Why in the hell is Trump wasting time trying to impose his will on the NYC congestion pricing system? Like it, don't like it, I don't care. But things like this are literally the epitome of an issue best handled by a local government, not the federal government. At one point, the conservative/Republican position was the the reach of the federal government should be smaller, not larger. I guess that's not the case any more.
What in the name of all that is holy are Trump and Elon talking about with their talk of sending a $5,000 check to everyone in the country with DOGE "savings"?
Look, I am all in on cutting the size of the federal government. I am 100% behind getting rid of the lifers who do as little as possible, rake in the high end of the GS pay scale, and are just hanging on for their 30 and a bigger lifetime pension. I'm all for cutting waste, fraud and abuse. I don't even care if they maybe err on the side of cutting a little too much, it can always be added back if necessary. But $5,000 checks to 330,000,000 people when there is no possible way to get that cash except by increasing the deficit/debt, screw that. Conservatives complained about the COVID stimulus checks, but this is much worse and just a stupid attempt to play by the DFL vote buying rule book.
Instead of a one time $5,000 check (believe me, I could find some great uses for $5,000), I freaking want to ease the debt burden on our grandchildren and great grandchildren. I don't want short term pleasure at the cost of long term pain, I want them to do what they promised and cut the deficit and work to lower the debt.
$1,650,000,000,000. That's how much $5,000 x 330,000,000 is. If there's really that much savings, then pay down the long term debt.
14 comments:
I agree. As much as I like the idea of tax refunds for having been overtaxed, as I would label this $5K idea as being, paying down the debt with any money saved by cutting waste is a far better idea. Can't do much about money already flushed, but for money still being sent out, to stop it from going where it shouldn't is to cut unnecessary spending. So if there are bills outstanding, resolve them and the debt is reduced. Every little bit helps as the interest on that debt falls as well.
We'll be fine if Trump does repeats what he did the first time around which resulted in an expanding economy. That gave us more money in our pockets and a much lower cost of living. That goes farther than $5K.
I have no problem with a tax refund based on actual taxes overpaid for a specific year, that makes total sense. If someone wants to forego their refund and contribute extra, that's fine.
The promise was to save money and reduce the debt/deficit, that's what they should do with any savings going forward.
While I could use $5k, borrowing vast amounts of money (remember most government spending is borrowed money, and interest on the debt is the largest budget line item) to give everyone a check seems like a DFL vote buying scheme. The whole point should be that we need a bit of austerity to get our fiscal house in order, not trying to buy votes with borrowed money.
As I've looked more deeply into this $5K give away, that number is based on a percentage of the money saved...that is, the $2trillion...divided by the population (don't know if it's everybody are just taxpayers). Thus, if DOGE only finds $1trillion, the tax refund would only be $2500. Naturally, what's left over is still a huge amount which would go to reduce the debt. But I personally would prefer all savings go to reduce the debt and thus the interest on it.
When one considers $36 trillion, I'd say there has to be more than $2 trillion in spending which can be cut. The budget simply can't be loaded with pork anymore. There's no way we need to be spending so much and then to pretend we can't reduce the budget to a number lower than the previous budget is simply a lie. I'm rapidly approaching 3/4 of a century on this earth. By the time I get there, I see no reason...especially with people such as we now have in charge being in charge beyond the extent of Trump's term...why the debt can't be reduced well below $30 trillion.
Dan whines about people not being fed because of cuts and suspensions of spending. But if we cut the debt, expand the economy there will be fewer hungry people in THIS country, and more people who will donate to fund efforts to fee the rest of the world. Regardless, we just can't have people like Dan running the country. No Trabues are likely to end the fiscal crap sandwich the Trabues served up.
I say that after I posted this as well. Frankly, I don't care. 100% of the "savings" (which aren't so much "savings" as they are reductions in future spending, which means we would have to borrow less. Should go toward reducing the debt/deficit, and setting up future generations for a more fiscally sustainable US. It was vote buying when Biden did it, vote buying when Walz did it, and it'd be vote buying now.
I agree that there is plenty of W/F/A to be found in our bloated federal budget, and that there are plenty of federal employees who are not adding value to their organizations and who should be gone. The stereotype of federal employees hanging on, doing the bare minimum, so they get more retirement $$$$$ is based in reality. My only problem is that they're firing probationary workers instead of the one's who should have retired years ago. At least the probationary workers should be motivated to do well to avoid being fired.
BTW, what in the hell is wrong with our country where literally every employee in the country is an "at will" employee and can be fired at any time for any reason, yet federal employees are somehow magically protected from this? Screw that, this is what is wrong with public employee unions. It's a big job, but that's what Trump should go after, the culture that protects federal employees in ways that private sector employees are not.
The problem is that Dan thinks that there is a magical money supply that those of his ilk can tap at will to "feed the hungry", when he chooses to ignore that every dollar that the the US borrows for these programs is going to be a financial burden on our great grandchildren to the point of government insolvency. Maybe if we got our fiscal house in order, we could then revisit providing aid to others, and how that is done.
Every action by an elected official, every campaign promise is the buying of votes. Treating all purchases of votes the same is like saying "they're all crooks!", which also isn't true.
Not spending is saving. My wife, who used to shop at Kohls, liked to pretend she was saving big by using their many sale tactics...like "Kohls Cash"...to rationalize her purchases (not that she was a spendthrift), if what would have cost, say $100 was now only $40 (or whatever) because of the sale gimmicks. I would respond, "You didn't save $60. You spent $40." She would say, not really being serious, "You men just don't understand!" But to not spend the amount the gimmicks reduced was actually saving, if the goods had to be purchased, which they usually did.
Where I'm not absolutely clear is the divided between what we need to spend versus what can be eliminated without causing us real harm. What DOGE is after is first the obvious BS spending which isn't at all necessary, nor Constitutionally mandated. It's like Tom Homan first apprehending the most violent and dangerous illegals. DOGE will get down to the point where only the necessary remains. The unclear part is how much of this BS spending is considered part of the debt? Let's say we stop absolutely all spending. We'll still have a debt to pay off. What DOGE is targeting is that which isn't necessary and that's money which could be used to pay down the debt.
Tax refunds are not vote buying. If we're over taxed, and we get to a surplus, then it is acceptable, and just actually, to refund tax dollars to the people. I think you mentioned a situation in your state where that was supposed to have been done until Walz chose to spend it on crap. Of course, it will be after I'm dead and buried before the United States has a surplus, but taking a piece of what's saved and giving it back to us ain't a bad thing. It's just not the best thing given the size of the debt.
I believe public sector unions was the result of a JFK EO and shouldn't be too hard to reverse...except for the screaming. It should be done, or certainly their power vastly mitigated. But barring that, public employees are not tenured or have lifetime appointments. They can be laid off at any time and at the pleasure of the president. Doing so cuts spending. It goes a lot farther than Jimmy Carter turning down the thermostats and wearing sweaters.
Is there ANY point at which the marks will finally open their eyes and say, "WTF? NO! This is crazy!!"
https://www.newsweek.com/third-term-project-donald-trump-2028-constitution-2034316
It's clearly not siding with a communist dictator/tyrant over the nation that was criminally invaded. It's clearly not him laughing about sexual predation of women and girls. It's clearly not his attacks on the free press. It's clearly not ending DEI so he can place inferior white men in places formerly held by extremely qualified people of color, nor his demonization of hard working public servants, even on the GOP side. It's clearly not his unending stupidly false claims... Is there ANYTHING that will make you all say, Wait a minute?
Maybe efforts to let this elderly conman run for a third time will be the line, too far?
That's not the positive argument you seem to think it is. But, to some degree sure. In this case, it's borrowing money (adding to the debt/deficit) to attempt to pass along illusory "savings". The best that DOGE can do is to prevent/lower future spending. This only means that the US has to borrow less (which is a good thing) to pay out these checks (a less good thing).
As you note, not spending is "saving" in a sense. The difference between your family budget and the US government is that you aren't borrowing vast amounts of money to spend, then borrowing more to give out.
Yes, DOGE is/should be targeting unnecessary/wasteful/fraudulent spending. The problem is that the debt is so large and the interest consumes such a large portion of the federal budget that paying it down should the single most important job of DOGE.
A tax refund is totally different, and is not vote buying.
I Guess it depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to eliminate as much unnecessary government spending and pay down the debt, then anything that doesn't further that goal is a bad thing. We are approaching the point at which the INTEREST on the debt will eclipse every other line item in the federal budget COMBINED. We've been kicking this can down the road for years, and it's about time someone did something.
Dan's opening comment, is off topic speculation based on some left wing conspiracy theory.
That Dan seems unaware that I've been saying "wait a minute" regularly (including this post). More likely that he is aware, but chooses to pretend as if that reality isn't a thing.
I'll go this far. If, after DOGE hits some significant milestone (A trillion dollars in savings?) they wanted to send out some sort of check I'd be more inclined to think it was a good idea.
Don't get me wrong, a $5k (or 2?) check would be very helpful for me right now. But I'd like to think that this is one where I'd prioritize my grandchildren inheriting a country that is in less fiscal danger than we are currently.
"The difference between your family budget and the US government is that you aren't borrowing vast amounts of money to spend, then borrowing more to give out."
Sadly, too many people do this, which is why there is so much credit card debt in this country.
"The problem is that the debt is so large and the interest consumes such a large portion of the federal budget that paying it down should the single most important job of DOGE."
Totally agree, and I'd prefer they at least halve it before they think of sending out checks, which are no different than any check one gets after doing their taxes, should they have paid more than they needed to pay. Such a payout would demonstrate that we were all over taxed if they so much of our money they could spend it on crap. But paying down the debt is of the greatest importance.
"We've been kicking this can down the road for years, and it's about time someone did something. "
Absolutely, and Trump's efforts represent the closest we've ever seen anyone actually make such an attempt to correct. He shouldn't be attacked for it. Doing so shows how little the attackers care about the seriousness of going deeper in debt.
Yes, people do use credit cards to live beyond their means. Virtually no one ever would suggest that doing so is a healthy way to operate one's family budget over the long term, and most normal people would strongly discourage this behavior. Yet, you seem to have a different standard for the federal government.
I know that there is a school of thought that indicates that some (small) level of national debt is good for the overall economy. The problem is that we have passed any rational point of believing that borrowing additional trillions of dollars is in any way healthy for our economy. Especially as we are in sight of the point where the legally mandated interest payments (the only part of the budget that is mandated) will eclipse every single line item of discretionary spending.
Well, that's a step in the right direction. From what I've heard, this payment would be sent to everyone in the country. Given that fact that @50% of the US population gets more money from the government than they pay in taxes, It seems difficult to argue that this is the same as a tax refund. Likewise, are you really suggesting that we give %5k to those who pay virtually zero income tax because they are rich enough that they have virtually zero income?
Well, Trump's efforts in term #1 added the most to the debt of any previous president in a single term, so he's got quite a way to go to break even.
Having said that, yes, he does appear to be doing something about it and should be applauded for doing so. Unfortunately this DOGE check is actually adding to the debt by borrowing money to give these refunds.
For those who are attacking because of how he's doing this, and who expect us to feel sorry because federal employees are getting a taste of what everyone else deals with, screw them. They're idiots who simply are benefiting from the status quo and aren't willing to make sacrifices on behalf of their country.
For those who are complaining about these checks, that's legitimate. It's literally doing the opposite of the goal and until they actually accomplish something it's stupid to advocate borrowing money for these checks.
At some point down the road, maybe. Now, not a chance. At best (as you note) it's symbolic and (also as you noted elsewhere) what Trump needs is accomplishments not symbols.
There's nothing at all "crazy" about seeking a third term..or a fourth term. "Crazy" would be thinking any Democrat is deserving of any term, much less two, three or four.
I've stated on more than one occasion my position that anyone I believe is doing a good job and wants to continue serving should not be removed from my choice to see such a person in office as many times as those two criteria are satisfactorily met. It's a basic, "if it ain't broke" position which serves everyone. No amount of terms, consecutive or otherwise, is automatic so long as the electorate is wise enough to know a truly good servant of the people from one who isn't. The voting booth still exists regardless and that's all the term limits we should have for anything.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means to suggest nefarious intent on the part of any who wish to eliminate or alter existing term limit restrictions, rather than to suggest such a person wishes to continue serving.
Trump is not "siding" with any dictator simply because he chooses to approach the dictator first and exclusively in order to set the table for an agreement to end the killing which in turn will allow for negotiating a lasting peace between both parties.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means that Trump's plan is "siding" with a dictator to destroy a nation run by an angel.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means to demonize someone for ribald discussions with a low class radio shock jock.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means accusing Trump of "attacks" on "the free press" who routinely abuses their freedom to promote falsehoods and lies as Dan does.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means ending DEI is intended to deny qualified members of minority groups simply because they're minorities rather than less qualified than white men who are proven to be qualified.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means disparaging Trump for having differing opinions about allegedly "hard working public servants".
To Dan, "embrace grace" means to make stupidly false claims about others making stupidly false claims which aren't.
To Dan, "embrace grace" means to have no point at which he will say "wait a minute" when it comes to disparaging a better man than he is.
It seems crazy to me that someone would intentionally seek something that is prohibited by federal law.
The problem with your construct is that the voters clearly have no idea of when to say enough, and the office holders have convinced than that there is value in decades on incumbency.
Dan's link indicates some are wanting to change the law, not seek that which the law prohibits. Thus, they're seeking what's prohibited by law by seeking to change the law in order to acquire what they seek. There's nothing wrong with that. I wonder if Dan read the article and isn't bright enough to understand the obvious.
Certainly there's value in lengthy incumbencies. But that alone is no basis for another term. One must be doing good work. Having served multiple terms might improve one's ability to do good/better work, but there's no guarantee of that. I would hope anyone who wishes to see their favored politician serve another term should be willing and able to provide specifics about their service being "good" enough to persuade others to re-elect him. Sadly, Dems (in particular) are woefully inept and unable to explain why they gave their guy their first term, much less additional terms. Remember Dan's pitch for Biden/Harris. It was absurd and based on no evidence of any kind.
Post a Comment