8 ms·

>None of us voted for him. I voted for Trump and his campaign was explicit that Musk would be part of the new government. I certainly voted for him and by exte

>None of us voted for him. I voted for Trump and his campaign was explicit that Musk would be part of the new government. I certainly voted for him and by extension Musk/DOGE, as did the majority of American voters, even if most of the people here obviously didn't. >These for federal institutions that every citizen relies on. If that were the case Trump and his policies would not have been voted in. Also worth noting, the core of "institutions every citizen relies on" which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt (for now) from the cutting and slashing as promised during the campaign. That alleviates the vast majority of citizens' concerns about reducing the government.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>I certainly voted for him and by extension Musk/DOGE, as did the majority of American voters Given the approval ratings even in the beginning, I don't think as many Trump voters knew he was a package deal. Or thought he'd be more of a spokesperson at best. Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon. >If that were the case Trump and his policies would not have been voted in. Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign. I believe he focused on the Dept. of Education at best (but I think that also came about more post-election night). He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans (not the elites; their goals are fairly obvious). >Also worth noting, the core of "institutions every citizen relies on" which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt (for now) from the cutting and slashing as promised during the campaign. Given the level of tax cuts he wants to give to corporate tax (the one Trump was most specific about), I don't think they truly are. Those tax cuts alone are projected to cost us 100-200 billion. SS/Medicare/Medicaid make up some 40% or so of 2024's 6.75 trillion dollar federal budget (that doesn't even include Healthcare budgets). It doesn't pass the sniff test. Either they are cutting defense spending (unthinkable), gonna cut off SS/Medicare/aid, or we're gonna balloon our deficit. All these stunts of slashing smaller departments like the DoE and mass laying off federal workers aren't going to cut it. All educational budgeting (not just the DoE) totals to 52b dollars, for reference. He could always lie and end up raising taxes to make up for giving billionaires more money, too.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon. I would advise you that pollsters have quite literally never managed to accurately measure him, so poll numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One reason the Democrats lost is because they assumed the polls were usefully accurate. >Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign. It is, broadly speaking. Trump is continuing his "Drain the swamp!" promise from 2016 in addition to pressing for efficiency in government which is all-encompassing. No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned. If the House actually works together with Trump on this, then truly no part of government is safe except for Social Security, et al.. >He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans Indeed, that was the biggest reason for his victory and hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things. >cutting defense spending (unthinkable) The Pentagon apparently never passed a financial audit in recent history, which is patently indefensibly ridiculous. It should get investigated thoroughly and the defense budget appropriately slashed in due course. They are not (should not be) safe because the only things Trump promised to not touch were Social Security, et al.. If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care. I'm honestly tired of subsidizing other countries' defense budgets when they clearly don't appreciate it. If the Military Industrial Complex whines, I really don't care.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned. firstly, that's not how the treasury works. secondly; Yeah, I don't trust them. if they just want to break into classified areas, who's gonna stop them from touching social security? >nd hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things. How soon? He passed 100 EO's day one and couldn't add in a price control for eggs, probably with a huge subsidy to make up for loss revenue? He had the priority to remove intelligence members who "conspired against him" but can't take the time to make sure DOGE is appointed as usual? He could give a half a trillion grant to AI but also wants to "reduce spending"? His actions do not agree with his words. And of course some of his actions are beyond his control. He can't force the FEDS to reduce the interest rates (not that that would lower inflation. Quite the opposite). >If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care. Well I'm glad you're accepting of World War 3. I'm not going to acquiesce as easily. This also isn't 1850, so if we have a Civil War 2 we will not survive whoole. Whoever "wins" gets overwhelmed by China and we lose a huge chunk of America to the East. At the very least we no longer have a "West Coast" and we're in a trade nightmare. NATO won't help out because we decided to piss them off and dismiss them as "crybabies". Canada won't help out because we keep pissing them off because "tarriffs" is trump's favorite word in the dictionary (his words, not mine); heck, Having China as a nearby trading partner would probably benefit them more than US at this point. I live on the West Coast so I care a lot more about that than you would. I don't want my house under Chinese territory just because you're mad about not being on the congress board to argue over spending. That issue is fixable for you if you wish to go that route. The way our geography is basically means we need to defend all of North America at the bare minimum. defending a continent isn't cheap.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>I certainly voted for him and by extension Musk/DOGE, as did the majority of American voters Given the approval ratings even in the beginning, I don't think as many Trump voters knew he was a package deal. Or thought he'd be more of a spokesperson at best. Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon. >If that were the case Trump and his policies would not have been voted in. Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign. I believe he focused on the Dept. of Education at best (but I think that also came about more post-election night). He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans (not the elites; their goals are fairly obvious). >Also worth noting, the core of "institutions every citizen relies on" which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt (for now) from the cutting and slashing as promised during the campaign. Given the level of tax cuts he wants to give to corporate tax (the one Trump was most specific about), I don't think they truly are. Those tax cuts alone are projected to cost us 100-200 billion. SS/Medicare/Medicaid make up some 40% or so of 2024's 6.75 trillion dollar federal budget (that doesn't even include Healthcare budgets). It doesn't pass the sniff test. Either they are cutting defense spending (unthinkable), gonna cut off SS/Medicare/aid, or we're gonna balloon our deficit. All these stunts of slashing smaller departments like the DoE and mass laying off federal workers aren't going to cut it. All educational budgeting (not just the DoE) totals to 52b dollars, for reference. He could always lie and end up raising taxes to make up for giving billionaires more money, too.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Even during election night his approval rating was only 46%, the supposed peak of honeymoon. I would advise you that pollsters have quite literally never managed to accurately measure him, so poll numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One reason the Democrats lost is because they assumed the polls were usefully accurate. >Well "take down the treasury" was defiitely not part of his campaign. It is, broadly speaking. Trump is continuing his "Drain the swamp!" promise from 2016 in addition to pressing for efficiency in government which is all-encompassing. No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned. If the House actually works together with Trump on this, then truly no part of government is safe except for Social Security, et al.. >He mostly focused on lowering grocery prices and ending inflation based on my conversations with everyman republicans Indeed, that was the biggest reason for his victory and hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things. >cutting defense spending (unthinkable) The Pentagon apparently never passed a financial audit in recent history, which is patently indefensibly ridiculous. It should get investigated thoroughly and the defense budget appropriately slashed in due course. They are not (should not be) safe because the only things Trump promised to not touch were Social Security, et al.. If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care. I'm honestly tired of subsidizing other countries' defense budgets when they clearly don't appreciate it. If the Military Industrial Complex whines, I really don't care.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >No part of the Executive Branch, of which the Treasury Department is a direct subordinate to the President, is off limits save for Social Security, et al. as mentioned. firstly, that's not how the treasury works. secondly; Yeah, I don't trust them. if they just want to break into classified areas, who's gonna stop them from touching social security? >nd hopefully we will see all that brought to fruition soon along with all the other things. How soon? He passed 100 EO's day one and couldn't add in a price control for eggs, probably with a huge subsidy to make up for loss revenue? He had the priority to remove intelligence members who "conspired against him" but can't take the time to make sure DOGE is appointed as usual? He could give a half a trillion grant to AI but also wants to "reduce spending"? His actions do not agree with his words. And of course some of his actions are beyond his control. He can't force the FEDS to reduce the interest rates (not that that would lower inflation. Quite the opposite). >If this leads to NATO and other "allies" whining something fierce, well I don't really care. Well I'm glad you're accepting of World War 3. I'm not going to acquiesce as easily. This also isn't 1850, so if we have a Civil War 2 we will not survive whoole. Whoever "wins" gets overwhelmed by China and we lose a huge chunk of America to the East. At the very least we no longer have a "West Coast" and we're in a trade nightmare. NATO won't help out because we decided to piss them off and dismiss them as "crybabies". Canada won't help out because we keep pissing them off because "tarriffs" is trump's favorite word in the dictionary (his words, not mine); heck, Having China as a nearby trading partner would probably benefit them more than US at this point. I live on the West Coast so I care a lot more about that than you would. I don't want my house under Chinese territory just because you're mad about not being on the congress board to argue over spending. That issue is fixable for you if you wish to go that route. The way our geography is basically means we need to defend all of North America at the bare minimum. defending a continent isn't cheap.