welfare programs

[KCfromNC]

like what?

I don't know, the current admin seems to be opening up a lot of farm, housekeeping and food industry jobs formerly held by immigrants. Seems like we could use those to really see if people claiming to be unable to work are what they claim to be. Someone's got to do it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think streamlining welfare programs will take a back seat to all the fraud and corruption that is being uncovered.

I think Trump's fraud case is concluded with him being found guilty. Not sure what that has to do with welfare reform.

 

[HarleyER]

I think Trump's fraud case is concluded with him being found guilty. Not sure what that has to do with welfare reform.

Was this the one where the judge said no jail time and no fines?

 

[A2SG]

Was this the one where the judge said no jail time and no fines?

Yup, the very one some claim is heavily biased against Trump, and who has contributed tens of dollars to Democratic candidates.

-- A2SG, does his judicial overreach know no bounds?

 

[Paulos23]

If you are going to get free money for doing nothing then that money should come with strict requirements as to how it is spent. Either that or no additional help. In other words if we are going to have UBI that means nothing else for people who just get that ( as opposed to people on SSDI or seniors). If you are given free money and you abuse it then you do not get any additional help.

Why? That leads to big overhead to check that the requirements are followed.

If we want to help people, why make it harder to help them?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why? That leads to big overhead to check that the requirements are followed.

If we want to help people, why make it harder to help them?

because help is meant to provide basic needs. There is a difference between what you NEED and what you WANT. If you need help meeting your needs then OK, however, if you claim to need help putting food on the table and getting your house warm/cool clothing and other NEEDS then you need to use the provided help for that purpose. If you have enough to cover your needs then you should not get help with your WANTS.

 

[HarleyER]

Yup, the very one some claim is heavily biased against Trump, and who has contributed tens of dollars to Democratic candidates.

-- A2SG, does his judicial overreach know no bounds?

Oh, the one where Trump was not allowed to call any expert witnesses, at least one jury member was spouting off that they were going to convict Trump, the judge deliberately limit Trump's appeal process, etc.

Much like the Democratic federal judges we are seeing today.

 

[Paulos23]

because help is meant to provide basic needs. There is a difference between what you NEED and what you WANT. If you need help meeting your needs then OK, however, if you claim to need help puting food on the table and getting your house warm/cool clothingand other NEEDS then you need to use the provided help for that purpose. If you have enough to cover your needs then you should not get help with your WANTS.

So you want to limit people from spending their money on needs only. How do you define that? How would you even limit that without ballooning the administrative cost?

 

[dogs4thewin]

So you want to limit people from spending their money on needs only. How do you define that? How would you even limit that without ballooning the administrative cost?

If it is basically free money yes, but good point on how the limit would work.

 

[A2SG]

Oh, the one where Trump was not allowed to call any expert witnesses,

As I recall, there was one witness where Judge Merchan limited the scope of testimony, but he did not entirely disallow the witness, or any other expert witnesses.

at least one jury member was spouting off that they were going to convict Trump,

Again, as I recall, this refers to a questionable facebook post reputed to be from the "cousin" of a juror. And I also recall this is widely considered to be a hoax.

the judge deliberately limit Trump's appeal process, etc.

I'll admit, I have no recollection of this at all....and couldn't find anything even close to it. Please be specific about what you're referring to here.

Much like the Democratic federal judges we are seeing today.

So far, two of your claims have been disproven, and the third is unsupported but remains dubious, at best. Sorry if I remain skeptical about your assessment of other judges out there and any vague accusations about them.

-- A2SG, kinda prefer evidence to vague accusations myself.....

 

[Sabertooth]

Getting out of leases of underused buildings would be a good start. (I do not see why either party would object to that...)

Concerning the programs mentioned in the OP,...
From Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration freeze on federal grants and loans

"Trump administration officials said programs that provide direct assistance to Americans would not be affected, such as Medicare, Social Security, student loans and food stamps. But they sometimes struggled to provide a clear picture.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt initially would not say whether Medicaid was exempted from the freeze, but the administration later clarified that it was..."

 

[Pommer]

Getting out of leases of underused buildings would be a good start. (I do not see why either party would object to that...)

Why would we be okay with the Federal Government reneging on established Contracts?

Wouldn’t such actions make landlords ask for 4x market rates when the Federal Government comes looking for space in the future, with the landlords arguing, “Look what happened the last time when we only made you pay fair-market rates!”

 

[Sabertooth]

Why would we be okay with the Federal Government reneging on established Contracts?

Wouldn’t such actions make landlords ask for 4x market rates when the Federal Government comes looking for space in the future, with the landlords arguing, “Look what happened the last time when we only made you pay fair-market rates!”

Leases have (time) terms and usually terms for vacating early. They have not broken the contract if those terms have been met on their earliest departure. Framing that as "reneging" is dishonest, especially considering Trump's real estate background.

 

[HarleyER]

As I recall, there was one witness where Judge Merchan limited the scope of testimony, but he did not entirely disallow the witness, or any other expert witnesses.


Again, as I recall, this refers to a questionable facebook post reputed to be from the "cousin" of a juror. And I also recall this is widely considered to be a hoax.


I'll admit, I have no recollection of this at all....and couldn't find anything even close to it. Please be specific about what you're referring to here.


So far, two of your claims have been disproven, and the third is unsupported but remains dubious, at best. Sorry if I remain skeptical about your assessment of other judges out there and any vague accusations about them.

-- A2SG, kinda prefer evidence to vague accusations myself.....

As I recall, there was one witness where Judge Merchan limited the scope of testimony, but he did not entirely disallow the witness, or any other expert witnesses.

You recall wrong. Merchan would allow some witnesses but liimited their testimony because "it would confuse the jury".

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/20/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/judge-limits-trumps-expert-00158857

Again, as I recall, this refers to a questionable facebook post reputed to be from the "cousin" of a juror. And I also recall this is widely considered to be a hoax.

Wrong again. The jury misconduct was detailed in a letter to the judge by Trump's lawyers. The letter nor the misdeeds were allowed to be made public by a gag order from Judge Merchan. Rather convenient.

I'll admit, I have no recollection of this at all....and couldn't find anything even close to it. Please be specific about what you're referring to here.

Judge Merchan deliberately limited what Trump could appeal setting the stage for conviction. Thus there was limitation on witnesses, alledge jury misconduct, and a limited means for appeal. Not to mention that Judge Merchan was a liberal Democrat.

Trump Has Few Ways to Overturn His Conviction as a New York Felon

The judge in Donald J. Trump’s case closed off many avenues of appeal, experts said, though his lawyers might challenge the novel theory at the case’s center.

www.nytimes.com

So far, two of your claims have been disproven,

No, I have been right on all counts. Please note that each item that supports my claims come from liberal newspapers. In fact, I noticed that when you Google anything, that is all you get; Politico, NPR, USA Today, etc.

 

[A2SG]

You recall wrong. Merchan would allow some witnesses but liimited their testimony because "it would confuse the jury".

You said: "Trump was not allowed to call any expert witnesses." By your own admission, that was incorrect.

But limiting testimony to relevant topics only is well within a judge's authority, and not at all unconstitutional. You are, of corse, free to disagree. As is the court of appeals.

Wrong again. The jury misconduct was detailed in a letter to the judge by Trump's lawyers. The letter nor the misdeeds were allowed to be made public by a gag order from Judge Merchan. Rather convenient.

How did you come across this knowledge, then? Care to share the details so we all know?

Judge Merchan deliberately limited what Trump could appeal setting the stage for conviction. Thus there was limitation on witnesses, alledge jury misconduct, and a limited means for appeal.

How, exactly, did he accomplish this? Your link requires a subscription so I couldn't access it.

But, it sounds to me that Judge Merchan merely conducted the case fairly and without any legal impropriety, which would, of course, limit Trump's grounds for appeal. Nothing unconstitutional about a judge doing a good job, is there?

But, beyond that, don't forget, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps some legal minutiae eluded me.

Not to mention that Judge Merchan was a liberal Democrat.

Yeah, I heard. He contributed a whopping $25 to the campaign.

Hope he got a good tax write-off for that donation.

No, I have been right on all counts. Please note that each item that supports my claims come from liberal newspapers. In fact, I noticed that when you Google anything, that is all you get; Politico, NPR, USA Today, etc.

Hey, if I've gotten any of the facts wrong, feel free to provide documentation to show my error.

-- A2SG, always willing to examine evidence...it's the vague accusations without it that bug me....

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I've been trying to get on a welfare program but SpaceX won't respond to calls or email.

 

[BPPLEE]

How would you streamline waste in welfare programs

These would include section 8, SNAP,,SSI, TANF and Medicaid

These would NOT include Medicare, SSDI, regular social security or veteran's benefits

Basically programs that have a means based required qualify

If you had people to weed out fraud there's no telling how much you could save. People on disability working under the table, people on section 8 having unauthorized people living with them and charging them rent and what they call "Crazy Checks"
Even the kids say "I don't have to work I can get a check "

 

[BPPLEE]

You said: "Trump was not allowed to call any expert witnesses." By your own admission, that was incorrect.

But limiting testimony to relevant topics only is well within a judge's authority, and not at all unconstitutional. You are, of corse, free to disagree. As is the court of appeals.



How did you come across this knowledge, then? Care to share the details so we all know?


How, exactly, did he accomplish this? Your link requires a subscription so I couldn't access it.

But, it sounds to me that Judge Merchan merely conducted the case fairly and without any legal impropriety, which would, of course, limit Trump's grounds for appeal. Nothing unconstitutional about a judge doing a good job, is there?

But, beyond that, don't forget, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps some legal minutiae eluded me.


Yeah, I heard. He contributed a whopping $25 to the campaign.

Hope he got a good tax write-off for that donation.


Hey, if I've gotten any of the facts wrong, feel free to provide documentation to show my error.

-- A2SG, always willing to examine evidence...it's the vague accusations without it that bug me....

The Judge donated $25 but have you checked how much his daughter made off the case?

 

[HarleyER]

You said: "Trump was not allowed to call any expert witnesses." By your own admission, that was incorrect.

But limiting testimony to relevant topics only is well within a judge's authority, and not at all unconstitutional. You are, of corse, free to disagree. As is the court of appeals.



How did you come across this knowledge, then? Care to share the details so we all know?


How, exactly, did he accomplish this? Your link requires a subscription so I couldn't access it.

But, it sounds to me that Judge Merchan merely conducted the case fairly and without any legal impropriety, which would, of course, limit Trump's grounds for appeal. Nothing unconstitutional about a judge doing a good job, is there?

But, beyond that, don't forget, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps some legal minutiae eluded me.


Yeah, I heard. He contributed a whopping $25 to the campaign.

Hope he got a good tax write-off for that donation.


Hey, if I've gotten any of the facts wrong, feel free to provide documentation to show my error.

-- A2SG, always willing to examine evidence...it's the vague accusations without it that bug me....

I've posted a number of articles primarily favorable to the Democrat's view (probably paid for with USAID funds). All of them support what I'm saying and if you cannot access any of them, then simply do a Google and you'll get many more liberal papers stating the same thing.

Several times you state that this was "within the judge's authority. Judges are suppose to conduct hearings impartially. This was not done. Every judgement was against Trump and his lawyers. And the judge suppressed information and issued gag orders so the public couldn't see what was going on. And, no, it won't go to appeal because the judge just up and nullified the fine and the sentence. Sweet deal. So no appeal. Trump is considered a felon and has no way to appeal the ruling.

I'm always baffled by people who aren't outraged by this behavior no matter what their political leaning. Imagine a judge controlling a trial to get a particular verdict, gaging the defendant and lawyers so they couldn't say anything to the public, and surpressing trial documents so that the outside public couldn't see what was actually going on.

Some people just don't seem to mind if it happens to people they don't like-until it happens to them.

 

[BPPLEE]

I've been trying to get on a welfare program but SpaceX won't respond to calls or email.

Just play crazy and contact the Social Security office.