9 ms·
The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Me
by insane_dreamer 2y ago
The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Medicare as that is covered by a separate tax).
This is much more than any DOGE savings, and shows that this isn't about reducing the federal budget, but about cutting services in order to fund two things: military, and corporate tax cuts (which largely benefit the rich).
With cuts to other parts of the federal budget, the defense share of the budget will be even larger than 50%.
I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste, than being spent on the military (which, by the way means that the big defense contractors in the US are _subsidized by tax payers_).
- stogot 2y ago> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste, than being spent on the military (which, by the way means that the big defense contractors in the US are _subsidized by tax payers_). We all would, but given that Russia, Iran, China, and NK are aggressive states and all actively claim that the US is the enemy, and that the relative world order expired in 2022, we cannot have nice things. The peace dividend expired years ago
- jfim 2y agoI fail to see how the cuts as being implemented actually make US citizens safer from Russia, Iran, China, and NK. Can you elaborate on how they do that?
- akoboldfrying 2y agoNot OP, but I don't think the cuts will do that. I think the additional defence spending might, though, at least w.r.t. Russia and China.
- KerrAvon 2y agoThe only thing that we _need_ is ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which we already have plenty of. The rest of it is essentially optional. Even conceding the need for a large conventional military force (soldiers/tanks/boats/aircraft/drones/etc), the US military is way overfunded, and significant budget cuts would actually be on the table if DOGE were a sincere effort to reduce government spending.
- aftbit 2y agoClearly false. Nukes are just not that useful in about anything except the end of the world. If you're fighting a Ukraine-style war, nukes are worthless.
- jquery 2y agoUkraine is only fighting an Ukraine-style war because it lacked nukes to begin with. Which, btw, they lack because we agreed to defend them from Russia if they agreed to not develop nukes.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ArnoVW 2y agoEven better than that: the deal was that they should get rid of the ones they had.
- slaw 2y agoThere is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum about defend from Russia.
- darthrupert 2y agoYeah. In fact Russia was one of the nations that promised to protect Ukraine from attacks. But back then it didn't look like Russia was the primary risk to the free countries of this planet.
- khana 2y ago[dead]
- SecretDreams 2y agoI don't think the current admin codes Russian or NK as hostile states.
- sheeshkebab 2y agoThey won’t have any choice soon enough - all that wishy washy they are not our enemy bullshit goes out the window with the first missile/shell/drone flying over.
- jquery 2y agoWhy would Russia/NK attack their wannabe ally?
- raverbashing 2y agoSomething something the frog and the scorpion
- rbanffy 2y agoIf you remember Putin is a spy by training, and a damn good one at that, you must consider spies really don’t want to change things when they are advantageous to them. Right now he knows very well what levers to pull to make things happen the way he wants. He won’t change that.
- codedokode 2y agoWell they both are across the large ocean and it's difficult to invade US from their location (especially for NK which probably doesn't even have ships). US is surrounded by weak, peaceful countries and separated by oceans from not-so-peaceful ones. It could cut the military spending completely and still be safe.
- reciprocity 2y agoYou're not accounting for the fact that it is in America's best interests to have allies, most of whom are across those same oceans. And vice versa.
- curseofcasandra 2y ago[flagged]
- rat87 2y agoGenerally I think most american military/state department people dont want China as an enemy but see a high chance of conflict if they invade Taiwan. Though under Trump I'm not sure we would defend Taiwan, we seem to be betraying Ukraine and other european allies
- VBprogrammer 2y agoAmerican needs an enemy. Drugs, communism, terrorism, China. I guess without something to fear it would be hard to justify spending trillions on their military.
- bregma 2y agoWe have always been at war with Eastasia.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoyou could cut the US military budget substantially and it would still be the largest military power in the world and well able to defend itself it might not longer be able to be the "undisputed global power" but, as someone who has lived abroad most of my life and seen American foreign policy from the other side, I don't know that's a bad thing
- roenxi 2y agoAlthough it is worth noting that the war spending the US does do also doesn't translate into being an undisputed global power. They burned a trillion or few in Afghanistan and I doubt that impressed anyone in particular. They didn't achieve anything. Challengers to the global hegemony multiplied in the aftermath. If they hadn't wasted the resources they'd just be better off with no downsides.
- DrillShopper 2y agoThe US spent more than twice (and almost three times) what Russia, China, and Iran spent on their military combined in 2023. If we can't match up with them by spending twice as much as them then maybe the military is the first place we should be looking for inefficency.
- SmirkingRevenge 2y agoDOGE isn't really cutting things to fund others. Many of their cuts are going to be net revenue negative. Many will cost taxpayers more of their money. It's about gutting the civil service and staffing them with loyalists that will do what Trump or Musk want, despite what the law says. It's consolidation of power and corruption. Musk is also crippling many of the agencies that enforce regulations on his businesses.
- ocdtrekkie 2y agoThe most obvious case is the CFPB, which returns roughly twice its cost to taxpayers. I would argue that's honestly very inefficient, I'd like to see the CFPB returning a multiple of its cost to taxpayers... but nonetheless it is obvious shutting it down will cost taxpayers more.
- TomK32 2y agoWe only see what it's directly returning to customers, not the damage it prevents to happen in the first place by a) forcing companies to change their behaviour and b) possibly influencing legislation and policy making.
- SmirkingRevenge 2y agoYour point is spot on, but I think it actually does have better returns for consumers on paper than that. IIRC, it saves consumers 10s of billions for < 1 billion of expenses.
- ocdtrekkie 2y agoThe CFPB claims to have recovered $19 billion for consumers, total, since 2011. Which is 14 years ago. So maybe it recovers 1.4 billion a year. It's budget is around 600 million a year. So yeah, it probably recovers a little over double what it costs to operate. That sounds okay, but bear in mind the recovered funds are... taxpayer dollars that we unfairly paid. And when you factor in the cost in taxes we pay for CFPB, that means... we're only getting a little more than half our money back. That's certainly better than not getting anything back, but I'd hesitate to call it "efficient".
- ipython 2y agoAnd don't worry, the House is ready to extend and expand tax cuts to more than extinguish any potential "savings" - to the tune of over $3 trillion in extra deficit spending. But don't worry, they've planned for that- just increase the debt limit by $4 trillion to cover the difference! After all, now that the Democrats aren't in charge any longer, increasing the debt limit is no biggie - we'll just grow ourselves out of the hole! Once we enact those tax cuts, it'll be hard to justify even more debt spending on such silly things like "education" and "research". We've got to pay the interest on the money we borrowed to provide those tax cuts after all.
- jquery 2y agoBanning those 5 trans athletes in college sports is sure looking expensive now.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoWait, I thought the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism and reducing the deficit? Shouldn't they be reducing the debt ceiling rather than raising it?
- anonym29 2y agoThey absolutely should be. The legislature is not representing the will of the voters and refusing to do what's right for society as a whole and pass term limits for themselves. It's not complicated. Those who vote yes are reasonable, ethical, moral people, and those who vote no leave behind a permanent legacy of boundless self-interest.
- rbanffy 2y agoThat solves a symptom, not the problem. You need stronger legislation against lobbying, campaign financing, and investing by representatives. If that works, the incentive to be a representative is reduced and there won’t be people who make it into a profitable career against the interests of the people.
- BurningFrog 2y ago> This is much more than any DOGE savings DOGE is an 18 month project. Confidently asserting the end result after a few weeks is bold.
- thih9 2y agoA bit off topic: end result and how to measure it is often the point against DOGE - that their “move fast and break things” approach would in fact break things, causing unexpected and excessive long term costs. I get your point, they are still active and there will be more to evaluate.
- BurningFrog 2y agoSide note here in the unread downvoted realm: "Move fast and break things" was an early FB motto, that they abandoned in 2014. Pretty sure Musk has never said it.
- thih9 2y agoHe doesn’t need to say it if he acts like it. At least this is what nbc news claims: > Musk has embraced Silicon Valley’s most notorious instincts to “move fast and break things” in a lightning battle to muscle into the computer systems and power structures of federal agencies. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190450 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190450
- BurningFrog 2y agoFWIW, this is what ChatGPT says: Me: Has Elon Musk ever used the phrase "move fast and break things"? ChatGPT: No, “Move fast and break things” is a phrase famously associated with Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk. It was Facebook’s internal motto for many years, reflecting their approach to rapid innovation and iteration, even at the cost of breaking things along the way. Elon Musk, on the other hand, has used phrases like: • “The best part is no part” (referring to simplifying engineering designs) • “Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough.” • “Move fast and fix things” (sometimes attributed to Tesla/SpaceX as a counter to Zuckerberg’s phrase) Musk does value speed and iteration, but he tends to focus on engineering precision and iterative improvements, rather than outright breaking things recklessly.
- smogcutter 2y ago> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste In fact, I’d argue that the government’s role is specifically to spend on things that are economically inefficient but nonetheless important.
- dmurray 2y agoRight, but theres a difference between "economically inefficient because every dollar spent here translates to less than a dollar of direct returns" and "economically inefficient because every dollar spent on this requires spending five dollars more on administering it". It's absolutely possible for a government to value investing in health care or education or foreign aid in a way that a corporation could never monetize, but still value doing it in a more effective way.
- rbanffy 2y ago> "economically inefficient because every dollar spent on this requires spending five dollars more on administering it" Is there evidence that this is what’s actually happening?
- fourside 2y agoI’m sure you can find some evidence of that. You also need to find evidence that every department that is getting slashed has those kind of inefficiencies. The government is large and complex. Even inside large companies, which are comparatively smaller you’ll find different departments have different level of inefficiencies.
- dcow 2y agoWhich is why a discussion on this topic at such a high level isn't really productive. You need to look at each line item and ask whether it’s fraud/waste/abuse and then make a call. That is exactly what DOGE is doing. If you don’t trust them then you’ll never get to a discussion on meaningful details.
- slaw 2y ago> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste, than being spent on the military (which, by the way means that the big defense contractors in the US are _subsidized by tax payers_). I would rather not spend taxpayers money on any of these and especially on military.
- DrillShopper 2y agoOn what would you be okay with the government spending taxpayers' money?
- Whoppertime 2y agoI didn't hear you complaining when billions were being spent on military aid for Ukraine...
- presentation 2y agoI don’t think it’s about the budget at all. It’s just an excuse to purge the civil service, since it’s overwhelmingly liberals in it, so that they can swing it more republican. Deficits are just a cover.
- InfiniteTitan 2y ago> “since it’s overwhelmingly liberals in it” Source?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- presentation 2y agoHere’s one, maybe “overwhelmingly” is a bit too extreme but we’re talking double or more the number of registered dems on average: https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/study-finds-the-cost-of-partisanship-among-federal-workers/ https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/study-finds-the-...
- watersb 2y agoCivil service work force is about 1/3 veteran - former military personnel. https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/share-of-veterans-in-federal-workforce-remaining-stable/ https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/share-of-veterans-in-federal... While there is certainly a wide range of individual viewpoint in the military, compared to the general population I would not describe it as "overwhelmingly liberal". . There is evidence that DOGE has targeted Federal agencies perceived as "liberal": https://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/ideological-purge-doges-federal-layoffs-especially-target-agencies-percieved-as-liberal/ https://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/ideological-purge...
- presentation 2y agoHere’s one, maybe “overwhelmingly” is a bit too extreme but we’re talking double or more the number of registered dems on average, with some departments being much more lopsided: https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/study-finds-the-cost-of-partisanship-among-federal-workers/ https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/study-finds-the-...
- specialist 2y agoYes and: > about cutting services in order to fund two things Gutting the administrative state. Then restaffing with loyalists.
- lbarron6868 2y agoIt's also about weakening the federal government. Cutting regulations and throwing everything into chaos. It took some time for me to buy into the Techno-authoritarian theories, but the evidence is overwhelming.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoI understand why big corp would want to get rid of regulations to increase their profits. But chaos? That seems bad for business. I don't track the logic there.