Federal debt

[Smit]

Who thinks the federal debt is going down under the present administration?

Personally, at best, I think it won't increase too horribly fast if the repugs balance their tax cuts for the rich with heavy cuts to medicaid and possibly social security (per Elon Musk).

But a more likely scenarios is the debt will continue to to grow at the same pace it has been growing.

M2C  

[beej]

Who thinks the federal debt is going down under the present administration?

Personally, at best, I think it won't increase too horribly fast if the repugs balance their tax cuts for the rich with heavy cuts to medicaid and possibly social security (per Elon Musk).

But a more likely scenarios is the debt will continue to to grow at the same pace it has been growing.

M2C  

I've been burned so many times in my lifetime by republican presidents that say they are going to cut the federal debt and then do the opposite, that it's pretty hard to not to feel like charlie brown kicking a football.

[Smit]

I've been burned so many times in my lifetime by republican presidents that say they are going to cut the federal debt and then do the opposite, that it's pretty hard to not to feel like charlie brown kicking a football.

There we go. Common ground.

Basically all presidents but Republicans always make the most noise about reducing the debt. At least when there is a Democrat president.

The debt was reduced briefly under Clinton, but otherwise, nope.

[beej]

There we go. Common ground.

Basically all presidents but Republicans always make the most noise about reducing the debt. At least when there is a Democrat president.

The debt was reduced briefly under Clinton, but otherwise, nope.

it's hard to reduce for multiple reasons. But the main things are, once people start getting that money, they don't want to let loose of it. It doesn't matter what you try to cut, somewhere, whether is education or farmers, or defense, or retirees, or climate groups, If they don't get their money they are taking their case to the media and the public. And there is always some sad story that puts a face to the policy that makes a politician look bad if he\she advocates cutting it. And since politicians want to get reelected or want their party to get reelected once they've termed out, they back away from it.

This is what makes DOGE so shocking. I can't imagine that both democrat "voters" and republican "voters" don't agree on getting rid of waste in govt spending. I am certain there is disagreement on cutting actual services, ie less spending on health care, or defense or infrastructure. But if we can just start with waste, which is what DOGE is looking for. We should be able to agree on that.

[mowens]

Who decides what is waste and what is not?

[Jeff]

Who decides what is waste and what is not?

I believe Congress had to approve and evaluate all findings? iirc

[YoDoug]

[Smit]

it's hard to reduce for multiple reasons. But the main things are, once people start getting that money, they don't want to let loose of it. It doesn't matter what you try to cut, somewhere, whether is education or farmers, or defense, or retirees, or climate groups, If they don't get their money they are taking their case to the media and the public. And there is always some sad story that puts a face to the policy that makes a politician look bad if he\she advocates cutting it. And since politicians want to get reelected or want their party to get reelected once they've termed out, they back away from it.

This is what makes DOGE so shocking. I can't imagine that both democrat "voters" and republican "voters" don't agree on getting rid of waste in govt spending. I am certain there is disagreement on cutting actual services, ie less spending on health care, or defense or infrastructure. But if we can just start with waste, which is what DOGE is looking for. We should be able to agree on that.

Everybody is for getting rid of corruption, waste, inefficiency, etc. How could you not be unless you are profiting from said corruption, waste, inefficiency, etc?

The idea behind DOGE is alright. It's the haphazard, chainsaw approach that's not going over. There's a reason they don't want to be transparent. There's always a reason departments want to avoid transparency.

When government was reduced during the Clinton administration they did it carefully and transparently. They did it right.

DOGE...is not right. The way they're doing things is not right. And just because Elon Musk says they're doing great things doesn't mean they're doing great things. If they were transparency wouldn't be an issue at all.

Elon Musk is not the CEO of the U.S. who can do whatever he wants. And Trump allowing him to do so is not right. Musk was a great campaign donor, is this what he was buying with his campaign donations?

But I'm wandering in a Beejlike manner now.

If DOGE is reducing the debt show it in verifiable form. Then we'll wait to see if the accompanying policies all add up to a cut in the debt.

Who decides what is waste and what is not?

Musk apparently, and his band of kids.

[Jeff]

BRAWK! BRAWK!

[Smit]

Jeff hears a talking head say, "They just parrot everything."

Jeff: "Brawk! brawk!" 

Don't be a jeff.