Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#961

Post by stouset »

smogcutter wrote: post #695
insane_dreamer wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Medicare as that is covered by a separate tax). This is much more than any DOGE savings, and shows that this isn't about reducing the federal budget, but about cutting services in order to fund two things: military, and corporate tax cuts (which largely benefit…

> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste In fact, I’d argue that the government’s role is specifically to spend on things that are economically inefficient but nonetheless important.

In addition to that, to spend on things that produce net positive returns for society, but whose benefits are diffuse enough that every smaller entity isn't incentivized enough to do it.

Also, to adjust market dynamics to shift things toward long-term good when short-term incentives won't necessarily produce the same result.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#962

Post by metadat »

chneu wrote: post #140
Master_Odin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republican plan for the federal government for decades has been to try to kneecap various agencies and departments so fully that they can't function well, go "look how poorly they operate! Time to close it down and let private sector handle it!"

It's called Starve The Beast

Lots of interesting reading linked from the wiki page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#963

Post by Gibbon1 »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #853
Gibbon1 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This blathering about the federal budget has been going on for 50 years. What I think if if you want a real discussion then you need to talk about the real federal budget separately from the retirement, income security, health benefits for and paid by the peons. So take away social security, unemployment, welfare, Medicare, VA and federal retirement benefits. And lets talk about what left. And pikachu there ain't any…

It's politics, same as ever. We're not talking about the best way to balance the books of America LLC, we're talking about "who gets what, when." That's politics.

I think it's important to separate out pass through expenditures that are just transfers between working class peons and actual public goods and services.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#964

Post by Griffinsauce »

rainsford wrote: post #841
cwalv wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average...? Why should it scale linearly with GDP? I can see an argument that it should scale linearly with population (maybe), but if GDP per capita increases, you could also expect better tech/productivity to allow gov spending per capita to decrease. > What do you think should be cut, an…

"Better tech" is a double edged sword though because it can result in more efficient output but also more demand for output. The military was a lot cheaper in absolute terms before the technology existed to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers. But if you want to maintain a capable military you need to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers not just equip your troops with more efficiently made muskets. While cert…

Also keep in mind that life and laws have gotten more complex. The tax code likely hasn't shrunk over time.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#965

Post by rat87 »

slaw wrote: post #787
rat87 wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting for Trump is stupid. Im sure there are plenty of people with lots of schooling that voted for Trump. They made a stupid choice. Even if you agree with some policies Trump is the height of incompetence fraud corruption and abuse of power. Gutting effcient and useful goverment agencies to fund the Wall is stupid and wasteful. It also wont reduce illegal immigration.

Voting for Kamala was even more stupid.

Could you expand on that? I can understand why someone mighy not like Harris but I cant see why voting her is stupider then voting to fuck up the country.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#966

Post by ipython »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #687
ipython wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't worry, the House is ready to extend and expand tax cuts to more than extinguish any potential "savings" - to the tune of over $3 trillion in extra deficit spending. But don't worry, they've planned for that- just increase the debt limit by $4 trillion to cover the difference! After all, now that the Democrats aren't in charge any longer, increasing the debt limit is no biggie - we'll just grow ourselves out…

Wait, I thought the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism and reducing the deficit? Shouldn't they be reducing the debt ceiling rather than raising it?

No need to worry about running deficits when the tax cuts realized by the richest individuals and corporations “trickles down” to the rest of us. Still waiting for that magic rain…

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#967

Post by sojournerc »

rco8786 wrote: post #821
cwalv wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average...? Why should it scale linearly with GDP? I can see an argument that it should scale linearly with population (maybe), but if GDP per capita increases, you could also expect better tech/productivity to allow gov spending per capita to decrease. > What do you think should be cut, an…

> Why should it scale linearly with GDP? I can see an argument that it should scale linearly with population (maybe), but if GDP per capita increases, you could also expect better tech/productivity to allow gov spending per capita to decrease. This isn't the question. The question is about the premise of federal spending being "out of control". By what measure is it out of control?

Increasing deficit

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#968

Post by BurningFrog »

guax wrote: post #696
BurningFrog wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The simplest answer is that federal spending has always been out of control. 2. This assumes a 100% effective government. If it's only 70% effective, you can cut spending by 30% without affecting the noble goals you list. 3. This is the Luigi argument. Get rid of health insurance and we'll all be happy! What exactly to replace it with is TBD. 4. The main argument against high corporate taxes is that it leads to co…

In #2, doing the DOGE way you cut by 30% but the efficiency is now lower than 70%. Government is now less effective, costs less, wastes more. Cuts in education, research and consumer protection will cost a lot long term. For #3 there is like dozens of models from different countries around the world. The U.S. could start by looking into those.

I you ask the locals about the health care systems in those different countries - I am from one - they'll tell you that it has it's own set of serious problems.

A lot of the savings in those systems come from simply not providing certain costly treatments that are common in the US.

That's not to say the US system is the greatest etc, but many Americans have a really idealized view of the alternatives.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#969

Post by refurb »

corimaith wrote: post #924
refurb wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USAID is not "international aid". It's an arm of the CIA that uses "international development" as a cover for it's activities. Look at the role of USAID during the Vietnam War under CORDS. It funded the "strategic hamlet" program which uprooted rural civilians into barb wire enclosures and provided arms and training to militia. That doesn't sound like international aid. Look at the Phoenix Program during the same war…

The two are not mutually exclusive, providing HIV assistance or maternal aid both is definitionally international aid while also furthering US interests. If you define international aid as purely unconditional or even counterproductive to self-interest then you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of example, nor would it be a definition I would think many agree with.

If you're arguing other countries will suffer with the end of USAID programs, that will be a hard argument to win.

Providing HIV assistance while undermining political stability is a high price for other countries to pay and I'm sure is a net negative for them.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#970

Post by presentation »

InfiniteTitan wrote: post #909
presentation wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s about the budget at all. It’s just an excuse to purge the civil service, since it’s overwhelmingly liberals in it, so that they can swing it more republican. Deficits are just a cover.

> “since it’s overwhelmingly liberals in it” Source?

Here’s one, maybe “overwhelmingly” is a bit too extreme but we’re talking double or more the number of registered dems on average:

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/study-finds-the-...

Post reply on HN