whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
No, I'm saying what you support is not sustainable or rational.
1 United States
Defense spending: 997.0
Percentage of GDP: 3.4
2 China
Defense spending: 314.0
Percentage of GDP: 1.7
3 Russia
Defense spending: 149.0
Percentage of GDP: 7.1
Obviously we need a military. A country that does not have one, will inevitably acquire someone else's. However, as the "arsenal of democracy" we need to stop interfering with the democratic process in other nations and take care of our own house.
"quit interfering...and take care of our own house....." That's the engine of isolationism. In the real world, you engage in the game of geopolitics because it's cheaper to influence events in your favor than it is to let them drift until you have to go to war to fix them.
...and this is inexcusable: United States spends around 65% of the world's intelligence spending. The country spends over $75 billion each year only on its intelligence. Over ten times that of China or Russia, 20x that of MI6.
Defense spending is not on a straight-line upward trajectory that cannot be fiddled with. Entitlements are.
Entitlement drive deficits, not defense spending.
Trump inherited deficits larger than defense spending.
You cannot balance the budget solely by cutting discretionary spending.
You have to either cut entitlements OR grow the economy faster than the deficits.
QED we have a Trump policy to do the latter.
The oceans around us do make us more secure than most countries. But they also create logistical challenges that make it more expensive for us to be ready to fight. We must have lots of logistical infrastructure (bases, cargo aircraft, sea-lift capacities, etc....) . Indeed, we are the primary provider of those kinds of assets to Nato. The Brits barely got a couple of brigades to the Falklands. The French aren't much better. Nobody else in Nato could come close to doing it. There was a time when that reality was perceived as a good thing...that it gave us extra controls over the foreign policy of Nato members . There was a time when we were happy for Nato to be a US skeleton into which Europeans mainly needed to help flesh out into a large Army. Now that we've downsized from Cold War and GWOT, we are asking for Nato countries to do more. And they have pledged to do so (motivated by what Russia did in Ukraine). That gives us some ability to focus more on Asia. (which we are doing).
It is expensive to have a military powerful enough to do what ours can do. But it does provide deterrence. It does drive allies to us. And it does greatly reduce the odds of having to fight wars that would cost multiples of our annual defense budget.
You keep changing to what the budget and reconciliation does, NOT how much it costs. No one is arguing that we have a strong military or the border needs to be shut down and that cost money.
What we are saying is that it is still deficit spending and Trump is not saving us or future generations dollar 1. It is more of the same, actually a very NeoCom/Globalist plan. NeoComs would love the money going to Ukraine, the military and border security. Missile defense? Right out of the Reagan playbook.
But, it is not a financially conservative plan by any means.
By the way, we are working on both the FY 26 budget which is in Congress AND FY 25 reconciliation. Neither of them are showing ANY signs of savings. Even the FY 25 reconciliation, with all the so-called DOGE savings, the final number is going to be higher.
You are blaming discretionary spending, which is only a quarter of the budget, for the deficit. You are saying that slashing discretionary spending, which does save money, is irrelevant unless the budget balances. Which of course means you are prepared to cut entitlement spending, right? If you're not prepared to cut social security and medicare to balance budget, then you have no choice but to grow your way out of the problem = slow the rate of rise in spending, increase the rate of economic growth. Instead, you are just throwing a temper tantrum because Trump didn't do everything at once.
Here's the reality: Federal spending is never in our lifetime going to be lower than a prior year. Our population is growing, and within that our largest generation is moving into entitlement years. Growth in entitlements alone, as a matter of mathematics, guarantees growth in spending. To balance the budget without cutting entitlements, we would have to ELIMINATE all discretionary spending. Not just cut every government agency including the military....but eliminate it. ALL. So we have to grow our of it.
Trump has done much to slow the rate of growth - RIF, close agencies, litigate to close more, recissions packages, etc..... And he's done much to increase revenues - a stimulus plan just passed and will in future years generate more revenue, tariffs are on pace to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue, etc..... And he's doing all that in the face of fierce opposition, judicial activism, media firestorms, etc..... He did not promised to eliminate the deficit in a day. He promised to to shrink deficits and grow the economy. He is making progress on that.
But if it makes you feel better to stomp your feet & scream at the sky that we do not have a balanced budget today, by all means. Please proceed. It's always beneficial when the unserious identify themselves.
There you go again, if you don't agree or question it is stomping your feet. Very Bannon-esqe...
But, you miss the point. Trump and MAGA ran on reducing spending and the deficit. Yet, his budget will add 1.8T to 3.4T. After the same promise in 2016 of paying off the deficit in 8 years (19 trillion at the time), he added 7T.
If Covid hadn't happened, those numbers would look different.
And you have the balls to give me a hard time over questioning whether he will make the economic situation worse? This guy has a track record, this is not 2016. We know exactly what he will do. If government spending and the National Debt are important issues to you, you better be paying attention and not just rubber stamping whatever Bannon tells you to.
It's not really possible to make the situation worse when you have over $20T worth of investments lined up over the next 24 months. Those investments will go directly to GDP.
You can wave your Bannon strawman around all you want. We cannot balance the budget all at once, for a whole bunch of very pragmatic reasons. There will be a glide path to an improved situation. That is exactly the policy Bessent has explained - a return to manageable finances (which is not synonymous with balanced budgets).
You do your argument no favor waiving around the CBO projections.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2025/06/02/routinely_inaccurate_cbo_forecasts_shouldnt_factor_with_tax_writing_1113691.html
We might never see a balanced budget again in our lifetimes. And it's not really necessary to get there (to survive, to keep moving down the road). if you keep annual deficits below the rate of economic growth, you are by definition improving your fiscal situation toward balance - getting better every cycle. Add in inflation and....well, there is a reason we've had decades of deficits. It's the extraordinary sovereign power interventions of the last 25 years that are the concern. We've got to move beyond the globalist model or we cannot escape that cycle. Too many excess dollars chasing too few places to land........
The problem i have is your and MAGA's tune changes based on whatever Donald does. There is no wrong step the administration can take.
LOL you are correct that I am consistent = I like his policies, they are macroeconomic tonic for a sick patient. That's why I voted for him.
Similar to there was no correct step Biden or Obama could take. That undermines your credibility.
LOL wrong. I allow credit where it is due. Biden/Obama could indeed have taken correct steps. But they mostly didn't. The only credibility at risk here is the one which says they did very much right. They mostly screwed the pooch. But Obama did take out Bin Ladin (good) and was hawkish on the WOT (good, but he shoulda pulled out of Afghan the day after we got Bin Ladin) plus he did recognize the need for economic stimulus when he came into office (but botched it with regulatory excess, particularly Obamacare). Other than not undoing any of Trump 1.0's trade policy, Biden was uniformly and inexcusably terrible. Those assessments are hardly extreme. More than half the public would agree. That's why Trump won in 2024.
For the last 10 years MAGA has decried spending and that deficits were killing us. Now, it only has to be manageable.
Geez you are sloppy. MAGA did not create discontent over spending and deficits. Republicans ALWAYS scream about that.
It has been manageable for the past 40 years and not been good.
Deficits smaller than economic growth are indeed manageable. Unfortunately, they have far outstripped economic growth for 4 admins in a row (2 by each party).
The current GOP/Trump budget/reconciliation raises the deficit by a Trillion AND the debt ceiling to 4T (something they skewered Biden over and cost McCarthy his Chair).
No, it does not increase deficits by a trillion. It increases historically always wrong CBO projections by a trillion. You are arguing imponderables here......
Now that is not only Ok, but responsible? "Glide path", nice political speak...
A glide path of progressively lower deficits may not be your own political preference, but it would be 1) more responsible than meat cleaver whacks (which you have also squealed about) as well as 2) an improvement over what we've seen the last 25 years.
Say what you will, the current Administration would make Goebels proud, they use the media and the propaganda message to dominate news cycles with their version, even though the actions end up being the same as Biden. And you guys lap it up.
Biden did not collapse entire agencies, reduce the federal workforce by a six-digit number, issue a single recission package much less a series of them each in the billions of dollars, etc...... First, you squealed about each one of those things. Now you say they didn't happen. (the hate clouds both vision and judgment).
Next we will hear that SS age has to be raised, same line Haley got crucified for. Watch...
SS does need to be bumped up, as it was under Obama. And it will be. At the stroke of midnight at the end of the day when it is absolutely necessary.
your arguments are getting increasingly chaotic. Which is it? Is Trump a Destructicon laying waste to the federal bureaucracy (your lamentation until very recently), or is he growing it just like Biden did (your new contrived critique)?
Funny you see it as having to be one or the other, would have thought you had more capabilities to grasp multiple lines of thought. He can lay waste to the Federal Government AND still doing basically the same actions as Biden and the NeoCons he says he hates (although his cabinet is full of them). They are not independent of each other. Disappointing...
By the way, just some fun facts
1 - The deficit is still growing... Trump has done nothing to stop the spending
2 - Trump's budget is just as big as Biden's, just reallocated
3 - Trump is still sending weapons to Ukraine, through a middle man...
4 - Trump is still funding NATO, how much has NATO funding decreased?
I won't go into the use of DOJ...
They are all the same. Wake up...
Sigh. We are not the same. Some of us learn and use facts. Others make them up to suit their mood.
FY 25 spending (still ongoing but being furiously cut by Trump) will end up below FY 24.
FY 26 budget request is below F 25.
The FY26 discretionary budget request is 7.6% LOWER than estimated FY25 spending. See last page of link:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2026-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2026-BUD.pdf
Entitlements are estimated, not budgeted. It's an auto-pilot process. If you qualify, you're in. No "sorry, no money" provisions. The law is written to allow us to spend what we are obligated to spend for those who qualify. No prior budgeting necessary. Just constant updating of the assessments of looming obligations. That's why there is such a penalty for untimely registration for benefits....
Our deficits are driven by entitlements, friend. In recent years, the deficits have spiked to roughly equal the entire defense budget. We cannot balance our budgets with discretionary cuts. We must have entitlement reform, or we must grow the tax base to cover the growth in entitlements. This admin has chosen the latter (wisely). There are clear signs of progress, and no real failures yet.
Only fools would harp on discretionary spending as a way to balance the budget (particularly when discretionary spending is already facing historic cuts).
From what I see, the reconciliation and the 26 budget can't be looked at separately. Let's face it, this is political. You can cut this stuff all different ways and numerous games are played to get things done.
I am interested in actuals. For example, for first quarter of this year we spent more than same quarter last year (100 days). So far, we have not seen the reductions in spending.
When they come in less, I will be first to give him credit. When his budgets show a surplus, I will be the first to give him credit. Just like the Border.
When he balances the budget, I will be the first to give him credit.
So far, from him we have heard a lot of talk, token actions and condescension's. But, little in actual returns. From you a lot of condescension's, talk and sighs. You will not admit ANY areas of concern or deserving of scrutiny. Including Epstein!
You think this is TDS. He is different than ANY other President. He has done this before. He added 7T last time, so you think he is reducing? The current "request" adds at least 1T, probably more and can technically still be a reduction. Is that what you guys are playing for a slower death by a million cuts. But it is death all the same.
