# These 80 Programs Would Lose Federal Funding Under Trump’s Proposed Budget **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 17, 2017, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387 "2017-03-17T06:59:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/21 "2017-03-18T04:47:22Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Note, I don’t like Trump. > > However, the question you ask misses a big point. Are those programs duplicates or are there additional programs that provide the same kind of services? Also, do the programs _work_? > > Do you know? I don’t. What do you think the odds are that Trump knows? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/22 "2017-03-18T06:51:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. Don’t we already have social security and TANF programs? > > 2. Don’t we already have food stamps? > > 3. Don’t we hire teachers for schools? > > Why do we need these 60+ additional federal programs (along with administrators to run them) when other programs (with administrators) are supposed to be doing the job? > > How is it “monstrous” to suggest that families and neighbors should be looking after the elderly instead of the federal government with limited, enumerated powers? > > This type of hysteria is why no real budget cutting can ever be done. Just because a politician wants to get rid of a pet program that does something for children doesn’t mean that he wants children to starve to death, nor will that happen. Most of these programs DON’T overlap. The food stamp program, for example, is great if you are capable of shopping for and preparing meals; Meals on Wheels is specifically aimed at people who aren’t (and having money, such as Social Security, with which to do the shopping doesn’t help much if you are for whatever reason no longer capable of cooking it). Moreover, a big part of MoW is aimed at providing social interaction, which does have an impact on ability to remain independent–do you want to pay to serve meals to the elderly in their own home, or pay to serve them meals in the dining hall of the nursing home that becomes the primary alternative for those who can’t live independently? Similarly, having teachers is not the same thing as having extra instructional assistance for kids with identified disabilities and difficulties. I’m not sure why you threw TANF in there–with what targeted program do you think it overlaps? (It doesn’t overlap with any programs aimed at the elderly, because most if not all states require that there be a child under the age of 18 in the home as a requirement for eligibility, and most elderly don’t have a young child around.) Sure, it would be great if families and neighbors could/would take care of everybody. What happens, or should happen, to the elderly who don’t have families, or to those who live in neighborhoods where everybody is elderly and in the same boat? Are you proposing a new rule: people who did not succeed in reproducing (or whose children died, turned out bad, or or have their own problems) don’t deserve to be able to eat? What exactly do you think should happen to people who fall through the cracks of society? ---
**Author:** ![race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c4cdca/32.png) [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/race_to_the_bottom)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/23 "2017-03-18T18:19:15Z")
“How is it “monstrous” to suggest that families and neighbors should be looking after the elderly instead of the federal government with limited, enumerated powers?” Conservatives were making this argument in the days of Oliver Twist. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/24 "2017-03-18T19:36:35Z")
> [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](#): > > Conservatives were making this argument in the days of Oliver Twist. I thought that post was a riff on “A Christmas Carol:” > [@](#): > > “Are there no prisons?” > “Plenty of prisons…” > “And the Union workhouses.” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?” > “Both very busy, sir…” > “Those who are badly off must go there.” Versus > [@](#): > > 1. Don’t we already have social security and TANF programs? > 2. Don’t we already have food stamps? > 3. Don’t we hire teachers for schools? > Why do we need these 60+ additional federal programs (along with administrators to run them) when other programs (with administrators) are supposed to be doing the job? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/25 "2017-03-18T23:35:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How is it “monstrous” to suggest that families and neighbors should be looking after the elderly instead of the federal government with limited, enumerated powers? Because they know as well as everyone else that we used to do that, and it didn’t work. So the argument is just covering up for “We shouldn’t be helping these people at all.” It also doesn’t help that we have no reason to be decreasing funding in the first place. There aren’t any people who are hurting because their tax burden is too high. Our GDP is still the highest in the world. And we already spend so much on our military that spending more won’t make us safer (especially since the current plan is to pull back on our influence on the world stage). The only reason to even do this is that supposedly cutting spending is a moral virtue in its own right–one that is apparently more important than the moral virtue of keeping these people alive and fed. To put it in Christian terms, it’s worshiping Mammon. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/26 "2017-03-18T23:41:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, wait. Am I to understand that some of the posters here are now in disagreement with the legislative priorities of President Trump? This is unfair. Part of the only good parts about Trump becoming the Republican nominee was the idea that he was just playing conservative and would actually be more moderate than the other candidates. He is a con man, after all. That he’s actually going so far conservative as to make the country worse is not great. I only hope that the stupid Republican ethic of party loyalty (aka tribalism) doesn’t win the day. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/27 "2017-03-19T00:58:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Think of the constitution he’d be violating if he did that. Don’t like the travel ban? What makes you think the president can overturn drug laws (passed by Congress)? I maintain Trump could simply instruct law enforcement to deprioritize drug crimes to the point of non-criminalization. Discretionary enforcement means a whole hell of a lot of federal laws can be nullified by the president. Nothing unconstitutional about that. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/28 "2017-03-19T02:31:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That 's not what the poster, above, proposed. Emphasis added. “Decriminalize” doesn’t mean “legalize”. The President absolutely has the authority to direct the AG to decline to prosecute or pursue drug cases. The laws would still be on the books, but the investigatory agencies would decline to pursue leads & the prosecutors would decline to prosecute. As it’s already been long established that both parties have that discretion already, a directive that it should be utilized in a certain way is completely legal. Heck, even grade school level civics class teaches that “the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Judicial Branch reviews the laws, and the Executive Branch enforces the laws”. Declining to investigate or prosecute is an established enforcement method. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/29 "2017-03-19T17:13:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is unfair. Part of the only good parts about Trump becoming the Republican nominee was the idea that he was just playing conservative and would actually be more moderate than the other candidates. He is a con man, after all. > > That he’s actually going so far conservative as to make the country worse is not great. I only hope that the stupid Republican ethic of party loyalty (aka tribalism) doesn’t win the day. So your argument is that you had hoped that Trump wasn’t “really” a conservative/Republican, and now that he’s doing something conservative/Republican, your hope is that Republicans will realize that and not go along with it? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/30 "2017-03-20T12:32:45Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Cutting government funding would shut down most of the satellite MOW prep facilities in this city and probably most others. Glib comments about things you know nothing about is just ignorant. Speaking of ignorant comments, this is probably not the case. [Donations to Meals on Wheels increase by about 50 times](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meals-wheels-sees-spike-online-donations-after-trump-s-proposed-n735266). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/31 "2017-03-20T12:48:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is unfair. Part of the only good parts about Trump becoming the Republican nominee was the idea that he was just playing conservative and would actually be more moderate than the other candidates. He is a con man, after all. > > That he’s actually going so far conservative as to make the country worse is not great. I only hope that the stupid Republican ethic of party loyalty (aka tribalism) doesn’t win the day. Hilarious. Unless you were serious. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/32 "2017-03-20T14:55:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1)How is it “monstrous” to suggest that families and neighbors should be looking after the elderly instead of the federal government with limited, enumerated powers? My family should look after me? I have 1 living sister and my husband. My husband is currently dying of cancer. My sister has lost about 50% heart function, I will almost certainly outlive her, leaving me without family… which I suppose makes me worthless in your eyes? You DO realize that some people don’t have family to fall back on, right? Neighbors? Well, some people have neighbors with resources and some don’t, because poor people tend to live with poor people and not next to the wealthy, and poor people just don’t have a lot of extra resources to spread around no matter how much they might want to do so - it’s sort of the reason we describe them as “poor”. This isn’t the first time you’ve demonstrated this level of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387/33 "2017-03-20T20:44:41Z")
No one is saying you’re worthless if you don’t have family. We are saying it is possible to run a successful charity that doesn’t get money from the taxpayer. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/these-80-programs-would-lose-federal-funding-under-trump-s-proposed-budget/782387.md?page=1)