Interesting listen about DOGE
- Thread starter Bearhawk0505
- Start date
I like Fareed. Thanks OP.
Americans have voted for "Republican level taxes and Democrat level spending, which leaves a gap that must be funded by debt".
DOGE doesn't scare me. The government needs an overhaul - it needs to be streamlined. We need to take advantage of technology more than we have.
But the people in charge of DOGE do scare me. Trump, Musk and Rhashsishwammiiy and going to try to cut thing that THEY don't think are important. I don't trust their judgment.
Americans have voted for "Republican level taxes and Democrat level spending, which leaves a gap that must be funded by debt".
DOGE doesn't scare me. The government needs an overhaul - it needs to be streamlined. We need to take advantage of technology more than we have.
But the people in charge of DOGE do scare me. Trump, Musk and Rhashsishwammiiy and going to try to cut thing that THEY don't think are important. I don't trust their judgment.
Ha. I thought I was the only one around here who uses that phrase.
Fareed disappoints again. I used to think he was worth listening to but this is a good example why I no longer think so.
He points out that, despite its name, DOGE is not a government department, but has nothing more to say about it.
He points out that the GOP has long wanted to end Social Security and Medicare and to dismantle FDR's New Deal and he seems a little excited about the possibility that this time they may succeed. But other than ever-so-faintly hinting that massive cuts to federal spending might cause an economic downturn, he has basically nothing to say about what that might mean.
So . . . if much of the budget is off limits, and if cutting spending is more important than good governance, paying the bills, and getting our money's worth, then what does that leave? FZ is silent on that.
I can't wait to see how much of government DOGE recommends privatizing.
He points out that, despite its name, DOGE is not a government department, but has nothing more to say about it.
He points out that the GOP has long wanted to end Social Security and Medicare and to dismantle FDR's New Deal and he seems a little excited about the possibility that this time they may succeed. But other than ever-so-faintly hinting that massive cuts to federal spending might cause an economic downturn, he has basically nothing to say about what that might mean.
So . . . if much of the budget is off limits, and if cutting spending is more important than good governance, paying the bills, and getting our money's worth, then what does that leave? FZ is silent on that.
I can't wait to see how much of government DOGE recommends privatizing.
The GOP has been silent on this as well.
The only answers they have are to cut taxes and deregulate.
No doubt lots of centralized bureaucracy can be eliminated. First step should be the Pentagon.
DOGE is just austerity with better marketing.
I'm still amazed that having the government not spend more than it taxes is termed 'austerity'. As though we're somehow entitled to seize and squander the wealth of future generations.
People want to present 90's era levels of federal spending as somehow insufferable.
DOGE is American’s waking up and realizing the D’s overspending isn’t making us a better country.
Musk says he'll get all federal employees back in the office.... he better include Cheetohead too.
We'll privatize SS and Medicare.
Iowa has done SO WELL with privatized Medicare, y'know...
Last edited:
considering the growth in population and the average lifespan having grown since the 90s; sorry but saying spending needs to be cut to levels they were 30 years ago is dumb. And no, not saying we don’t need to get serious about making actual cuts, but they need to be smart so they don’t hurt more than they help.
I’ll also believe republicans are truly serious about this when they decide another massive tax cut before getting the budget/debt in order is also a bad idea.
Yes, because republicans are famous for spending responsibly…NOT.
The measurement is as a percentage of GDP.
GDP per capita has increased since the 90s.
If the spending was the same percentage of GDP as in 1999 it would still represent higher per capita spending in real terms of 6.5%.
Life expectancy between 1999 and 2023 increased less than 1 year, while spending as a percentage of GDP has increased by 50%.
Trillion dollar deficits hurt more than not spending the money because they have lead already led trillion+ dollar annual interest payments that thwart our ability to address current concerns in lieu of repaying Wall Street for the privilege of raiding future generations of their earnings.
Wonder where that would be without GOP ramming thru massive tax cuts…
That makes total sense. However, the very nature of the problem is that the only people that would take this one were going to be outsiders. So if people don't like what they choose, they can blame the Republicans and Democrats who didn't do anything properly but continue to build the administrative state of government while (almost) everything government is responsible for has gotten worse.
So now its in the hands of these nuts.
That said, nothing notable will come of this is my prediction. The truth is, there isn't that much to cut outside of defense, SS and medicare that really adds up to that much. It's fun to find $2M on some bullshit study and call it out, but at the end of the day that's pennies.
That said, I would be WAY WAY more interested in the actual efficiency side. That's the real problem, not the dollar total. It's how much the government spends while delivering poorer and poorer results. It's almost impossible to get anything done right or problems solved, or anything built, other than when you threaten to move a football team. Everything else just gets dumped into the giant bureaucratic grift.
The problem is, tons of that is not bogging down at the federal level, so I'm not sure how much could even be done. Lots of that is tied up at the state, local and institutional level. I mean, it's designed to not be able to untangle. Just look at how much we spend per student and half the kids in the country can't read on level. It's simply ridiculous on the face of it.
Let them go,.. at this point we're better off over-cutting than under-cutting,.. and possibly having to put something back is not a huge problem.
This is the part that never gets consideration,.. It's not so much the money spent,.. but more so the money consumed by the machine tasked with spending the money...
If Musk/Vivel were to start with a total, top to bottom audit of the ENTIRE federal budget and identify things like stuff that’s gone over budget, bogged down in red tape, etc and go from there I’d be 100% in favor of it. But by all accounts they appear to be going in with the mindset of cut, cut, cut; and I’m not okay with that.
Blanket cuts will cause tremendous personal hardship and risks to millions if they just cut indiscriminately.
Forget the "accounts",.. The media has proven itself to be a source of inaccurate information,.. Wait and watch.
That’s from their own mouths. They’ve said their goal is massive cuts to the budget.
I don’t like that as the immediate goal as it closes off other options.
Classic!! Blame Democrats when MAGA Fs this whole thing up. The gaslighting these F heads conjure up in their own minds is quite astonishing. It was also the Dems fault that Trump is soon to be President if you're playing along at home.
Right. My understanding of DOGE was that this was going to be the focus, administrative spending.
Not taking on social security, which would probably be political suicide for the repubs.
I read Joni Ernst is now joining the effort and the goal is simply to make government “squeal.” Says she can cut $2 Trillion out of the budget. Meanwhile Musk is trolling on X and offering his opinion on things like F35s and drones, and over in the House MTG is ranting about defunding PBS and NPR.
This is not a serious effort.
The Federal government employs 2 million non-military personnel. If they all lived in one city it would be the 5th largest city in the country, right behind Houston. It's a staggering number. And they work in hundreds of different agencies and all over the country. So, of COURSE it's inefficient.
I worked in a company with 10,000 employees and it was very inefficient. Decision making was slow as mud, making changes was extremely difficult, turnover and training were a constant struggle.
My point is the Federal government is a giant mass of rules, regulations and forms. The processes are ancient. I'm guessing every agency has a "this is how we do things" culture passed down from generation to generation.
These 3 guys have no patience to figure out a better way of doing things. They will just cut 500,000 employees without getting rid of the work they are supposed to do and pat themselves on the back. I have no idea what they will do to already slow government services, but I'll bet it's not good.
You’re conflating subjects.
Tax cuts have nothing to do with the spending levels.
Outlays in 2000 were 17.7% of GDP
Outlays in 2022 were 24.8% of GDP (spending levels only seen during WW2 and the pandemic largesse - what’s the excuse for this spending level today?)
So the increase is spending from 2000 was 40%, before even acknowledging that real GDP per capita is also higher.
That’s why I was saying in real terms, federal spending is closer to 50% higher than at the end of Clinton’s term.
Ever hear someone refer to the 90s as ‘the age of austerity’?
Tax cuts absolutely play a role. Reducing the revenue stream makes the spending problem worse.
It has nothing to do with measuring whether or not spending has increased, that’s why I said you’re conflating subjects.
In our entire history we haven’t had a single year where we collected as much of GDP in tax receipts as we’re spending now.
Biden admin’s budget projections are all for spending above 24% of GDP for the next decade.
going to disagree with you here.
How much we ultimately need to try and cut will be impacted by the revenue that’s brought in. The less revenue = more cuts that will be needed.
Guess I’m not understanding why cutting revenue via massive tax cuts wouldn’t have an impact on how much we would ultimately need to cut from the budget?
For example, say trump hadn’t pushed thru his tax cut his first go-round in office…would that not mean we’d have more revenue for the budget and the deficit would be less?
Can you tell I wasn’t a finance teacher? 🥺
WTF are you talking about. I literally blamed Republicans in the same sentence. Because the people that were supposedly adults in the room and professional politicians didn't do anything to rationally improve the tremendous inefficiency of government, now it's in the hands of outsiders.
Hell, at least Democrats have never PRETENDED to care about overspending, efficiency, shrinking government, or reducing regulations. Republicans are more damned for talking a big game and doing nothing about it.
Both parties did nothing about it for 40+ years and voters threw a fit and now we'll see what happens.
I’m not saying outlays and receipts don’t determine the deficit, they do.
I’m saying a 40% increase in outlays has nothing to do with receipts.
Not necessarily, especially for things targeting high earners. The highest earners have a lot of discretion about how and when they accept tax exposure. Someone may balk at selling something and giving Uncle Sam 40%, so Uncle Sam gets nothing from that person. But at 20% they decide to accept the tax bite, and Uncle Sam gets 20% of something instead of 40% of nothing.
CBO forecasts have a hard time measuring that.
- In fiscal year 2022, federal tax revenues reached a record-high of $4.9 trillion– $1.6 trillion or 48 percent higher than when the Trump tax cuts were passed and $884 billion higher than CBO’s projections for 2022.
- Corporate tax revenues reached a record-high of $425 billion – $128 billion or 43 percent higher than when the Trump tax cuts were passed and $72 billion higher than CBO’s projections for 2022.
- Individual tax revenues reached a record-high of $2.6 trillion – over $1 trillion or 66 percent higher than when the Trump tax cuts were passed and $642 billion higher than CBO’s projections for 2022.
- On average, revenues increased $205 billion per year over CBO’s projections.
- In the first two years after passage of the Trump tax cuts, GDP growth was a full percentage point higherthan CBO’s pre-TCJA forecast.
- According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, every additional one percent of sustained GDP growth will result in $600 billion in new revenues over 5 years and $2.8 trillion over 10 years.
- Following passage of the Trump tax cuts…
- Real median household income rose by $5,000 – a bigger increase in just two years than in the prior eight years combined.
- Wages increased 4.9 percent, the fastest two-year growth in real wages in 20 years.
- The poverty rate and unemployment rate reached their lowest levels in 50 years, with all-time lows in unemployment among African American and Hispanic workers, and those without a high-school degree.
- The bottom 20 percent of earners saw their federal tax rate fall to its lowest level in 40 years.
- Americans earning under $100,000 received an average tax cut of 16 percent.
- The share of taxes paid by the Top 1% of households increased while the tax burden paid by lower income earners decreased.
Cut spending first,... then we'll discuss tax increases.
That won't work if we start there. At that point, the D's won't be willing to cut spending.
I'm more than willing to have reduce tax cuts, if the spending cuts work.
Hope so. Start kicking people off SSD. Reevaluate what is a disability that truly prevents employment.
Saw a bit of Rand Paul on Face the Nation. He claimed the reason he voted for tax cuts in 2017. Was spending cuts were attached. Maybe they were but obviously it was token spending cuts.
Similar threads
