The irony with these arguments is that the reason for the large debt is that every time the republicans have been in power they have been cutting income by slashing taxes fro the rich, while at the same time spending big on wars etc.. They then slash funding for all programs they don't like, no matter how little dent they make into the overall budget.
Let's be real if they would be worried about government spending they would start at usaid or the CDC (usaid corresponds to 1.2% of the total budget, not a significant portion of the budget by any measure).
Obama is a pretty interesting outlier. What happened in his terms? FDR and Wilson obviously had world wars to fund, so they are such an outlier as to be dismissed.
Was it really just an extension of the Iraqi war?
EDIT: Ahh, the 2008 recession. I didn't realize it was so bad as to reflect similar to Regean's debts. Even Biden's COVID stiumulus didn't register in comparison.
That's why I also want House Republicans including Speaker Johnson to stick to the fucking Republican Party mantra of small government this time instead of yapping about it during election years and then suffering a sudden case of amnesia for 2 years.
Trump hates wars and his first term track record all but guarantees that we won't "spend big" on (more) wars as you've put it, so we likely won't have to worry about that at least.
>not a significant portion of the budget
These are my and our fucking tax dollars. I want every single fucking cent audited, I don't really care how big or small a portion this is of the whole budget. Americans get audited by the IRS down to their dirty laundry on a common basis, the government should face the same from the people.
>These are my and our fucking tax dollars. I want every single fucking cent audited, I don't really care how big or small a portion this is of the whole budget.
if you want government debt to shrink, you need to treat it like optimization: focus on the big problems first and don't sweat the small fry.
If you simply want a better auditing process... Well, whatever Musk is doing sure isn't it. Has he actually revealed any significant spending outside of "wow this thing cost X million dollars. how crazy for [partisan reasons]". His "reports" on audits sure aren't trying to take into account "every cent".
>Trump and Musk's bigly sledgehammer will achieve this, screw the details because I don't care anymore.
Screwing the details is how you enable corruption, by the way. Tarriffs and war mongering isn't how we save costs. Arguing about "wow the libs waste so much money" isn't how you audit anything. The last thing you want to do when you need more taxes is cutting capital tax from the richest corporations who can lose 90% of their income and still be worth more than some small countries.
Follow the money. None of these steps are made with you and me in mind.
>focus on the big problems first and don't sweat the small fry.
The biggest line items which are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are off the table as promised during the campaign, for better or worse.
Everything else is fair game, though. That includes everything from the Pentagon (note: never passed an audit) to "foreign aid" and science grants and everything in-between.
>Has he actually revealed any significant spending outside of "wow this thing cost X million dollars. how crazy for [partisan reasons]".
He has revealed that literal millions and billions of our tax dollars (or loans, to make it even worse) are being wasted on questionable ventures at best. I want him and DOGE to dig even deeper so the House is forced to write a clean budget devoid of all this fucking garbage. American taxpayers deserve better.
>Screwing the details is how you enable corruption, by the way.
I agree, which is why it's great that Musk and DOGE are looking into the details of where the sincere fuck our money is going. All these whiners are crying that we shouldn't look at the details, it's all fine! No, fuck them. I want all this out in public view, in bite size chunks consumable by the common man paying for all this, to be scrutinized; anything worth having should be able to withstand any and all scrutiny.
>None of these steps are made with you and me in mind.
I agree again; these steps are made for all of us from the rich to the poor and the progressives to the conservatives. Everyone benefits from a leaner and cleaner budget and a smaller and more efficient government.
> He has revealed that literal millions and billions of our tax dollars (or loans, to make it even worse) are being wasted on questionable ventures at best. I want him and DOGE to dig even deeper so the House is forced to write a clean budget devoid of all this fucking garbage. American taxpayers deserve better.
You are aware that this is the guy who made the secret service stay at his hotels/golf club to scam tax dollars into his own pockets? Why should I trust him to actually care about tax dollars?
>>Screwing the details is how you enable corruption, by the way.
> I agree, which is why it's great that Musk and DOGE are looking into the details of where the sincere fuck our money is going. All these whiners are crying that we shouldn't look at the details, it's all fine! No, fuck them. I want all this out in public view, in bite size chunks consumable by the common man paying for all this, to be scrutinized; anything worth having should be able to withstand any and all scrutiny.
So will Musk look into the government contracts that he is benefiting from (both Tesla and Space X received significant government funds)? You think he'll be impartial?
>He has revealed that literal millions and billions of our tax dollars (or loans, to make it even worse) are being wasted on questionable ventures at best.
I would like a source please. With actual figures, not just "Trust me I'm elon Musk". All I saw were him complaining about charges that are microscopic for preparing that corporate tax break. he's penny pinching while Trump wants to basically give up to 3% of the budget spending to billionaires. A similar percentage of the entire Department of Education btw.
>Everyone benefits from a leaner and cleaner budget and a smaller and more efficient government.
my lifetime alone (let alone the ages of reagan) have shown that trickle down evonomics does not work. None of that "efficiency" is coming to you and me (well, maybe you. I don't know your income level. I'm well compensated but not close to an elite. Not even by HN standards).
Sure. Off the top of my head from a previous conversation about aid(?) to Mozambique[1], that's $83.5 million.
That's probably one of the better examples because I think that fighting STDs is an honorable cause, but $83.5 million when we're both trillions in debt and have pressing concerns at home? Yeah no, we need to help ourselves first if we can spend that kind of money on a whim.
>charges that are microscopic
Am I actually correct in assuming y'all are trying to tell me I shouldn't care that my taxes are being wasted just because the sum is relatively small? Emphasis on relative. I really want to avoid attacking someone on that because it sounds so disingenuous, but it's increasingly hard to do so.
Tax dollars are a sacred resource, provided by the sweat (and possibly blood) of American taxpayers. As a taxpayer myself, I will not tolerate seeing my and our taxes spent so flippantly.
>None of that "efficiency" is coming to you and me
An efficient government means filing our tax returns wouldn't be anywhere as obnoxious as they are today, or any number of government paperwork we would or could need to do in our lives. Fewer expenses from an efficient government would also mean less justification for government revenue including high taxes and tariffs.
An efficient government (and I do not mean that in a "No True Scotsman" fashion) will be beneficial to everyone everywhere.
>I don't know your income level.
I'm squarely in the lower to middle part of the middle class, with our family business (which I work for) that is classified as a small business (it's an official legal term, for those who aren't aware) which make up the core of American businesses.
> Sure. Off the top of my head from a previous conversation about aid(?) to Mozambique[1], that's $83.5 million.
> That's probably one of the better examples because I think that fighting STDs is an honorable cause, but $83.5 million when we're both trillions in debt and have pressing concerns at home? Yeah no, we need to help ourselves first if we can spend that kind of money on a whim.
You are aware that this sort of aid is part of the US foreign policy to get support for initiatives? Do you really thing the US would be in the position that it is today if it wasn't for the money they spend overseas? I mean do you think the US would have won the cold war if it wasn't for the Marshall plan?
> Am I actually correct in assuming y'all are trying to tell me I shouldn't care that my taxes are being wasted just because the sum is relatively small? Emphasis on relative. I really want to avoid attacking someone on that because it sounds so disingenuous, but it's increasingly hard to do so.
> Tax dollars are a sacred resource, provided by the sweat (and possibly blood) of American taxpayers. As a taxpayer myself, I will not tolerate seeing my and our taxes spent so flippantly.
So why are you not shouting about Trump having the secret service pay $2 million to stay at his golf clubs? Is that not spending taxes flippantly?
>That's probably one of the better examples because I think that fighting STDs is an honorable cause, but $83.5 million when we're both trillions in debt and have pressing concerns at home? Yeah no, we need to help ourselves first if we can spend that kind of money on a whim.
Amortized cost per year is 16.6m dollars a year. The CDC gets 10b in funding per year, so they would be spending around .2% of their budget every year on such a grant.
Again, microscopic. I don't think enough people understand the scope of how much money the government has, and even how much of that allocation to other departments is when they budget items.
2) this is a publicly visible grant on a website simply querying USAspending.gov. This was not some hidden agenda Musk was needed for in order to find. This sounds more like something a niche youtuber can make a career on than whatever is happening with DOGE.
>Am I actually correct in assuming y'all are trying to tell me I shouldn't care that my taxes are being wasted just because the sum is relatively small?
Yes. Because We the People don't set the budget. We vote represenatives (we vote on 3/535 of them each) who appropriate a budget. And even those 535 individuals can't always agree in time.
If we're being frank, and this is a bipartisan issue, if you let Americans vote on spending, it'd be no different than giving a kid 100 dollars for groceries. Lots of candy, maybe a few pieces of jerky, and no vegetables. Someone else with better knowledge needs to understand what is good for us vs. what feels good to have. Congress putting 60%+ into Healthcare and various social aid shows we haven't at least gone off the deep end... yet.
Regardless of how I feel on how congress allocates funds, I sure as hell do not trust a billionaire who only knows how to slash limbs off his company to make number go up to make a better budget. Keep in mind he he's been given billions in grants from the Feds compared to this 82m dollar allocation as well. He has extreme conflicts of interest that would make Carter's peanut farm look like a toddler's temper tantrum.
>An efficient government means filing our tax returns wouldn't be anywhere as obnoxious as they are today
They were trying to simplify tax filing for years. Blame Turbotax/H&R Block for that one. I think all of us are in agreement there except those who make their salary off confusion.
So, another thing making strides without hasty invasive "auditing". It's a large ship, it has to steer slowly and deliberately. Lest we get stuck in a canal and everyone suffers.
Trump hates wars started by other people as they are means to enhance his populist support. His recent comments on Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza show his true colors. He is more than willing to use the military - though a lot of it was blocked in his first admin by guys like Mattis, Pompeo, Kelly, Bolton. The crew around him now only exists to carry out his insane conquests.
I'm fine being simple. Finer approaches were refused by cries of "No! What about <pedantic_detail />!" time and time again. I am fine with being a simpleton.
My desire is small(er) government and a lean(er) budget with little to no waste and absolutely zero corruption/fraud. Trump and Musk's bigly sledgehammer will achieve this, screw the details because I don't care anymore.
Maybe the world is just too complicated for you to understand? Are you just throwing a petty tantrum? Does that really result in a better, stronger US?
Some amount of waste is inevitable, but fraud? Hell no, fraud is unacceptable period. Fuck you for suggesting it's okay to defraud people's taxes if it's a Relatively Small Sum(tm), that attitude is part of if not the problem.
Reducing fraud yields marginal returns. Let's say you can get rid of 99% of fraud for $10M, but the remaining 1% fraud that you estimate is $2M will cost $100M to detect and prosecute, what's the optimal amount of fraud?
If we end up $2 million or $100 million less to eliminate fraud that's what we have to pay. Fraud is unacceptable, period. Defrauding people's taxes is heinous, shame on you for defending it.
But I don't want to pay $10 to recoup $1. That seems wasteful. What is worse, waste or fraud? I think waste is worse, you seem to think fraud is worse. How do we decide what to do? Well... we have a process to determine how to resolve such differences, why don't we use that?
Fraud is worse because it is both deliberate and malicious by its very nature, it is absolutely unacceptable.
The only reason you're defending fraud is because you hate Trump and Musk who are prosecuting it. Take a step back and understand what it is you're arguing for, you're throwing away even the simplest of ethics and duty to scream Orange Man and Rocket Man X are bad.
The person who's company committed tax fraud and is getting rid of independent watchdogs, FBI investigators, the FDIC, banking regulations and pausing enforcement of bribing officials is 'prosecuting fraud' ?
I thought the plan was to reduce the deficit/debt by reducing fraud and waste; not to eliminate 100% of fraud at the expense of the deficit/debt. You seem to be fine spending unlimited money to reduce fraud to 0, which is not what anyone else seems to want including Trump/Musk.
But I was not actually asking you to justify which is worse because the point I was making was I disagree with you — so what system do we use to resolve our differences?
Your logic would make perfect sense if you were talking about waste. If reducing or eliminating a given amount of waste incurs an expense larger than the waste concerned, that defeats the point of reducing expenses by reducing waste. We can certainly discuss how important reducing that waste further is at that point.
But we are talking about fraud. Fraud is deliberate misuse or theft of funds, which is made even worse because the funds are American tax dollars. This isn't a question of whether I agree with reducing fraud to zero at any cost, simple ethical logic dictates that any fraud especially of taxes is absolutely and unconditionally unacceptable because of its malicious nature.
If we are fine with excusing $1 of fraud because dealing with it is "too expensive", we might as well be fine with excusing trillions of dollars of fraud because it's the same thing: It is ultimately acceptable to misuse and steal taxpayer money. That is absolutely not a great society to live and participate in.
Even if an expense larger than the fraud is incurred the fraud must be eliminated, because the principle of the matter is much more important than the funds themselves.
>so what system do we use to resolve our differences?
Ideally, Congress should be auditing and prosecuting fraud themselves as stipulated by the Taxes and Spending Clause of the Constitution.
Obviously though, in reality they clearly haven't filled those shoes adequately, or the Executive Branch would not have to be rifling through the budget as we speak let alone all the complaints from the people about government waste and corruption.
To the first half of your comment, as you said, "I don't really care, Margaret." Our disagreement is intractable and so we move on to your answer to my actual question of how to handle our differences:
> Ideally, Congress should be auditing and prosecuting fraud themselves as stipulated by the Taxes and Spending Clause of the Constitution.
Not "ideally Congress should be", "Congress must be" -- according as you point out, to the Constitution. And they are prosecuting and auditing. For instance, USAID just passed an audit in the Fall, and despite all his noise, Musk has not yet been able to show fault with that audit.
What you advocate in your "obviously though.." paragraph is an extra-constitutional power grab of the Executive branch. Their job is to "faithfully" (that's the operative word) execute the laws, and they aren't enabled by the Constitution to do what they are, which is shut down Congressionally chartered federal agencies that the American people want to exist. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, that means as soon as the other side is in power, they'll just negate all laws and rights of the other side.
Congress exists so this does not happen, and that's why it's not the ideal solution, it's the only Constitutional solution we can use unless you're fine with rule by edict. Which, if that's what you're getting at just say it plainly. I get the feeling I'm arguing with people here who actually want a dictatorship but don't want to admit it yet. Because the process you're defending is a dictatorship by construction.
None of us voted for him. That's part of the issue. He wasn't approved by congress, he wasn't given clearance by the government. Good odds are that you in that same position (and maybe same mindset) would do much better.
>Raze it all to the ground and salt the dirt using the tears of the whiners
he's going to raze it to the ground using the blood of all of us. let's not fall into identity politics over this. These for federal institutions that every citizen relies on.
I voted for Trump and his campaign was explicit that Musk would be part of the new government. I certainly voted for him and by extension Musk/DOGE, as did the majority of American voters, even if most of the people here obviously didn't.
>These for federal institutions that every citizen relies on.
If that were the case Trump and his policies would not have been voted in.
Also worth noting, the core of "institutions every citizen relies on" which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt (for now) from the cutting and slashing as promised during the campaign. That alleviates the vast majority of citizens' concerns about reducing the government.
>I certainly voted for him and by extension Musk/DOGE, as did the majority of American voters
Given the approval ratings even in the beginning, I don't think as many Trump voters knew he was a package deal. Or thought he'd be more of a spokesperson at best. Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon.
>If that were the case Trump and his policies would not have been voted in.
Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign. I believe he focused on the Dept. of Education at best (but I think that also came about more post-election night). He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans (not the elites; their goals are fairly obvious).
>Also worth noting, the core of "institutions every citizen relies on" which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt (for now) from the cutting and slashing as promised during the campaign.
Given the level of tax cuts he wants to give to corporate tax (the one Trump was most specific about), I don't think they truly are. Those tax cuts alone are projected to cost us 100-200 billion. SS/Medicare/Medicaid make up some 40% or so of 2024's 6.75 trillion dollar federal budget (that doesn't even include Healthcare budgets).
It doesn't pass the sniff test. Either they are cutting defense spending (unthinkable), gonna cut off SS/Medicare/aid, or we're gonna balloon our deficit. All these stunts of slashing smaller departments like the DoE and mass laying off federal workers aren't going to cut it. All educational budgeting (not just the DoE) totals to 52b dollars, for reference.
He could always lie and end up raising taxes to make up for giving billionaires more money, too.
>Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon.
I would advise you that pollsters have quite literally never managed to accurately measure him, so poll numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One reason the Democrats lost is because they assumed the polls were usefully accurate.
>Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign.
It is, broadly speaking. Trump is continuing his "Drain the swamp!" promise from 2016 in addition to pressing for efficiency in government which is all-encompassing. No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned.
If the House actually works together with Trump on this, then truly no part of government is safe except for Social Security, et al..
>He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans
Indeed, that was the biggest reason for his victory and hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things.
>cutting defense spending (unthinkable)
The Pentagon apparently never passed a financial audit in recent history, which is patently indefensibly ridiculous. It should get investigated thoroughly and the defense budget appropriately slashed in due course. They are not (should not be) safe because the only things Trump promised to not touch were Social Security, et al..
If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care. I'm honestly tired of subsidizing other countries' defense budgets when they clearly don't appreciate it.
If the Military Industrial Complex whines, I really don't care.
>No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned.
firstly, that's not how the treasury works. secondly; Yeah, I don't trust them. if they just want to break into classified areas, who's gonna stop them from touching social security?
>nd hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things.
How soon? He passed 100 EO's day one and couldn't add in a price control for eggs, probably with a huge subsidy to make up for loss revenue? He had the priority to remove intelligence members who "conspired against him" but can't take the time to make sure DOGE is appointed as usual? He could give a half a trillion grant to AI but also wants to "reduce spending"?
His actions do not agree with his words. And of course some of his actions are beyond his control. He can't force the FEDS to reduce the interest rates (not that that would lower inflation. Quite the opposite).
>If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care.
Well I'm glad you're accepting of World War 3. I'm not going to acquiesce as easily.
This also isn't 1850, so if we have a Civil War 2 we will not survive whoole. Whoever "wins" gets overwhelmed by China and we lose a huge chunk of America to the East. At the very least we no longer have a "West Coast" and we're in a trade nightmare. NATO won't help out because we decided to piss them off and dismiss them as "crybabies". Canada won't help out because we keep pissing them off because "tarriffs" is trump's favorite word in the dictionary (his words, not mine); heck, Having China as a nearby trading partner would probably benefit them more than US at this point.
I live on the West Coast so I care a lot more about that than you would. I don't want my house under Chinese territory just because you're mad about not being on the congress board to argue over spending. That issue is fixable for you if you wish to go that route. The way our geography is basically means we need to defend all of North America at the bare minimum. defending a continent isn't cheap.
Firstly, that's how the Treasury works. It is literally the Department of the Treasury, headed by the Secretary of the Treasury who serves at the pleasure of the President.
President Trump can be his own Treasury Secretary if he were so inclined, he just doesn't have to.
>who's gonna stop them from touching social security?
Literally President Trump whom Elon Musk answers to and serves at the pleasure of. Trump made safeguarding Social Security, et al. a campaign promise and he is, by and large, a man of his word to a far greater degree than any other politician.
>He passed 100 EO's day one and couldn't add in a price control for eggs
If circumstances like the bird flu get too severe he might have to play hard ball, but in the interests of the free(er) market it probably is better to be less conspicuous.
Regardless, it's not even 1 month into a 4 year term. If Trump thinks that cleaning the government out is a more pressing matter than lowering grocery prices, I can't say I disagree, I voted for that policy too.
>can't take the time to make sure DOGE is appointed as usual?
He doesn't need to ask for Senate confirmations because the law doesn't say so.
>He could give a half a trillion grant to AI but also wants to "reduce spending"?
That $500 billion is private money coming from the companies who signed on to Project Stargate. I'm going to assume this was just simple naivety and wasn't deliberate mischaracterization.
>Well I'm glad you're accepting of World War 3.
Biden's policies brought us closer to World War 3 than ever before. Contrasting that to the only President in my lifetime who has not started a war of his own, I'll take this any day of the century over the prior status quo.
>I live on the West Coast
Me too. As a Japanese-American I share your sentiment that China is an enemy to be appropriately feared and respected.
I personally suspect Pax Sino is coming some time this century regardless of anything we do at this point, though. The ship already sailed out.
>The way our geography is basically means we need to defend all of North America at the bare minimum. defending a continent isn't cheap.
Our defense budget pays for significantly far more than just the United States of America, let alone the North American continent (this should be an equally shared responsibility between the US, Mexico, and Canada.)
Our defense budget pays for defending the entirety of NATO and all our other allies; we effectively defend the better part of the entire fucking globe. And yet our "allies" continue to whine, especially NATO. I'm tired of it, I'm sick of sending our servicemen to serve in other countries who don't even want them and seeing our tax dollars spent on countries who don't appreciate it.
Obama already declared we aren't the world police anymore, the world can fend for itself while we figure out our god damn finances. If that means accelerating Pax Sino, well, "I don't really care, Margaret."[1]
