4 ms·

Say what you want, but if we don't drastically cut spending, our way of life will collapse. It would be nice if Congress itself would reign in spending and down

Say what you want, but if we don't drastically cut spending, our way of life will collapse. It would be nice if Congress itself would reign in spending and downsize the government, but everyone knows that has a 0% chance of happening. This is better hyperinflation or a violent revolution, at least, which is what it avoids for us. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't done the thought experiment of extrapolating out our spending for a few more decades. It can't continue, period. Period. Our only choice is how to change it and our democracy (congresspuppets controlled by lobbies) fundamentally cannot fix this. Does anyone have a better idea that will actually work?

ModernMech 2y ago
I would agree with you if the people slashing spending indiscriminately on things that poor people rely on, also didn't have a history of and weren't currently planning to yet again give the rich and corporations massive tax cuts that have and will balloon the federal deficit. My idea? Raise taxes. I know, it's radical and literally no one has ever thought of it, but we tried lowering taxes and the deficit goes up. So maybe if we raise taxes the deficit will go down.
- stormfather 2y ago
  Do you see a popular mandate for raising taxes materializing? Do you see Congress enacting that? I don't. Like you said, you're not the first to think of it, but it never happens. As imperfect as DOGE is, its the only measure I can see actually happening that has a shot at cutting the deficit. I would love to think of another one.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Yes, I see a popular mandate materializing, absolutely. There are very few but absurdly rich people standing in the way. It's happened in the past, and it will happen in the future.
    - stormfather 2y ago
      I am more cynical. Congress is controlled by lobbyists which are controlled by oligarchs. Voters are controlled by the media which is controlled by oligarchs. I don't see us raising taxes significantly. Wishful thinking. I also think we should try to cut spending BEFORE raising taxes. What seems better? Less waste and less tax or more waste and more tax? What is better for the economy (for the organization of labor and capital) in the long run? What will attract foreign investment? What will allow accrual of consumer savings? DOGE is positive because we need a wrecking ball to come in and cut spending because the system is rotten and Congress and the media don't serve the people anymore. They plumb won't do it. I honestly couldn't think of a better personality profile than an idealistic 25 year old engineer who is young enough to hate the government and resent being born 100k in debt as much as I do. Who hates housing prices and health care and the MIC. Someone relentlessly logical whose raison d'entre is optimizing complex systems. At least they'll do something about all of this. Waiting on Congress to do something against the will of their masters is a losing game.
fallingfrog 2y ago
I think that we should cut the amount of money going towards superyachts and 10,000 dollar bottles of wine, rather than education, infrastructure and healthcare. Which do you imagine will lead to a healthier economy in the long run? Because when you cut taxes on the super wealthy, you are effectively taking money away from education and infrastructure and allocating it towards superyachts.
- stormfather 2y ago
  Ok so let's raise taxes on the wealthy. I think that's great and am in total agreement. How long do you think we should wait for Congress to significantly raise taxes on the rich? How confident are you that will ever happen? Have you seen a graph of the national debt? How long do you think we have to wait? Why oppose cutting spending now? That's not in conflict with raising taxes for the wealthy, both should be done.
  - fallingfrog 2y ago
    If we start by cutting services to the public, the tax hikes on the rich are 100% guaranteed to never happen. And then after several years the economy declines, and inequality increases, and tax revenues go down, rinse, repeat and eventually you end up where we are now. Why is making the public suffer considered fair game but making the super wealthy pay their share politically inconceivable?
    - stormfather 2y ago
      Can you give me examples of services you think DOGE will cut that the economy depends on? Genuinely asking. I assume we have different mental models of what will go away. When I think of spending cuts, I think of: USAID (23B), that rural fiber project (42.5B) and the electric charging stations (7B), stuff like that. I have a hard time imagining that these are net economic positives, but I am sure you have different services in mind that would be worse to cut. My impression is that the government is actually full of waste. I certainly don't feel like the citizens receive 8T of value in return for the taxes we pay.

ModernMech 2y ago

I would agree with you if the people slashing spending indiscriminately on things that poor people rely on, also didn't have a history of and weren't currently planning to yet again give the rich and corporations massive tax cuts that have and will balloon the federal deficit. My idea? Raise taxes. I know, it's radical and literally no one has ever thought of it, but we tried lowering taxes and the deficit goes up. So maybe if we raise taxes the deficit will go down.

stormfather 2y ago
Do you see a popular mandate for raising taxes materializing? Do you see Congress enacting that? I don't. Like you said, you're not the first to think of it, but it never happens. As imperfect as DOGE is, its the only measure I can see actually happening that has a shot at cutting the deficit. I would love to think of another one.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Yes, I see a popular mandate materializing, absolutely. There are very few but absurdly rich people standing in the way. It's happened in the past, and it will happen in the future.
  - stormfather 2y ago
    I am more cynical. Congress is controlled by lobbyists which are controlled by oligarchs. Voters are controlled by the media which is controlled by oligarchs. I don't see us raising taxes significantly. Wishful thinking. I also think we should try to cut spending BEFORE raising taxes. What seems better? Less waste and less tax or more waste and more tax? What is better for the economy (for the organization of labor and capital) in the long run? What will attract foreign investment? What will allow accrual of consumer savings? DOGE is positive because we need a wrecking ball to come in and cut spending because the system is rotten and Congress and the media don't serve the people anymore. They plumb won't do it. I honestly couldn't think of a better personality profile than an idealistic 25 year old engineer who is young enough to hate the government and resent being born 100k in debt as much as I do. Who hates housing prices and health care and the MIC. Someone relentlessly logical whose raison d'entre is optimizing complex systems. At least they'll do something about all of this. Waiting on Congress to do something against the will of their masters is a losing game.

fallingfrog 2y ago

I think that we should cut the amount of money going towards superyachts and 10,000 dollar bottles of wine, rather than education, infrastructure and healthcare. Which do you imagine will lead to a healthier economy in the long run? Because when you cut taxes on the super wealthy, you are effectively taking money away from education and infrastructure and allocating it towards superyachts.

stormfather 2y ago
Ok so let's raise taxes on the wealthy. I think that's great and am in total agreement. How long do you think we should wait for Congress to significantly raise taxes on the rich? How confident are you that will ever happen? Have you seen a graph of the national debt? How long do you think we have to wait? Why oppose cutting spending now? That's not in conflict with raising taxes for the wealthy, both should be done.
- fallingfrog 2y ago
  If we start by cutting services to the public, the tax hikes on the rich are 100% guaranteed to never happen. And then after several years the economy declines, and inequality increases, and tax revenues go down, rinse, repeat and eventually you end up where we are now. Why is making the public suffer considered fair game but making the super wealthy pay their share politically inconceivable?
  - stormfather 2y ago
    Can you give me examples of services you think DOGE will cut that the economy depends on? Genuinely asking. I assume we have different mental models of what will go away. When I think of spending cuts, I think of: USAID (23B), that rural fiber project (42.5B) and the electric charging stations (7B), stuff like that. I have a hard time imagining that these are net economic positives, but I am sure you have different services in mind that would be worse to cut. My impression is that the government is actually full of waste. I certainly don't feel like the citizens receive 8T of value in return for the taxes we pay.