MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Why is he incapable of answering simple ...

Why is he incapable of answering simple questions? Look at what he said about this childcare question.

posted 5 months ago by Switchstar (411)
27 replies | jump to latest

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/09/a-new-level-of-incoherence-from-trump/679742/

Yesterday, at the Economic Club of New York, one member asked Donald Trump a very specific question about his policy priorities: “If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?”

This was his answer. As you probably expected, he gave a completely incoherent answer. Here it is verbatim:

But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that—because, look, child care is child care. It’s, couldn’t—you know, there’s something … You have to have it. In this country, you have to have it.

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country.

Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s gonna take care. We’re gonna have—I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country—because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth.

But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about. We’re gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.

We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re gonna take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about: Make America great again. We have to do it, because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question.

What the fuck was that? Can't this jackass ever give an answer that makes any sense?

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

You could ask the same question of cackling Kamala.

To be fair, both parties pander with endless promises of freebies.

But nowhere in the Constitution is there a mandate for citizens to pay for their fellow citizens expenses.

Time was when childcare was considered the responsibility of that thing called PARENTS. But the government’s confiscatory tax rates and sucking the wage earner dry makes it necessary for both parents to work. That is, if indeed there are TWO parents involved. The welfare system has made dads unnecessary because “Big Daddy Uncle Sam” will support all those kids.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/29/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-announces-action-to-lower-child-care-costs-for-more-than-100000-families/

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

Interesting article and exactly my point. The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to hand out money to the middle class to care for their kids. Earning 65,000 a year? Well give up all the cell phones, iPods, 2 cars and have mommy stay home and raise the toddlers until they are ready for their tax payer funded crappy public school education.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

Where does the constitution forbit it?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

Where does the constitution forbit it?

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

Article One of the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress, you know, the folks who control the people’s purse.

What they can do is listed, not what is forbidden. They are able to levy taxes(no income tax back then), coin money, establish a post office, declare war,etc.

Nowhere did the Founders write that Congress and especially not the President were allowed to promise endless free stuff, spend millions and billions on “free” tuition, cribs and diapers and free daycare, etc

Kamala Harris is definitely not the first politician to bribe voters with a magical basket of goodies. It has been going on for so long that Americans expect Uncle Sam to be Santa Claus.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

There are also un-enumerated powers granted by the constitution.

Article 1, Section 8
Paragraph 1 (emphasis added): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE FOR THE common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Paragraph 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

Too many people think that the GENERAL WELFARE means welfare checks.

I did mention in my post that Congress had the power to tax. But taxation was way different back then. No income tax, no withholding tax so that your money was grabbed from you before you even saw it.

People have been brainwashed into thinking that the government “gives”. No, it takes. It takes from working people and hands out the free stuff to get votes.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

<>

Well, Kamala Harris is talking about tax credits for the most part, but, you could call them welfare checks for working people, if you want. And if Congress writes a law to provide for the common welfare that involves sending money to working people, then it is constitutional.

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

Let us check our terminology.

The government is not “giving” anything to working people if it gives them a break on their taxes for the simple reason that it is NOT the government’s money to begin with!

Geez! To call it welfare when people are allowed to keep their own money is an insult and a slap in the face to hard working people.

God save us from Congress writing more laws! I get the impression that you really don’t know what the Constitution means.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

You are the one who introduced the idea that the government was giving out money.

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

Yikes! Are you serious???? Do you NOT pay any attention to political speeches? They pretty much all offer freebies for votes and they've done it for years because they have an ignorant populace to fool. And I mean both parties, it's just that the Dems are a bit more skilled at it.

Hardly anyone understands the limited powers of the Federal government. And politicians like it that way. Much easier for them to get votes by promising stuff than actually having to govern in the way our Founders envisioned.

Did you listen to any of Kamala's "I have a plan" speech? A plan to help families buy cribs, car seats, baby clothes, etc. Whaaaat? If people cannot afford the basics, they have no business bringing a child into this world.
The government should not be in the "baby clothes" business. Every woman I know has friends or relatives with kids and most people share. My mom lent our crib to her cousin and then got it back when my youngest sister was born. I had a cradle for my son and gave it to my sister when she was expecting. Moms share baby clothes and toys, etc. If a couple is so friendless or bereft of family, that's sad. But the government isn't a substitute for Toys R Us.

If you are middle class and get that $6,000 tax rebate, you surely must've been able to afford to buy baby clothes before the rebate. But let's dangle the carrot in front of people.
And she's not giving you free money. You just get to keep your own hard earned cash. These freebies are most likely going to the "non-earners" to put it as kindly as possible.

Regarding your last post saying that if Congress passes a law to give money to working people, then it's Constitutional. Good grief!!! Where did you hear such nonsense? You must be the product of a public school education.

Please get yourself educated. I'm sure you can do it.

[–] Druff (1841) 5 months ago

"GENERAL WELFARE" can mean pretty much anything. If you're going to define it with specifics, you better come correct and show your receipts. Because otherwise you're just a bloviating moron.

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

As I wrote to the previous poster, WHAAAAAT? General welfare does most certainly NOT mean anything
we want it to mean. Another shining example of our public school system. I don't have to "define it with specifics". Our Founders already did that, not that most people know it anymore. A dumbed down citizenry is easier to control.

"Show receipts"? Of what? You get a receipt when you BUY something. Just what am I "buying" from the government? Your illogic is showing.

The late brilliant economist, Walter E. Williams, would be spinning in his grave to hear such incredible ignorance about the Constitution. He was a scholar which I definitely am not. So if you want to actually learn about the Constitution and the Federal government's limited powers, I suggest you type in "Walter E. Williams and the Constitution.

One of his favorite quotes of James Madison, the father of the Constitution, is included.

Madison was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

Instead of silly name calling which is beneath you, educate yourself.

[–] Druff (1841) 5 months ago

You clearly cannot provide a specific definition of "general welfare" in the context of the Constitution, or you would have done so. If it was as simple as repeating the Founders' definition you would have done that to avoid looking like a complete simpleton. But of course there is no avoiding that obvious fact.

[–] [email protected] (6224) 5 months ago

And neither can you!Druff if were so smart you would be schooling me in what the “general” welfare” clause meant. Instead you resort to simple minded name calling. Explain yourself. Give me an intelligent response if you can.

No wonder Kamala has so many followers. She is relying on the uninformed.

[–] Druff (1841) 5 months ago

"if were so smart you would be schooling me in what the “general” welfare” clause meant."

That was my entire point. It's undefined. The founding fathers made the decision to leave it up to interpretation by whomever is in charge at any given time, assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that they would be reasonable and rational.

Even primitive hunter/gatherer tribes were able to work out simple welfare systems where everybody pitched in to feed other members who, instead of going out to hunt and gather, patrolled the home perimeter to deal with raiders and predators when they showed up, or members who were sick or injured or crippled and couldn't provide for themselves. And there were probably primitive lazy turds who took advantage of it, and dumbass selfish pricks like you who hated having to give any of their own stuff to help the needy. Story old as time.

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 5 months ago

That's my prediction. This debate will feature some iconic word salad

[–] Martoto (5173) 5 months ago

It nearly turned into Dr Seuss.

"They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats."

They're boiling the frogs, They're sauteing rats

They're blanching the poodles, and british longhairs

With soft buttered noodles, and budgies in pairs.

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 5 months ago

Cinema.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 5 months ago

Dr Seuss would approve! He stayed out as a political cartoonist, lampooning fascists in the 1930s

[–] Patman111196 (1892) 5 months ago

Maybe you should also ask Kamala that. She doesn't really seem to have her schedule in the best order right now. The only pro is that she'll probably be more generalized and direct, but even then she has been in the shadows for some time.

[–] tvfan (14459) 5 months ago

He knows that the specifics/details he divulges will be used against him and sabotaged by his opponents.

[–] Switchstar (411) 5 months ago

LMAO good one.

Oh shit, you're serious aren't you?

[–] tvfan (14459) 5 months ago

Eight years of them using what he says against him and you didn't notice? What rock are you living under?

[–] parkerbot (10625) 5 months ago

Why didn't she answer when he asked up to what month of pregnancy does she support abortion?

Instead she made that dopey save me ABC face.

[–] Gd5150 (11948) 5 months ago

“Will you make child care affordable”

Lmao!!! Whats that mean?

Meanwhile, 50+ days since the Democrat rectum spewed Kamala for their cult, and….1 interview.

[–] Switchstar (411) 5 months ago

You seriously don't know what that question means? Are you really that dumb?

Oh wait, you're MAGA. (Yup, you really are that dumb.)