D.O.G.E (Department of Government Efficiency) II

[Bodhisattva]

The charity that your family provides is indeed admirable. Less so is the outright accusation that those who are not conservative choose to speak rather than act when it comes to giving of their time and resources for the less fortunate. It’s been my experience that regardless of political views, economic status, religion, and any other number of ways that differentiate people, there are those who are generous and those who are selfish. Painting with such a broad brush based on anecdotal experience seems less than fair and I’m surprised to see it. Perhaps you’ve been unlucky in your choice of friends/acquaintances who don’t see things through the right wing prism. They certainly don’t sound like people with whom I’d want to associate.

Goodness, again? I'm not conservative or a right winger, yet the accusation persists. I wish people could step away from their narrow, binary political world view.

And I hardly painted with a broad brush. I specifically limited my post to those people we know. As it happens, those acquaintances who are conservative, libertarian, moderate, or have no political interest are the ones that help out. In fact, I just got a notification that one of our friends came through the community gate. She will be dropped off a box of meds for Lan's trip.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

The conservative clamor for reducing spending will seem much more sincere when applied to all areas of the government, not just those that Republicans find distasteful to their political sensibilities.

Denying food and medicine to needy foreigners seems to be much easier than slowing the free-flowing spigot of defense spending and tax cuts, particularly when big donor corporations and billionaires are reaping the rewards.

You can say that about any suggested spending cuts. But the bottom line is you have to start somewhere and move from there. Both foreign aid and defense spending need to be curbed and adjusted. But I highly doubt "sincerity" has anything to do with one party not agreeing with the other party on where to start the spending cuts.

 

[Huckleberry]

Goodness, again? I'm not conservative or a right winger, yet the accusation persists. I wish people could step away from their narrow, binary political world view.

And I hardly painted with a broad brush. I specifically limited my post to those people we know. As it happens, those acquaintances who are conservative, libertarian, moderate, or have no political interest are the ones that help out. In fact, I just got a notification that one of our friends came through the community gate. She will be dropped off a box of meds for Lan's trip.

My apologies if you took it that way, but I don’t believe I referred to you as a conservative or right winger in my post.

My reference to a broad brush comes from the fact that anecdotal evidence is often used to tar a specific group well outside of those directly involved. If you’re only referring to your very liberal associates and not drawing or encouraging others to draw a wider conclusion about the generosity of liberals in general, then I’ll simply say again that your experience is unfortunate and, in my experience, unusual.

 

[Huckleberry]

You can say that about any suggested spending cuts. But the bottom line is you have to start somewhere and move from there. Both foreign aid and defense spending need to be curbed and adjusted. But I highly doubt "sincerity" has anything to do with one party not agreeing with the other party on where to start the spending cuts.

Sure, I can agree with that. But when given the opportunity to make cuts in all areas, the latest budget notably lacked any significant effort to do so regarding defense spending. Given the current message from the Trump Administration and the Republican leadership, I’ll continue to be skeptical of their claim that the aim is to reduce the deficit. There is little evidence of that at the moment.

I’ve said before that I support the elimination of waste, fraud, and needless spending, both on foreign and domestic fronts. Let’s see some genuine effort in all areas at cutting spending and increasing revenue. What’s being eliminated and cut now doesn’t exactly cast a non-partisan shadow. I’d venture to say that if Elon had started with the defense budget while avoiding foreign aid and domestic social programs, the right would be storming the Capitol again.

When and if things change, I’ll be happy to give credit to those who deserve it.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Sure, I can agree with that. But when given the opportunity to make cuts in all areas, the latest budget notably lacked any significant effort to do so regarding defense spending. Given the current message from the Trump Administration and the Republican leadership, I’ll continue to be skeptical of their claim that the aim is to reduce the deficit. There is little evidence of that at the moment.

I’ve said before that I support the elimination of waste, fraud, and needless spending, both on foreign and domestic fronts. Let’s see some genuine effort in all areas at cutting spending and increasing revenue. What’s being eliminated and cut now doesn’t exactly cast a non-partisan shadow. I’d venture to say that if Elon had started with the defense budget while avoiding foreign aid and domestic social programs, the right would be storming the Capitol again.

When and if things change, I’ll be happy to give credit to those who deserve it.

They may not touch the defense budget, and I wouldn't agree with that if that is what they do. But that doesn't mean they don't do anything. Just because an administration isn't cutting from one of the areas I think they need to, doesn't mean the things they are cutting are all unfruitful. It just means they didn't cut in one of the areas I thought they should. One administration is never going to clean up everything that needs to be cleaned up regarding spending. It is going to take several administrations, whether it's the D's, R's, or both, to get us on the material right track.

 

[Bodhisattva]

My apologies if you took it that way, but I don’t believe I referred to you as a conservative or right winger in my post.

My reference to a broad brush comes from the fact that anecdotal evidence is often used to tar a specific group well outside of those directly involved. If you’re only referring to your very liberal associates and not drawing or encouraging others to draw a wider conclusion about the generosity of liberals in general, then I’ll simply say again that your experience is unfortunate and, in my experience, unusual.

I accept that you didn't label me a conservative/right winger. (Not that I find the labels offensive; they're just inaccurate.) My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Unfortunately, having lived most of our adult lives in the DC area and encountering mostly people of the political left, our anecdotal evidence is substantial. I can understand the impulse to want the government to "do something." I can accept that for most people who feel this way, their intentions are good. They just don't realize just how "doing something" usually turns out to be "doing the wrong thing in a very expensive manner with very destructive, enduring consequences."

Perhaps just as important, those that want to abdicate charity to the government are missing out on doing something that my wife and I find really rewarding at the soul-level. The closer one can get to the sincerely poor (not those that are poor/needy by choice but are poor/needy because they have no choice) and make their lives better is an altering experience for us. Our humanity is enhanced. I don't know, maybe that doesn't make any sense. But the reward we feel has encouraged us to do as much as we can.

 

[Bodhisattva]

They may not touch the defense budget, and I wouldn't agree with that if that is what they do. But that doesn't mean they don't do anything. Just because an administration isn't cutting from one of the areas I think they need to, doesn't mean the things they are cutting are all unfruitful. It just means they didn't cut in one of the areas I thought they should. One administration is never going to clean up everything that needs to be cleaned up regarding spending. It is going to take several administrations, whether it's the D's, R's, or both, to get us on the material right track.

Agreed. If I had my way, Defense would certainly be subject to a team of forensic accountants. The waste is insane. Education, HUD, Agriculture, Transportation, and others would get the axe as completely unjustified at the federal level. Social Security would not be the Ponzi scheme it currently is. The budget would be balanced within the year, and we would be on our way to being debt free (freeing up all the money wasted on interest payments) in a decade. But we'll never get there. Not enough people really want to be fiscally responsible. Too much grift and tribalism to go around. So, I'll have to hope for the best and maybe at least a little bit of the waste really gets cut.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The conservative clamor for reducing spending will seem much more sincere when applied to all areas of the government, not just those that Republicans find distasteful to their political sensibilities.

Denying food and medicine to needy foreigners seems to be much easier than slowing the free-flowing spigot of defense spending and tax cuts, particularly when big donor corporations and billionaires are reaping the rewards.

I agree - I want all the extra spending cut to the bone. We've talked to death the idea that federal spending is out of control, but no one has actually tried to do anything about it in decades.

Spending my kids' and grandkids' future earnings to make myself feel better isn't the answer.

No one ever seems to have an answer as to why the US has to be the one to go deeper into debt every year to save all these foreigners while the rest of the world largely watches...

 

[crimsonaudio]

Sure, I can agree with that. But when given the opportunity to make cuts in all areas, the latest budget notably lacked any significant effort to do so regarding defense spending. Given the current message from the Trump Administration and the Republican leadership, I’ll continue to be skeptical of their claim that the aim is to reduce the deficit. There is little evidence of that at the moment.

All fair, but keep in mind that defense spending - even wasteful defense spending - is at least using my kids' future earnings to help the US. I want ALL wasteful spending addressed, but especially that which doesn't help the US citizenry.

That's a stark difference from spending money we don't have to send outsized amounts of aid to people who aren't US citizens.

 

[JDCrimson]

I get it...

But if you want a relatively peaceful world with stable economic conditions someone has to be the policeman. As we can see fascism and communism have not been eradicated from the world and our retreat as the cooler internationally provides opportunity for those movements to re-establish themselves and those movements only survive through conquest.

We started down this path post-WWII with the Marshall Plan and Breton Woods Conference to safeguard the seas for peaceful shipping commerce and a reserve currency, the dollar, to trade in.

You wonder what purpose our aid serves, its much cheaper than fighting a war in Argentina or Brazil when famine and disease breakout and Russia and China rush in to solve the crisis on their terms. Bingo you have communism on your doorstep. To live in this world peacefully, you can spend 2 currencies, money or blood. I would rather spend the money than spend my sons or grandsons blood. Russia has no money yet has no problem spending the blood of its sons. How do you compete with that?

The cutting of this aid looks like a good thing getting rid of frivolous spending. But it is limited short term gain. Long-term it will cost more money (and possibly blood) to restore the order we gave up. There is no other country in the world other than the US that can withstand Russian or Chinese aggression. Sure collectively the countries can spend more toward a common defense but if the US has sidelined itself and alienated it's allies what is the net result

The Russians and the Chinese know this. They just needed their Manchurian President to help breakdown the barriers.

Our grandfathers knew what our role as a nation is and the cost of freedom doesn't stop or start on our shores. We are being to conditioned to forget this and devalue our need to defend freedom under the guise we don't want to lose our sons lives to war anymore.

Secretary Hegseth talks about wanting to return our military to a lethal killing force which is good. I'm not sure our military is in as bad a shape as he suggests. But in the meantime, how about we stop alienating our allies and giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

Spending money we don't have for this means that somehow it's become my kids' and grandkids' responsibility to fund these worldwide issues.

It sucks that people will suffer but goodness - since when is it the responsibility of US citizens to spend money we don't have to help people we don't know? Why is it US responsibility to single-handedly account for more than 40% of all humanitarian aid accounted for by the UN? If the stance is that not helping these people is wrong, I'd argue that forcing debt onto future generations is equally wrong.

Want to help people in other countries? Take up donations.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Our grandfathers knew what our role as a nation is and the cost of freedom doesn't stop or start on our shores. We are being to conditioned to forget this and devalue our need to defend freedom under the guise we don't want to lose our sons lives to war anymore.

It's much easier to spread the wealth when you're not underwater in debt. That's my point. The national debt is nearly 70X greater today than 1975. We're in no position to help people halfway around the world when we cannot even help our own citizens in need.

A healthy budget would allow the US to more safely help more people all over. We don't have that right now, and continuing to spend money we don't have means we'll be less able to help people - including our own - in the future.

 

[Huckleberry]

I agree - I want all the extra spending cut to the bone. We've talked to death the idea that federal spending is out of control, but no one has actually tried to do anything about it in decades.

Spending my kids' and grandkids' future earnings to make myself feel better isn't the answer.

No one ever seems to have an answer as to why the US has to be the one to go deeper into debt every year to save all these foreigners while the rest of the world largely watches...

Rational spending cuts are great (and we can argue just what those might be), but not nearly enough. How do you feel about increasing revenue?

No one ever seems to have an answer as to why the US has to be the one to go deeper into debt every year to save all these foreigners while the rest of the world largely watches...

Maybe because it's the right thing to do, both morally and as policy. Humanitarian aid is a negligible amount when it comes to the national debt and serves our national interest. Even Marco Rubio, before he lost his few remaining scruples when he became a member of the administration, thought so:

During his Fox News interview Monday, Rubio also dismissed concerns that scaling back USAID’s presence could allow China to expand its influence in developing nations.

But just three years ago, Rubio argued the exact opposite, urging the Biden administration in a 2022 letter to prioritize USAID’s funding as a key tool to “counter the Chinese Communist Party’s expanding global influence.”

A longtime defender of US foreign aid, Rubio pushed back against criticism of the agency in repeated comments uncovered by CNN — defending aid as both vital and a small part of America’s overall fiscal budget.

“We don’t have to give foreign aid. We do so because it furthers our national interest. That’s why we give foreign aid. Now obviously there’s a component to foreign aid that’s humanitarian in scope, and that’s important too,” he said in February 2013.

“Foreign aid as a part of our overall budget is less than 1% of the total amount the US Government spends,” Rubio said in one 2017 speech on the Senate floor. “I promise you it is going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America is the reason one is even alive today.”

“Anybody who tells you that we can slash foreign aid and that will bring us to balance is lying to you. Foreign aid is less than one percent of our budget. It’s just not true,” he added in August 2019, while speaking to the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Rational spending cuts are great (and we can argue just what those might be), but not nearly enough. How do you feel about increasing revenue?

I've posted here many times that I'm all for increasing revenue, but only AFTER the fedgov shows it's willingness to cut wasteful spending.

We might be seeing that willingness now, though it's too early to tell. Make some serious cuts to wasteful and unnecessary spending and then we can discuss ways to increase revenue.

Maybe because it's the right thing to do, both morally and as policy.

I understand this position and mentioned it above. But I also believe increasing debt that we aren't going to be responsible for paying, but rather kicking the can down the road so future generations will be saddled with it, is also morally wrong. It's akin to credit fraud.

People feeling compelled to do the right thing? Start a campaign and gather donations. If the sum is rather paltry it shouldn't be too difficult. But stealing from my kids' future so one can feel good about themselves - without actually sacrificing anything - that's pathetic. It's the perfect case of virtue signaling.

 

[Huckleberry]

I can see the point about the opinions of those who advocate spending money on programs without contributing toward that expense. However, those who pay their fair share of taxes should have a voice in how and where government money is spent, regardless of personal motivations. Ideologies might lead people to different priorities and conclusions, but we all deserve to be heard.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I can see the point about the opinions of those who advocate spending money on programs without contributing toward that expense. However, those who pay their fair share of taxes should have a voice in how and where government money is spent, regardless of personal motivations. Ideologies might lead people to different priorities and conclusions, but we all deserve to be heard.

I agree 100% - once we're not borrowing money to meet these obligations.

Until then, cut whatever we can - especially things that don't directly help US citizens. Once we're not borrowing money to fund things people want, then we can debate which wants should take priority.

 

[Huckleberry]

I agree 100% - once we're not borrowing money to meet these obligations.

Until then, cut whatever we can - especially things that don't directly help US citizens. Once we're not borrowing money to fund things people want, then we can debate which wants should take priority.

While I understand your perspective, I think we can accomplish the same goal without such draconian measures. It’s important to me that our nation continues its service to humanity even as we eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. I believe it’s possible to do both.

 

[crimsonaudio]

It’s important to me that our nation continues its service to humanity even as we eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending.

That's a pretty spiffy way to say "I want to write checks I don't have to pay"...

 

[cdub55]

I accept that you didn't label me a conservative/right winger. (Not that I find the labels offensive; they're just inaccurate.) My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Unfortunately, having lived most of our adult lives in the DC area and encountering mostly people of the political left, our anecdotal evidence is substantial. I can understand the impulse to want the government to "do something." I can accept that for most people who feel this way, their intentions are good. They just don't realize just how "doing something" usually turns out to be "doing the wrong thing in a very expensive manner with very destructive, enduring consequences."

Perhaps just as important, those that want to abdicate charity to the government are missing out on doing something that my wife and I find really rewarding at the soul-level. The closer one can get to the sincerely poor (not those that are poor/needy by choice but are poor/needy because they have no choice) and make their lives better is an altering experience for us. Our humanity is enhanced. I don't know, maybe that doesn't make any sense. But the reward we feel has encouraged us to do as much as we can.

In my experiences, helping someone who can never repay you is one of the most intrinsically valuable things you can do in this life.

 

[cdub55]

While I understand your perspective, I think we can accomplish the same goal without such draconian measures. It’s important to me that our nation continues its service to humanity even as we eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. I believe it’s possible to do both.

I agree that a common ground or balance between wasteful spending and services provided by our government can and should be found. With that being said, we have seen lip service for way too long by our leaders in this department. It is like the fat lady who says every morning to all her coworkers, "I really need to start a diet and start walking." Everyone agrees with her and everyone, including her, knows it is the right thing to do, but here we are...eating a donut in the break room talking about it again...

 

[Huckleberry]

That's a pretty spiffy way to say "I want to write checks I don't have to pay"...

Dichotomous thinking tends to lead to this kind of accusation. Just because someone doesn't 100% agree with your stance doesn’t make them a selfish and careless spendthrift. There can be common ground found between reckless spending and unfeeling austerity.
And unless you’re also advocating cutting all spending, both domestic and foreign, until we have balanced our budget and paid down our debt, you too are wanting to write checks that you don’t have to pay. You’re just doing it for the programs you find necessary.