Serious question, do you have a citation for that? He's pulled so much shit with money I'd not be surprised to discover it's the re-elect Trump campaign charity.
Here is an article that details the donations.[0] So far it has been 100K checks given to a different federal agency quarterly. He has donated to the National Parks Service, Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Transportation.
Reducing the budget and donating are two very different things and not even cross purpose. You may believe that we have to reign in spending -- we do spend more than we take in. It may make sense to cut programs you like to fund ones that are important, and then donate money to the one you just cut -- because you like it.
There is some nuance that needs to be discussed before I answer your question.
The executive branch does not have the power of appropriation, that duty is handled by congress. The president does submit a budget request to congress, and signs or vetoes each distinct appropriation bill that congress passes.
Increases or decreases of a department's budget can not be unilaterally seen as good or bad. What taxpayers should be most concerned about is the impact that the spending is having not the dollar amount spent. (Plato taught Socrates on a rock) You need to look at trends over time and the specifics of the budget to see if increases or decreases in spending are justified. For example the department of education's budget was 73.3 billion dollars in 2010. In 2014 that figure was 40.8 billion. In 2018 it will be 66.9 billion. At the surface those swings seem quite surprising. You have to dig deeper to understand what really happened instead of taking them at face value.
The Washington post has an article exploring Trump's proposed 2019 budget. You can view that article here:
Thanks for the link, but I note that it reports on what the White House says is being donated. Is there any available verification of actual numbers? Given past history I wouldn't trust Trump's self reporting of charitable or similar donations until the check cleared with independent verification from the recipients - and unless it was a money order I'd probably want a month or two extra before believing it had really cleared.
Edit: for anyone who feels this is unjustified, I would love to see links to charitable organizations confirming receipt of donations from the president or the Trump Organization. Direct from the charity, confirmation to reputable news organizations, responses in interviews, anything like that - I don't want things excluded on technicalities.
Perhaps so, but I'll agree with pg_bot - there actually are times when he's followed through on donations. I'm not sure what percentage of his promised donations they are, but he has donated at least some of the money he's pledged to.
I wonder how comes that a comment about Obama has positive kharma, while exactly the same comment about Trump has negative kharma. On this forum, where people seem to appreciate objectivity and correct thinking more than anything. And where it takes 500 kharma to be able to downvote something.
> It was, in large part, a facade. A months-long investigation by The Washington Post has not been able to verify many of Trump’s boasts about his philanthropy.
> Instead, throughout his life in the spotlight, whether as a businessman, television star or presidential candidate, The Post found that Trump had sought credit for charity he had not given — or had claimed other people’s giving as his own.
That’s so sadly cynical & pessimistic. I’m glad there are politicians who don’t feel this way, and have optimism and energy to try to build a better future. If everyone gave up, things would be awful compared to what we have now.
Politics is very difficult because people are different and myopic and concerned for themselves, that is true. But that doesn’t mean people are assholes or full of hate, we just have different points of view. We’re physically incapable of not being self-centered, we don’t have a shared consciousness, so that will never change. Politics is the art of navigating many many legitimate and different and opposing points of view. If that turns into meting out hatred, then please please get out of politics.
Optimism is a good outlook to maintain in life, but lets not kid ourselves as to the real purpose served by politicking.
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary, 1911)
No need to look further than the $50m of political spending in 2017 by FAAG [0] for regulations that would serve their interests like tax reforms, with Google leading the pack with $18m.
> lets not kid ourselves as to the real purpose served by politicking.
The “real” purpose served by politicking? There’s no government at all without politics. Do you want no government, no shared values or resources, no services, no infrastructure, no community? What’s your ideal, and why is your ideal good for anyone other than you? (BTW, any answer to that question is political.)
“Politics is a multifaceted word. It has a set of fairly specific meanings that are descriptive and nonjudgmental (such as "the art or science of government" and "political principles"), but often does carry a connotation of dishonest malpractice.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
I have no doubt you can cherry pick some examples of bad politics. That’s irrelevant and uninteresting. I have no doubt you can find more examples of rich or famous people saying pessimistic things. Also uninteresting. There are plenty of optimistic quotes as well, and plenty of examples of expenditure on things that help people and generally do good. We spend a lot more than $50m on hospitals and roads and libraries and schools, just to name a few.
“We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong.” - Barack Obama
“When you get together in a group, it becomes like a family, with the different personalities and the politics that comes with being in a band. It’s different than bringing something in by yourself.” - Albert Hammond Jr.
“Man is by nature a political animal” - Aristotle
“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is you end up being governed by your inferiors” - Plato
“To err is human. To blame someone else is politics” - Hubert Humphrey
“I like to see myself as a bridge builder, that is me building bridges between people, between races, between cultures, between politics, trying to find common ground.” - T. D. Jakes
That's a pretty loaded statement that I disagree with because it presupposes that man has only being organizing his affairs for centuries when we both know that mankind has existed for thousands of years.
Anyway, there's a real risk of talking past each other, so I'll be upfront by saying that government can be totally independent of politics -- politics is merely a means to an end and that end is governance.
How did mankind manage its affairs prior to politicking and modern-day electoral contests (democracy)?
Monarchies [0]. What I believe you are arguing for via politicking is representative leadership [1], which only became a thing in the 17th century.
It is clearly a scam where he donates $X then quietly steals a multiple of it.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/news/secret-service-mar-a-la...
I too wish I could set my travel plans then charge the government.
Oh and:
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/administrati...
That right there covers his salary "donations" for 8 years.