4 ms·

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 bee

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.
      - namaria 2y ago
        Nah man you don't get to defend a known rapist and con artist and then claim neutrality. Get a grip.
        palmfacehn 2y ago
        "You'll believe what I accuse you of believing and defend the straw-men I attribute to you", isn't a strong argument here. It is entirely personal and divorced from the original thread.
        namaria 2y ago
        >> Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation. Description of facts > The hyperbole is a bit much for me. Your assessment. Then you respond to every calling out as "I'm neutral" I can only laugh at this point.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    >The partisan stuff doesnt interest me. Aka "i have no willingness to debate in good faith."

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.
    - namaria 2y ago
      Nah man you don't get to defend a known rapist and con artist and then claim neutrality. Get a grip.
      - palmfacehn 2y ago
        "You'll believe what I accuse you of believing and defend the straw-men I attribute to you", isn't a strong argument here. It is entirely personal and divorced from the original thread.
        namaria 2y ago
        >> Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation. Description of facts > The hyperbole is a bit much for me. Your assessment. Then you respond to every calling out as "I'm neutral" I can only laugh at this point.
- drawkward 2y ago
  >The partisan stuff doesnt interest me. Aka "i have no willingness to debate in good faith."