average American pays more in tariff money that importers pay to the government than any tax cuts congress just approved. In some circles that's know as a bait and switch con game. I bet most trump voters have no idea that's how this works and that they are now actually paying more in taxes than they were before.

Thanks arch.

You were wrong.

I made no comment about tariffs being good or bad. You said the gov't. didn't get the money. You were wrong.

And yes, the consumer pays it.

Kind of ironic for you to be saying that when you ALSO want to raise the business taxes. Who pays that? The consumer. But, twist and turn all you want.

Bottom line, you said the gov't. doesn't get any of the money, when they in fact get it all. Period. The end.

I said thanks arch. You provided information I was unaware of. So what is that crazy rant about? If I'm directly paying the business the money they are paying to the government, they aren't paying it. I am. That's not twisting anything.

Do the math. Let's use 30% as an example. Government forces the business to pay 30% more for goods from a certain country. In turn the business raises my price by 30%. The business then takes the extra 30% they charged me for the product and in turn pays it to the government. The fact that the business plays the middle man in transferring the money I paid them over to the government doesn't change the fact I paid the tariff tax.

The only taxes I want to see raised is on the extremely wealthy. There is very little I purchase directly from very wealthy businesses. In case you missed it that excludes the vast majority of businesses in our country including but not limited to businesses such as your own. Are you feeling okay?

You just don't, or won't, get it.


You specifically said the gov't. gets none of the money. In fact, they do. Period. Quit.

And I said thank you for informing me. Speaking of "don't get it or won't get it." What part of this are you not comprehending here?......


Is that worded in a way it does not compute with your brain? Dear Lord man. Why don't you just face the fact that you can't stand me and even when I give you credit for giving me information I was unaware of your brain can't quite grasp that due to your preconceived notions. And you think it's me who needs to quit?

You are certainly being your usual self. Remind me in the future to never give you credit for giving me information I didn't know. I mean if this is the response I get for doing that why should I even bother?

Seek help.

Hey Keith,

I wanted to take the time to respond to this. Sorry it took a while. Things have been nuts lately with the force reductions. On top of that, my building (previously on the demo list), just had a major leak in the ceiling of our office today. Flood knocked out ceiling tiles and it came down on work stations. Good stuff.

Anyhow, I appreciate all your insights and I don’t really disagree with a whole lot on a grand level. I might posit that Dems and Repubs are equally down the middle to blame for a lot of the border issues we’ve had.

My really big problem with Trump is that he’s a marketer and an opportunist. He takes a Trojan horse approach to appease people and then acts in his own self interest by pulling a series of bait and switches. He has done well with the border, but the spectacle with ICE, Noem and whatnot has gone way too far over the top.

He also pulls full on 180s on certain things and I just really hope that his base can finally come to see that. This whole Epstein nonsense might be the one chance of that happening. He does what’s best for him and he’s proven that time and again. He’ll say and do anything to get what he wants for himself, and accepts zero blame or responsibility.

Anyhow, I hope you’re doing well, Keith. Good to see you posting around here.

Hopefully the entire Epstein fiasco will cause his supporters to pay a little more attention to what he says in comparison to what he does. But I'm not holding my breath.

ABC News' Katherine Faulders asked the president what Bondi told him about the review, "specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?"

"No, no, she's -- she's given us just a very quick briefing," Trump responded before making baseless claims the files were created by some of his political foes.

"And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden -- and you know, we and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through," Trump said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-bondi-release-whatever-185300968.html

It’s almost comical at this point.

Here is your reply to me: "So it's nothing but another tax on Americans inflicted upon them by trump? So in reality the average American pays more in tariff money that importers pay to the government than any tax cuts congress just approved. In some circles that's know as a bait and switch con game. I bet most trump voters have no idea that's how this works and that they are now actually paying more in taxes than they were before.

Thanks arch."

Combative. And evasive. You do you.

And since "thanks arch" wasn't good enough for you I then said "I said thanks arch. You provided information I was unaware of." and still you carried on. There was nothing combative or evasive about any of that except in your own mind and you're still convinced of that. Just because you don't like the response, just because you don't like a very accurate explanation doesn't mean someone is trying to start a fight with you. In this case you seem to be your own worse enemy. For some reason in your brain you think I feel some need to see you as an adversary. To help clear that up, I don't. You don't rate that high on the scale of importance to me.

And just something to chew on for a minute since you seem to be hanging on here......

If taxes were raised on the wealthiest businesses in it would be very helpful to small businesses. You see, businesses such as Walmart buy in huge bulk. Their buying power means they can offer lower prices. If their taxes were somewhat higher it would help even the playing field for mom and pop businesses which have and will continue to close across our country. We see their doors shuttered in small towns across the country. You know, people just like yourself. A small business just trying to make a living and get ahead. People with which you have so much in common with. Or does that sound too much like socialism to you? You know, give the little guy a hand?

The parts in bold are combative since that seemed to be something you were starving for and even using your imagination to find. Hopefully that will help you better understand what combative looks like moving forward.

It doesn't?

"Where does the tariff money go?

The money from tariffs, paid by American companies, goes to the U.S. Department of Treasury and enters the general affairs budget, said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University in North Carolina. From there, it can be used “essentially for anything.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/03/05/where-does-tariff-money-go/81375235007/

Now, I am not saying tariffs are good or bad. But, yes, the gov't. (according to USA Today) does get the money.[/quote]

What the Government gets is irrelevant. We as the American people won't see a damn dime.

Now, let's talk about who's paying those Tariffs? Can you say, THE CONSUMER? That's you and me. Trump is still trying to say that isn't true. It is..,

Speaking of Promises.. Didn't Trump promise to release all the Jeffery Epstien documents? I believe he did. Boy, MAGA sure is ticked off at that failure

What the Government gets is irrelevant. We as the American people won't see a damn dime.

Now, let's talk about who's paying those Tariffs? Can you say, THE CONSUMER? That's you and me. Trump is still trying to say that isn't true. It is..,

Speaking of Promises.. Didn't Trump promise to release all the Jeffery Epstien documents? I believe he did. Boy, MAGA sure is ticked off at that failure[/quote]

Are you inept, at best?

What the gov't. gets is irrelevant? You DO realize, Mr. late to the show, I was responding to pit, who said "the gov't. doesn't get any of the tariff money". Don't you? Please, tell me you understand what you were even replying to. I highly doubt it, but I'll give you the opportunity to say you know what you were responding to.....in which case you'd look clueless, or you can say "I didn't know what I was responding to." In which case you'd look clueless.

Who's paying those tariffs? If you could comprehend the written word, you would understand I KNOW who's paying the tariffs. But, apparently expecting someone like you to understand the written word, and to follow along in the thread, is expecting too much. No surprise for most of us.

As far as "we the american people won't see a damn dime", again, have you no clue? The money goes into the dept. of the treasury. The same place your taxes, and mine, go. So, if you stand by your ignorant statement, what you are saying is the dept. of the Treasury taxes us, and we don't see a damn dime of that money. Honestly, I wonder about you and cognitive ability.

Do you pay taxes? If so, to who? Do you see a "damn dime" of that money in action?