4 ms·

I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would pre

I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level. This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien. Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.

Braxton1980 1y ago
>The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing. Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example. >Defense must be handled at the national welfare Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program >My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it. >It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example; I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys. If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
blackguardx 1y ago
The only presidents that made any attempt to balance the budget in the last 40 years were members of the Democratic party. The perception of "right = fiscally responsible" and "left = reckless spending" just isn't accurate.
- ahazred8ta 1y ago
  The balanced budget of the 1990s was on track to happen regardless of who was in the white house. "the peace dividend has caused a lowering of military spending from 6% of GDP to 3%" -- We sold off half our military bases and folded that revenue into the budget.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Then this was a total miscommunication or misread. The last paragraph of my comment was bemoaning precisely this. The right yaps about "we need to cut spending" and never does. The left doesn't yap about it and also never does. "All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." I have no such perception.
jknoepfler 1y ago
It's exactly what the entire campaign platform you voted for was: unprincipled, random bullshit designed to stoke an angry, bigoted, ignorant base. I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda... Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  I voted mostly against harris. I don't really like trump. I've voted against him in every primary I could. I voted libertarian in 2020 because I figured biden would lose. I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. probably worse. Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    > I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain. > Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care. Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almost a billion dollars to retrofit that will be finished at the end of his term and then given to his library for his personal use. But since he pretends to care about Americans, I guess we can also pretend to believe his dealing with the middle east and all his crypto is totally not selling the country out for his, his business partners and his family's benefit. At least you are honest about voting for someone who only pretends to care, instead of voting for someone who does care about the country and it's people, even if some domestic policies views differ -- I can appreciate that honesty.
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      We tried the "nice" approach with the EU of polite patron-to-client instruction. The EU failed to play ball. We tried this with many countries. They failed to play ball. So there is no reason to continue costing the American citizen money for their benefit. An "alliance" where you mostly just help the other person is closer to parasitism. I do not believe any politician cares about America or her citizens. I do not believe harris cares about America or her citizens. Politicians seek power.
atmavatar 1y ago
> I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. How much do you believe each country spends on defense? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest... Based on that, the US spends more than the remainder of the top 10 countries combined, most of which are allies. The US could cut its defense budget in half and still be spending more than China and Russia (spots 2 and 3) combined.
- Auracle 1y ago
  We also need to pay our people/manufacturers significantly more than either of those countries. Don’t get wrong, we’ve all heard stories about $5,000 toilet seats or whatever but without actual changes on that front we can’t cut our budget in half and be competitive.
tmpz22 1y ago
Right, if you assume competency and hard work from the administration involved. Seriously, many of the cuts reference returning power to the states, does that mean it will be returned in its entirety as block grants, or as non-corporate tax cuts? Based on past performance I doubt they'll accomplish either yet the money and programs and federal jobs will still be gone. Federal jobs many considered to be good jobs and even the biggest cynic would admit provided -some- public good (e.g. National Parks NSF, NHS, many others). How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke? Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!). I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Block grants are bad. I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget. I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks. I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help pick up the slack if there are challenges with the NPS. You can't lump NHS in with those. I do not like public health care. I did not put "woke" in there. I don't like the "wrapper" language. I do like some of the content. I do not think trump in office is a good thing. I just think harris is a bad thing. Since roosevelt we have been stuck on a leftward ratchet. Liberals take office and change things. Conservatives take power and fail to reverse them. Trump is not much of a conservative. I do think he can at least promote some reversal of the social parts. I don't care much about the social parts. But I do hope that sets a precedent for someone to reverse the practical economic parts.
  - 1y ago

Braxton1980 1y ago

>The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China

landl0rd 1y ago
Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing. Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      >Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example. >Defense must be handled at the national welfare Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program >My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it. >It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example; I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys. If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

blackguardx 1y ago

The only presidents that made any attempt to balance the budget in the last 40 years were members of the Democratic party. The perception of "right = fiscally responsible" and "left = reckless spending" just isn't accurate.

ahazred8ta 1y ago
The balanced budget of the 1990s was on track to happen regardless of who was in the white house. "the peace dividend has caused a lowering of military spending from 6% of GDP to 3%" -- We sold off half our military bases and folded that revenue into the budget.
landl0rd 1y ago
Then this was a total miscommunication or misread. The last paragraph of my comment was bemoaning precisely this. The right yaps about "we need to cut spending" and never does. The left doesn't yap about it and also never does. "All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." I have no such perception.

jknoepfler 1y ago

It's exactly what the entire campaign platform you voted for was: unprincipled, random bullshit designed to stoke an angry, bigoted, ignorant base. I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda... Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.

landl0rd 1y ago
I voted mostly against harris. I don't really like trump. I've voted against him in every primary I could. I voted libertarian in 2020 because I figured biden would lose. I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. probably worse. Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain. > Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care. Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almost a billion dollars to retrofit that will be finished at the end of his term and then given to his library for his personal use. But since he pretends to care about Americans, I guess we can also pretend to believe his dealing with the middle east and all his crypto is totally not selling the country out for his, his business partners and his family's benefit. At least you are honest about voting for someone who only pretends to care, instead of voting for someone who does care about the country and it's people, even if some domestic policies views differ -- I can appreciate that honesty.
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    We tried the "nice" approach with the EU of polite patron-to-client instruction. The EU failed to play ball. We tried this with many countries. They failed to play ball. So there is no reason to continue costing the American citizen money for their benefit. An "alliance" where you mostly just help the other person is closer to parasitism. I do not believe any politician cares about America or her citizens. I do not believe harris cares about America or her citizens. Politicians seek power.

atmavatar 1y ago

> I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. How much do you believe each country spends on defense? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest... Based on that, the US spends more than the remainder of the top 10 countries combined, most of which are allies. The US could cut its defense budget in half and still be spending more than China and Russia (spots 2 and 3) combined.

Auracle 1y ago
We also need to pay our people/manufacturers significantly more than either of those countries. Don’t get wrong, we’ve all heard stories about $5,000 toilet seats or whatever but without actual changes on that front we can’t cut our budget in half and be competitive.

tmpz22 1y ago

Right, if you assume competency and hard work from the administration involved. Seriously, many of the cuts reference returning power to the states, does that mean it will be returned in its entirety as block grants, or as non-corporate tax cuts? Based on past performance I doubt they'll accomplish either yet the money and programs and federal jobs will still be gone. Federal jobs many considered to be good jobs and even the biggest cynic would admit provided -some- public good (e.g. National Parks NSF, NHS, many others). How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke? Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!). I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?

landl0rd 1y ago
Block grants are bad. I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget. I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks. I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help pick up the slack if there are challenges with the NPS. You can't lump NHS in with those. I do not like public health care. I did not put "woke" in there. I don't like the "wrapper" language. I do like some of the content. I do not think trump in office is a good thing. I just think harris is a bad thing. Since roosevelt we have been stuck on a leftward ratchet. Liberals take office and change things. Conservatives take power and fail to reverse them. Trump is not much of a conservative. I do think he can at least promote some reversal of the social parts. I don't care much about the social parts. But I do hope that sets a precedent for someone to reverse the practical economic parts.
- 1y ago