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... 😟

I've been a supporter of welfare/work programs...but some working people are so poor, they qualify for govt assistance...When the GOP learns that a whole lot of hard-working Americans, many of whom voted for Trump, but at below poverty level wages will be hurt, I expect a re-calibration...

He isn't doing enough actual job creation...budget cuts and deregulation alone won't increase employment opportunities or wages...he should roll-out the infrastructure re-building plan that he spoke about while campaigning and during the first few days of his Presidency...

yea but its mean
think of the childruns

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question"

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.

As a wise man once said, End Welfare Breeding.

🌫

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

TW said someone was trying to sell him their meat outside a Walmart once... 😟

Well, did he buy it?

thought you'd never get here!

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

[quote=DrafterX]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.

Didn't ol slick Willy do this in the 90s?

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 never got my Obama-fishes damnit..!! 😠

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!

Eliminating the career recipient should take care of reducing welfare costs ... I'm in favor of providing welfare to the truly down and out on a temporary basis until he (she) can regain their footing ... it stabilizes society ... but it should not be a career path ...

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. 🌫

If the federal dollars go directly to the CEO's bank account then I would agree.
If the dollars go into the company to help it grow jobs and goods and services, then no.

Nobody is asking for poor people who benefit from government sponsored social services to be drug tested. Only those who receive direct financial assistance such as food stamps or welfare, etc.
The intent is to prevent paying for their drugs.
Your CEO comparison falls flat and reeks of anti-corporation sentiment. Other than that, it's spot on...

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.

two completely separate issues and you want to kill one because you don't like the other..?? 😕