After a week of vowing to “always protect” Social Security and Medicare, Trump submits a budget proposing $800 billion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

I had so much fun writing about Trump’s lies yesterday, that I thought that I’d spend a little more time on it today… Following, for your consideration, are three news items from over the past six days.

Tuesday, February 4: Donald Trump vows to “always protect” the Medicare and Social Security of Americans during his annual State of the Union address. We know this isn’t true as he’s attempted to cut both previously, and he just told CNCB’s Joe Kernen that “entitlement” programs would soon be on the chopping block, but the line got a rousing round of applause from Republican lawmakers.

Saturday, February 8: Donald Trump tweets, “We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in (the) Fiscal 2021 Budget.” He then goes on to add that “Only the Democrats will destroy them.”

Monday, February 10: Donald Trump presents a budget to Congress which calls for $800 billion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. [The administration’s proposed budget also calls for cuts to the EPA, the Department of Education, and the Centers for Disease Control.] Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post.

Oh, and he’s keeping all of those tax breaks for the rich… the ones that he promised would pay for themselves, but didn’t.

For what it’s worth, this was always the plan. The idea was never just to give the wealthiest Americans a huge tax giveaway. The idea was always to then use the subsequent deficit to justify the shrinking of the government and the rollback of so-called entitlements and social safety net programs.

This entry was posted in Corporate Crime, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted February 10, 2020 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    While I was writing that, Donald Trump was lying some more in New Hampshire.

    It’s amazing to me that people don’t ask him, when he promises to deliver a plan for less expensive and better health care, why he didn’t give it to us during his first two years in office, when his party controlled the House and Senate, as well as the White House.

  2. Lynne
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 2:35 am | Permalink

    It is a transfer from the poorest to the richest for sure. It is going to mean a lot of hardship for a lot of old people. I will be able to live without Social Security (albeit only if I am very frugal) but I worry about Medicare cuts.

  3. Anonymous
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 5:51 am | Permalink

  4. Jean Henry
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Why does lying on the campaign trail surprise anyone. Bernie’s Slogan is ‘Not me, Us’ but then his surrogates and he to a lesser degree spend most of their stump speeches ripping on the Democratic Party. Good cop; bad cop. People fall for it because they want too desperately to feel heard by politicians. And the are legitimately angry. And all these strong feelings are ripe for manipulation.

    Populism sucks.

    Corporatocracy sucks too. (Apparently I need to say both lest I be called a shill for the establishment/corporate elite around here)

  5. Anonymous
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Where are all the a Republicans this morning? I expected to find the here arguing that, in their reality, Trump is protecting these programs?

  6. iRobert
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    The Trump supporters here disappear whenever Mark posts these sorts of threads. If they do show up, they just post links to obscure, unrelated videos.

    Occasionally, EOS will show up and post on a totally unrelated subject.

    I think they have their fingers in their ears and are talking incessantly about Hunter Biden to drown out anything else they might hear…you know, the way young children do to their siblings.

  7. EOS
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Right. Except we don’t feel any need to hurry over to mm to refute Mark’s slanted spin on a very liberal MSM leak of what Trump is going to do. Sure, he’s going to kill your grandparents, take food from the starving, and shut down the public education system, yada yada …..

    Congress makes the budget, so let’s see how they propose to maintain essential services while reining in deficit spending.

  8. iRobert
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    So it’s not that you acknowledge Trump lies.

  9. EOS
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Trump exaggerates and uses hyperbole and sometimes makes statements that don’t ring true in my opinion. But I could say the same thing about every politician, reporter, commenter and blog writer. For the most part, Trump does what he says he will. Better than any officeholder I can recall.

  10. Anonymous
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Sure, he lies, but they’re all liars. The cynicism is grotesque. It’s a cancer to our democratic institutions.

  11. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    That’s a cynical take on what EOS said, Anonymous.

    Please try to be more mindful of our democratic institutions in the future, ok?

  12. EOS
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Watch the negotiation. I’ll bet the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance cuts are the low hanging fruit that will get all the attention. He’ll concede defeat and take those cuts off the table in the final moments. Pay attention and you might see what slips in that was his intention all along.

    Or maybe not?

  13. iRobert
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Trump seems completely unaware of what is truth and what are lies. He appears not at all in charge or capable of it from what I’ve been observing. It seems apparent to me that others with much more awareness and strategic capability are making the decisions. The way things have been playing out seems to me to support HW’s assertion that there is a very well coordinated and well planned strategy being carried out by what I’d call a shadow government, but what HW refers to as the “White Hats.”

    The strategy is working like a charm to the extreme, I’d say, and can’t imagine how anyone would disagree. The chaos and idiocy in the White House appears to be entirely a front which completely disrupts and disempowers opposition while also energizing a very unconventional base I’ve never seen so activated. Simultaneously, more traditional folks on the right and center are effectively persuaded to remain in support through some legitimate progress on select and important fronts.

    I’m convinced GOP officials are being kept in line through far more sophisticated and effective means behind the scenes, rather than simply being intimidated by the silly public bullying Trump.

    It’s an extraordinary illusion being played out, much in the way a brilliant magic act is done which has everyone in the audience utterly bamboozled. It’s a fascinating thing to observe really.

  14. Wobblie
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 3:43 pm | Permalink


  15. Lynne
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    iRobert, that sounds like something Putin would do. Hmmmmmm?

  16. Lynne
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    wobblie, before she made that statement I have to admit that I was wondering about one of the issues she mentioned. Some states have withdrawn their ratification so even if congress changes the deadline and it somehow got through the Senate and was signed by Trump (which is pretty doubtful), there still would be a SCOTUS challenge about the states who have withdrawn. Unfortunately, because some people in 2016 decided to throw women under the bus, we have the SCOTUS we have. RBG presumably has a better feel than most for how that challenge might go with the current court. It isn’t her that drove a stake through the ERA though. It is the people who didn’t vote for HRC in 2016.

    At any rate, it is still possible for the ERA to happen. It just might be a little tougher. It will depend on those people who want there to be such a provision in the constitution to work together to vote in a way that results in that outcome.

  17. Wobblie
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Trump has no role in constitutional changes. The “7 year timeline” is also made up. The 19 th. Amendment contained it as article 3. The proposed ERA does not have a section 3. In 1870 when we ended the military occupation of the treasonous rebellious states, several of them attempted to resend there passage of the 14th amendment. Can’t resend your approval. You need a new amendment.
    It is like she never bothered to review the history of US constitutional changes.

  18. Wobblie
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Aloha. I’m addition Supreme Court has zero role in this process. She should have kept her mouth shut. The “arbitrartor” is the archivist of the US. If s/he had issued the appropriate official paper work it would be law— just like the last amendment which took over two hundred years to ratify. There are several other amendments floating around that could still be ratified at least one more that were part of the original 12—11 have now been ratified.

  19. Lynne
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    wobblie, are you really suggesting that someone who is an expert on such things should keep her mouth shut? I would be curious about the precedent that says states cannot rescind their ratification but if you don’t know it off the top of your head, no worries. I can try to find it myself.

  20. Lynne
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    This seems like a pretty good explanation of some of the issues related to passing the ERA

  21. Wobblie
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne, try the Congressional record and the National archives. I know of nothing that makes Ginsberg an “expert” on the constitutional amendment process. The SCOTUS has absolutely zero role in the passage of amendments. There is nothing about her legal background that gives her any more authority to speak on what she readily acknowledges is a political issue not a legal issue.
    But I know it is impolite to ever criticize woman in positions of power, most exspecially it is obviously sexist for anyone with a Y chromosome.

  22. Jean Henry
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    When Ginsberg spoke at UM 10 ish years ago, she was asked what she would wish for constitutionally and she said, “ERA,” so I’m guessing she was speaking in order to protect its viability not sink it, Wobblie. I know you think every issue is just an opportunity to grandstand your moral and political superiority, but Ginsberg’s first commitment is to the constitution.

  23. Jean Henry
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    “But I know it is impolite to ever criticize woman in positions of power, most especially it is obviously sexist for anyone with a Y chromosome.” –Bat shit crazy. Grow up, baby man. You don’t know shit about feminism. You attacked Ginsberg because she didn’t say what you wanted to hear. It doesn’t matter one bit to you if she’s right.
    Given that the body she sits on would be charged with the final determination as to whether the ERA meets the standards of ratification required by the constitution, I’d say she is in fact an authority o it; the authority in fact. That is precisely why ut would have been wiser maybe for her to keep quiet, but maybe she cares so much that she broke standard in order to assure that any ERA that is ratified is durable to court challenge.

  24. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Bye Joe. Get ready to support a hardcore communist.

  25. Wobblie
    Posted February 11, 2020 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JH, no you are wrong. The chief archivist determines when an amendment has met the requirements for inclusion into the constitution. Please read the appropriate statue which gives that office that authority.
    If their is a legal challenge that will first require a District court decision.
    Since there are numerous precedents already established, that legal challenge will fail. Do you think the people who engineered the “3 state solution” were idiots? It is only if the Liberal class continues to be unwilling to engage in an honest political fight for what is right that there is a chance it would lose.
    Congress just needs to do its job.

One Trackback

  1. […] town hall this evening, Donald Trump, who announce during the last State of the Union that he would “always protect” the Medicare and Social Security of Americans, once again admitted publicly that his administration would be “cutting” social safety […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Steve