- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Elon: DOGE probably won’t find $2 trillion in federal budget cuts
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Has he even been in position to know WTH he's dealing with? Has he been given full access to the current finances and operating budget since the DOGE was created?
If he believes there is a "good shot" they can get $1T, in what way can you interpret that as making a claim that $2T is a probable outcome?
Probable, obviously, meaning more likely than not, or over 50%.
1
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:15 pm to GumboPot
Now do PCGDP over the same time
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:16 pm to RT1941
quote:
Has he even been in position to know WTH he's dealing with? Has he been given full access to the current finances and operating budget since the DOGE was created?
You're interpreting this digression attempt by the other guy wrong.
You're responding to a discussion of language, not a criticism of Elon.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now do PCGDP over the same time
Records for that have been kept only until under the current monetary paradigm. I cannot find pre-1913 info on this. In fact it only goes back to the late 1930s.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
We spend a lot on x isn’t really much of an argument. But you know that.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That figure was quickly dismissed as implausible by budget experts, who said the entire discretionary budget was only $1.7 trillion.
If they were only looking at the discretionary spending then this was all for nothing. They should be looking at the budgeted non discretionary spending that has been bloated with discretionary spending in disguise.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
I've said since it's inception that when it's all said and done Doge will have spent more on administrative costs and salaries than it will have achieved in realized savings.
That's hyperbolic in the other direction. It's more of a think tank.
The main costs will be the litigation costs fighting the method of attacking the employees/regulations, which is a big number for normal people but decimal points for the numbers we're talking (even if those numbers are well under $2T)
Yup.... I agree. It will be a uphill battle to take apart the bureaucracy, it won't go quietly. I still think DOGE is a great start. It will allow transparency to the public and hopefully, voters begin to apply pressure. It's a start...
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Everyone in this thread that hates debt still advocates for going back to the bank and getting more debt. Makes no sense.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:43 pm to NIH
Ukraine spending is part of a calculation of the negative externalities from the total disruption in the international/global economy due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, specifically if they're allowed to "win". It's about which is the more efficient allocation of capital, comparing the cost of these externalities with the actual cost of the aid to Ukraine.
However, bringing up Ukraine in the deficit-debt discussion is an exponentially scaled version of the "millennials can afford a house if they give up Netflix" argument.
However, bringing up Ukraine in the deficit-debt discussion is an exponentially scaled version of the "millennials can afford a house if they give up Netflix" argument.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Everyone in this thread that hates debt still advocates for going back to the bank and getting more debt. Makes no sense.
Again, you keep trying, and failing.
Nobody advocating for actual cuts is also advocating for additional debt thereafter.
Access to credit =/= using the credit. That's your rhetorical flaw.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
That is still a weak argument and you know it. Reckless spending is reckless spending. If you were consistent, you would not support dumping billions on a losing effort.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 12:53 pm to LSU-MNCBABY
quote:
Can we not fire all the needless workforce and end the irs?
If that workforce doles out Medicaid or Social Security or enforces regulations that freeze out potential competitors in thousands of industries, the answer is NO.
Your needless government employee is someone else’s essential worker.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That figure was quickly dismissed as implausible by budget experts, who said the entire discretionary budget was only $1.7 trillion.
Okay, cool. We can start by cutting that $1.7 trillion from the budget and then work from there.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
$2 trillion figure was a “best-case outcome” and that he thought there was only a “good shot” at cutting half that
"Only $1 trillion, why even bother!"
--Stupid F___ing Pissy
Posted on 1/9/25 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody advocating for actual cuts is also advocating for additional debt thereafter.
You can't cut enough.
quote:
Access to credit =/= using the credit. That's your rhetorical flaw.
I have never asserted this.
My assertion is you (the federal government) don't need access to credit.
Posted on 1/9/25 at 1:44 pm to LSU-MNCBABY
quote:
Can we not fire all the needless workforce and end the irs?
What ever happened to the flat tax? Let's just use 5% as an example. Money out of pay checks would go straight to the government like Social Security . No IRS, eliminate filing taxes. Far more efficient. I know many jobs and entire professions may go away, but it's hard to argue against the improved efficiency.
Posted on 1/10/25 at 6:26 am to Powerman
quote:
This is simple math.
Fiat currency is far from simple math.
Posted on 1/10/25 at 12:09 pm to Powerman
quote:
I don't think that's immediately achievable but at least it's a sane starting point for discussion.
Yeah, it would take years and a booming economy.
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News