2 ms·

Funds for medical research, which our elected Congresses and Presidents allocated for those purposes, are not being disbursed. This is a cut. Congress did not a

by runako 2y ago

Funds for medical research, which our elected Congresses and Presidents allocated for those purposes, are not being disbursed. This is a cut. Congress did not approve these cuts. We did not get a refund of the money.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
We do not get a refund of the money... but the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. Look, I am not a fan of DOGE. They are far more theater than effective. But on this one small point, your argument doesn't work.
- runako 2y ago
  > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. The durable problem with this logic is that it depends on the President overriding the written instructions laid out by Congress in appropriations. This power of the purse, of course, is one of the main checks in our system of checks and balances. Power is intentionally divided between the branches. Is it even legal for the Executive to ignore the spending orders set forth by Congress? So maybe the deficit is smaller (although we continue to pay the same tax rates), but the cost is we have eroded a foundational piece of our Constitutional republic. We don't have to pretend like there is not a legitimate process to reduce the deficit if that is the expressed wish of the American people. And any time we veer from the proper legal mechanism, there will be unforeseeable ramifications in the future. [Yes, in theory a smaller deficit can lead to a future reduction in tax rates. Congress can address both deficit and tax reduction to take place over several years this week if it wants. That's how the Constitution is designed.]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent But...it's not. The deficit is ballooning.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    All right, the deficit is a bit lower than it otherwise would have been, if they had spent the other money also.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by runako 2y ago

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

We do not get a refund of the money... but the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. Look, I am not a fan of DOGE. They are far more theater than effective. But on this one small point, your argument doesn't work.

runako 2y ago
> the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent. The durable problem with this logic is that it depends on the President overriding the written instructions laid out by Congress in appropriations. This power of the purse, of course, is one of the main checks in our system of checks and balances. Power is intentionally divided between the branches. Is it even legal for the Executive to ignore the spending orders set forth by Congress? So maybe the deficit is smaller (although we continue to pay the same tax rates), but the cost is we have eroded a foundational piece of our Constitutional republic. We don't have to pretend like there is not a legitimate process to reduce the deficit if that is the expressed wish of the American people. And any time we veer from the proper legal mechanism, there will be unforeseeable ramifications in the future. [Yes, in theory a smaller deficit can lead to a future reduction in tax rates. Congress can address both deficit and tax reduction to take place over several years this week if it wants. That's how the Constitution is designed.]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the deficit should be a bit lower because the money was not spent But...it's not. The deficit is ballooning.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  All right, the deficit is a bit lower than it otherwise would have been, if they had spent the other money also.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]