• 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!

Why DOGE is not the answer. OK, then what is the answer?

Buster Icon

Banned
Joined
Mar 13, 2025
Messages
254
Reaction score
285
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It has always been the genius of Demagogues to rob the public while convincing them they're being rescued. The latest version of this age-old con is Trump’s so-called "spending cuts"--an austerity masquerade draped in red, white, and blue. It’s not about reducing debt. It’s a grift--a tax-cut Ponzi scheme ending in disaster, but not for the billionaires behind it.

In 2017, Trump slashed taxes for corporations and the wealthy, ballooning the deficit by trillions. His allies cheered. Now, in a stunning act of economic vandalism, he wants to "fix" the problem by gutting the very institutions that make the country work

In my opinion, for years, the right has followed a simple playbook:

Cut taxes for the rich, blowing a hole in the budget.
Declare a deficit/debt crisis (or just ignore it.)
Slash services, lay off workers, privatize everything.
Repeat.


Trump’s second-term agenda is the billionaire libertarian dream: purge agencies, fire civil servants, and gut public programs--not to fix spending, but to justify more tax cuts. It’s a bait-and-switch: first, empty the treasury; then demand we drain it further.

The central flaw is the belief that the U.S. government should run like a business. But how do you shrink the debt when all the “shrinkage” is used to pay for massive tax cuts--cuts that mostly benefit Trump, Musk, and their billionaire friends?

This isn’t policy--it’s pillage. It's the looting of a nation in broad daylight.


The Treasury Department and officials with the Internal Revenue Service are predicting a drop of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline, The Washington Post reported.
The unprecedented decline would amount to more than $500 billion in lost revenue. Officials who spoke to the Washington Post on the condition of anonymity said the sudden drop is due in large part to President Donald Trump’s gutting of the federal government.

So this means all those firings will reduce revenue $500 billion, which will have to be financed by borrowing and money printing, causing more debt and inflation.

And when the crisis comes? When years of cuts leave public institutions hollowed out, and the interest on the debt consumes all revenue?

Brace for these options:

• Raise taxes sharply, risking recession.
• Slash Social Security and Medicare, leaving millions exposed.
• Print more money, devalue the dollar, and trigger inflation.

The same voters who cheered Trump's “discipline” will watch their roads crumble, their schools close, their paychecks shrink. Meanwhile, the architects of this disaster will retreat to offshore accounts and golden parachutes.

This isn’t governance--it’s engineered collapse.

A real solution would close tax loopholes, raise corporate rates, and ensure the ultra-wealthy pay their share, but more importantly to eliminate the cause of debt problem (more on this below), cutting spending wholesale doesn't fix the problem. It would mean targeted spending cuts, not reckless purges. But Trump and his backers don’t want a functioning government. They want an extraction machine--one that extracts from you in order to serve them.

DOGE--the so-called Department of Government Efficiency--is central to this scheme. It's a scam. Sold as an “audit agency,” it is legally redundant, economically pointless, and constitutionally dubious. The GAO and Inspectors General already handle government audits--quietly, without the chest thumping, grandstanding heriocs, with experts, protocols, and oversight.

And Musk? He’s no savior. He built his fortune on taxpayer subsidies, now posturing as a waste-fighting populist while recommending mass firings that would devastate federal services. The total federal payroll is a mere 0.7% of the national debt. Even firing every worker wouldn’t make a dent.

Yet that’s the plan: eliminate agencies now, so that when the next tax cuts come, they can say it’s “paid for.”

The goal is not efficiency. The goal is permanent austerity. To make government small enough that it only serves the rich--while everyone else pays the price.

Here’s what I believe we need instead:

Reform the Appropriations Process: Tie new spending to long-term sustainability. Consider a balanced budget amendment with emergency exemptions.
Tame the Banking System: Coordinate monetary and fiscal policy to avoid debt spirals. Review/reform reserve requirements and lending protocols.
End the Tax-Cut Scam: Raise corporate rates. Close loopholes. We had a progressive tax (on the high end) before, it works.
Strengthen Fiscal Coordination: Align Congress, Treasury, and the Fed so spending doesn’t fight monetary policy.

Fiscal austerity isn't the answer, just turning the ship around is the answer, and the debt crisis will slowly work itself out.
 
Why should we be funding tv shows in Iraq, musicals in Ireland, or comic books in Africa? What benefit does that serve to its benefactors?

If those things serve no benefit to those funding it, why not return the money to them in the form of lower taxes?

It is their money to begin with, isnt it?
 
Why should we be funding tv shows in Iraq, musicals in Ireland, or comic books in Africa? What benefit does that serve to its benefactors?

If those things serve no benefit to those funding it, why not return the money to them in the form of lower taxes?

It is their money to begin with, isnt it?
Ok what about the other 99.999999999999999999999% of the federal budget?
 
Why should we be funding tv shows in Iraq, musicals in Ireland, or comic books in Africa? What benefit does that serve to its benefactors?

If those things serve no benefit to those funding it, why not return the money to them in the form of lower taxes?
See below, it won't noticeably reduce the debt.
It is their money to begin with, isnt it?
You're pettifogging the bigger problem. those, though worth scrutiny, represent .00000365% of the debt (it's a really small percentage like that, though I forgot the actual percentage). You don't stop the fire truck on the way to a fire to handle a barking dog.
 
See below, it won't noticeably reduce the debt.

You're pettifogging the bigger problem. those, though worth scrutiny, represent .00000365% of the debt (it's a really small percentage like that, though I forgot the actual percentage). You don't stop the fire truck on the way to a fire to handle a barking dog.
What difference does the amount of the budget it affects make? It is unnecessary spending that we should not be engaged in. It should be stopped and the money being used should be returned to the ones who were paying for it.
 
What difference does the amount of the budget it affects make? It is unnecessary spending that we should not be engaged in. It should be stopped and the money being used should be returned to the ones who were paying for it.
if we take the time to find all those petty line items, we'll never solve the problem, there's zillions of them and they don't take up but a small fraction of the debt. See the OP, that's the path should take, and when the ship of state that is headed over the falls, is turned around, which will take all of our attention for a year or two, or three, then we'll sweat the small stuff. Priorities, Mon, you don't stop the fire truck on the way to a fire by dealing with the barking dog.
 
if we take the time to find all those petty line items, we'll never solve the problem, there's zillions of them and they don't take up but a small fraction of the debt. See the OP, that's the path should take, and when the ship of state that is headed over the falls, is turned around, which will take all of our attention for a year or two, or three, then we'll sweat the small stuff. Priorities, Mon, you don't stop the fire truck on the way to a fire by dealing with the barking dog.
I view it more like peeling the layers of an onion. They are accessing all gov spending and eliminating waste when and where they discover it. No matter how big or small.
 
Come on neo-leftists, the grift is up. Trump doesn't want to fund your Trans Agenda, your DEI bullshit, and your love of slave labor through illegal immigrants. Don't like it? Move to Canada. They love batshit crazy neo-leftists. America doesn't.
 
Why should we be funding tv shows in Iraq, musicals in Ireland, or comic books in Africa?
We shouldn't.
However, I hear the same line of attack on Fox, and it is so simplistic that it borders on inanity.
Any organization, be it a city counsel, federal government, or a private company, that faces difficult financial decisions, engages in a deep dive to figure out where the waste is, not using a hatchet to just cut cut cut.
Maybe you have something to say about how Trump had to hire back many of the staff that DOGE fired, like those working with nuclear weapons.

BUT OH NO, like most lemmings, it is far easier just to repeat the party line instead of coming up with a thoughtful reply.

It is unnecessary spending that we should not be engaged in.
THAT is not what is happening. PLEASE do some reading and stop listening to Fox.

Come on neo-leftists
Then there are those who have the same lines on auto post because they are unable to articulate any other thoughts.
 
if we take the time to find all those petty line items, we'll never solve the problem, there's zillions of them and they don't take up but a small fraction of the debt. See the OP, that's the path should take, and when the ship of state that is headed over the falls, is turned around, which will take all of our attention for a year or two, or three, then we'll sweat the small stuff. Priorities, Mon, you don't stop the fire truck on the way to a fire by dealing with the barking dog.
Have to agree with the opposing side on this. A bunch of 'small stuff' adds up. The money can be used for our own people who are homeless, need food, etc.

This is exactly why Trump won. His promise to take care of Americans first. Not saying that promise is happening, but it's the reasoning you're using that those who voted for that promise, is against and fighting.

What IS wrong is the way it's being done.
 
The annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending problem (issue?) is because in 2024 federal revenue was $4.9T (17.2% of GDP) and federal spending was $6.8T (23.9% of GDP).

As long as congress critters enjoy re-election rates of over 90%, it’s ridiculous to expect them to stop their continuous annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending.
 
Have to agree with the opposing side on this. A bunch of 'small stuff' adds up. The money can be used for our own people who are homeless, need food, etc.

This is exactly why Trump won. His promise to take care of Americans first. Not saying that promise is happening, but it's the reasoning you're using that those who voted for that promise, is against and fighting.

What IS wrong is the way it's being done.
Your reply isn't a compelling counter to the OP, in my view.
 
I view it more like peeling the layers of an onion. They are accessing all gov spending and eliminating waste when and where they discover it. No matter how big or small.

Has DOGE looked at the White House (President) spending?
Once could conclude that going to the Super Bowl and spending a few hours at the Daytona 500 by the President was wasteful spending. It cost millions for the President to attend.
 
The Parties are the problem.
Parties are not in the constitution. They divide the moderates into two parts and govern from the extremes. All moderate legislators need to caucus and replace the house and senate leadership. Then remove the power of the parties. No party on the ballot. No donations to party. No majority or minority.
 
If I were in charge, I would ask the entirety of federal government aside from social security and Medicaid (and maybe the USPS) to take a 10% budget haircut. I would not establish some agency to prescribe how that reduction should occur. Then I would create a DOGE-like organization that looks for efficiencies across departments, rather than within them e.g. contract consolidation across Departments that if adopted can be credited toward the 10% reduction requirement.

That’s how I would start.

On the revenue side I’d be deeply unpopular because I would raise taxes on the bottom 50% and the top
0.1%. Those are the groups not paying into the system. It’s the folks in the lower, middle and upper middle classes that carry the bag.
 
Back
Top Bottom