Glass half-full - Trump's 2nd Term (1 Viewer)

[porculator]

Pretty bummed by Tuesday's result, which is why I'm coping here for the first time in years

I personally think it will be a disaster due to the man's complete disdain for anyone with intelligence or a moral compass, and he may dismantle our institutions as we know them.

That said, it's good to have hope and look at potential positives. What good could come out of this term? I'll start.

World affairs
Not going to lie, worried about Ukraine and how that shakes out. But there is truth to the fact that no one started any wars when Trump was in office. Whether he is respected or not, he is an impulsive idiot with control of the most lethal military in world history, so maybe others behave a little more when he is around.
Also the predictability of a Biden administration is not always a good thing. Adversaries have a good idea of how we will respond to their actions, and allies know we will back them up even if they aren't pulling their weight. I fear that Trump actually leaves NATO, but the threat of leaving in order to get Europe to pull their weight is a useful tool.
He also thinks like a dictator, and has a transactional mindset, that in theory can work better with other dictators, than just giving them all the cold shoulder and bringing them into each other's arms which is what has happened since 2022. Know your enemy, etc. Of course this gets offset by his enormous vulnerability to flattery. Again, trying to find positives though.
And I will admit I now feel like nuclear war is less likely, which is a silver lining to Ukraine getting thrown under the bus.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I have done it before in business. I believe we could cut 10% out of many programs while still mantining the same level of service. If that could be acieved, would you do it?

It can't be done and have any real impact without touching the military, and cutting nearly 100 Billion from the military budget would have a major impact on the economy.

Cutting nearly 90 billion from Medicare would have a huge impact.

Cutting 130B from Social Security would have a major impact.

63B from Medicaid, catastrophic impact on children's health.

Cutting money from a business is to cutting money from the federal budget as baseball is to space travel. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[MT15]

What is worrisome is that the billionaires have zero problem with causing economic harm to the US. They stand to actually benefit. Musk keeps saying that “we” will have to go through some hard times. He doesn’t mean him personally. And all the apologists who have appeared on this board in the last few days are just making excuses for this nonsense.

 

[FullMonte]

I have done it before in business. I believe we could cut 10% out of many programs while still mantining the same level of service. If that could be acieved, would you do it?

When you did it, what were you mandatory expenses?

60% of the US budget is mandatory spending, and about 15% is debt service. That leaves about 25%. Cutting spending by 10% would basically be cutting almost HALF of our discretionary spending. That's not practical in any sense of the word.

 

[bird]

I have done it before in business. I believe we could cut 10% out of many programs while still mantining the same level of service. If that could be acieved, would you do it?

Not playing the game. The reason is someone gets hurt always. There is always someone who says we can cut and no one will get damaged. They are always wrong.

Regarding business, every business has some number “X” that represents maximum efficiency and effectiveness. They then employ X-y and say “work smarter” or “do more with less”.

Any cut in spending always damages someone. It is not about maintaining the same level of service because that cannot be done. When someone is removed those left must pick up the slack. Demand for service does not go away just because there are fewer people providing service.

So, to continue the game, please be specific about what you would cut. What you think the impact would be.

 

[TampaJoe]

Not playing the game. The reason is someone gets hurt always. There is always someone who says we can cut and no one will get damaged. They are always wrong.

Regarding business, every business has some number “X” that represents maximum efficiency and effectiveness. They then employ X-y and say “work smarter” or “do more with less”.

Any cut in spending always damages someone. It is not about maintaining the same level of service because that cannot be done. When someone is removed those left must pick up the slack. Demand for service does not go away just because there are fewer people providing service.

So, to continue the game, please be specific about what you would cut. What you think the impact would be.

I didnt say no one would be affected. Someone is always affected. Not all medicine is pleasant to take or without side effects. This is true with policy. I woud imagine many policies you would favor and believe make the world a better place has negative impacts of someone. If the criteria for policy is that no one is adversely affected, then I doubt much legislation would make it to the President’s desk.

That is an impossible standard to meet.

 

[Bayouboy]

When you did it, what were you mandatory expenses?

60% of the US budget is mandatory spending, and about 15% is debt service. That leaves about 25%. Cutting spending by 10% would basically be cutting almost HALF of our discretionary spending. That's not practical in any sense of the word.

While I totally agree with you here, what are we as a country supposed to do? We literally can't continue to spend more than we take in. Nobody wants it....nobody will put it on their lips, but instead of tax cuts, tax hikes need to happen if we don't cut the budget. IMO, budget cuts and some tax hikes are appropriate.

The federal deficit is truly the elephant in the room. One day the pied piper will come....

 

[bird]

I didnt say no one would be affected. Someone is always affected. Not all medicine is pleasant to take or without side effects. This is true with policy. I woud imagine many policies you would favor and believe make the world a better place has negative impacts of someone. If the criteria for policy is that no one is adversely affected, then I doubt much legislation would make it to the President’s desk.

That is an impossible standard to meet.

So is simply cutting. Everything costs money. Who gets to decide what is put into place and why? You? Me? Someone else? The problem lies in believing cutting serves a purpose when it doesn’t. If you, personally, don’t like a particular program then simply say so and say what it is. Otherwise this is just a useless exercise. As for what you said in business? That is irrelevant. Government is not business. Never was, never will be. That is not the function of government.

Here is a thought…

Government has a program called Medicare. There are always claims of fraud and abuse. Yet, oddly enough, the actual fraud and abuse comes from the private sector. Rick Scott’s company comes to mind. So, his company is fined. Yet no one went jail. Why is it that there are calls for cutting yet few, if any, calls for severe punishment for fraud and abuse? Scott was the CEO. The buck should have stopped with him. Top management should have been jailed based upon the scale of the fraud.

I find it interesting that government spending with the exception of interest service is transactions between government and the private sector/individuals. Certainly individuals get swept up and punished heavily yet private sector corporations not so much.

So, it really isn’t about cutting. It is about cleaning up the programs and hammering fraud.

Oh, and it is about maintaining revenue streams.

 

[TampaJoe]

So is simply cutting. Everything costs money. Who gets to decide what is put into place and why? You? Me? Someone else? The problem lies in believing cutting serves a purpose when it doesn’t. If you, personally, don’t like a particular program then simply say so and say what it is. Otherwise this is just a useless exercise. As for what you said in business? That is irrelevant. Government is not business. Never was, never will be. That is not the function of government.

Here is a thought…

Government has a program called Medicare. There are always claims of fraud and abuse. Yet, oddly enough, the actual fraud and abuse comes from the private sector. Rick Scott’s company comes to mind. So, his company is fined. Yet no one went jail. Why is it that there are calls for cutting yet few, if any, calls for severe punishment for fraud and abuse? Scott was the CEO. The buck should have stopped with him. Top management should have been jailed based upon the scale of the fraud.

I find it interesting that government spending with the exception of interest service is transactions between government and the private sector/individuals. Certainly individuals get swept up and punished heavily yet private sector corporations not so much.

So, it really isn’t about cutting. It is about cleaning up the programs and hammering fraud.

Oh, and it is about maintaining revenue streams.

Im on boad with cleaning up programs and hammering fraud.

I assume setting priorities, evaluating programs for efficiency and effectiveness, eliminating those that are no longer needed or duplicative, etc etc is allpart of what you mean when you say cleaning up programs.

Im also on board with the statement regarding maintainng revenue streams although Ihave a feeling we might differ on some of the particulars. Both parties campaigned on cutting taxes when we are running rather lare deficits.

 

[Sendai]

Im on boad with cleaning up programs and hammering fraud.

I assume setting priorities, evaluating programs for efficiency and effectiveness, eliminating those that are no longer needed or duplicative, etc etc is allpart of what you mean when you say cleaning up programs.

Im also on board with the statement regarding maintainng revenue streams although Ihave a feeling we might differ on some of the particulars. Both parties campaigned on cutting taxes when we are running rather lare deficits.

Seems like the logical thing is to base the budget on tax revenue. And they know pretty much what that number will be. Tax cuts and tax increases don’t seem to have all that much impact on tax revenues.

 

[TampaJoe]

Seems like the logical thing is to base the budget on tax revenue. And they know pretty much what that number will be. Tax cuts and tax increases don’t seem to have all that much impact on tax revenues.

Im not a fan of promising tax cuts to people to buy votes. Makes zero sense to me and IMO is fiscally reckless behaviour. But such is politics these days. I do not see that we suffer from too much revenue or excess cash. The size of our ever growing debt is evidence of that. IMO we should focus on the stability of the dollar, and controlling the growth and the amount of our national debt. If we focus on those things inflation should take of itself. The amount of spending and the amount of tax revenues should be managed within those parameters. Its up to government to manage and prioritize its spending acordingly.

Currently, I dont believe anyone in either party in leadership is taking a long view. Its all pretty much focused on the next election.

 

[Lapaz]

I have done it before in business. I believe we could cut 10% out of many programs while still mantining the same level of service. If that could be acieved, would you do it?

We need to deal with the deficit, however the way to handle it will have to be predominantly through revenue, because there isn't much room to cut discretionary spending. The government's expenditures went up from about 4.75T to 6.7T in Trump's last year in office. It went up to 7.2T in 2021, and then dropped to 6.1 in 2022, 6.5 in 2023, and it will be under 7T this year, so spending has barely increased in the last 4 years. The current deficit is close to 2T, but only 1.7T is discretionary, of which defense takes about 800B. The gap is almost 2T, so you can eliminate the Dept of Educ, training employment and social services, and only save 150B. If those were to be eliminated, most states would have to stand up their own departments, and the cost would be far higher for the country, not to mention causing other damage. That would be short-sight and doesn't make sense, so the primary way to wisely eliminate the deficit is to increase revenue.

Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office

Discretionary outlays by the federal government totaled $1.7 trillion in 2023. Outlays for nondefense programs accounted for more than half of that total.

www.cbo.gov

Spending isn't the main problem. Stagnant revenue is the main problem. Our GDP is almost 29T. I think we can afford to pay more in taxes, which would have less of a negative impact on the economy than vast cuts of agencies and services, which will likely lead to higher overall expenses by the states. If we couple cutting 10% of discretionary spending (~170B) with raising 20% in taxes (~500B), we would cut the deficit in half. That will help limit the growth of the debt. If the GDP rises, then we may be able to eliminate the deficit in a few years. The problem is that Republicans want to increase defense spending, which is already nearly half of the discretionary budget, so they aren't serious about cutting the deficit.

 

[FullMonte]

While I totally agree with you here, what are we as a country supposed to do? We literally can't continue to spend more than we take in. Nobody wants it....nobody will put it on their lips, but instead of tax cuts, tax hikes need to happen if we don't cut the budget. IMO, budget cuts and some tax hikes are appropriate.

The federal deficit is truly the elephant in the room. One day the pied piper will come....

I agree that we have a serious spending issue. My point was simply this: The average person cutting 10% from their annual spending and the US Government cutting 10% from it's spending are two VERY different monsters.

The US simply cannot cut that much from it's annual budget. The more reasonable thing would be a two pronged approach where:
1) Congress stops adding programs that aren't NEEDED.
2) Congress begins looking at all of the programs that currently exist, and look for ways of streamlining them and making them more cost effective.

But, item 1 will never happen as long as members of congress want to get re-elected, because they need to be able to promise their donors that they will create programs that will make those donors money.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think it can include spending cuts, but something as simple-minded as "a 10% cut" doesn't capture the nuance and challenges that come with that. One reason our country is cooked is people coming up with 2nd-grade answers to PhD problems. It's how we end up with a President with a documented 3rd grade vocabulary.

 

[TampaJoe]

We need to deal with the deficit, however the way to handle it will have to be predominantly through revenue, because there isn't much room to cut discretionary spending. The government's expenditures went up from about 4.75T to 6.7T in Trump's last year in office. It went up to 7.2T in 2021, and then dropped to 6.1 in 2022, 6.5 in 2023, and it will be under 7T this year, so spending has barely increased in the last 4 years. The current deficit is close to 2T, but only 1.7T is discretionary, of which defense takes about 800B. The gap is almost 2T, so you can eliminate the Dept of Educ, training employment and social services, and only save 150B. If those were to be eliminated, most states would have to stand up their own departments, and the cost would be far higher for the country, not to mention causing other damage. That would be short-sight and doesn't make sense, so the primary way to wisely eliminate the deficit is to increase revenue.

Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office

Discretionary outlays by the federal government totaled $1.7 trillion in 2023. Outlays for nondefense programs accounted for more than half of that total.

www.cbo.gov

Spending isn't the main problem. Stagnant revenue is the main problem. Our GDP is almost 29T. I think we can afford to pay more in taxes, which would have less of a negative impact on the economy than vast cuts of agencies and services, which will likely lead to higher overall expenses by the states. If we couple cutting 10% of discretionary spending (~170B) with raising 20% in taxes (~500B), we would cut the deficit in half. That will help limit the growth of the debt. If the GDP rises, then we may be able to eliminate the deficit in a few years. The problem is that Republicans want to increase defense spending, which is already nearly half of the discretionary budget, so they aren't serious about cutting the deficit.

I think every program, discretionary and non discretionary, needs to be on the table. I am talking about potential efficiencies. Some programes may need more fuding while others may yield savings. I have participated in several turnarounds and reorganizations over the years and nobody thinks you can cut spending initially. Its a common response. Yet if you look with an open mind, youwoud be surprised at what you find and what you can “reimagine”. We shoudnt keep doing the same ole thing just because thats the way its always been done.

Im hoping thats the thing that Musk and ViVek focus on.

 

[SystemShock]

I hope I'm very wrong, but.... Trump didn't royally fork things up as bad as he could have forked them up the first time around because of the pandemic, yet still did a lot of damage. This time around, though... just looking at the names of the people he's putting in positions of power, it's going to be a 4-year cluster****, and the impact will be felt for generations to come.

 

[MT15]

Im hoping thats the thing that Musk and ViVek focus on.

What leads you to believe either one of them is qualified in any way to do some serious budgetary maneuvering? Musk relies on government spending to prop his ventures up. I don’t know much about Vivek, but he sounds like a whacko.

 

[RobF]

What leads you to believe either one of them is qualified in any way to do some serious budgetary maneuvering? Musk relies on government spending to prop his ventures up. I don’t know much about Vivek, but he sounds like a whacko.

When their starting point is ""Well I think we can do at least $2 trillion" (Musk) and "send packing 75% of the administrative state, reduce the federal employee headcount by 75%, rescind 50% of unconstitutional federal regulations that are shackling businesses" (Ramaswamy), then yeah, good luck getting an objective, rational, levelheaded assessment of potential efficiencies.

That's just not what will be happening here.

 

[MT15]

When their starting point is ""Well I think we can do at least $2 trillion" (Musk) and "send packing 75% of the administrative state, reduce the federal employee headcount by 75%, rescind 50% of unconstitutional federal regulations that are shackling businesses" (Ramaswamy), then yeah, good luck getting an objective, rational, levelheaded assessment of potential efficiencies.

That's just not what will be happening here.

Not to mention having someone who takes billions in federal money be in charge of budget cuts? Holy conflict of interest. There is nothing moral or ethical about either one of them.