• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump eyes 10 percent spending cuts and 20% Slash in Federal workers

American said:
A Washington cut is usually a cut in spending growth, not a cut in the budget. So what is Trump talking about?
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is the crux of the matter. It seems that Trump has picked a nice round random number and wishes to cut (unspecified) federal spending to 90% of its current level. Trump has taken 5/6 of that federal spending "off the table", and intends to add more federal spending on the military, border security, interior immigration enforcement and infrastructure. Thus, what Trump is proposing is to cut 1/10 (6/60) from less than 1/6 (10/60) of federal spending. Basically that means cutting 60% of all non-military discretionary spending or about $316 billion in total federal spending.

Putting that into some perspective then let's look at approximate current budget amounts (in $ billion) spent on these "discretionary" categories:

Military - 625
Education - 75
Housing & community - 72
Veterans' benefits - 70
Government - 66
Medicare & health - 61
Energy & environment - 42
International affairs - 42
Unemployment & labor - 31
Science - 31
Transportation - 27
Food & Agriculture - 13

Approximate (non-military) total - 526

Trump's proposed 10% reduction - 316

Remaining total non-military discretionary spending - 210
 
Last edited:
beefheart said:
They are doing jobs no one else will, if you have to worry about losing a job to an illegal, then you didn't prepare yourself well for the working world.
Click to expand...

Really? No one wants a job in manufacturing? Nobody wants to do construction? Nobody wants to work in service related fields?

That's news to me.

Or, you have no idea what jobs illegal aliens have taken from legal workers.
 
ocean515 said:
Really? No one wants a job in manufacturing? Nobody wants to do construction? Nobody wants to work in service related fields?

That's news to me.

Or, you have no idea what jobs illegal aliens have taken from legal workers.
Click to expand...

Why aren't they applying? I'm talking about farm labor, picking lettuce in AZ when its 108 degrees out.

Go for it, plenty of jobs for ya!
 
joG said:
One would hope a cut in headcount and spending.
Click to expand...

OK, but which 240K heads and what $316 to $400 billion in spending?

It is easy to pick nice round numbers as "goals" but quite another matter to define the specific areas to be trimmed or eliminated.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So add 280,400 more Americans to the unemployment rolls?
Click to expand...

About time that bureaucratic paper pushers are sent to the unemployment line. We've got a 20 trillion dollar national debt from government that is too big and nothing but a huge bureaucracy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but which 240K heads and what $316 to $400 billion in spending?

It is easy to pick nice round numbers as "goals" but quite another matter to define the specific areas to be trimmed or eliminated.
Click to expand...

True. You need to go through the things the governments do and cut all of the things that are not public goods.
But head count cuts across the board usually work within limits too.
 
beefheart said:
Why aren't they applying? I'm talking about farm labor, picking lettuce in AZ when its 108 degrees out.

Go for it, plenty of jobs for ya!
Click to expand...

That accounts for about 4% of the illegal labor. The other 96% compete with US citizens and legal immigrants, helping to keep already low wages down.
 
joG said:
True. You need to go through the things the governments do and cut all of the things that are not public goods.
But head count cuts across the board usually work within limits too.
Click to expand...

OK, list some of them. Rest assured that all federal spending has those that depend on it continuing.
 
beefheart said:
Why aren't they applying? I'm talking about farm labor, picking lettuce in AZ when its 108 degrees out.

Go for it, plenty of jobs for ya!
Click to expand...

So you think that's the only jobs illegals take?

I would suggest you dig a little deeper.

Depending on what analysis you want to believe in, there is somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States. Assuming half are of working age, that means 6-10 million of them have some kind of job.

I don't think there are 10 million people picking lettuce or some other crop.
 
American said:
Examples?
Click to expand...

Education is mostly a private good, but in the States' mandate. But things like real estate loans and housing, Social Security, most infrastructure or health care are all mostly private goods and not public.
 
joG said:
Education is mostly a private good, but in the States' mandate. But things like real estate loans and housing, Social Security, most infrastructure or health care are all mostly private goods and not public.
Click to expand...

The Department of Education provides little value to education itself. All they do, it appears, is manipulate the education system through the funding in the school lunch program that is high corrupt. We don't even need that department at all. It was set up by Carter, and frankly I think kids are dumber for it.
 
Cut 20% of air traffic controllers and see how that works out.
 

ooooo look how testy we are... Your boy W Bush left office with over 700,000 jobs a month evaporating. Obama turned that around.



I know your tactic. You will take static totals and completely ignore trends so that you don't have to acknowledge that your boy W took an economy, drove it into the ground by the time he left. No one would prefer to go back to the 2007 economy as pretty as you'd like to rewrite history to make it seem like it was heaven.

Here's a simple question for you... which you will ignore.

US economy...was it better in 2008 or in 2016?
 

Not really that difficult, Elections have consequences and it is elections that validate legacy. Obama's legacy is there for all to see and only the diehard leftwing radicals are still believing what they have been told. The actual results tell a different story just like your inability to answer direct questions
 
Conservative said:
Let the fun begin and the keeping of promises

Trump eyes 10 percent spending cuts, 20 percent slash of federal workers | Fox News
Click to expand...

Dont forget to provide quoted excerpts and meaningfull commentary when posting in BN, please.

Any cuts are fine with me, but as others have mentioned 10% of 20% (at best) of the budget is not much. Especially when the deficit is 500bn. Then again, combined with obamacare changes, his spending increases and tax changes, who knows what the bottom line is? We're going to have to wait for a full FY 2018 budget request.
 

There is something called return on investment another topic you have no understanding about. Govt spending has to generate a return on investment, what return did Obama's generate? You want to focus solely on numbers but not context, Reagan 1.7 trillion dollar debt leaving it at 2.6 trillion on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy, 50%; Bush 4.9 trillion dollar debt leaving it at 10.6 trillion on an 14.7 trillion dollar debt 70% of GDP. Obama, 9.3 trillion leaving it at 20 trillion on an 18 trillion dollar economy over 100% of GDP.

Democrats today are mostly economic challenged with no understanding of the actual results generated

Another point, Reagan took office with 99 million Americans employed and left it at 16 trillion or a growth of 17 million employed from the time the recession started. Employment when the recession began was 146 million and it is now 152 million or 6 million increase. Maybe you should stop trying to defend the indefensible. Obama lost because of economic results
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, list some of them. Rest assured that all federal spending has those that depend on it continuing.
Click to expand...

Entry 164 has a short-list.
 
disneydude said:
You are truly guillible. I bet you expect him to build "the wall" as well, right?
Click to expand...

I expect that nothing Trump does is going to gain him your support. people like you always want change but for someone else
 

Technically Bush (and Dem congress) turned it around. All of the actions to 'save the economy' were done in 2007-2008. The stimulus had little effect, as remember "the jobs werent so shovel ready". The recession was already slowing by q1 2009.

2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
 

Democrats are the woman who thinks she saved her household $300 by buying a $600 pair of boots when they are 50% off, while yelling at her husband for spending $100 on a new pair of work boots.
 

Nice figures totally ignoring that 1.5 million Americans were discouraged and weren't counted in the official numbers in 2009. Typical out of context data which the electorate got and you apparently never will. why would you take 2008 numbers instead of 2007 numbers when the recession began? Isn't that why you voted for Obama?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…