Trump signs $1 trillion spending bill

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Trump today signed the $1 trillion continuing resolution, keeping the government well funded, with no significant cuts, through September.

The article included a detail I had not noticed previously. When the bill passed in the House, the only ones who voted against it were 103 Republicans, while the entire Democratic caucus voted for it. In other words, the Republican leadership screwed their own party and allied themselves with the Democrats to pass this big spending bill that cuts nothing and breaks almost every promise the Republicans and Trump made about spending during the election campaign.

The article also has this very revealing quote from Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney:

“I think it’s great that the Democrats like the bill. That’s fantastic.”

As I have said repeatedly, the election in November was nothing more than the Democratic primary, with a choice between a radical socialist (Clinton) and an old fashioned liberal Democrat (Trump). We get the government we deserve.



  • Cotour

    But what will the new Trump budget in Sept. look like?

  • LocalFluff

    Well, Democrats and “moderate” Republicans have been elected by the people. Since you don’t go out in the streets and hang them with piano strings from lamp posts (or with ropes in trees as you used to), that’s what a president has to deal with. The majority of the people wants to have socialist health care. Turning that ship around is a good beginning.

    I think he’ll have to add another trillion dollar in expenses to finance the new Korean war. I just realized that Kim’s only strength is his provocations, and that eliminates any option for a negotiated solution. When Kim provokes there’s no negotiation. If Kim quits provocations there’s nothing to negotiate about. This can only end in blood.

  • mike shupp

    LocalFluff —

    Helluva comment there on North Korea, which is going to make me think some. Not sure I’ll wind up totally agreeing with your end game prospectus, but you’ve caught sight of something significant and that merits my respect. So thank you.

  • m d mill

    local fluff:
    The question all Americans should ask “is the prospect (certainty) of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles in North Korean submarines off the U.S. coast acceptable?” If Yes, then business as usual.
    If No then war now, is preferable to later.
    I stated on this website year(s) ago:

    “I said that we should destroy N Korean nuclear bomb research and manufacture facilities 20 years ago…even if it meant War with N Korea and China. I said the same thing about the Iranian facilities 10 years ago.
    Virtually all liberals and conservatives (Dems and Republicans) said I was a crazy, war mad, dangerous lunatic [even John Bolton was unwilling to use the “W” word]. It is now probably too late since they now have the bombs in hand…”

    We should first propose a mutual defense treaty WITH NORTH Korea….If they will give up all nuclear weapons and development (verifiable), then we (and any other national or international body) will guarantee their defense against all invasion threats from any foreign nation, and no sanctions…i.e. we will guarantee their regime! This is the opposite of regime change!! They get what they really desire, and we get what we really must have. If this is not acceptable then total war should be declared…or we should just give up. The same proposal should be made to Iran [There was a rumor that the Iranians offered such a deal to Bush Jr, but he rejected the offer…If so what a lost opportunity!]

    Otherwise the situations will only become even more dire, although it may be to late militarily as this should have been done decades ago.

    If every or any fanatical dictator or dictatorial regime in the world can acquire nuclear weapons (e.g. from North Korea, et al) then nuclear wars will be assured.

    Pacifism is not the answer, unfortunately. By far the easiest and most comfortable immediate response is to do nothing, (or try sanctions again (with the same result.))…therefore this is what will happen…IMO

    But again: “is the prospect (certainty) of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles in North Korean submarines off the U.S. coast acceptable?”

    I agree with you. Although I have always considered Trump to be a shallow graceless [deleted], and sometime con-man, and thus an unpredictable wildcard, he must be given a realistic chance to prove himself.
    It makes sense to try to pass a tax bill(?) and healthcare bill(?) without throwing any more bombs at the Democrats than necessary. I cannot blame him for accepting temporary status quo spending bills. That fight can come after the tax bill fight, where certain compromises may be required with the opposition.
    We will learn about Trump’s true “conservative” bona fides in September or in 2018.

  • md mill: Watch your language. I do not tolerate swear words or obscenities here. And two ** in an 11 letter word is not sufficient to my mind. If you can’t say something in a civilized manner, I will be forced to consider banning, even though I will not want to do it.

  • LocalFluff

    m d mill,
    North Korean submarines should be sunk as soon they reach international waters. A few years ago they sank a South Korean frigate, without reaction. USS Missouri should’ve launched its 154 nukes right then, to open up for beginning peace negotiations. But maybe a nuke detonating in LA harbor would make California Republican? It will be destroyed by an Earth quake any day anyway.

    I’ve seen some interviews with NK defectors (it is less than entertaining stuff). They give the impression of North Korean weakness with corruption and low morale. That they know of the rest of the world being free and wealthy. That they are prepared to risk their lives for freedom because they feel they have nothing to lose anymore. Well, that might be true for the defectors. Watching a parade with a hundred thousand or so soldiers marching in perfect order, where anyone could’ve caused a public upset by disrupting the lines, says otherwise. Less than 1% of their population is said to live in concentration camps. I think they are all prepared to fight it out to the bitter end. For real, not only in the propaganda. Even those who hate their government would fight, because of their pride in their nation and their army, fight for the sake of their comrades.

    Many Western commentators mention the possibility of a North Korean refugee chaos. That’s nonsense. First of all 25 million people is negligible for China. And they are extremely well behaved socially. Compare with Afghanistan where not the government but the people is the problem, that’s unsolvable. North Koreans will immediately have a booming economy with a regime shift. I think their economy would grow by not 10% yearly, but by 100%. The North Koreans are a great asset, not a liability. Until about 1970 they were as wealthy as the South Koreans, also a dictatorship back then. I hope Kim et Anhang can be murdered now without a nuclear war. That a new regime ends the mental theater by declaring final victory against the rest of the world and let people go on with their lives.

  • m d mill


    Is” BS’er” or “BS artist” ok??.
    I don’t want to offend, but pithy mild slang can make a point oftimes better than the queens english.
    You made it sound like i said something really dirty, which i did not…do you really think i was uncivil?
    Sincerely M D Mill

  • md mill: In the past four months I have noticed an incredible acceptance of foul language at numerous websites that previously would have routinely not allowed it. It appears that we have crossed a rubicon in this matter, in the wrong direction.

    I choose not to follow this vile trend towards barbarism. I ask my readers to do the same. Rather than say “BS artist,” why don’t you simply use “liar,” which is more accurate, and more to the point. The “pithy mild slang,” as you call it, actually I think weakens the point. It isn’t as foul or offensive as an outright four-letter-word, but it isn’t very effective or thoughtful.

    In other words, I am asking you, and all my readers, to think a little before you write. Make what you write persuasive, rather than a burst of shallow emotion.

  • Jake V

    There is nothing surprising here. Trump is not a conservative. Nor are most of the Republicans in Congress. Conservatives need to push for something better, for ways to grow the economy, for reasonable and fair taxation, and for subsidiarity.

  • m d mill

    Are you accusing me of not thinking before I write, or writing from shallow emotion?
    I have never accused you of that, or anyone I hope.
    I chose that word specifically, and thoughtfully.
    There is no word in the English language that more appropriately describes Trump’s public persona…IMO
    The word is mildly crude and so is Trump.
    In this case “liar” is shallow compared to “BS’er”.
    (a BS’er is not necessarily a liar, or at least not a bad one)
    I think most people understand the difference, maybe you do not.
    In the blog I was telling people to give Trump some time…I was not angry or emotional.

    It is your web site, and I will happily play by your rules.
    I think, upon reflection, you were right to delete my almost fully written version.
    That word (stated fully) is not allowed on daytime or prime time broadcast T.V.
    But I will continue to use BS’er OR BS as I think appropriate, even though you may think it crude or ineffective,
    UNLESS YOU TELL ME OTHERWISE. I don’t think I will use it often or un-thoughtfully, nor do i believe i have ever used it here before.

  • md mill: Please do not take my comment to you personally. Nonetheless, I am demanding that people avoid descending to swear words in their comments. I did not say that “BS’er” was forbidden, only that I think there are better words in the language that can be used instead. In this case, what about “dissembler,” “bunko artist,” or “con artist?”

    I also think your the guideline you reference, that the word I deleted would “not be allowed on daytime or prime time broadcast TV,” is a good guideline for everyone. Unfortunately, based on the trends I have seen on the web in the last four months, do not expect these rules to stay that way, on television, for very long.

  • Edward

    We can see that Trump has abandoned the commitments he made during his campaign.

    A few months ago, I suggested that Trump was deciding whether or not to continue pretending to be a conservative rather than the life long liberal Democrat that he was before running for the Republican nomination. It looks like he has chosen his natural liberal Democrat ways.

  • LocalFluff

    What EO has he issued that are “liberal”?
    Isn’t it the communist Republicans who are blocking him? What can he do in a parliamentarianism but to negotiate with “his” party?

  • Edward

    It isn’t just executive orders, it is this liberal spending bill that the Democrats are so excited over and many Republicans are not.

    Added to that are the major promises that he has abandoned, including some of his contested EOs. Trump is a Republican in campaigns only (RICO, as opposed to RINO).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *