4 ms·

Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing

Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too

palmfacehn 2y ago
Agreed on all points. However, it still leaves the question: Were cuts possible in terms of realpolik in any other way? We can argue that there should have been more nuance and in the ideal world, yes, we would like more measured cuts. Additionally, even if we found areas to cut which are generally agreeable, the proponents of that spending would use every means possible to oppose those cuts. The special interests would have every incentive to use the most inflammatory language to incite aligned partisans.
- namaria 2y ago
  You keep hammering on the point of cuts; what do you say about the fact that Trump has increased debt more than Obama or Biden in his first term?
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    The partisan stuff doesn't interest me. Various sources will cook numbers differently. One trick is to include entitlements or exclude them from the debt. Rate of increase vs. debt in real terms offers another stunt mode. COVID spending is yet another area for partisan squabbling. When it suits the agenda, partisans will claim, "But congress has the final word on spending". You can even find that in this thread. The rate of increase in debt has been increasing consistently. Even with Clinton's so called balanced budget, the total amount of debt has increased over the long term. If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises. Even with these actions, I'm cautiously optimistic at best. I'm not a die hard Trump supporter or enthusiastic about any politician. Generally I dislike politicians and the political classes. It wouldn't be a terribly inaccurate to generalize by calling them all looters. These cuts make it possible to consider hope.
    - namaria 2y ago
      You're assigning an awful lot of trustworthiness to a known liar for someone who claims not to support him. The debt data is very clear and very public. If anyone is "cooking" it's you.
      - palmfacehn 2y ago
        >>If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises. >You're assigning an awful lot of trustworthiness to a known liar... Am I? Did you bother to read my above comment? In my view, all politicians are liars by necessity. They have every incentive to make the most grandiose promises while campaigning. Once in office they can begin looting. The long term health of the polity is of no concern to their particular set of incentives. They need only worry about the next election campaign. Bankrupting or exploiting the public is almost a foregone conclusion. Individuals may differ, but these are the incentives inherent to the political game. >... for someone who claims not to support him. These are my assessments of politics and politicians. I've even been explicit about them previous to spelling them out in more detail here. Despite that, you insist on projecting your partisan nonsense onto my views, as if you have some kind of crystal ball that allows you to read my mind or another telepathic power which would preclude you from engaging in good faith. Take another look at this discussion. You've gone off the deep end here.
nxobject 2y ago
I'm not sure how any of the current initiatives will lead to a balanced budget, to be honest. Here's a site by the Congressional Budget Office, which will likely be more reliable than the Treasury going forward. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60843/html https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60843/html - Over FY24, revenue ran to $4.19 trillion, while spending ran to $6.14 trillion – leaving (up to rounding before calculation) a deficit of $1.95 trillon. – Of all of this spending, ~$4.10 trillion is likely untouchable politically, since accounted for by the DoD, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on public debt. This leaves us with ~$2.04 trillion worth of spending to cut $1.95 trillion from. I think you can see how feasible that is. Federal salaries and benefits are _peanuts_ compared to the trillions of dollars involved – I think around 8.6%, although the CBO doesn't have spending broken down by cost objects. Assuming Elon's run the numbers, he'll be perfectly aware that trimming down the federal workforce won't do jack shit to get the US to a balanced budget. His motivations are different.

palmfacehn 2y ago

Agreed on all points. However, it still leaves the question: Were cuts possible in terms of realpolik in any other way? We can argue that there should have been more nuance and in the ideal world, yes, we would like more measured cuts. Additionally, even if we found areas to cut which are generally agreeable, the proponents of that spending would use every means possible to oppose those cuts. The special interests would have every incentive to use the most inflammatory language to incite aligned partisans.

namaria 2y ago
You keep hammering on the point of cuts; what do you say about the fact that Trump has increased debt more than Obama or Biden in his first term?
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  The partisan stuff doesn't interest me. Various sources will cook numbers differently. One trick is to include entitlements or exclude them from the debt. Rate of increase vs. debt in real terms offers another stunt mode. COVID spending is yet another area for partisan squabbling. When it suits the agenda, partisans will claim, "But congress has the final word on spending". You can even find that in this thread. The rate of increase in debt has been increasing consistently. Even with Clinton's so called balanced budget, the total amount of debt has increased over the long term. If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises. Even with these actions, I'm cautiously optimistic at best. I'm not a die hard Trump supporter or enthusiastic about any politician. Generally I dislike politicians and the political classes. It wouldn't be a terribly inaccurate to generalize by calling them all looters. These cuts make it possible to consider hope.
  - namaria 2y ago
    You're assigning an awful lot of trustworthiness to a known liar for someone who claims not to support him. The debt data is very clear and very public. If anyone is "cooking" it's you.
    - palmfacehn 2y ago
      >>If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises. >You're assigning an awful lot of trustworthiness to a known liar... Am I? Did you bother to read my above comment? In my view, all politicians are liars by necessity. They have every incentive to make the most grandiose promises while campaigning. Once in office they can begin looting. The long term health of the polity is of no concern to their particular set of incentives. They need only worry about the next election campaign. Bankrupting or exploiting the public is almost a foregone conclusion. Individuals may differ, but these are the incentives inherent to the political game. >... for someone who claims not to support him. These are my assessments of politics and politicians. I've even been explicit about them previous to spelling them out in more detail here. Despite that, you insist on projecting your partisan nonsense onto my views, as if you have some kind of crystal ball that allows you to read my mind or another telepathic power which would preclude you from engaging in good faith. Take another look at this discussion. You've gone off the deep end here.

nxobject 2y ago

I'm not sure how any of the current initiatives will lead to a balanced budget, to be honest. Here's a site by the Congressional Budget Office, which will likely be more reliable than the Treasury going forward. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60843/html https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60843/html - Over FY24, revenue ran to $4.19 trillion, while spending ran to $6.14 trillion – leaving (up to rounding before calculation) a deficit of $1.95 trillon. – Of all of this spending, ~$4.10 trillion is likely untouchable politically, since accounted for by the DoD, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on public debt. This leaves us with ~$2.04 trillion worth of spending to cut $1.95 trillion from. I think you can see how feasible that is. Federal salaries and benefits are _peanuts_ compared to the trillions of dollars involved – I think around 8.6%, although the CBO doesn't have spending broken down by cost objects. Assuming Elon's run the numbers, he'll be perfectly aware that trimming down the federal workforce won't do jack shit to get the US to a balanced budget. His motivations are different.