America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney delivered a tough message on Tuesday as he explained the cornerstone of the Trump administration’s budget blueprint for fiscal year 2018; ween capable, low income Americans off of welfare programs and put them back to work.


“We’re no longer going to measure compassion by the amount of money we spend, but by the number of people we help. That is how you can get 3 percent economic growth … Everything that we do in this administration, every single time I’m called into the Oval Office … the focus is sustained 3 percent economic growth,” Mulvaney said during a press conference Tuesday.

While the budget, which Mulvaney said should have been called the taxpayer first budget, aims to streamline agencies, trim bloat and eliminate waste, it has been criticized heavily for decreasing fiduciary support to popular social programs like food stamps and Medicaid. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) called the proposal a “cruel” reflection of President Donald Trump’s values.

“Families across America would suffer, with particularly harsh effects on rural communities,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Funding for food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), will be trimmed by $193 billion over the next decade. Cuts will also be made to climate science research and Medicaid spending will be slowed. While Mulvaney made it clear Medicaid spending would not be reduced on a year-over-year basis, funding will fall short of what the Congressional Budget Office estimates the government should pay.

The director also defended the decision to tighten the belt on some social programs by asking whether every recipient is qualified to receive the corresponding services. He said the administration will be taking steps toward making sure Americans aren’t exploiting programs, like food stamps or Social Security Disability Insurance, while assuring that the administration would not deny deserving people services.

“We have plenty of money in this country to take care of people who need help and we will do that,” he said.

For those who don’t need it, the government wants to create a pathway to employment.


Film at 11...

yea but its mean
think of the childruns

True job creation isn't infrastructure. Too much of that is controlled by public unions. We're often better off putting those worthless loads onto welfare than to feed the beast.

Deregulation helps keep jobs here.
You're correct in that it's not enough. But it's a good start.

It's funny, in a morbid sort of way:
People complain that corporations move over seas. But when they try to set up shop here, they're taxed to death and caught in between EPA, OSHA, Workers Comp, insurance liabilities, employee healthcare, Workplace violence, Sexual harrassment, gender sensitivity. Hell, it's a wonder ANYONE runs a shop here.

I've known people to sell their food stamps for .50 to .75 on the dollar.

The vast majority of people I knew that got food stamps did this (I know this because back in the day I would buy them, lol).

I know they've made it difficult over the years to do this, but it can still be done.

Stop supporting you're local crack heads and enforce drug testing on welfare recipients.

I've been bashed by many liberals on my stance on this, but why should I have to fund crackhead's habits?

Also, I know there are plans out there that will pay crackheads to sterilize them, which I think is a wonderful idea.

Anyway, my point is, if you get rid of crackhead/heroin junky funding, that should cover the budget cuts

Well, did he buy it?

Truer words have never been spoken. Well... technically, typed.

Our welfare system is insidious. It locks generations of families into it once they start on that slippery slope. Give a man a fish and he will eat a meal. Teach a man to fish and he will eat many meals. I don't have an answer, but I do think teaching people an employable skill is a starting point. Just saying less welfare is not the answer in and of itself.

i know someone who buys them [hes an acquaintance at best]
he has multiple people who sell them to him for $0.50 on the dollar
EVERY MONTH!

I'm all for this as long as every CEO & top executives who's company get federal dollars is also tested.

I've also not seen the administration's budget plan so I really can't comment on it in any great detail. The devil is in the details.

Tail I think you're being a bit naive if you think that CEO's and top executive's compensation isn't directly tied to their company's bottom line. Which in the case of the bank and auto industry's bailout was improved by tax dollars.

well let's drug test all the climate change scientists and universities receiving tax dollars too....

I am naive. But mostly in regards to the Tantra and how it can improve sexual proficiency.

As for CEO's, I fear you have fallen prey to Elizabeth Warren's hateful venom.

You mean a "smaller government" who supports drug users without question.

Private companies use drug testing all the time.
Why shouldn't government employees and welfare recipients be subject to the same screening process?

Yep... anf their Mommas too..

Yeah I am all for mandatory random drug testing of all government employees and employees of federally subsidized institutions. Let them sober up and maybe then it'll give them enough sense to realise that socialism isn't a good idea...

Temporarily until the libs are ran out the country

pretty sure the gubment employees are subjected to random tests already...

Only 34 posts until some idiot makes this about race.

Over/under was 40.
Next time I take the under.

So you are good with ISIS, got it.

Tail loves ISIS I heard

To be clear, what i made about race was the morons advocating for charging people $20 (The cost of a bottle of synthetic urine) to collect their food stamps.... and I'm not really the one who made it about race, just the one who pointed it out....

But your stance does make sense given your new alignment with daesh... they too cling to moronically archaic forms of interference in the personal lives of the people they long to control...

Smoke is bad for you and so 1990... suppository baybee

I've heard that about champagne, for people who like the buzz not the taste.... if you shook it to hard ahead of time should you throw up fizz? Do your burps ever taste like heroin?

Smarter than a Roman candle i guess...

More like a Philadelphia pork jowl with some heat behind it...