Elections DOGE is formed

[GearSolidMetal]

It's funny that you say my post has no substance when it's clear how I am pointing out that DOGE has no substance. All they are doing is tweeting out other people's analysis of data that is already being gathered by government sources. Dummies like you get wet panties because Musk is involved, but in reality these tweets are meaningless.

Soooo... your saying DOGE will recommend to cut nothing?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I'm completely convinced the only reason people want the Department of Education gone is because they imagine schools are turning kids trans and not being religious enough.

The stupider ones think that.

The smarter ones know it's bullshit but they notice that public school teachers are one of the biggest and most vocal Democratic voting blocs. So they push things like school vouchers and eliminating the Dept. of Education as a way of privatizing education and undermining teachers.

 

[avenue94]

1. Its quite obvious everyone knows the difference. They're not saying the entirety of the federal budget is going to be cut to nearly nothing.

If Vivek knows the difference, then why is he presenting Social Security and Medicare as spending taxpayers shoud care about even though those programs by definition are almost impossible to cut, alongside actual programs or spending that can be changed?

2. The solution to spending will be two-fold, cut all the bullshit out of the budget and the economy will improve so we can, at the very least, have a balanced budget.

So your solution is the Laffer curve lol. Which has never actually produced an instance where tax cuts actually paid for themselves and increased tax revenue compared to what it would have been pre-cut. It's flat out impossible to balance the US budget without increasing taxes.

LOL @ implying raising taxes can fix the problem with government overspending to the tune of $1 trillion ever 100 days.

The US could raise taxes in certain areas without much negative impact given the US takes in a smaller cut of revenue compared to most developed economies.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Fake and gay.

Where are the $3-4 trillion that are given to the illegals?

 

[Poon Goon]

Soooo... your saying DOGE will recommend to cut nothing?

Using the first example, we had a government report about unused office space. Then the Washington Times wrote an article about the waste that was obvious from the government report. Then we get a DOGE tweet about the article. Creating a new cabinet or advisory board to do that type of "work" seems like the furthest thing from being efficient. Any asshole with eyeballs could have read the initial government report and recommended cutting there.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

If Vivek knows the difference, then why is he presenting Social Security and Medicare as spending taxpayers shoud care about even though those programs by definition are almost impossible to cut, alongside actual programs or spending that can be changed?

Stop pretending you're smarter than Vivek.
Look at his education and accomplishments and then look at your own.

So your solution is the Laffer curve lol. Which has never actually produced an instance where tax cuts actually paid for themselves and increased tax revenue compared to what it would have been pre-cut. It's flat out impossible to balance the US budget without increasing taxes.

You're the type that claims every spending issue can be fixed by raising taxes, which would hurt the economy.

How should have Obama answered the question @ 0:48?

The US could raise taxes in certain areas without much negative impact given the US takes in a smaller cut of revenue compared to most developed economies.

Or, the US could cut spending, including manditory spending. Everything should be on the table, including medicare, to take cut from their budget.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Using the first example, we had a government report about unused office space. Then the Washington Times wrote an article about the waste that was obvious from the government report. Then we get a DOGE tweet about the article. Creating a new cabinet or advisory board to do that type of "work" seems like the furthest thing from being efficient. Any asshole with eyeballs could have read the initial government report and recommended cutting there.

And its a sad fact those government reports have been practically ignored for decades.... and you're criticising those who are now reading those government reports with the intent to make improvements?

Now sure if you're following, but DOGE isn't actually a department, its a group of two people... Elon and Vivek... who are looking up government waste with the intent to cut the federal budget from all excess bullshit.

Literally everyone wants this but the federal breaurocrats that get free paychecks for doing nothing.

 

[avenue94]

Stop pretending you're smarter than Vivek.
Look at his education and accomplishments and then look at your own.

Who said anything about smarter? And smart people lie or make dumb mistakes all the time. You don't need to always worship at the altar of Tech Bros Are God's Gift to Policymaking.

Stop pretending you're smarter than Vivek.
Look at his education and accomplishments and then look at your own.

When did I claim to be smarter than Vivek? And smart people lie or make dumb mistakes all the time. Vivek is a tech bro with a specific realm of knowledge, not a policy expert by any means.

How should have Obama answered the question @ 0:48?

I'd raise it to at least match income. Capital gains revenue coming in has more to do with market performance than anything else. Capital gains are almost exclusively paid by high income households, not raising it is incredibly regressive.

Or, the US could cut spending, including manditory spending. Everything should be on the table, including medicare, to take cut from their budget.

So you want to massively increase elderly poverty by an astronomical amount? Seems like a cruel and silly idea.

 

[Poon Goon]

and you're criticising those who are now reading those government reports with the intent to make improvements?

So far it doesn't look like those two have read the government reports, they are just quoting articles and other sources who have actually looked at the data.

Now sure if you're following, but DOGE isn't actually a department, its a group of two people... Elon and Vivek... who are looking up government waste with the intent to cut the federal budget from all excess bullshit.

Literally everyone wants this but the federal breaurocrats that get free paychecks for doing nothing.

They created a fun name, made some fun pictures, and got a twitter handle. Other than that they've basically just re-tweeted work done by others. At this point it doesn't look like it should be taken seriously.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Who said anything about smarter?

Then stop pretending he doesn't know the difference between manditory and discressionary spending.

When did I claim to be smarter than Vivek?

You're pretending you know so much more than Vivek about government spending.

Do you think you're smarter than him?

I'd raise it to at least match income. Capital gains revenue coming in has more to do with market performance than anything else. Capital gains are almost exclusively paid by high income households, not raising it is incredibly regressive.

And I suspected you would, you're dodging how raising the capital gains taxes has only resulted in the decrease of capital gains tax revenue.

So, decreasing the defecit to the point of at least balancing the budget is in no way a priority to you.

So you want to massively increase elderly poverty by an astronomical amount? Seems like a cruel and silly idea.

Explain how making modest cuts (15%-20%) in social security... OR raising the age to qualify for benefits by a few years... would increase the elderly poverty rate.

BTW, deflation is already doing that.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

So far it doesn't look like those two have read the government reports, they are just quoting articles and other sources who have actually looked at the data.

Right.... you're basing that opinion just off what Elon, Vivek, and DOGE have posted on the twitter accounts... as if thats all they're going to do.

They created a fun name, made some fun pictures, and got a twitter handle. Other than that they've basically just re-tweeted work done by others. At this point it doesn't look like it should be taken seriously.

More like you don't want to see anything to take it seriously, because you'd like them to fail.

 

[Poon Goon]

Right.... you're basing that opinion just off what Elon, Vivek, and DOGE have posted on the twitter accounts... as if thats all they're going to do.

You've already said it's just going to be the two guys doing this. I doubt they will be auditing massive government agencies themselves. I have my doubts that they will be doing much more than tweets at this point.

More like you don't want to see anything to take it seriously, because you'd like them to fail.

I don't take it seriously because they have given no reason to take it seriously. I live in this country so I want good things to happen and I want good leadership. It would be stupid to root against Trump and company. However, I can still be skeptical of what I am seeing.

 

[avenue94]

Then stop pretending he doesn't know the difference between manditory and discressionary spending.

If he knows the difference between mandatory and discretionary, why is he lumping them together? Does he not have the basic excel skills to whip up a new visual in 5 seconds?

You're pretending you know so much more than Vivek about government spending.

Do you think you're smarter than him?

I think I have a more honest view of government spending and taxation than a guy who claims that presidents can abolish agencies by executive order. And yes, I actually do have more experience working in policy and economics than a bio major whose primary background is in VC. But that's neither her nor there, like I said, you wrongly assume that Vivek is an expert on government.

And I suspected you would, you're dodging how raising the capital gains taxes has only resulted in the decrease of capital gains tax revenue.

So, decreasing the defecit to the point of at least balancing the budget is in no way a priority to you.

Do your homework. Which years do you think capital gains revenue decreased due to higher rates?

Explain how making modest cuts (15%-20%) in social security... OR raising the age to qualify for benefits by a few years... would increase the elderly poverty rate.

BTW, deflation is already doing that.

10% of the elderly already live in poverty, and about a third of all US folks over 65 rely on SS to keep them above the poverty line. Those folks teetering on poverty's age would be instantly pushed beow that if you cut benefits. SS is one of the most effective poverty reduction programs in US history.

And the retirement age is already 67. There are some jobs where folks cannot work into their 70s. Not to mention raising the retirement age is instantly canceled out by people living longer and collecting benefits longer.

You realize you can solve most of SS' funding issues by just closing the phase out on payroll taxes right?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You've already said it's just going to be the two guys doing this. I doubt they will be auditing massive government agencies themselves. I have my doubts that they will be doing much more than tweets at this point.

Do you expect them to make a reality show?
Cameras following them around and recording everything they say and do?

I don't take it seriously because they have given no reason to take it seriously.

And I don't that this answer seriously because you haven't stated what reasons they could give for you to take them seriously.

If he knows the difference between mandatory and discretionary, why is he lumping them together? Does he not have the basic excel skills to whip up a new visual in 5 seconds?

So you're just complaining he's not using excel.

Right... that's a substantive explanation.

I think I have a more honest view of government spending and taxation than a guy who claims that presidents can abolish agencies by executive order.

I think you should read this.

Can he do that? How Trump could try to break the federal government

A look at how Trump can upend the federal government, including "deleting" agencies and ousting workers he sees as unloyal.

abcnews.go.com

Its not a question if a president can.
Perhaps you should argue if he should.

And yes, I actually do have more experience working in policy and economics than a bio major whose primary background is in VC. But that's neither her nor there, like I said, you wrongly assume that Vivek is an expert on government.

I assume Vivek and Musk know there's a problem with government overspending, the deficit, and the national debt increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days.

Apparently the easiest liabilities to cut are useless federal departments, and discovering which ones are useless is a simple process of asking the heads of those departments...

Spoiler

Now that meme simplifies it, but its a simple process of discovering a department's stated function, how successful they are in achieving that function, and if they're worth the funding they receive.

Maybe some departments are underfunded, so it'd be a simple process within congress to transfer funds from useless departments to underfunded departments.

Do your homework. Which years do you think capital gains revenue decreased due to higher rates?

Sounds like you should do your homework into the justification for that question being asked to Obama in 2007/2008.

No one in the media bothered to do damage control and denied thay's exactly whats happened.

10% of the elderly already live in poverty, and about a third of all US folks over 65 rely on SS to keep them above the poverty line. Those folks teetering on poverty's age would be instantly pushed beow that if you cut benefits. SS is one of the most effective poverty reduction programs in US history.

I figured those would be the talking points, so I'm a bit skeptical some cuts wouldn't be made in the administrative departments.

You realize you can solve most of SS' funding issues by just closing the phase out on payroll taxes right?

There's no problem you don't think the government can't tax its way out of.

Over the last five years California and New York has learned the consequences of some of their most wealthy earliers moving to other states.

So you'd like to raise their taxes federally.
Great idea... until they start to move out of the country.

The rich have that luxury.[/Spoiler]

 

[avenue94]

So you're just complaining he's not using excel.

Right... that's a substantive explanation.

I'm pointing out that there is no reason to not be able to split out discretionary and mandatory spending if you think Vivek is serious about his "job." He very clearly does not know that most of the spending he's referring to is mandatory and not possible to alter at a whim.

Its not a question if a president can.
Perhaps you should argue if he should.

Read your own article before posting it. The president can't abolish agencies on his own that falls under Congress.
"For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment," Trump said in a video during the GOP primaries. He later added: "When I returned to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and, if necessary, get Congress to overturn it."

I assume Vivek and Musk know there's a problem with government overspending, the deficit, and the national debt increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days.

Apparently the easiest liabilities to cut are useless federal departments, and discovering which ones are useless is a simple process of asking the heads of those departments...

That would be a poor understanding of the US federal government's budget. The country has fairly narrow, but deep, spending problems, combined with a broad shortfall in revenue that a country of this size and position would normally take in. IE, there's no economic advantage to having payroll tax phase out, and it's vasty outweighed by the reduced funding SS gets.

Apparently the easiest liabilities to cut are useless federal departments, and discovering which ones are useless is a simple process of asking the heads of those departments...

Which Congress would have to do.

Sounds like you should do your homework into the justification for that question being asked to Obama in 2007/2008.

No one in the media bothered to do damage control and denied thay's exactly whats happened.

You seem to have taken a claim at face value and not considered the actual subject. Nor did you consider that correlation does not automatically equal causation. That's why I asked. You're convinced that increased capital gains reduced revenue, so pick a year(s) and point out why you think i did.

I figured those would be the talking points, so I'm a bit skeptical some cuts wouldn't be made in the administrative departments.

SSA's annual budget is not even $15 billion, which isn't even a drop in the bucket for total federal spending. By all means, cut waste, but SSA isn't the source of our deficit.

There's no problem you don't think the government can't tax its way out of.

Over the last five years California and New York has learned the consequences of some of their most wealthy earliers moving to other states.

So you'd like to raise their taxes federally.
Great idea... until they start to move out of the country.

The rich have that luxury.[/Spoiler]

Which country would they move to? And there are plenty of problems taxation doesn't address, you're just flailing here and spitting out Twitter talking points due to your inability to think critically.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'm pointing out that there is no reason to not be able to split out discretionary and mandatory spending if you think Vivek is serious about his "job." He very clearly does not know that most of the spending he's referring to is mandatory and not possible to alter at a whim.

So you're demanding Vivek and Musk to lay their cards out on the table.

Read your own article before posting it. The president can't abolish agencies on his own that falls under Congress.
"For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment," Trump said in a video during the GOP primaries. He later added: "When I returned to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and, if necessary, get Congress to overturn it."

I did read it. You didn't in its entirety.


And Trump plans to revive 'Schedule F' by executive order.

Trump’s promise to revive Schedule F could become a ‘prompt’ reality

The reappearance of a policy similar to Schedule F is likely, federal workforce experts say. But it would look different in a second Trump term.

federalnewsnetwork.com

"For the career civil service, there are still many unknowns in the days following President-elect Donald Trump’s 2024 election win. But many longtime federal workforce experts are at the very least anticipating a revival of Schedule F.

The executive order Trump signed in October 2020 made it possible for agencies to reclassify certain career federal workers in policy-related roles to a new “Schedule F” category of employment. If the order had been fully implemented, any employees moved into the new Schedule F classification would have seen their civil service protections removed, making them at-will employees and giving agencies much more flexibility to fire them."

So there's numerous ways to lower the federal workforce.

That would be a poor understanding of the US federal government's budget. The country has fairly narrow, but deep, spending problems, combined with a broad shortfall in revenue that a country of this size and position would normally take in. IE, there's no economic advantage to having payroll tax phase out, and it's vasty outweighed by the reduced funding SS gets.

You're saying its a 'poor understanding' of the budget without explaining how its a poor understanding.

We have economic nightmare ahead of us if the currency declines in value, and it looks like that's exactly what will happen if our debt continues to snowball alongside gold-backed currencies produced by our enemies begin to be used for world trade.

You seem to have taken a claim at face value and not considered the actual subject. Nor did you consider that correlation does not automatically equal causation. That's why I asked. You're convinced that increased capital gains reduced revenue, so pick a year(s) and point out why you think i did.

A claim hasn't been bothered to be challenged is assumed to be true.

Maybe if you did some homework you could challenge it, but chances are you'd just discover that its true and never bring it up again.

It conflicts with your worldview we can't 'tax the rich' to solve all our problems. Perhaps you should look at what happened to the countries who confiscated the wealth of their richest citizens.

SSA's annual budget is not even $15 billion, which isn't even a drop in the bucket for total federal spending. By all means, cut waste, but SSA isn't the source of our deficit.

Do they need $15 billion?
Could they opperate at full functionality with $10 billion or $5 billion?

Find a drop here.... a drop there... and look! There's a fraction of a bucket!

Which country would they move to? And there are plenty of problems taxation doesn't address, you're just flailing here and spitting out Twitter talking points due to your inability to think critically.

There's not a single country they'd move to, just like there wasn't a single state the rich residents of California or New York moved to.
But if their tax rates would raise SS Payroll tax to there not to be a limit, that'd be a substantial tax increase on them to the point every other country on the planet would be cheaper to live in.

 

[avenue94]

So you're demanding Vivek and Musk to lay their cards out on the table.

I'd prefer they do their request homework first and then present their findings and recommendations in a coherent, sensible manner. Shitposting on Twitter is neither.

And Trump plans to revive 'Schedule F' by executive order.

Trump’s promise to revive Schedule F could become a ‘prompt’ reality

The reappearance of a policy similar to Schedule F is likely, federal workforce experts say. But it would look different in a second Trump term.

federalnewsnetwork.com

"For the career civil service, there are still many unknowns in the days following President-elect Donald Trump’s 2024 election win. But many longtime federal workforce experts are at the very least anticipating a revival of Schedule F.

The executive order Trump signed in October 2020 made it possible for agencies to reclassify certain career federal workers in policy-related roles to a new “Schedule F” category of employment. If the order had been fully implemented, any employees moved into the new Schedule F classification would have seen their civil service protections removed, making them at-will employees and giving agencies much more flexibility to fire them."

So there's numerous ways to lower the federal workforce.

Eliminating the workforce doesn't eliminate the agency or reduce its spending outright. The president controls neither, he'd have to get Congress to go along. You'd go from spending $10 billion on an agency with 10,000 workers to now spending $10 billion on an agency with 2,000 workers because that's what the constitution and law says until either is changed. You're arguing for worse government efficiency.

You're saying its a 'poor understanding' of the budget without explaining how its a poor understanding.

We have economic nightmare ahead of us if the currency declines in value, and it looks like that's exactly what will happen if our debt continues to snowball alongside gold-backed currencies produced by our enemies begin to be used for world trade.

The poor understanding is not understanding that most government spending is mandatory and you aren't going to find 2 trillion in savings in discretionary spending. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding on how much tax cuts like Trumps explode the deficit.

And Jesus this is embarrassing. What countries do you think still use the gold standard in 2024?

A claim hasn't been bothered to be challenged is assumed to be true.

Maybe if you did some homework you could challenge it, but chances are you'd just discover that its true and never bring it up again.

It conflicts with your worldview we can't 'tax the rich' to solve all our problems. Perhaps you should look at what happened to the countries who confiscated the wealth of their richest citizens.

I freely admit when I'm wrong. Yet here you are, unable to tell me what years you think capital gains revenue declined. If you're going to present an argument, at least be familiar with it.

It conflicts with your worldview we can't 'tax the rich' to solve all our problems. Perhaps you should look at what happened to the countries who confiscated the wealth of their richest citizens.

Sure. The US's best years for growth usually correlate with when taxation on the rich was the highest. You act like high taxes on the wealthy is unheard of in modern democracies and developed economies.

Do they need $15 billion?
Could they opperate at full functionality with $10 billion or $5 billion?

Find a drop here.... a drop there... and look! There's a fraction of a bucket!

If you were to find $10 billion in savings at the SSA, that's not even two-tenths of a percent of federal spending. Like I said, there is no addressing the federal deficit without increasing tax revenue. Like everyone keeps telling you: You can't find $2 trillion in savings in the annual budget. Anyone telling you that is full of shit.

There's not a single country they'd move to, just like there wasn't a single state the rich residents of California or New York moved to.
But if their tax rates would raise SS Payroll tax to there not to be a limit, that'd be a substantial tax increase on them to the point every other country on the planet would be cheaper to live in.

The US is middle of the pack, if not lower, for most high-income tax rates, depending on the tax type. Even Ireland, every corporations favorite tax haven, has a higher tax burden on the wealthy than the US. The US could also negotiate its tax rates to align with other countries to deter tax avoidance.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'd prefer they do their request homework first and then present their findings and recommendations in a coherent, sensible manner. Shitposting on Twitter is neither.

Trump isn't in office yet, so might as well shitpost in the meantime.

Eliminating the workforce doesn't eliminate the agency or reduce its spending outright. The president controls neither, he'd have to get Congress to go along. You'd go from spending $10 billion on an agency with 10,000 workers to now spending $10 billion on an agency with 2,000 workers because that's what the constitution and law says until either is changed. You're arguing for worse government efficiency.

Hard for congress to approve full funding of federal departments after 90% to 100% of the personelle of those departments have been laid off.

The poor understanding is not understanding that most government spending is mandatory and you aren't going to find 2 trillion in savings in discretionary spending. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding on how much tax cuts like Trumps explode the deficit.

And Jesus this is embarrassing. What countries do you think still use the gold standard in 2024?

Don't think anyone is expecting full defunding related to the government, obviously. DOGE an audit of federal departments with the intent to eliminate government waste.

And if they don't find $2 trillion worth of waste... okay. Cutting hundreds of billions of waste, to $1.5+ trillion? Thats a victory and a step in the right direction of fiscal responsibility as opposed to endless government bloat.

And I know there's no countries that back their currency with gold, as I said if an enemy country begins to produce currency and began trading it that it'd be a serious liability to the value of the dollar.

China Is Buying Gold Like There’s No Tomorrow

The global price of gold has reached its highest levels as Chinese investors and consumers, wary of real estate and stocks, buy the metal at a record pace.

www.nytimes.com

Hmmmmm..... why is China buying, and discovering gold in bulk?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/China-finds-nearly-83bn-worth-of-gold-reserves-in-Hunan-report-says

I freely admit when I'm wrong. Yet here you are, unable to tell me what years you think capital gains revenue declined. If you're going to present an argument, at least be familiar with it.

I'm under no obligation to do your homework for you. If you want answers to your questions you can look them up yourself.

Sure. The US's best years for growth usually correlate with when taxation on the rich was the highest. You act like high taxes on the wealthy is unheard of in modern democracies and developed economies.

*Sigh* the 90+% income tax myth.

Just like the government is controlled by the rich today, they also controlled the government in that era of the 90% income tax.

Except no one was paying 90% in taxes.
That was just something they told the poor and middle class to get them to pay their taxes.

I'll do this bit of homework for you.

"The bottomline: FDR’s top tax bracket was over 90%, but people didn’t pay the top federal income tax rate in that era, like in any era, people pay an effective rate (which is always less than the top tax bracket rate in a progressive tax system). Meanwhile, the federal income tax is only one of many taxes that comprise the total tax burden a person pays. If we want to understand the difference between FDR’s taxes and Reagan’s taxes, then we really need to consider all of this and more. The grand result is that Reagan taxed top incomes at lower rates than FDR, and thus the general idea behind the “90% talking point” is correct… However, the full story is much more complex than simply comparing FDR’s 90% top tax bracket to Reagan’s 28% top tax bracket. For the full story we have to consider the nuances of tax brackets, and state, federal, and local taxes paid after deductions including the capital gains tax, payroll tax, and estate tax, and then we have to look at the effects of this over time regarding spending, tax revenue, and the effects on society"

https://factmyth.com/factoids/the-top-income-tax-bracket-used-to-be-90-percent-or-more/#google_vignette

If you were to find $10 billion in savings at the SSA, that's not even two-tenths of a percent of federal spending. Like I said, there is no addressing the federal deficit without increasing tax revenue. Like everyone keeps telling you: You can't find $2 trillion in savings in the annual budget. Anyone telling you that is full of shit.

A few drops in the bucket is a few drops toward filling the bucket.

And I'm fine with DOGE not finding $2 trillion.
I'm fine with just a detailed assessment of each federal department, and defunding the ones that are complete wastes.

The US is middle of the pack, if not lower, for most high-income tax rates, depending on the tax type. Even Ireland, every corporations favorite tax haven, has a higher tax burden on the wealthy than the US. The US could also negotiate its tax rates to align with other countries to deter tax avoidance.

If the US is middle of the pack now, where'd they be if they remove the cap on SS Payroll Taxes?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

@avenue94
This guy agrees with you about the $2 trillion being 'unrealistic.'

 

[avenue94]

Trump isn't in office yet, so might as well shitpost in the meantime.

Or you can sign transition agreements and start working as government employees already and gain access to non-public info. That's on Trump for not doing that this time around.

Hard for congress to approve full funding of federal departments after 90% to 100% of the personelle of those departments have been laid off.

Yeah man, why would you ever want to fund the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Who cares about overseeing nukes and reactors, let alone having civilian control of nuclear weapons. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Don't think anyone is expecting full defunding related to the government, obviously. DOGE an audit of federal departments with the intent to eliminate government waste.

And if they don't find $2 trillion worth of waste... okay. Cutting hundreds of billions of waste, to $1.5+ trillion? Thats a victory and a step in the right direction of fiscal responsibility as opposed to endless government bloat.

And I know there's no countries that back their currency with gold, as I said if an enemy country begins to produce currency and began trading it that it'd be a serious liability to the value of the dollar.

If you found $500 billion in waste and reductions (which would be very optimistic) that wouldn't even cover the deficit from an individual year since 2009 -- and that's in nominal, not real dollars. Again, you can't eliminate the federal deficit unless you increase taxes and revenue.

Hmmmmm..... why is China buying, and discovering gold in bulk?

Because their wealthy are scared shitless that the government will seize their wealth if they step out of line or piss off the wrong official. That's not the government backing their currency with gold. It's the same reason wealthy folks in autocratic countries love to invest in US real estate. This is the part where if you had any self awareness you'd realize you were wrong about China's currency being "gold-backed"

I'm under no obligation to do your homework for you. If you want answers to your questions you can look them up yourself.

So you're conceding that you don't actually understand the topic you posted. Good job I guess, it's progress from your normal pigheadedness based off of partisanship.

*Sigh* the 90+% income tax myth.

Just like the government is controlled by the rich today, they also controlled the government in that era of the 90% income tax.

Except no one was paying 90% in taxes.
That was just something they told the poor and middle class to get them to pay their taxes.

I'll do this bit of homework for you.

"The bottomline: FDR’s top tax bracket was over 90%, but people didn’t pay the top federal income tax rate in that era, like in any era, people pay an effective rate (which is always less than the top tax bracket rate in a progressive tax system). Meanwhile, the federal income tax is only one of many taxes that comprise the total tax burden a person pays. If we want to understand the difference between FDR’s taxes and Reagan’s taxes, then we really need to consider all of this and more. The grand result is that Reagan taxed top incomes at lower rates than FDR, and thus the general idea behind the “90% talking point” is correct… However, the full story is much more complex than simply comparing FDR’s 90% top tax bracket to Reagan’s 28% top tax bracket. For the full story we have to consider the nuances of tax brackets, and state, federal, and local taxes paid after deductions including the capital gains tax, payroll tax, and estate tax, and then we have to look at the effects of this over time regarding spending, tax revenue, and the effects on society"

https://factmyth.com/factoids/the-t...sed-to-be-90-percent-or-more/#google_vignette

You seem to not understand how marginal tax rates work... I never said that anyone paid 90% taxes. Many of the US' best economic growth years were at times of high taxation for the wealthy.

A few drops in the bucket is a few drops toward filling the bucket.

And I'm fine with DOGE not finding $2 trillion.
I'm fine with just a detailed assessment of each federal department, and defunding the ones that are complete wastes.

Cool, so go call your congressmember to lobby for a bill auditing every department then. Expecting two random dudes with no background auditing or budgeting in government is a sideshow that won't accomplish anything of substance.

If the US is middle of the pack now, where'd they be if they remove the cap on SS Payroll Taxes?

Little higher depending on the tax bracket. Payroll tax doesn't affect a lot of the real big pots of wealth.

This guy agrees with you about the $2 trillion being 'unrealistic.'

No shit, anyone with a basic understanding of US civics can tell you $2 trillion is impossible. What's that say about your superstars that they are on flat earther levels of delusion?