The budget is the crunch point. They'll pass huge cuts, the impact on the economy starts to become real, and people who only pay attention to gas prices their 401k will start noticing.
But they will do it by passing tax cuts for the rich, and cutting services and other spending on the working class to the bone.
We're going to see a once-in-a-lifetime (or, luckily for us to date, even rarer) looting of the United States Treasury and our collective wealth, as well as that of our future generations. And, incredibly enough, we fucking voted for it!
Anyway, yes, they are going to cut spending, in ways that will damage and kill many people. And they'll do it while increasing the deficit.
I agree with everything you said, but I'm not even completely convinced that they're going to do the initial "saving money".
With these projects, it's pretty easy to only count the victories, and not count the failures. They can say they saved "$10M saved on a canceled contract!!" but then happily omit the fact that they had to have a nearly identical contract a month later because it shouldn't have been canceled.
> I've yet to be convinced they really are after cutting the deficit or paying off debt.
Probably because the proposed budget plan will increase the deficit. Reducing revenue more than they're reducing spending, and reducing spending in areas that brought in more revenue than they cost.
And DOGE's savings (the ones that aren't just $0 savings) are targeted at things that won't actually improve anything. They amount to a drop in the bucket compared to where real savings could be had.
It will take years to even properly assess how much impact DOGE is having. Sure, you can look at the immediate effect, "We cut this $100 million dollar expense! We are awesome!" Yet, you have to consider 2nd and 3rd order effects. What is not being done because that money is not being spent?
Monitoring of invasive species has been cut - how many new infections or local fisheries will suffer? Cuts to vaccine research. Supplying AIDS or TB medication. Are we losing food/drug/bridge inspectors as well?
You shouldn't be convinced. Republicans are lying when they say they want to cut the deficit or pay off the debt. You only have to look at the Bush years and Trump's 2016-2020 administration to see increasing deficits every single year, due to tax cuts rather than any sort of spending problem. When they are in power, they dismantle good government and regulations and redistribute American wealth from the poor and middle class up to the wealthy.
I lived in a very red state though I definitely don't fit that banner.
I'd warn you against trying to lump anyone in a party, or that generally votes for one party, under one big umbrella. I know republican voters that actually care about cutting the deficit. I also know republican voters that align that way for only one topic that matters most to them, abortion for example.
All republicans aren't the same just like all democrats aren't the same. For better or worse our system only really offers us two choices - that doesn't mean that there are only two types of Americans with one of only two specific set of views.
Yeah I stopped believing that during Trump's first term, when the conservatives were pushing for billions of dollars to be allocated for Trump's stupid wall that he said Mexico would pay for, and shut down the government multiple times in the process. This, in combination with huge tax cuts for their donors, seemingly indicates that they're not terribly concerned with the deficit.
Is there much value in being clearer? The republicans vote in lockstep with limited exceptions for vanity votes. They haven’t deviated from that under the existing administration. There’s not much value in pretending fiscal policy is at the root of their plan. It’s fairly transparent in its efforts to privatize government to enrich those in positions to capitalize on it.
Yes, in my mind there is. The congress and the executive branch are not in exact lockstep, just as they were not in Trumps first administration either. There are plenty of influential Republicans who push back on one thing or another, and prevent or obstruct administration agenda. I already gave an example. For those who hate Trump there is value in understanding this, as it can be worked with
Interesting, it begs the question. Why block a small monetary pay out to the citizens when they have green lit a multi trillion dollar tax cut for those of us with wealth? Fiscal conservationism seems to be conveniently and selectively used.
I used "they" following a commented who used "they" referring to those creating the budget, I.e. congress creating it +the president signing off on it.
I didn't downvote, but I assume its because the GP comment reads a bit argumentative and the "they" use can be understood in context with the earlier comments.
I don't think it's that simple
Blue states just have bigger urban areas. It's an urban rural difference. I don't have the numbers off hand but I wouldn't be surprised if NY would be a red state if you excluded Manhattan and the other boroughs
It's more than that, it's unbelievably dangerous. There's a reason world leaders don't do stuff like that in public, we just signaled loud and clear we're absolutely not to be trusted. If China wants to make a move on Taiwan, the DPRK wants to shell Seoul, or Russia wants to test Article 5 they just got a lot more confident in our lack of conviction. And all our allies had better be drawing up contingencies that don't involve us coming to their aid.
Hopefully with a balanced budget. At a minimum though, USAID shouldn't be funding gender change clinics in India or pride parades in Canada, and it's good that we're no longer sending them money.
Well if you want a balanced budget I have very bad news about the Republican budget. There's much more in revenue cuts than there are spending cuts. They are upping the debt ceiling by literal trillions to pay for it.
Also if you want a balanced budget then we should be protecting the actually effective parts of government instead. Lots of short sighted cuts and in the end we'll get even more debt anyway.
In the 90s we were able to make bipartisan cuts and turn a surplus but obviously they didn't do it by smashing things randomly.
