Topic: President-Elect Trump says that he is going to make a place for Elon Musk in the federal government.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #121,580
And the creation of a new federal department called DOGE. This program is driven to shrink the power of the federal government giving more power to the executive branch.
This is getting scary now. The United States of America might end up being the United Empire of America. This is Rome all over again. Which means if history dictates, we're heading for another dark age once the USA/UEA falls.
Get ready for King Trump I and the fall of everything our founding fathers tried to achieve.
Or maybe he'd choose the title of Emperor Trump I.
This is getting scary now. The United States of America might end up being the United Empire of America. This is Rome all over again. Which means if history dictates, we're heading for another dark age once the USA/UEA falls.
Get ready for King Trump I and the fall of everything our founding fathers tried to achieve.
Or maybe he'd choose the title of Emperor Trump I.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,329,031
Except the Musk part, which is new, this is the same tired "muh duhmocracy" shit you faggots have been whining about for eight years now.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,032
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,034
Musk has had no offer, and has said he has no interest in working in government offices.
Nice try though Matt.
Nice try though Matt.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,035
TTEH !.p/l9qC1JI replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,036
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,037
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,038
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,078
> This is getting scary now. The United States of America might end up being the United Empire of America.
Illogical conclusion.
> This is Rome all over again.
No it isn't, and even if it was, Rome was the greatest civilization in antiquity and the middle aged.
> Which means if history dictates, we're heading for another dark age once the USA/UEA falls.
1. "If history dictates" is a nonsense phrase.
2. Something happening to Rome doesn't mean something happens to USA
3. There was no such thing as the "dark ages" you uneducated buffoon. This claim alone should show everyone on the board that you're a stupid idiot and don't make any sense.
Illogical conclusion.
> This is Rome all over again.
No it isn't, and even if it was, Rome was the greatest civilization in antiquity and the middle aged.
> Which means if history dictates, we're heading for another dark age once the USA/UEA falls.
1. "If history dictates" is a nonsense phrase.
2. Something happening to Rome doesn't mean something happens to USA
3. There was no such thing as the "dark ages" you uneducated buffoon. This claim alone should show everyone on the board that you're a stupid idiot and don't make any sense.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,085
Kings are democratically elected and start projects to reduce the size of their governments.
Brilliant reasoning fatt.
Brilliant reasoning fatt.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,086
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,088
A government agency that can be run by 2 people? Ok then.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,109
Elon gave Trump 150 million dollars and in return Trump gave him the adult equivalent of a coloring book at the kiddie table. An advisory committee holds approximately the same weight as a manifesto scribbled on a napkin. Let's see it Elon is smart enough to figiure that out (he isn't).
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,113
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That's swamp think. Actually, this is a way to evade the senate approval and the DOGE will be advisory in name only.
That's swamp think. Actually, this is a way to evade the senate approval and the DOGE will be advisory in name only.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,116
@previous (E)
The vast majority of spending, like 70% of it, isn't discretionary. If they want to shave a few trillion off the top they're going to have to cut some combination of Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, Defense, etc. All of that requires Congress. That is to say, even if Trunp rubber stamped every recommendation here, they wouldn't come close to achieving their goals.
The vast majority of spending, like 70% of it, isn't discretionary. If they want to shave a few trillion off the top they're going to have to cut some combination of Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, Defense, etc. All of that requires Congress. That is to say, even if Trunp rubber stamped every recommendation here, they wouldn't come close to achieving their goals.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,117
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,119
@1,329,116 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
America hires 2.8 million civil servants to operate a sprawling and infamous bureaucracy. There's plenty of efficiencies to be made. You can look at DMV for an example. They are so inefficient that even mainstream Hollywood movies make fun of them for it. Have you considered how much money the DMV loses on productivity failure? From a wider perspective, an overbearing amount of federal regulations and laws on what is supposed to be a federated union of states causes that waste to skyrocket 10X. The fed is supposed to be there to function as a "foreign policy" for states, not to impose laws and regulations from above. So much federal swamp is there at the expense of the states rights to regulate themselves.
America hires 2.8 million civil servants to operate a sprawling and infamous bureaucracy. There's plenty of efficiencies to be made. You can look at DMV for an example. They are so inefficient that even mainstream Hollywood movies make fun of them for it. Have you considered how much money the DMV loses on productivity failure? From a wider perspective, an overbearing amount of federal regulations and laws on what is supposed to be a federated union of states causes that waste to skyrocket 10X. The fed is supposed to be there to function as a "foreign policy" for states, not to impose laws and regulations from above. So much federal swamp is there at the expense of the states rights to regulate themselves.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,120
@1,329,117 (F)
Yes which is all they need to cut federal spending. This commission is extraneous.
@previous (E)
There are inefficiencies in every organization. There are not $2 trillion of inefficiencies in the US federal government. The only way you can cut that much is to make harsh cuts to some combination of Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, and the Military. If you for any reason believe otherwise you fundamentally do not understand the basics of government spending.
Yes which is all they need to cut federal spending. This commission is extraneous.
@previous (E)
There are inefficiencies in every organization. There are not $2 trillion of inefficiencies in the US federal government. The only way you can cut that much is to make harsh cuts to some combination of Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, and the Military. If you for any reason believe otherwise you fundamentally do not understand the basics of government spending.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,122
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Yes which is all they need to cut federal spending. This commission is extraneous.
Not at all, the commission does the research and submits a proposal. Congress is the sign-off.
> There are inefficiencies in every organization. There are not $2 trillion of inefficiencies in the US federal government. The only way you can cut that much is to make harsh cuts to some combination of Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, and the Military. If you for any reason believe otherwise you fundamentally do not understand the basics of government spending.
Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume. The government is getting nothing on deals that are cancelled because taxes push it from profitable to a net loss.
Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
> Yes which is all they need to cut federal spending. This commission is extraneous.
Not at all, the commission does the research and submits a proposal. Congress is the sign-off.
> There are inefficiencies in every organization. There are not $2 trillion of inefficiencies in the US federal government. The only way you can cut that much is to make harsh cuts to some combination of Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, and the Military. If you for any reason believe otherwise you fundamentally do not understand the basics of government spending.
Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume. The government is getting nothing on deals that are cancelled because taxes push it from profitable to a net loss.
Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,123
@1,329,120 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Social security has a dedicated tax base, so it's separate from the federal budget. Cut everything else by half. Boo hoo, Chris Chan has to get a job. Boo hoo, the opaque defense budget has to be accountable. Boo hoo, CIA can't fuck up other countries any more.
Social security has a dedicated tax base, so it's separate from the federal budget. Cut everything else by half. Boo hoo, Chris Chan has to get a job. Boo hoo, the opaque defense budget has to be accountable. Boo hoo, CIA can't fuck up other countries any more.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,124
@1,329,122 (F)
Yes and Congress can say "thanks for the report" and throw it in the garbage. There is no way to dodge "senate approval".
> Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume
Source? And even assuming that is true, $2 trillion of new trade revenue does not come close to being $2 trillion cuts to government revenue obviously.
> Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
I completely disagree but I strongly encourage Republicans to loudly say they are going to privatize Medicare and Social Security.
@previous (E)
I'd need to enroll you in like a 3 month civics course to explain all the ways this is wrong. We all have to start learning somewhere.
Yes and Congress can say "thanks for the report" and throw it in the garbage. There is no way to dodge "senate approval".
> Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume
Source? And even assuming that is true, $2 trillion of new trade revenue does not come close to being $2 trillion cuts to government revenue obviously.
> Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
I completely disagree but I strongly encourage Republicans to loudly say they are going to privatize Medicare and Social Security.
@previous (E)
I'd need to enroll you in like a 3 month civics course to explain all the ways this is wrong. We all have to start learning somewhere.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,126
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Yes and Congress can say "thanks for the report" and throw it in the garbage.
They can't, because Republicans fall in line. When Trump says he wants it, they'll have to make a choice between complying or being ostracized for the remainder of the session and ultimately being primaried and losing their seat.
> >Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume
> Source? And even assuming that is true, $2 trillion of new trade revenue does not come close to being $2 trillion cuts to government revenue obviously.
The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
> >Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
> I completely disagree but I strongly encourage Republicans to loudly say they are going to privatize Medicare and Social Security.
They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
> Yes and Congress can say "thanks for the report" and throw it in the garbage.
They can't, because Republicans fall in line. When Trump says he wants it, they'll have to make a choice between complying or being ostracized for the remainder of the session and ultimately being primaried and losing their seat.
> >Excess taxes alone cause deadweight losses that can cause $2 trillion in reduced trade volume
> Source? And even assuming that is true, $2 trillion of new trade revenue does not come close to being $2 trillion cuts to government revenue obviously.
The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
> >Privatize most of it, people can take their tax savings and buy it on the market. Government doesn't need to handle much besides security and roads.
> I completely disagree but I strongly encourage Republicans to loudly say they are going to privatize Medicare and Social Security.
They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,130
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,132
@1,329,126 (F)
> They can't, because Republicans fall in line. When Trump says he wants it, they'll have to make a choice between complying or being ostracized for the remainder of the session and ultimately being primaried and losing their seat.
Then why say they're doing this to evade senate approval? Since apparently they will inevitably approve everything anyway.
> The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
Right but what I'm saying is that if you cut taxes to bring in $2 trillion in New revenue to the economy, the amount that reduces the deficit is equal to the rate that new revenue is taxed minus the revenue that is lost from taxes on the existing revenue. You would need to tax the $2 trillion at 50% to make up even $1 trillion in revenue, obviously. And since you're favoring cutting taxes I have no idea how this could even work conceptually.
Also still waiting to see anything showing that there is somehow a $2 trillion bill sitting on a table behind a door called "cut taxes" like you proposed.
> They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
They do not campaign on it. I am encouraging them to come out and say "We are going to save money by taking your guaranteed government income and health insurance and turning it over to the market." Please please please do this.
> They can't, because Republicans fall in line. When Trump says he wants it, they'll have to make a choice between complying or being ostracized for the remainder of the session and ultimately being primaried and losing their seat.
Then why say they're doing this to evade senate approval? Since apparently they will inevitably approve everything anyway.
> The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
Right but what I'm saying is that if you cut taxes to bring in $2 trillion in New revenue to the economy, the amount that reduces the deficit is equal to the rate that new revenue is taxed minus the revenue that is lost from taxes on the existing revenue. You would need to tax the $2 trillion at 50% to make up even $1 trillion in revenue, obviously. And since you're favoring cutting taxes I have no idea how this could even work conceptually.
Also still waiting to see anything showing that there is somehow a $2 trillion bill sitting on a table behind a door called "cut taxes" like you proposed.
> They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
They do not campaign on it. I am encouraging them to come out and say "We are going to save money by taking your guaranteed government income and health insurance and turning it over to the market." Please please please do this.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,138
Musk is being babied and doesn't even realize it. He's been used for his cash and now patted on the head and invited to some meetings to stroke his retarded billionaire ego without actually giving him power or anything tangible or valuable. He's a dumbass.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,185
@1,329,132 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> >The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
> Right but what I'm saying is that if you cut taxes to bring in $2 trillion in New revenue to the economy, the amount that reduces the deficit is equal to the rate that new revenue is taxed minus the revenue that is lost from taxes on the existing revenue. You would need to tax the $2 trillion at 50% to make up even $1 trillion in revenue, obviously. And since you're favoring cutting taxes I have no idea how this could even work conceptually.
For the government, revenue is the taxes they bring in. If they cut taxes on businesses, those businesses will keep more of their revenue.
The government would be balancing that out by cutting much of the federal administrative state.
> Also still waiting to see anything showing that there is somehow a $2 trillion bill sitting on a table behind a door called "cut taxes" like you proposed.
You'll be waiting for a couple months at least.
> >They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
> They do not campaign on it. I am encouraging them to come out and say "We are going to save money by taking your guaranteed government income and health insurance and turning it over to the market." Please please please do this.
It's in the media, and their left-leaning family members and coworkers are surely mentioning it. It's just not enough of a priority for conservative voters who are focused on immigration and family structure.
> >The deficit alone is over $1 trillion, and the total spending is much more than that.
> Right but what I'm saying is that if you cut taxes to bring in $2 trillion in New revenue to the economy, the amount that reduces the deficit is equal to the rate that new revenue is taxed minus the revenue that is lost from taxes on the existing revenue. You would need to tax the $2 trillion at 50% to make up even $1 trillion in revenue, obviously. And since you're favoring cutting taxes I have no idea how this could even work conceptually.
For the government, revenue is the taxes they bring in. If they cut taxes on businesses, those businesses will keep more of their revenue.
The government would be balancing that out by cutting much of the federal administrative state.
> Also still waiting to see anything showing that there is somehow a $2 trillion bill sitting on a table behind a door called "cut taxes" like you proposed.
You'll be waiting for a couple months at least.
> >They've been floating the idea for years and still win the votes of the people on it.
> They do not campaign on it. I am encouraging them to come out and say "We are going to save money by taking your guaranteed government income and health insurance and turning it over to the market." Please please please do this.
It's in the media, and their left-leaning family members and coworkers are surely mentioning it. It's just not enough of a priority for conservative voters who are focused on immigration and family structure.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,199
@previous (F)
OK now that you have walked back everything you said initially I think this productive conversation had resched its logical conclusion.
Elon was appointed by Trump to avoid the senate, which will agree with anything Trump wants anyway.
Magic tax cuts can close the deficit gap by raising money that doesn't exist.
Republicans win despite their talk about privatizing social security, and by that I mean the media and left-leaning people talk about it.
Thanks.
OK now that you have walked back everything you said initially I think this productive conversation had resched its logical conclusion.
Elon was appointed by Trump to avoid the senate, which will agree with anything Trump wants anyway.
Magic tax cuts can close the deficit gap by raising money that doesn't exist.
Republicans win despite their talk about privatizing social security, and by that I mean the media and left-leaning people talk about it.
Thanks.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,200
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> OK now that you have walked back everything you said initially I think this productive conversation had resched its logical conclusion.
I haven't walked back anything at all.
> Elon was appointed by Trump to avoid the senate, which will agree with anything Trump wants anyway.
> Magic tax cuts can close the deficit gap by raising money that doesn't exist.
The justification is the Kuznets curve, not magic.
> Republicans win despite their talk about privatizing social security, and by that I mean the media and left-leaning people talk about it.
They do win despite talking about it, and anyone who misses that from the Republicans directly will hear about it from the opposition.
They might resent losing it, but all the evidence shows that they vote for Republicans despite how long this has been part of the party's platform.
> Thanks.
yw
> OK now that you have walked back everything you said initially I think this productive conversation had resched its logical conclusion.
I haven't walked back anything at all.
> Elon was appointed by Trump to avoid the senate, which will agree with anything Trump wants anyway.
> Magic tax cuts can close the deficit gap by raising money that doesn't exist.
The justification is the Kuznets curve, not magic.
> Republicans win despite their talk about privatizing social security, and by that I mean the media and left-leaning people talk about it.
They do win despite talking about it, and anyone who misses that from the Republicans directly will hear about it from the opposition.
They might resent losing it, but all the evidence shows that they vote for Republicans despite how long this has been part of the party's platform.
> Thanks.
yw
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,367
Doge coin time.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,329,410
Presidents cannot just create new departments, by the way, so Musk is being given fake busy work.