[flagged]
When that happens eggs will cost $12,000 USD per dozen.
[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...
Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level.
This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien.
Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
"All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt."
I have no such perception.
But
>I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to.
However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?"
______
I don't know what primes are
Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not.
Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be.
My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.
Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example.
>Defense must be handled at the national welfare
Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program
>My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do
Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it.
>It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.
Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example;
I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys.
If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?
Defense per-state would disrupt the concept of a nation and the feds' ability to operate internationally. This is the same as borders and foreign policy. If anything localities are better able to understand the needs of their neighbor than the feds.
I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more.
Redistribution is not the basic purpose of a state. It was not a founding principle of our state. It is discretionary spending in the literal use of the word if not in that of the budget committee. In this case the feds are spending $500 on housing and $4,000 on pokemon toys.
But
>The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more
The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."
Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
How much do you believe each country spends on defense?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
Based on that, the US spends more than the remainder of the top 10 countries combined, most of which are allies.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and still be spending more than China and Russia (spots 2 and 3) combined.
Don’t get wrong, we’ve all heard stories about $5,000 toilet seats or whatever but without actual changes on that front we can’t cut our budget in half and be competitive.
I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda...
Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.
I don't really like trump. I've voted against him in every primary I could. I voted libertarian in 2020 because I figured biden would lose.
I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. probably worse. Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain.
> Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almost a billion dollars to retrofit that will be finished at the end of his term and then given to his library for his personal use. But since he pretends to care about Americans, I guess we can also pretend to believe his dealing with the middle east and all his crypto is totally not selling the country out for his, his business partners and his family's benefit.
At least you are honest about voting for someone who only pretends to care, instead of voting for someone who does care about the country and it's people, even if some domestic policies views differ -- I can appreciate that honesty.
I do not believe any politician cares about America or her citizens. I do not believe harris cares about America or her citizens. Politicians seek power.
How deep do you think I have to look to find dozens (or hundreds) of strong examples of the EU and other western allies "playing ball"?
We seem to be focused a lot on Qatar and Saudi Arabia as our "good" allies.
I don't blame you for falling for the rhetoric of a populist candidate willing to say and do anything, claim victory if it works, and ignore and bury it when it doesn't. It's easy. You're not the first in history to do it, and you won't be the last.
I don't think Canada and the EU were "bad" allies. Canada partially still is not.
The EU is now regarding China.
“Government contracted L3Harris Technologies to retrofit the Qatari jet with necessary modifications, aiming to have it operational by fall 2025. “ [1] https://www.ainvest.com/news/l3harris-steps-boeing-footsteps...
But why? Because Boeing has delayed the real Air Force One replacement until 2035. Trump wants it for the Trump Presidential Library when he leaves office which he can buy and have it retrofitted again. The same/similar thing done for Reagan in 2001.
How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke?
Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!).
I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?
I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget.
I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks.
I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help pick up the slack if there are challenges with the NPS.
You can't lump NHS in with those. I do not like public health care.
I did not put "woke" in there. I don't like the "wrapper" language. I do like some of the content.
I do not think trump in office is a good thing. I just think harris is a bad thing. Since roosevelt we have been stuck on a leftward ratchet. Liberals take office and change things. Conservatives take power and fail to reverse them.
Trump is not much of a conservative. I do think he can at least promote some reversal of the social parts. I don't care much about the social parts. But I do hope that sets a precedent for someone to reverse the practical economic parts.
You like national parks and see no problem with funding it with taxes. But then why is it bad when the rest of us like other things that the federal government does? Elsewhere you talk about federalism concerns but you completely ignore them here. Why is that?
In other words it’s not commerce/elastic clause bullshit.
If you really care about the NPS and think it’s an overreach we could move management of parks back to states. I don’t strongly object to that.
It kind of tints movies like Idiocracy (a movie I fear increasingly describes a possible future rather than a satirical one) that made a joke out of someone who was only moderately not-smart as just the last 4 letters rather than all 6.