Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nd the liar steps in...the country is filled with pipelines and industry and we have the cleanest environment you can find...all because we are a rich country and we like clean things.
I'm so thankful Trump is doing that. But really - we should get rid of the entire EPA. And the Department of Education. And the National Endowments for the Arts. None of them are constitutional. In fact, if we got rid of all of the federal agencies that were unconstitutional, we could cut taxes in half and still have an annual surplus.
Jesus, yeah, lets push that out as if it has any semblance to objective reality.
Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.
Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.
Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.
Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.
WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.
But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.
Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.
Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.
It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.
Trump is actually the one who believes in the survival of human beings..
No it doesn't. It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and the environment is not one of them. Therefore, Jimmy Carter creating that "agency" in the executive branch is 100% unconstitutional.The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies
Furthermore - the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that only Congress can create laws. It is highly illegal for an unconstitutional "agency" filled with unelected bureaucrats to create "regulations" and force them on us as law.
If you're going to cite the U.S. Constitution to support your position, you should really try reading it first.
It's impossible to "thrive" when someone has power over you and gets to decide that you won't thrive no matter what. Pay attention snowflake.So your company isn't entrepreneurish enough to survive, adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing environment without threatening the environment.
I was an Environmental Engineer for 30 years. I got in on the ground floor of the implementation of the CWA, CAA, RCRA, SDWA, etc. I cleaned up a lot of pollution. I cleaned up more pollution that 10,000 Moon Bat environmental wackos will ever see in their lives. I still do a little consulting work nowadays.
The EPA was a good thing when it first started. We cleaned up or curtailed 80% of the pollution in this country for about 20% of the cost.
Then the government barked on a program to clean up 15% of the pollution for 30% of the cost. It is doubtful that was really needed. It came at significant cost.
However, ever since that asshole Kenyan Catastrophe was elected President the EPA has been trying to force a cleanup of the remaining 5% for 50% of the cost and that has been disastrous for our economy. That is one of the main reasons we have lost our manufacturing base and the cost of energy is so high.
The US spends as much money on environmental as the rest of the world combined. We have paid our dues.
It is time for us to stop being being idiots and destroying our economy for very little significant gain. It is a good thing that Trump understand that. These Moon Bats were idiots electing that Obama asshole that didn't understand that.
[
Seems to me you would take enough pride in the work that you did that you would be supportive of protecting it from getting screwed up again. This is not about cleaning up, you know it and I know it. Nor is it about a "Kenyan" president or a NPD poster child as president. This is about enforcement, plain and simple. Just like Reagan slashing OSHA funding. Occupational safety standards became a running joke and miner's, among other laborers, DIED. Air and water quality safety standards will become a running joke within the industry and people WILL DIE. But on a much larger scale than the lack of enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
No it doesn't. It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and the environment is not one of them. Therefore, Jimmy Carter creating that "agency" in the executive branch is 100% unconstitutional.The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies
Furthermore - the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that only Congress can create laws. It is highly illegal for an unconstitutional "agency" filled with unelected bureaucrats to create "regulations" and force them on us as law.
If you're going to cite the U.S. Constitution to support your position, you should really try reading it first.
They create regulations they don't create laws. And them are empowered to do so by Congress. This is all been proven to be constitutional. I think the Congress has to vote on every single regulation from every agency out there?
I'm so thankful Trump is doing that. But really - we should get rid of the entire EPA. And the Department of Education. And the National Endowments for the Arts. None of them are constitutional. In fact, if we got rid of all of the federal agencies that were unconstitutional, we could cut taxes in half and still have an annual surplus.
Jesus, yeah, lets push that out as if it has any semblance to objective reality.
Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.
Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.
Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.
Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.
WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.
But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.
Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.
Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.
It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.
I agree that it is a balancing act. But that is precisely why we both need the EPA, and we need to fund it adequately. We are balancing two sides. One, industry, which very structure encourages it to externalize costs whenever possible. The other, the environment. Industry has their leaders, their money, their power, to support their side. Who does the environment have?
And like my well. Don't really have to worry about the neighbor next door poisoning my well. He and his family have to live here. And perhaps my enemy down the road might think about it, but fears enforcement from the sheriff. But that factory, with the owners living far away, they don't give a shit. The only thing, and I mean the only think, keeping them from dumping their waste chemicals directly into the water table, is the EPA. When they no longer fear the EPA they sure as hell won't fear me.
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of communist scumbags
Way past time. You watch, as the EPA is brought in line with reality, jobs will increase, money will flow and the Environment won't be any worse off.
The EPA is less about the environment than it is about crushing Capitalism. That's just the way it is
Via Daily Caller:
The former leader of President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team said Thursday he expects the president to slash the agency’s budget and staff.
Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy at free market group Competitive Enterprise Institute, told reporters that Trump is considering reducing by magnitudes the agency’s workforce. It currently stands at 15,000 employees nationwide.
“Let’s aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we’ll want to go further,” Ebell said, referring to his wish to see the EPA slashed by at least half. He left Trump’s transition team last week, but was at one time on the president’s short list to head the agency.
Half of the EPA’s budget is transferred to state and local areas to update infrastructure projects and environmental cleanup efforts. Ebell, who is a long-time EPA critic and climate skeptic, said the cuts would likely fall on the remaining half of the agency’s budget, which supports a portion of federal employees.
“President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or ‘leave a little bit,’” he said. “I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies.”
Keep reading…
Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.
Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.
Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.
Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.
WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.
But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.
Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.
Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.
It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.
The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies .
We've had a Great economy along with protecting the environment. It's not a zero sum game . And in a lot of places the environment is the economy .
Sure, we had a great economy when the EPA first game out, but that was because they didn't have many regulations.
Today is a whole different story. I work for a small transportation company that has less than a dozen employees, the new regulations that came out over the last ten years costs my employer hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
So your company isn't entrepreneurish enough to survive, adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing environment without threatening the environment. Or they just see more of a bottom line profit margin in not having any regulations. You know, more like Wall Street. Does your employer provide helathcare plans to employees?
Jesus, yeah, lets push that out as if it has any semblance to objective reality.
Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.
Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.
Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.
Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.
WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.
But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.
Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.
Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.
It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.
I agree that it is a balancing act. But that is precisely why we both need the EPA, and we need to fund it adequately. We are balancing two sides. One, industry, which very structure encourages it to externalize costs whenever possible. The other, the environment. Industry has their leaders, their money, their power, to support their side. Who does the environment have?
And like my well. Don't really have to worry about the neighbor next door poisoning my well. He and his family have to live here. And perhaps my enemy down the road might think about it, but fears enforcement from the sheriff. But that factory, with the owners living far away, they don't give a shit. The only thing, and I mean the only think, keeping them from dumping their waste chemicals directly into the water table, is the EPA. When they no longer fear the EPA they sure as hell won't fear me.
If somebody or some company does something to effect your property or health, get a lawyer and have the case heard in court.
The EPA doesn't balance anything. They are out there to keep their jobs. Sitting back and not creating regulations and fines means we don't need them any longer, so they create all kinds of economically harmful regulations that cost you and I money every single day.
Do this: ask an environmentalist when enough will be enough? What does it take to make them happy and keep their yaps shut? How much money are we really talking about here? I bet you'd be met with a blank stare.
The truth is we've been cleaning up our environment for nearly 50 years now, and the environmentalists are less happy today then before. They will never be happy because the environment is a bottomless money pit. You can take every last US dollar in this country today, and some environmentalists would still be complaining.
The problem with all this environment crap is that the costs of it are intrinsic. You don't even know you're paying them. If I were Trump, I'd take an idea Michelle came up with. She got her hold man to force all restaurants to put calorie count on every item they sell. While the stupid idea never made one fat kid skinny, I think it would be a great idea if we did the same with environmental costs.
When you buy a car, there should be an environmental cost on it telling you you're paying $6,500 for a greener car. If you buy a lawnmower, that has a $75.00 environmental cost. If you buy a jar of pickles at the grocery store, it should have an environmental cost of 20 cents printed right on the jar.
Maybe if people realized what all this environmental crap cost us personally, people would become very disinterested in a greener country.
. There needs to be a mandatory class that all new license seekers should have to take as pertaining to big trucks. A simulator should also be part of the class. If you can't pass the class you don't get your license. These things you speak of are very important.The problem is the EPA started abusing their power it needs to be reined inWinning
It was early in the morning, the heat burning off the fog, as I drove down a winding two lane road toward the river crossing. When I broke into the clearing before the bridge I noticed a majestic bald eagle gracefully catching the morning thermals as they rose off the rock banks of the river.
You know, when I was a kid I never saw a bald eagle. I lived where I could spend the afternoon walking along still remaining parts of Daniel Boone's path across the Blue Ridge mountains. The reason I mention that now is because one of the first actions of the EPA was the administration of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It is that act, and that act alone, that is responsible for the saving of the Bald Eagle. Thanks to the EPA, my grandkids can grow up seeing Bald Eagles.
Maybe you have to pay attention. But in my younger days you could see the trees dying along the ridge line. It was not disease. It was not parasites. It was acid rain. Then Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, and emissions declined significantly. The forest have recovered, the streams are less acidic, and we all benefit.
I don't think people understand. The EPA works for US. It is the one safeguard we have against industries. Industries that very structure encourages them to "externalize" the cost of their activities. Weakening the EPA can't possibly be seen as a win for the American people.
Besides, that whole "Winning" meme didn't work out so well in the end the first time it made it's rounds. I don't think I would be recycling it now.
The problem is all bureaucracies have.
They made a regulation against us truck drivers a few years ago. We are not allowed to talk on a cell phone while driving unless you are using blue tooth. If you get caught, it's a $2,400 fine for the first offense; $10,000 to your company if they can prove you were talking to them. And both fines increase with the amount of violations.
Eliminate all bureaucracies in my opinion.
I have a bluetooth. Actually, I have 2. One is an aftermarket one that plugs into the cigarette lighter. It cost me about $20. The other one fits in my ear. It cost me less than $40. It certainly makes driving safer, and I only drive a pickup. Now why any truck driver in an 18 wheeler carrying a load of 10s of 1,000s of lbs of cargo would want to risk taking one hand off the wheel to talk on a cell phone when there is a cheap alternative that is so much safer is beyond me. Frankly, it's nonsensical. However, life has shown me that people do stupid stuff all the time. Now, personally I wouldn't care one whit if a truck driver engaged in that kind of risk when the only one at risk was the driver of the truck. However, trucks share the road with other drivers, many of whom are parents with small children. It sounds like the risk of a heavy fine is a hell of a good incentive to not do something stupid which puts so many others at risk.
The law forced my employer to buy new two-way phones that we can't even use unless you are sitting still. Bluetooth doesn't work with two way cell phones like Nextel used to have. So for a while, they just called us instead.
I've been doing this a very long time now, and I can tell you bluetooth is way more disruptive than just talking on the phone itself. You have to fiddle around to find those stupid buttons to answer or make a call, and that's way more distracting.
That's besides the fact we still use our CB radios all the time. When operating a vehicle like that, we have to shift gears, hit buttons like engine brakes, light interrupters, bright lights, use the clutch. We are doing things all the time to drive that vehicle. A stupid cell phone is not going to change anything.
Plus the fact there is much more background noise in a truck than a pickup truck, and in most cases, you can't communicate anyway.
If you want to make truck driving safer, don't worry about us, teach the idiots around us how to drive. There should be a law strictly enforced that states you can't cut in front of a truck less than five car lengths on the highway. These morons cut in front of me less than one car length and hit the brakes. They've even done this when coming to a stop on the highway like an accident.
Another law we need is no pacing a truck. If you want to pass me, fine, get in the next lane, pass, and continue that speed once you get back in front of me. Don't drive next to me because if I have to swerve out of that lane to avoid something in the road, I can't do that because the idiot next to me has been driving there for the last four miles. We also need a law that everybody has to use cruise control on the highway. So many times I get some idiot in a car going slow, and when I go to pass him, the clown speeds up and I can't move back over.
We should have laws against all these things, and heavy fines and points to boot. You could make the roads a lot safer by doing that instead of worrying about a driver using a cell phone.
Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.
Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.
Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.
WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.
But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.
Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.
Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.
It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.
The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies .
We've had a Great economy along with protecting the environment. It's not a zero sum game . And in a lot of places the environment is the economy .
Sure, we had a great economy when the EPA first game out, but that was because they didn't have many regulations.
Today is a whole different story. I work for a small transportation company that has less than a dozen employees, the new regulations that came out over the last ten years costs my employer hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
So your company isn't entrepreneurish enough to survive, adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing environment without threatening the environment. Or they just see more of a bottom line profit margin in not having any regulations. You know, more like Wall Street. Does your employer provide helathcare plans to employees?
He used to, but can't afford that now.
Our company is doing fine. We have to pass on our losses to our customers in rate hikes. They produce the products we buy in the store every day. We consumers eventually pay those environmental costs. But in effort for companies to compensate, they keep wages lower and then you on the left complain about that as well. When business have had enough expensive regulations, they move out of country and once again, you on the left complain about jobs moving overseas.
You people want to blame everybody else for the problems America faces except yourselves. Blame the rich guy, blame Walmart and McDonald's, blame the investors and their thirst for good financial investments, but never blame anybody on the left. They never do anything wrong. They never cause any of our problems.
Well I know me, and if I knew that the money would go to the programs talked about, I would kick in the money needed to make the system great for all of our seniors, and I would hope that millions more would think the same. People are willing, but they are unsure about the corruption, so yes they probably would revolt if not assured correctly.. That's because the dam politicians couldn't keep their hands off of it, and then you see all this waste Trump is going after, and you think to yourself how bad the dammed corrupt system is. I hope Trump really means in every way what he's talking about on the lingo "The Forgotten Man or Woman" is forgotten no more. This should include the elderly as well.. Thanks... When we see so much corruption and waste, and my mom told me that her raise was only two dollars on her social security my heart sunk. She worked all her life, and she is living in poverty at 80 years old. She ask for nothing, and refuses help from me because of her independent pride in life. Our senior citizens, and hard working Americans ready to retire are being forgotten about or they are being screwed in a set up for which hopes they die before getting the proper retirement and treatment that they deserve after serving their nation proud and without waver. There should also be a way for people who decide like Trump did on his pay as president, to then donate their retirement to a benefactor of their choosing.Yes your mom is entitled to a raise. Case closed. No way of refuting this.
The problem is that SS was a false retirement plan. Everybody thought that SS would be enough for their future and it's not. If you don't have anything else to go along with SS, you're screwed when you retire.
That's part of the problem, but the other part is funding.
Look.......if we want to have these programs, then we need to pay for them. Simple as that. I can't remember the last time we had an increase in employee payroll deductions for medicare, yet healthcare gets more expensive every year.
So what Medicare and Medicaid do is only pay about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. The hospitals and doctors need to recoup that money, so they increase their fees. Those fees are paid for by the private sector, and our insurance rates go out of this world.
So like I said, if we want these things, we simply have to pay for them. But the reason politicians never increase those deductions is because people would revolt; maybe even ask for the elimination of SS and Medicare.
We want our elderly to be taken care of, but we don't want to pay for it out of our own pocket. It just doesn't work that way, and it's been going on for many years now. That's why retirees don't see any increases in their SS checks.
. Sadly many trucking companies are liars and corrupt as hell.We have a truck driving hauler company about 40 miles away. Always have adds in the paper looking for workers or drivers. They must be a very bad place to work as they can't find workers.
