Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bjartr | Hacker News Reader

These are questions with long standing answers arrived at iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that results in net improvement to American society? Probably not.

View on HN

These questions have not been answered, that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending

It's not like we rolled dice to get the spending we had. Decisions were made based on information available. There are detailed explanations available for all sorts of spending.

Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing.

That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength.

Edit:

> that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending

The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.

New information is available, we've incorporated it and decided the spending isn't worth the cost.

We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.

Yep, and we could have gotten there with a lot fewer people being hurt in the process.

In theory, maybe? In reality, no it has never worked before.

I'm sure this what your gut told you. Why don't you explain the plan to the rest of us, using facts. This is a technical site. Last time I checked, 25% of the current debt is caused by the current guy conducting the largest wealth transfer in history from the young to the old. But somehow that translates to "Fed government too big." Try selling that to people that don't read, anyone here can read the CBO reports.

Good point, here are the technical details of the plan:

   1- Campaign on promise of mass deportations and massive cuts to Fed gov 
   2- Win the election 
   3- Begin presidency 
   4- Deliver campaign promises to cut spending & deport illegal immigrants <--*We are here*

It's not more complicated than that.

And somehow politicizing the federal government is cutting spending? When 95% of that spending is the military and two social insurance programs, and most of the debt is caused by a tax cut for the super wealthy? That's just a failure to understand math.

If this is the response to the president cutting free meds for Africa, you really think he has the support to cut healthcare for Americans?

Non Sequitur. You get zero points.

You don't have the data nor the right to claim WHY 1% marginally preferred candidate x to candidate y.

I don't have the right to make a claim on an internet opinion board?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com