Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

[McDad]

You're probably right and if that is the case I just can't see how anyone could vote R again.

R voters are not united around decreased spending. They're actually for increased spending in certain segments of the budget.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Defense spending doesn't need to be increased. They could cut the F out of defense and still get a better product with wholesale changes in procurement procedures.

Close overseas bases and locations and than you don't have to protect them i.e. larger force. Eliminate wars in the middle east and europe and a good portion of the military budget could go.

 

[hog88]

R voters are not united around decreased spending. They're actually for increased spending in certain segments of the budget.

It boggles the mind.

 

[LouderVol]

I agree they mostly suck, but name a President in the last 60 plus years who would do anything like this. Seriously. D or R.

JFK was the last to make an attempt at any meaningful change.

Right now there is no comparison between a couple million going to Serbia to going after the whole Fed Reserve

 

[Enki_Amenra]

That tranny comment was inappropriate buddy.

Tranny, Tranny, Tranny. I don't care, they shouldn't be in female sports. . .

 

[Orangeburst]

How much defense spending is necessary before we feel safe or are adequately prepared for legitimate threats?

IDK. DOD inefficiency is renowned, so hopefully, they can gut it, but I wouldnt be opposed to using these savings for actual capability.

I follow military stuff pretty closely, and look at costs like the new Constellation frigate, which is based on the Italian FREEM, and yet delayed by years and costs twice as much. Same with an Arleigh Burke..closing in on $2.5B and South Korean equivalent is 800M.

 

[LouderVol]

I get the point that they probably do have to raise the limit THIS YEAR to avoid a shutdown but they better couple that with actual spending cuts, a true budget (not another continuation) and follow it up next year with more spending cuts and no debt limit increase. They have a hell of a sell job in front of them.

the same excuse will be made the next year, and the year after and the year after. and soon enough Trump 2.0 looks a lot like Trump 1.0, with more debt than he started with.

 

[n_huffhines]

You're probably right and if that is the case I just can't see how anyone could vote R again.

Lesser of 2 evils.

It's why exposing waste won't change voter behavior. Conservatives are going to choose right-wing waste over left-wing waste and a 3rd party option at least 19 times out of 20. The same is true if you reverse left/right roles.

 

[LSU-SIU]

IDK. DOD inefficiency is renowned, so hopefully, they can gut it, but I wouldnt be opposed to using these savings for actual capability.

I follow military stuff pretty closely, and look at costs like the new Constellation frigate, which is based on the Italian FREEM, and yet delayed by years and costs twice as much. Same with an Arleigh Burke..closing in on $2.5B and South Korean equivalent is 800M.

1. close overseas locations (less protection would be needed globally) or have the host country pay for it all
2. eliminate or drastically shrink the number large naval vessels which are becoming obsolete.... carrier groups are become obsolete in general
3. more selective on large aircraft procurement... complete disaster right now on many aircraft systems
4. get out of nato

 

[LSU-SIU]

Lesser of 2 evils.

It's why exposing waste won't change voter behavior. Conservatives are going to choose right-wing waste over left-wing waste and a 3rd party option at least 19 times out of 20. The same is true if you reverse left/right roles.

If that were true, Trump wouldn't be a thing. Trump is a lefty.

A strong military doesn't need to be a $1 trillion military.

 

[hog88]

the same excuse will be made the next year, and the year after and the year after. and soon enough Trump 2.0 looks a lot like Trump 1.0, with more debt than he started with.

It's unreasonable to think debt can be reduced in 4 years without draconian spending cuts so I'd settle for a balanced budget in years 2-3-4 with no debt added because of spending. Interest alone is going to increase the debt.

 

[NashVol11]

UNELECTED!!!!!

I'm sure that was coming next lol, no way judges campaigning could go wrong

 

[McDad]

IDK. DOD inefficiency is renowned, so hopefully, they can gut it, but I wouldnt be opposed to using these savings for actual capability.

I follow military stuff pretty closely, and look at costs like the new Constellation frigate, which is based on the Italian FREEM, and yet delayed by years and costs twice as much. Same with an Arleigh Burke..closing in on $2.5B and South Korean equivalent is 800M.

It's challenging to reach agreement about reducing spending when there are budget items which we approach with a philosophy of increases are necessary.
I'm not pointing fingers at you. But those who want increases in other areas have the same philosophy in their budgetary sacred cows.

Based on your example, we should have south Korea build our new ships.

 

[McDad]

It's unreasonable to think debt can be reduced in 4 years without draconian spending cuts so I'd settle for a balanced budget in years 2-3-4 with no debt added because of spending. Interest alone is going to increase the debt.

If spending could remain flat for 400 years, a balanced budget is a good approach.

 

[LouderVol]

It's unreasonable to think debt can be reduced in 4 years without draconian spending cuts so I'd settle for a balanced budget in years 2-3-4 with no debt added because of spending. Interest alone is going to increase the debt.

I thought your previous post of "a budget" was just an actual budget given by Congress instead of a Continuing Resolution or whatever we face this year just due to timing.

yeah we aren't going to balance it this year. But I would still expect to see some serious cuts. I don't see why we can't just "roll back" to a previous budget for the next one that had us balanced. someone said we need 2019 spending, if thats the case, just roll back to that if they can't agree on a new one.

I would also love the executive office to start using their power to call emergency sessions of Congress continuously until they get a real budget set on the deadline.

 

[hog88]

If spending could remain flat for 400 years, a balanced budget is a good approach.

IMO is a decade plus project. Start with a balanced budget and as the economy improves so will collections which can be put towards the debt.

 

[apevol]

He better or the Rs are toast.

no they wont, the Democrats will run a furry for some state rep in bum**** district of Rhode Island and we'll keep going with the bizarro world culture war

 

[hog88]

I thought your previous post of "a budget" was just an actual budget given by Congress instead of a Continuing Resolution or whatever we face this year just due to timing.

yeah we aren't going to balance it this year. But I would still expect to see some serious cuts. I don't see why we can't just "roll back" to a previous budget for the next one that had us balanced. someone said we need 2019 spending, if thats the case, just roll back to that if they can't agree on a new one.

I would also love the executive office to start using their power to call emergency sessions of Congress continuously until they get a real budget set on the deadline.

Yes, they need to have an actual budget this year instead of a continuing resolution. I'm not deluded enough to think they can balance that budget but subsequent budgets should.

 

[McDad]

IMO is a decade plus project. Start with a balanced budget and as the economy improves so will collections which can be put towards the debt.

America has a natural increase in tax revenues of about 100B - 200B per year due to increases in our economy.
At 100B increase in revenues per year and all that going to pay down debt with no deficit spending, it would take about 200 to 400 years to satisfy existing debt.

 

[Orangeburst]

It's challenging to reach agreement about reducing spending when there are budget items which we approach with a philosophy of increases are necessary.
I'm not pointing fingers at you. But those who want increases in other areas have the same philosophy in their budgetary sacred cows.

Based on your example, we should have south Korea build our new ships.

Pentagon weapon and system procurement is like 150-200B year, so people vastly overestimate based on 900B budgets.

We have squandered so much money, we really have a capability gap. Most of the money went to WoT, the USN spent tens of billions of ineffectice LCS, a single $13B carrier, when a Nimitz would be maybe half that, 3 massively overpriced Zummwalts..

Several capital programs where delayed due to WoT and now coming due because we deferred. The Sentinal ICBM is like $180B, cant remember exactly, but those 60 year old Minutemen will not last forever.

 

[walkenvol]

My take on this is Trump trying to drum up dirt/scare the piss out of people he doesn't like + throwing Musk a bone by handing him the motherlode of data for his AI ambitions (he's pissed at who got dibs for Trump's new AI research funding.)

im skeptical that we'll cut out a lot of genuine fraud without causing headaches by cutting things that shouldn't have been cut.

I do believe that its absolutely mandatory to cut not only real fraud but also legitimate spending, because we're in a bad place financially and need to start working on a triage

This 100%. Congress shouldn’t be able to operate outside of a balanced budget. Hard decisions will have to be made same as folks and businesses make decisions on how to spend the money they have available. Hard decisions must be made and some good proposals won’t have the funds to implement as money isn’t unlimited.

 

[LouderVol]

America has a natural increase in tax revenues of about 100B - 200B per year due to increases in our economy.
At 100B increase in revenues per year and all that going to pay down debt with no deficit spending, it would take about 200 to 400 years to satisfy existing debt.

efffffff

 

[McDad]

Pentagon weapon and system procurement is like 200B year, so people vastly overestimate based on 900B budgets.

We have squandered so much money, we really have a capability gap. Most of the money went to WoT, the USN spent tens of billions of ineffectice LCS, a single $13B carrier, when a Nimitz would be maybe half that, 3 massively overpriced Zummwalts..

Several capital programs where delayed due to WoT and now coming due because we deferred. The Sentinal ICBM is like $180B, cant remember exactly, but those 60 year old Minutemen will not last forever.

Preparedness is a combination of existing equipment AND how quickly new equipment can be produced.
It's okay to let our old stuff expire without replacing as long as we can bring new to battle in time of war.
Are we expecting a country declaring war on us soon?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Pentagon weapon and system procurement is like 150-200B year, so people vastly overestimate based on 900B budgets.

We have squandered so much money, we really have a capability gap. Most of the money went to WoT, the USN spent tens of billions of ineffectice LCS, a single $13B carrier, when a Nimitz would be maybe half that, 3 massively overpriced Zummwalts..

Several capital programs where delayed due to WoT and now coming due because we deferred. The Sentinal ICBM is like $180B, cant remember exactly, but those 60 year old Minutemen will not last forever.

Not one single thing will reduce the budget, but you could start with some of the general ideas here and get a solid reduction say a third without really sacrificing anything. If you want to go more than say a third, there is going to have to be fundamental changes on a global scale.

 

[walkenvol]

this idiot should be criminally charged...

No, he should be sanctioned by Congress.