Trump is going to unveil some ideas on his first budget on 2/28 in his speech to congress. This will be an ongoing story so I suggest we might want pin it as it is going to generate a lot of exploding heads. Here is an initial article. As a disclaimer, it is from Yahoo:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-plans-to-cut-funding-for-most-government-agencies-160756646.html
Apparently a key piece is Trump increasing military spending by $54B and cutting other programs by the same amount. OK GOP congresscritters it is time to stand by your "I am a conservative" BS.
Let's find a better link first, OK? Yahoo sucks big time.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 05:03:42 PM
Let's find a better link first, OK? Yahoo sucks big time.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/27/trump-budget-boosts-defense-54-billion/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-ask-for-54-billion-increase-in-defense-spending/article/2615860
Quote from: walkstall on February 27, 2017, 06:21:16 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/27/trump-budget-boosts-defense-54-billion/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-ask-for-54-billion-increase-in-defense-spending/article/2615860
:thumbup:
Best o'luck to the DOD in resisting pressure from arms manufacturers, who can choose to ignore U.S. sanctions and sell to rogue nations like North Korea. The campaign contributions escalate and everything goes to hell if the Senate ignores the arms folks.
If there is to be any major spending here, it should be to continue big-dollar items already underway (aircraft carriers and subs) and place more emphasis on buying smaller amounts of better-grade tertiary equipment or software programs.
I dredged up this old post because I found this budget-related letter posted March 16; it's an appropriations request from a couple weeks ago for defense and homeland security. Wasn't sure what topic would be more relevant - move it if it makes sense.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf)
The cover letter is signed by Trump and sent to Ryan as the Speaker - has some backup in the back-material. The ask for $30B in defense additions isn't new. I hadn't heard of the $3B adder for DHS - maybe I just missed it.
What I hadn't heard he said was to put a number on the cuts and rationale for where the funds would be used. No, it's not paying down the debt as several of you have said:
QuoteIn conjunction with this request, I recommend that the Congress enact non-defense discretionary reductions of $18 billion in FY 2017, which would fully offset the amounts proposed for DHS and would offset half of the amounts proposed for DOD.
So it's not much new - but this request was sent up just two weeks ago. This contradicts one thing I read somewhere on this forum that Trump told Schumer that the next budget wouldn't have funds for the wall in it. The letter specifically call out funds for building the wall. Trumpcare failed in the past two weeks - not sure it shifted this request though.
Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
I dredged up this old post because I found this budget-related letter posted March 16; it's an appropriations request from a couple weeks ago for defense and homeland security. Wasn't sure what topic would be more relevant - move it if it makes sense.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf)
The cover letter is signed by Trump and sent to Ryan as the Speaker - has some backup in the back-material. The ask for $30B in defense additions isn't new. I hadn't heard of the $3B adder for DHS - maybe I just missed it.
What I hadn't heard he said was to put a number on the cuts and rationale for where the funds would be used. No, it's not paying down the debt as several of you have said:
So it's not much new - but this request was sent up just two weeks ago. This contradicts one thing I read somewhere on this forum that Trump told Schumer that the next budget wouldn't have funds for the wall in it. The letter specifically call out funds for building the wall. Trumpcare failed in the past two weeks - not sure it shifted this request though.
Yes Trump's budget calls for building the wall; but Congress has other plans and says that funding will have to wait. They hold the purse strings.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump's-border-wall-funding-will-likely-have-to-wait/45/
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 01, 2017, 03:12:04 PM
Yes Trump's budget calls for building the wall; but Congress has other plans and says that funding will have to wait. They hold the purse strings.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump's-border-wall-funding-will-likely-have-to-wait/45/
Yeah - I'd missed the turn.
Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
I dredged up this old post because I found this budget-related letter posted March 16; it's an appropriations request from a couple weeks ago for defense and homeland security. Wasn't sure what topic would be more relevant - move it if it makes sense.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/amendment_03_16_18.pdf)
The cover letter is signed by Trump and sent to Ryan as the Speaker - has some backup in the back-material. The ask for $30B in defense additions isn't new. I hadn't heard of the $3B adder for DHS - maybe I just missed it.
What I hadn't heard he said was to put a number on the cuts and rationale for where the funds would be used. No, it's not paying down the debt as several of you have said:
So it's not much new - but this request was sent up just two weeks ago. This contradicts one thing I read somewhere on this forum that Trump told Schumer that the next budget wouldn't have funds for the wall in it. The letter specifically call out funds for building the wall. Trumpcare failed in the past two weeks - not sure it shifted this request though.
I don't think anyone on this site ever accused Trump of wanting to pay down the debt, let alone say he was.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 03:53:20 PM
I don't think anyone on this site ever accused Trump of wanting to pay down the debt, let alone say he was.
I think I'm the only one on the site that had that naive notion that he would be about paying down the debt. Again, I'm just learning about the political system - have stayed out of it until this year. I always thought the Republican Party as conservative and responsible. I've learned / been convinced of a lot in the last few weeks - unfortunately how far the system is from our roots. But part of believing in "responsibility" was that the Pubs would take paying the debt down as something important. To most folks I hang with - you don't spend money that you don't have. But I've been unpleasantly surprised again at how little attention financial responsibility gets. It burned us in 2018 when Freddy and Fanny were giving loans to anyone who could find change in a couch. It will burn us again - probably much worse with the deficit we're carrying from the spending spree that BO blew through.
I am doubtful but hopeful that this administration is responsible enough to actually pass a budget and stop with the CRs - it would be a first step. I was looking at http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017 (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017) and there is enough movement that we may get a budget approved by Congress in April or May. Although the way all else has gone, it will probably get jammed up.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 03:53:20 PM
I don't think anyone on this site ever accused Trump of wanting to pay down the debt, let alone say he was.
I don't recall Trump talking much about paying down the debt, rather he talked quite a bit about unfair trade practices and terrible trade deals that the U.S. has made.
Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 06:09:51 PM
I think I'm the only one on the site that had that naive notion that he would be about paying down the debt. Again, I'm just learning about the political system - have stayed out of it until this year. I always thought the Republican Party as conservative and responsible. I've learned / been convinced of a lot in the last few weeks - unfortunately how far the system is from our roots. But part of believing in "responsibility" was that the Pubs would take paying the debt down as something important. To most folks I hang with - you don't spend money that you don't have. But I've been unpleasantly surprised again at how little attention financial responsibility gets. It burned us in 2018 when Freddy and Fanny were giving loans to anyone who could find change in a couch. It will burn us again - probably much worse with the deficit we're carrying from the spending spree that BO blew through.
I am doubtful but hopeful that this administration is responsible enough to actually pass a budget and stop with the CRs - it would be a first step. I was looking at http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017 (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017) and there is enough movement that we may get a budget approved by Congress in April or May. Although the way all else has gone, it will probably get jammed up.
Congratulations on seeing the light. Most of us are not necessarily republicans. We are conservatives and find pub candidates usually better suited to our desires than the leftist democrats.
Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 06:09:51 PM
I think I'm the only one on the site that had that naive notion that he would be about paying down the debt. Again, I'm just learning about the political system - have stayed out of it until this year. I always thought the Republican Party as conservative and responsible. I've learned / been convinced of a lot in the last few weeks - unfortunately how far the system is from our roots. But part of believing in "responsibility" was that the Pubs would take paying the debt down as something important. To most folks I hang with - you don't spend money that you don't have. But I've been unpleasantly surprised again at how little attention financial responsibility gets. It burned us in 2018 when Freddy and Fanny were giving loans to anyone who could find change in a couch. It will burn us again - probably much worse with the deficit we're carrying from the spending spree that BO blew through.
I am doubtful but hopeful that this administration is responsible enough to actually pass a budget and stop with the CRs - it would be a first step. I was looking at http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017 (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/appropriations-watch-fy-2017) and there is enough movement that we may get a budget approved by Congress in April or May. Although the way all else has gone, it will probably get jammed up.
Don't feel bad, it's the con job they've pulled off for decades, that is, untill TEA forced their hand and exposed them as nothing more than Marxist enablers, rubber stamps for the leftist movement.
It's been a slow process that started with Nixon and has gotten "Progressively" worse and all because of a leftist faction within the GOP.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 02, 2017, 05:15:37 AM
Congratulations on seeing the light. Most of us are not necessarily republicans. We are conservatives and find pub candidates usually better suited to our desires than the leftist democrats.
To add to that, we also take the approach it will be less of a battle to take over the party that at least pretends (sometimes) to support the conservative political philosophy, as opposed to the political party which outright demonizes us.
And MUCH easier than trying to take the third party approach.
This morning I was thinking about the Congress passing the Trump budget - wondering if a simple majority can pass it since votes, after negotiation, will go down party lines - especially if the Wall is involved. Turns out simple majority can carry the House. Simple Majority can carry the Senate (51 votes) ... with a qualification.
QuoteBut the budget resolutions also give members of Congress the power to raise "points of order" to block any legislation that violates the budget resolution. This doesn't really matter in the House, because points of order can be waived by a simple majority vote. If you have the votes to pass a tax or spending change that violates the budget resolution, you have the votes to waive the point of order, making it a very minor roadblock.
But in the Senate, waiving a point of order requires 60 votes. That makes it a lot harder to pass bills that violate the pre-agreed-upon budget outline.
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/27/14751872/budget-process-explained (http://www.vox.com/2017/2/27/14751872/budget-process-explained)
It's a weak reference, but likely correct on this point. So, basically, the Dims can bloviate forever so that 60 votes are required. The vote will never shift off of party lines with border wall or planned parenthood in the budget. So I'm not sure how NPR gets defunded (my favorite issue). Or how the border wall gets funded. Or how funding gets pulled from Planned Parenthood?
It's a stalemate. Maybe Trump trades the border wall (off) for Planned Parenthood cut on? Then he incites private industry to get the wall built via private donation at his discretion in protecting the nation. Again, I'm in. Heck - I'll go down and build on it for awhile for the price of a sleep'n bag and coffee. I'm an engineer - can learn to run big equipment ... I can do anything! Ok .... I think I can do anything. (the wife chuckles at that along with a big eye roll).
Seriously. Does anyone see a path to getting the budget through with these items in?
Are we actually watching this 'Made For TV' plot and accepting it as is?
Last season and the season before, etc, the Marxist never had to deal with a budget, he was given more than he wanted in a CR (Continuing Resolution) and complaints fell on deaf ears.
Congress (mostly GOP) helped the Marxist rack up the highest debt of any POTUS in history, more debt than all the previous Presidents combined.
This season we have a new star character playing the part of POTUS and the writers (Congress) suddenly decide to create a new plot twist, they threw in....wait for it.... Yes, a Budget! :rolleyes:
OK, maybe not a real budget, those require living within one's means, but instead of forcing POTUS to accept all of their unwanted pork, they tell POTUS "Take it or leave it", and no, we're not going to let you fulfill your campaign promises!
So, what should our new character do? He could refuse to sign their budget, he could align with the Conservatives and have the backing and support of the nation?
Or will he fold and act like the lib we all knew he was from day one?
Quote from: Solar on April 04, 2017, 06:25:13 AM
... he could align with the Conservatives and have the backing and support of the nation?
Enlightening history Solar - thank you. I always wondered how BO could proceed without a budget - he just had enough in the CR to cast his spells.
Pretend with me for a moment. Suppose he aligns with conservatives and also stays on-message regarding his campaign promises. Also suppose that all the Pubs line up behind the budget. It seems that it still would fail in the Senate if you need 60 votes to pass the budget.
I dug around a little more. I think this is what's going on. Correct me if you think otherwise.
Normally, the senate can't stop discussion (ever) on most bills - stopping the discussion and taking a vote is called "cloture" and the Senate requires a bill pass by at least 60 votes in a cloture circumstance. A fillibuster (if I read correctly) is just the action of calling off discussion and getting 60 votes to kill something off. For example, if the Dims fillibuster the SCOTUS nomination, they just call off any discussion and call for a vote - then vote him out. I don't know how the Senate changes that rule if the Dims do it ... like today. But that's another rabbit hole.
However, there was a bill voted in called the "H.R.7130 - Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" that I think still stands. It sets a timetable that limits how long the Dims can prolong discussion - basically, only a majority (51 votes) are required in the Senate after this date. I found the timetable, aligned to the fiscal year at:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974/Title_III#Sec._300. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974/Title_III#Sec._300.)
So this is probably what will happen if POTUS and the RINOs don't give away the farm. A CR will go in-place and we'll run on that for awhile. Congress will go through the process on the budget and the Dims will debate it tooth-and-nail ad nausea. But when Sept. 30 rolls around, the Pubs will vote a budget in.
If POTUS is true to some of the promises, border wall, defund PP, defund NPR (did I tell you that this was my favorite - yeah, about ten times), he'll have to wait it out until October. Then he moves into more open waters.
Here's the secondary question. Why does Schumer think he holds power by requiring the border wall and PP defund be taken out of the budget? I guess because it's perceived that waiting damages the WH in some way? Wait, I say. Tell the American people in plain words what's going on and just wait them out. Do a talk on Sunday PM via the outlets so many can listen in (directly) and lay out why we have to wait. Also explain why the Dims are wasting our time and tax dollars - and how it can be fixed by putting more Pubs in Congress so they can act more efficiently. Just put Congress on ACA and send them home until Sept - without pay. I so like that idea even if it isn't doable. Most of the nonsense would just stop for awhile.
Quote from: topside on April 04, 2017, 08:46:20 AM
Enlightening history Solar - thank you. I always wondered how BO could proceed without a budget - he just had enough in the CR to cast his spells.
Pretend with me for a moment. Suppose he aligns with conservatives and also stays on-message regarding his campaign promises. Also suppose that all the Pubs line up behind the budget. It seems that it still would fail in the Senate if you need 60 votes to pass the budget.
I dug around a little more. I think this is what's going on. Correct me if you think otherwise.
Normally, the senate can't stop discussion (ever) on most bills - stopping the discussion and taking a vote is called "cloture" and the Senate requires a bill pass by at least 60 votes in a cloture circumstance. A fillibuster (if I read correctly) is just the action of calling off discussion and getting 60 votes to kill something off. For example, if the Dims fillibuster the SCOTUS nomination, they just call off any discussion and call for a vote - then vote him out. I don't know how the Senate changes that rule if the Dims do it ... like today. But that's another rabbit hole.
However, there was a bill voted in called the "H.R.7130 - Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" that I think still stands. It sets a timetable that limits how long the Dims can prolong discussion - basically, only a majority (51 votes) are required in the Senate after this date. I found the timetable, aligned to the fiscal year at:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974/Title_III#Sec._300. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974/Title_III#Sec._300.)
So this is probably what will happen if POTUS and the RINOs don't give away the farm. A CR will go in-place and we'll run on that for awhile. Congress will go through the process on the budget and the Dims will debate it tooth-and-nail ad nausea. But when Sept. 30 rolls around, the Pubs will vote a budget in.
If POTUS is true to some of the promises, border wall, defund PP, defund NPR (did I tell you that this was my favorite - yeah, about ten times), he'll have to wait it out until October. Then he moves into more open waters.
Here's the secondary question. Why does Schumer think he holds power by requiring the border wall and PP defund be taken out of the budget? I guess because it's perceived that waiting damages the WH in some way? Wait, I say. Tell the American people in plain words what's going on and just wait them out. Do a talk on Sunday PM via the outlets so many can listen in (directly) and lay out why we have to wait. Also explain why the Dims are wasting our time and tax dollars - and how it can be fixed by putting more Pubs in Congress so they can act more efficiently. Just put Congress on ACA and send them home until Sept - without pay. I so like that idea even if it isn't doable. Most of the nonsense would just stop for awhile.
The GOP Establishment/Marxists are, for lack of description, Dims.
Once you wrap your brain around that, everything else falls into place.
Yes, the enemy is within.
Anyone still question the chances of our holding onto the Senate in 2018? Perhaps even the House? I know its early in the game here, but if this is any indication as to what's to come ... things are looking very promising.
So much for the 'Art of the Deal': Trump and GOP leaders are about to cave on the budget
... "Republicans are continuing to preemptively surrender their leverage on budget battles and evince an incorrigible dread of government shutdowns, even though they now control the White House. Rather than pound the lectern demanding that our values be upheld in this budget — that no taxpayer funding be used for Planned Parenthood, that the president's immigration order be codified by defunding refugee resettlement, that the border wall be funded — the only thing Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has gotten animated about these days is the need to avoid a government shutdown. As such, Democrats have told Republicans that the only way to avoid a shutdown is for them to agree to their spending levels and policies. Republicans are readily agreeing.
Let's take a trip down memory lane when Democrats had full control over all three branches of government in the spring of 2009. They had already voted on major priorities, such as the bailouts, stimulus, expansion of government health care, and cap and trade. Then, on March 10, 2009, they had their first budget deadline and got what they wanted. And that was before Arlen Specter became a Democrat and gave them a 60th vote to break the filibuster....
...Fast-forward eight years and Republicans should have the same leverage Democrats did with Obama. Yet, they have failed to enact a single conservative priority with their first 100 days' political capital. Now, the budget deadline is the last opportunity to use that political capital to score some wins on the border fence, refugees, and Planned Parenthood, and yet they are allowing a Democrat minority to own them....
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/so-much-for-the-art-of-the-deal-trump-and-gop-leaders-are-about-to-cave-on-the-budget#sthash.fC4mIrrT.dpuf
Like I've been saying, the Establishment RINO/Marxists are the Dim party, they are indistinguishable from one another.
The only people left we can trust is TEA and trump foolishly ignores them as he heads to a certain demise as a one term Pol.
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 05:58:31 AM
Like I've been saying, the Establishment RINO/Marxists are the Dim party, they are indistinguishable from one another.
The only people left we can trust is TEA and trump foolishly ignores them as he heads to a certain demise as a one term Pol.
Absolutely. He is sucking any life left of the Republican party just as he smoldered any decency of the GOP during the debates and convention. TEA is still this country's only hope. I don't believe he foolishly ignores them, he is deliberately trying to make them irrelevant and incompetent. IMHO Trump is going to be lucky to finish his first term. Will Pence walk along the middle or veer to the left? So far, his visit to the Freedom Caucus indicates he'll veer to the left. I have always viewed Pence as a moderate and I was quite surprised when Trump appointed him...now I know why.
Might consider combining this with the Trump Budget thread.
There was a reply in that thread posted on 4/4 that discussed the budget process and why we shouldn't have to cave if we'll wait. It has details of the process and identifies outcomes based on the laws / rules. I'd like some feedback on that one to be added to what Solar provided (thanks Solar).
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 10:55:59 AM
There was a reply in that thread posted on 4/4 that discussed the budget process and why we shouldn't have to cave if we'll wait. It has details of the process and identifies outcomes based on the laws / rules. I'd like some feedback on that one to be added to what Solar provided (thanks Solar).
Good idea. it is after all, the same subject still and little has changed.
As to my contribution, I only scratched the surface, if I go further, we'd have to move this to Finance.
But my main question, which I tried to answer and carefully support in the 4/4 post, is why are the Pubs negotiating at all with Schumer when they can wait until September and get everything they want in the budget - including the border wall funding and PP unfund.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 12:21:06 PM
But my main question, which I tried to answer and carefully support in the 4/4 post, is why are the Pubs negotiating at all with Schumer when they can wait until September and get everything they want in the budget - including the border wall funding and PP unfund.
It can't be because he wants to work with Shumer. No body likes Shumer ... just the look of him sets my hair on end. I hear that even his own dog doesn't like him.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 12:23:00 PM
It can't be because he wants to work with Shumer. No body likes Shumer ... just the look of him sets my hair on end. I hear that even his own dog doesn't like him.
BTW:
Do you know how you tell which one likes you better - your wife or your dog?
Lock them in the trunk of your car for four hours then hit the electronic open. See which one runs to you and licks your face.
I tried it ... sure enough.
There you go BooMan ... top that today!
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 12:25:50 PM
BTW:
Do you know how you tell which one likes you better - your wife or your dog?
Lock them in the trunk of your car for four hours then hit the electronic open. See which one runs to you and licks your face.
I tried it ... sure enough.
There you go BooMan ... top that today!
Who's winning this debate?
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 01:08:14 PM
Who's winning this debate?
No contest - I always lose to Boo in the end. His humor is usually clever and original. But I've got to do my part to entice him. We all could use a little levity after seeing Trump turn left the last couple weeks.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 02:40:24 PM
No contest - I always lose to Boo in the end. His humor is usually clever and original. But I've got to do my part to entice him. We all could use a little levity after seeing Trump turn left the last couple weeks.
Oh, I was referring to the two quotes you had with yourself. :wink:
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 02:42:34 PM
Oh, I was referring to the two quotes you had with yourself. :wink:
Oh, that. Yeah, I have to quote myself sometimes when I'm feeling left out. :blink: My shrink says it's probably caused by my drinking and schizophrenia. Sure had to pay to get that diagnosis.
This is off topic ... let's indulge for a second though.
Your comment reminds me. I watched some of the Ted Talks on a few topics. Kidding aside, there was a psychologist who began hearing voices. She couldn't shake it. She went through treatment but it wasn't working. So instead of medicating, she just started talking to them - from what I took away, rationalizing with them. She turned this idea into a treatment technique. I give her credit for trying to deal with her ailment. But I'm not so I'd want to be her patient.
Just so you know I'm not making this up, here's the intro on it:
QuoteTo all appearances, Eleanor Longden was just like every other student, heading to college full of promise and without a care in the world. That was until the voices in her head started talking. Initially innocuous, these internal narrators became increasingly antagonistic and dictatorial, turning her life into a living nightmare. Diagnosed with schizophrenia, hospitalized, drugged, Longden was discarded by a system that didn't know how to help her. Longden tells the moving tale of her years-long journey back to mental health, and makes the case that it was through learning to listen to her voices that she was able to survive.
and the talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head (https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head)
BTW - She's a brit I think. Isn't Boo? So that tells you a lot! Now we're back on topic.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 03:22:08 PM
Oh, that. Yeah, I have to quote myself sometimes when I'm feeling left out. :blink: My shrink says it's probably caused by my drinking and schizophrenia. Sure had to pay to get that diagnosis.
This is off topic ... let's indulge for a second though.
Your comment reminds me. I watched some of the Ted Talks on a few topics. Kidding aside, there was a psychologist who began hearing voices. She couldn't shake it. She went through treatment but it wasn't working. So instead of medicating, she just started talking to them - from what I took away, rationalizing with them. She turned this idea into a treatment technique. I give her credit for trying to deal with her ailment. But I'm not so I'd want to be her patient.
Just so you know I'm not making this up, here's the intro on it:
and the talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head (https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head)
BTW - She's a brit I think. Isn't Boo? So that tells you a lot! Now we're back on topic.
Boo has Dual Citizenship.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 03:22:08 PM
Oh, that. Yeah, I have to quote myself sometimes when I'm feeling left out. :blink: My shrink says it's probably caused by my drinking and schizophrenia. Sure had to pay to get that diagnosis.
The two seem to go hand in hand,
QuoteThis is off topic ... let's indulge for a second though.
Your comment reminds me. I watched some of the Ted Talks on a few topics. Kidding aside, there was a psychologist who began hearing voices. She couldn't shake it. She went through treatment but it wasn't working. So instead of medicating, she just started talking to them - from what I took away, rationalizing with them. She turned this idea into a treatment technique. I give her credit for trying to deal with her ailment. But I'm not so I'd want to be her patient.
Just so you know I'm not making this up, here's the intro on it:
and the talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head (https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head)
BTW - She's a brit I think. Isn't Boo? So that tells you a lot! Now we're back on topic.
Probably Boo's alter ego, she's quite a hoot.
Here's a message to all out there that say, "Trump isn't my president!" Stop cashing your unemployment checks. That'll show him.
(Off of Beck - he stole it from somewhere else).
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 03:22:08 PM
Oh, that. Yeah, I have to quote myself sometimes when I'm feeling left out. :blink: My shrink says it's probably caused by my drinking and schizophrenia. Sure had to pay to get that diagnosis.
This is off topic ... let's indulge for a second though.
Your comment reminds me. I watched some of the Ted Talks on a few topics. Kidding aside, there was a psychologist who began hearing voices. She couldn't shake it. She went through treatment but it wasn't working. So instead of medicating, she just started talking to them - from what I took away, rationalizing with them. She turned this idea into a treatment technique. I give her credit for trying to deal with her ailment. But I'm not so I'd want to be her patient.
Just so you know I'm not making this up, here's the intro on it:
and the talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head (https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head)
BTW - She's a brit I think. Isn't Boo? So that tells you a lot! Now we're back on topic.
(OT) I worked a cattle ranch and one of the cowboys I worked with was a big old black guy, a real gentle giant who had schizophrenia.
One day working in the tack room, he was over in the corner chuckling to beat Hell, I said what's so funny Levi, he looked at me with a big shit eating grin, and said "thayse uh arguin", I said who, he pointed at his head.
We all knew he was schiz so it was no secret, but for him it was a bit of a relief because they (the voices) were always putting him down.
We both got a big laugh out of it, because it wasn't often he could find peace, this was one of those rare occasions.
Sure miss the guy.
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2017, 04:58:41 PM
(OT) I worked a cattle ranch and one of the cowboys I worked with was a big old black guy, a real gentle giant who had schizophrenia.
One day working in the tack room, he was over in the corner chuckling to beat Hell, I said what's so funny Levi, he looked at me with a big shit eating grin, and said "thayse uh arguin", I said who, he pointed at his head.
We all knew he was schiz so it was no secret, but for him it was a bit of a relief because they (the voices) were always putting him down.
We both got a big laugh out of it, because it wasn't often he could find peace, this was one of those rare occasions.
Sure miss the guy.
Good story.
Quote from: topside on April 05, 2017, 05:39:56 PM
Good story.
He really was a genuinely nice guy, the kind of guy that would give you his last dollar.
I felt sorry for him having to suffer through that, but for him, it was never a dull moment. He too found a way of dealing with them, said he was always trying to start arguments between them so they'd leave him alone.
A world I could never imagine.