Trump Administration: "IT'S OKAY TO BE POOR." (1 Viewer)

[Gimmesometruth]

So the quote did appear in the article?

Yeah, it was the title of the article, ergo a part, ergo "in".

derp

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Not when it comes to federal workers. He is getting a chance to screw all US workers like he screwed his construction and casino workers.

To someone (you) who thinks that half a trillion dollars is insignificant, I guess I understand why you'd want to keep everyone who breathes on the US payroll.

 

[Felis Leo]

Pompous nonsense. Meaningless drivel.

Pompous? How so? I deal with poor people every day in my line work. Their poverty and economic insecurity are sources of stress and misery to them. Again, have you ever in your life experienced grinding poverty or know anyone who has?

Personally, I would rather a system where it is as easy as possible to gain economic security for oneself and one's family. With rising living costs and Republicans seeking to cut the social safety net for our nation's poorest, it is only getting harder and harder every day.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Sorry, I should have said “federal tariffs” instead of “federal taxes.” My point is that tariffs will almost certainly add to the price of goods to consumes in the same way sales taxes do.

They probably will, if they ever get implemented.

Of course, but his anti-worker policies — pushing and breaking legal boundaries as an employer — are consistent with his anti-worker policies as president.

WHAT anti-worker policies? Please be specific.

 

[Felis Leo]

WHAT anti-worker policies? Please be specific.

Glad you asked, RetiredAtLast.

Trump has encouraged freeloaders, made it more difficult to enforce collective bargaining agreements, silenced workers and restricted the freedom to join unions:

• During a live conversation on X with Elon Musk on August 12, Donald Trump said striking workers should be fired.1
• Trump packed the courts with anti-labor judges who have made the entire public sector “right to work for less” in an attempt to financially weaken unions by increasing the number of freeloaders.2
• Trump stacked the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union appointees who side with employers in contract disputes and support companies who delay and stall union elections, misclassify workers to take away their freedom to join a union, and silence workers.3
• Trump made it easier for employers to fire or penalize workers who speak up for better pay and working conditions or exercise the right to strike.4
• Trump promised to veto the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, historic legislation that will reverse decades of legislation meant to crush private sector unions and shift power away from CEOs to workers.5

Trump has restricted overtime pay, opposed wage increases, and gutted health and safety protections:

• Trump changed the rules about who qualifies for overtime pay, making more than 8 million workers ineligible and costing them over $1 billion per year in lost wages.6
• Trump reduced the number of OSHA inspectors so that there are now fewer than at any time in history, and weakened penalties for companies that fail to report violations.7
• Trump threatened to veto legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour.8
• Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia, is an anti-worker, union-busting corporate lawyer who aggressively defended Cablevision’s decision to fire 22 workers when they tried to win a contract with CWA.9

Trump has helped insurers reduce coverage and made it easier for pharmaceutical companies to inflate drug prices:

• Trump supports an ongoing lawsuit that would eliminate protections that ensure that health insurers can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.10
• Trump threatened to veto legislation to reduce prescription drug costs, even though last year the prices of over 3,000 drugs increased by an average of 10.5%.11
• Trump’s made protecting the profits of pharmaceutical companies a priority in NAFTA renegotiations.12
• Trump's proposed FY2021 budget would cut funding for Medicare.13

 

[Felis Leo]

WHAT anti-worker policies? Please be specific.

Continued:

Trump has encouraged outsourcing and offshoring:

• Instead of supporting CWA’s bipartisan legislation to help save call center jobs, Trump pushed for a corporate tax cut bill that gives companies a 50% tax break on their foreign profits - making it financially rewarding for them to move our jobs overseas.14
• On two separate occasions, a group of Senators wrote Trump asking him to issue an executive order preventing federal contracts from going to companies that send call center jobs overseas, and CWA President Chris Shelton even asked him to do so during an in person during a meeting in the Oval Office. He never responded.15
• Trump has broken his campaign promise to take on companies that move good jobs overseas—instead, he's given over $115 billion in federal contracts to companies that are offshoring jobs.16

Trump failed to prepare the nation for the COVID-19 pandemic, opposes hazard pay for essential workers, and has given employers a free pass to lower safety standards:

• Trump failed to secure enough Personal Protective Equipment for essential workers during the COVID-19 crisis and has weakened protections for workers who are concerned about working in unsafe environments.17
• Trump refused to use the Defense Production Act to get our IUE-CWA manufacturing members back to work producing ventilators or PPE and instead used it to force meatpacking plants to open despite thousands of workers getting infected on the job in unsafe working conditions.18
• Trump promised to veto the Heroes Act, which would give essential workers premium “hazard” pay and expand paid leave and unemployment insurance for those impacted by the Coronavirus.19
• Trump opposed providing aid to help state and local governments continue providing services and keep workers on payroll—he suggested instead that it might make sense to allow states to declare bankruptcy.20
• Trump’s OSHA has lowered standards meant to protect workers from getting sick at work and given employers a free pass if they fail to follow even those minimal requirements.21

 

[Gimmesometruth]

To someone (you) who thinks that half a trillion dollars is insignificant, I guess I understand why you'd want to keep everyone who breathes on the US payroll.

$500B, in a $30 TRILLION economy, 1.6%, is insignificant. It is not my fault you have no sense of proportion. You are behind the idea that we should blow up our economy over a 1.6% difference.

And guess what, you are dragging a losing debate from another thread to this one, you just can't get enough losing.

Its amazing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yeah, it was the title of the article, ergo a part, ergo "in".

derp

It actually isn't. And that's ignoring the fact that you're attributing the quote to Trump or his administration.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's OK for Other People to be poor. In fact it is necessary.

Mandatory accounting in high school is too difficult an idea for economists. Could have been done since 1950.

Ask ChatGPT for the effect by now.
.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It actually isn't.

"Titles of articles are not a part of articles"
the derpiness continues.....

And that's ignoring the fact that you're attributing the quote to Trump or his administration.

um, I didn't write the article or the OP, so I have no idea why you wrote this.

is the ice cream freezing your brain? put the cone down.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Glad you asked, RetiredAtLast.

So you copy and paste a page from a Union website. Its full of Union complaints such as, "Instead of supporting CWA’s bipartisan legislation...", complaining that Trump didn't support what the Union wanted. Or that he didn't get their members back to work instead of meat packers. It complains that he "encouraged offshoring," yet Democrats are upset about his present efforts to return industry to America.

IOW, you have no idea of the answers to my question, so you just rely on the opinions of uber-Libs of a Union, and you don't even bother to cite the piece. Of course, we could save a lot of time if you just copy and paste Union stuff, and I just copy and paste GOP stuff.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

It is not my fault you have no sense of proportion.

It IS your fault that you have no sense of responsibility for the taxpayers' money.

And guess what, you are dragging a losing debate from another thread to this one, you just can't get enough losing.

My only loss is that there are people who think like you do, that get miserable if excess employees are cut from the government (read, taxpayers) payroll, and that those people are in government.

Its amazing.

Actually, it isn't. It's disgusting that there are so many people like you who think that the best government is the biggest government, What did you think when Clinton fired 400,000 government workers? That it was just fine?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

"Titles of articles are not a part of articles"
the derpiness continues.....

Okay, show me where "It's not so bad being poor."

...is contained within the title "The Trump Administration Thinks You Should Be OK With Being Poor"

Can't do it? Not surprised.

 

[Felis Leo]

So you copy and paste a page from a Union website. Its full of Union complaints such as, "Instead of supporting CWA’s bipartisan legislation...", complaining that Trump didn't support what the Union wanted. Or that he didn't get their members back to work instead of meat packers. It complains that he "encouraged offshoring," yet Democrats are upset about his present efforts to return industry to America.

Well, yes. Because he is not undertaking any efforts to return industry to America. And before you start typing about how the tariffs are encouraging businesses to build factories in America, that is not actual industrial policy. Tariffs can only protect an alread-existing industrial base from being hollowed out by cheaper, more efficient or higher-quality foreign manufacturers. They cannot and will not build out a newly-formed industrial base.

IOW, you have no idea of the answers to my question, so you just rely on the opinions of uber-Libs of a Union, and you don't even bother to cite the piece. Of course, we could save a lot of time if you just copy and paste Union stuff, and I just copy and paste GOP stuff.

Unions represent their workers. And being pro-worker has always been a left-wing political framework. While there are many working class people and even union members who are individually conservative or right-wing, you cannot actually be ideologically right wing and pro-worker generally (that is, pro worker for any workers beyond oneself and one's own clique). Those who claim to be are either completely dishonest or engaging in some sort of grift.

However, you could do something even more devastating rejoinder to my point of the union compilation I cited (certainly moreso than GOP propaganda): You could cite for me (even anecdotally) workers who were directly benefited by Donald Trump's specific policies more than they were harmed.

 

[Nickyjo]

They probably will, if they ever get implemented.

WHAT anti-worker policies? Please be specific.

This repeats: Early in his first term, Trump eliminated the requirement that in granting government contracts, a company’s record of deaths and injuries be considered among other factors. This wasn’t a deal breaker, their safety record would be merely considered. Second, Obama’s administration had withdrawn for further study a pesticide that apparently caused birth defects, presumably in farm workers and possibly in consumers. Trump ended that. Trump was determined by a court to have illegally fired a member of the NLRB. This is the first time someone was fired before their term expired, something not allowed other than for malfeasance.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

It IS your fault that you have no sense of responsibility for the taxpayers' money.

How do you know he isn't a taxpayer?

My only loss is that there are people who think like you do, that get miserable if excess employees are cut from the government (read, taxpayers) payroll, and that those people are in government.

Hilarious since people do get miserable when it's actually them. If you had no job and were searching today in a market where hundreds of people apply for any given job, you'd be miserable too.

The difference is that this poster is "miserable" (if you will) for other people's plight as well. Even though he, personally, is not suffering.

What a concept.

Actually, it isn't. It's disgusting that there are so many people like you who think that the best government is the biggest government, What did you think when Clinton fired 400,000 government workers? That it was just fine?

LOL at having to go back thirty years in time to try to make a point, but that aside, how do you know he thought that was just fine? I didn't. I'm sure a whole lot of people didn't.

But regardless...are you saying that if one president cut thousands of jobs, it's fine for Trump to do the same thiing? He can and should perform any act ever enacted by any president no matter how vile it may have been, or appeared to have been? Do you feel this way about, say, criminals who have gotten off for serious crimes? Somebody did, so let's let them all do it?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Well, yes. Because he is not undertaking any efforts to return industry to America. And before you start typing about how the tariffs

Trump is pressing to lower the corporate tax to 17% for companies that manufacture in this country. That among the lowest taxes in the world.

you cannot actually be ideologically right wing and pro-worke

Of course one can. One can be "pro-worker" for things like opportunity, safety and wages, while being conservative with respect to staffing, assignments and other business decisions. Incidentally being in favor of lower taxes is very "pro-worker" while being ideologically conservative.

You could cite for me (even anecdotally) workers who were directly benefited by Donald Trump's specific policies more than they were harmed.

Sure. One example is that real median wages for blacks rose during Trump's first term.

 

[mike2810]

Didn't Trump say that America will become "rich".
He just didn't tell us who in America will become rich. It seems if you are a CEO or stockholder in a big company you are the ones Trump is talking about. Not the average worker or small business owner.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

How do you know he isn't a taxpayer?

He probably is, just as most politicians are, too. But they - and he - can still squander his, and all other taxpayers', money.

Hilarious since people do get miserable when it's actually them.

There is no evidence that he is a laid-off government employee.

The difference is that this poster is "miserable" (if you will) for other people's plight as well.

There is no evidence of that. The best evidence is that he just doesn't like a reduction in the number of government employees.

, how do you know he thought that was just fine?

I didn't say that he did. I asked a question.

But regardless...are you saying that if one president cut thousands of jobs, it's fine for Trump to do the same thiing?

I'm questioning whether he was upset with a Democrat President doing the same thing that a Republican President is doing.

 

[markdc]

"IT'S OKAY TO BE POOR."
"It's not so bad being poor."

Did Trump or anyone in his administration actually say these words, and if they didn’t, why put them in quotes to make it appear as though they did?

Mark

 

[RetiredAtLast]

This repeats: Early in his first term, Trump eliminated the requirement that in granting government contracts, a company’s record of deaths and injuries be considered among other factors. This wasn’t a deal breaker, their safety record would be merely considered. Second, Obama’s administration had withdrawn for further study a pesticide that apparently caused birth defects, presumably in farm workers and possibly in consumers. Trump ended that. Trump was determined by a court to have illegally fired a member of the NLRB. This is the first time someone was fired before their term expired, something not allowed other than for malfeasance.

I'm sorry, but your first two examples don't provide enough information that I can look into them to understand the circumstances. And I recall the firing of the NLRB board member but, as you point out, it was not allowed.

 

[Bucky]

Trump is right.

Look at homeless people, a lot of them are overweight or obese. In other countries, this is ludicrous.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

He probably is, just as most politicians are, too. But they - and he - can still squander his, and all other taxpayers', money.

There's no evidence of that.

There is no evidence that he is a laid-off government employee.

I never said he ws.

There is no evidence of that. The best evidence is that he just doesn't like a reduction in the number of government employees.

Then you're not reading this thread, just reacting as quickly as you can to run cover for Trump. So nope. In fact, there's "evidence" to the contrary in the comments about working with poor families. So, evidence runs contrary to what you're saying.

I didn't say that he did. I asked a question.

I'm questioning whether he was upset with a Democrat President doing the same thing that a Republican President is doing.

Because...?

Would that change what Trump is doing now, in a time period when it is significantly more difficult to find jobs amid an incredible amount of competition?

 

[Nickyjo]

I'm sorry, but your first two examples don't provide enough information that I can look into them to understand the circumstances. And I recall the firing of the NLRB board member but, as you point out, it was not allowed.

Trump is appealing that firing. Hopefully it will fail. As to my examples, fairly easy to find through a search.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Trump is right.

Look at homeless people, a lot of them are overweight or obese. In other countries, this is ludicrous.

Other countries (that you're thinking of) don't have the fast food/processed food culture we have, where it is far cheaper to buy the worst food.