Thank you trump for keeping a campaign promise

[Griever]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/3/trump-donates-first-check-national-park-service/

donating your first quare pay to the national park service ($78k)

its just a shame you are cutting 1.9 billion from them, but hey, its the thought that counts

[Benton]

I honestly thought that was a joke when I heard it.

Wow.

I'm going to try that on a smaller scale. Tonight when I get off work, I'm razing the house and all contents, smashing everything the kids own — clothes, toys, memories. What's not smashed, I'll set on fire. When it's just ashes, I'll load the kids up in the car and take them to DQ for ice cream to show them what a great dad I am.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 12:16 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm going to try that on a smaller scale. Tonight when I get off work, I'm razing the house and all contents, smashing everything the kids own — clothes, toys, memories. What's not smashed, I'll set on fire. When it's just ashes, I'll load the kids up in the car and take them to DQ for ice cream to show them what a great dad I am.

So....like any other payday around here.

[CageTheBengal]

(04-05-2017, 12:16 PM)Benton Wrote: I honestly thought that was a joke when I heard it.

Wow.

I'm going to try that on a smaller scale. Tonight when I get off work, I'm razing the house and all contents, smashing everything the kids own — clothes, toys, memories. What's not smashed, I'll set on fire. When it's just ashes, I'll load the kids up in the car and take them to DQ for ice cream to show them what a great dad I am.

That's pretty much the look on both their faces...



"This thing is gonna bounce."

[CageTheBengal]

This is a pretty sad attempt at a PR stunt. I honestly thought Trump was smarter than this.




"Alright! Let me dangle something shiny in front of you monkeys!"

[Griever]

(04-05-2017, 12:16 PM)Benton Wrote: I honestly thought that was a joke when I heard it.

Wow.

I'm going to try that on a smaller scale. Tonight when I get off work, I'm razing the house and all contents, smashing everything the kids own — clothes, toys, memories. What's not smashed, I'll set on fire. When it's just ashes, I'll load the kids up in the car and take them to DQ for ice cream to show them what a great dad I am.

ah yes

ice cream!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

He doesn't give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing LIAR!
He does give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing STUNT!

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 01:06 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He doesn't give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing LIAR!
He does give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing STUNT!

It's more that he doesn't do what he says he will do until he's called out on it.

Giving to military charities.
Donating his paycheck.
Separating himself from his businesses.
Etc.

Usually he lies when it involves his money.

However, as has been noted, giving his check to an agency that he has proposed slashing it's budget by the millions also looks like a jerk move.

But "Give him a chance" ™.

[Griever]

(04-06-2017, 01:06 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He doesn't give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing LIAR!
He does give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing STUNT!

or don't cut the budget to departments?

but im glad i could trigger the little republican snowflake in you, leap

[Belsnickel]

(04-06-2017, 01:06 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He doesn't give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing LIAR!
He does give away his paycheck as promised: F'ing STUNT!

It would take over 900 years worth of checks like that to make up for the cut to the budget to the NPS that Trump has proposed. Tell me again how sincere this is.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-06-2017, 09:39 AM)Griever Wrote: or don't cut the budget to departments?

but im glad i could trigger the little republican snowflake in you, leap

Not a republican, nor triggered. Just pointing out how there was no outcome that would have made some people happy.


As for cuts to budgets, I think there needs to be more. Of course that includes the military, which could be achieved by simply saying "Nope" and leaving the middle east to it's own crap.

The budget not only needs to be balanced, but the deficit needs to start shrinking. So Trump isn't helping there, either (surprise). Cutting from one place to spend at another isn't really productive in getting this country out of debt. Big cuts in budgets would just be a part of getting this country in a better place financially. You don't get out of debt by continuing to spend more money.

(04-06-2017, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It would take over 900 years worth of checks like that to make up for the cut to the budget to the NPS that Trump has proposed. Tell me again how sincere this is.

I never claimed Trump to be sincere. He's almost certainly not. The dude's an orange turd. I just pointed out that regardless of what he did, there's a very vocal group that would never be happy with it.


EDIT: If the proposed $1.5b cut goes through, it would take 13,242 exactly like it to get rid of the national debt.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-05-2017, 09:37 AM)Griever Wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/3/trump-donates-first-check-national-park-service/

donating your first quare pay to the national park service ($78k)

its just a shame you are cutting 1.9 billion from them, but hey, its the thought that counts

*proposed budget cut   And if 12% of their budget is 1.5B, then maybe they could stand to be some of the fat cut from the budget.  They could always transfer 12% of the National Parks to the States in which they reside, making them part of the State Park System.  Individual States should know how best to make them somewhat profitable.

[*bfine32*]

How much has anybody on here bitching about this donated?

Budget cuts must be made. A way to ease these cuts is to have those who can donate.

Just when you think the left can go no further. They blast Trump for making a donation.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: *proposed budget cut   And if 12% of their budget is 1.5B, then maybe they could stand to be some of the fat cut from the budget.  They could always transfer 12% of the National Parks to the States in which they reside, making them part of the State Park System.  Individual States should know how best to make them somewhat profitable.

Sure they can cut some fat.

Then we can move that to increase that lean, mean fighting machine military budget that is getting a proposed...increase.  

But you hit the nail on the head with the second part:  Shift the burden to the states!  Then tell everyone how you saved them money and win votes!  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-06-2017, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: *proposed budget cut   And if 12% of their budget is 1.5B, then maybe they could stand to be some of the fat cut from the budget.  They could always transfer 12% of the National Parks to the States in which they reside, making them part of the State Park System.  Individual States should know how best to make them somewhat profitable.

Why do you think the individual states should know best?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-06-2017, 08:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why do you think the individual states should know best?

Simple answer, they are right there.  They know how to promote the attraction, how to encourage people to visit the attraction, how to monitor who comes and goes from the place.  Every State that I know of has State Parks, as well as DNR and Wildlife officers.  It makes little to no sense to keep these National Parks, when they could just as easily be State Parks in their home States.  They could denote them as "National Treasures" or whatever, to put added emphasis on the significance of the site.  But, for the Federal to seize these lands, and deny the individual State the opportunity to manage and perhaps profit from their existence is a bit overreaching.

[HarleyDog]

Had he spent that at the bar on hookers and blow, would you not say it was better if he had donated it?

Geez!

[Griever]

(04-06-2017, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: *proposed budget cut   And if 12% of their budget is 1.5B, then maybe they could stand to be some of the fat cut from the budget.  They could always transfer 12% of the National Parks to the States in which they reside, making them part of the State Park System.  Individual States should know how best to make them somewhat profitable.

maybe cut our defense budget, since we spend more than what, the next 6 or 7 countries do combined (and he wants to add another 52 billion from it)?

[BmorePat87]

I don't think anyone here would have made a big deal out of this if he donated it to like the Red Cross. The fact that he slashed one department's budget and then gave them a drop in the bucket is just a joke. It's like me shooting someone 4 times, handing them a bandaid, and expecting everyone to applaud me for being so generous to them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-06-2017, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Simple answer, they are right there.  They know how to promote the attraction, how to encourage people to visit the attraction, how to monitor who comes and goes from the place.  Every State that I know of has State Parks, as well as DNR and Wildlife officers.  It makes little to no sense to keep these National Parks, when they could just as easily be State Parks in their home States.  They could denote them as "National Treasures" or whatever, to put added emphasis on the significance of the site.  But, for the Federal to seize these lands, and deny the individual State the opportunity to manage and perhaps profit from their existence is a bit overreaching.

Yellowstone was a national park before Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho were states. Not sure I want one park managed by three different state governments. Aside from the original colonies, weren't state lands originally federal lands? I'm not sure, but I think so.

I agree there is wasteful spending and cuts need to be made, but a proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending is a little ridiculous. Especially considering the National Parks Service budget for 2016 was less than $3 billion.

I think the state and national parks systems act as checks and balances against mismanagement and political vagaries. Some states are managed better or worse than others. Do you really believe the state of California can manage Yosemite better than the National Parks System? If the National Parks revert to the states then the states will need to raise the revenue to manage them. So you and I might see a decrease in federal taxes and an increase in state taxes.

Plus state politics is like MLB's minor league. Most of the state politicians don't have the talent to be called up to the big show.