If DOGE is truly transparent

[PotimusWillie]

The American citizen is going to be shocked at how ridiculously careless our gov spends money.

It’s time to balance the budget my friends, period.
If there is any way in hell to do it. AND mandate term limits.

But the stupidity will be revealed and the spending secrets will be revealed.

I want to see every line item besides military, roads and judicial concerns.

I want to see what we spend on every other budget line, all of which should be reduced, with many eliminated completely.

The gov should be out of the benevolence and money laundering business.

Balance it on expected revenues.

Then investigate

1) How elected officials get rich during their time in office.

Let’s see what happens.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

But, but, that $15 million federal grant to study how climate change affects transgender caterpillars is essential to protect our democracy!

 

[KidneyStoned]

The American citizen is going to be shocked at how ridiculously careless our gov spends money.

It’s time to balance the budget my friends, period.
If there is any way in hell to do it. AND mandate term limits.

But the stupidity will be revealed and the spending secrets will be revealed.

I want to see every line item besides military, roads and judicial concerns.

I want to see what we spend on every other budget line, all of which should be reduced, with many eliminated completely.

The gov should be out of the benevolence and money laundering business.

Balance it on expected revenues.

Then investigate

1) How elected officials get rich during their time in office.

Let’s see what happens.

I agree !

 

[jpzd33]

But, but, that $15 million federal grant to study how climate change affects transgender caterpillars is essential to protect our democracy!

Don't underestimate the power of a transgender caterpillar..

 

[TivoliDawg]

The American citizen is going to be shocked at how ridiculously careless our gov spends money.

It’s time to balance the budget my friends, period.
If there is any way in hell to do it. AND mandate term limits.

But the stupidity will be revealed and the spending secrets will be revealed.

I want to see every line item besides military, roads and judicial concerns.

I want to see what we spend on every other budget line, all of which should be reduced, with many eliminated completely.

The gov should be out of the benevolence and money laundering business.

Balance it on expected revenues.

Then investigate

1) How elected officials get rich during their time in office.

Let’s see what happens.

Unless you want to cut Medicare social security or the military (and Trump wants to cut none), you can’t make a huge dent.

The best thing to do is raise the retirement age to 67-69, to accommodate for longer lives, and start to decrease SS benefits. But no politician will do that if they want to be re-elected.

And balancing the budget won’t even work, we need a surplus (a massive one) to pay off our debt.

 

[DawglegrightinSC]

The American citizen is going to be shocked at how ridiculously careless our gov spends money.

It’s time to balance the budget my friends, period.
If there is any way in hell to do it. AND mandate term limits.

But the stupidity will be revealed and the spending secrets will be revealed.

I want to see every line item besides military, roads and judicial concerns.

I want to see what we spend on every other budget line, all of which should be reduced, with many eliminated completely.

The gov should be out of the benevolence and money laundering business.

Balance it on expected revenues.

Then investigate

1) How elected officials get rich during their time in office.

Let’s see what happens.

They should be. They want the ridiculousness known.

 

[BlessedDawg]

Don't underestimate the power of a transgender caterpillar..

Well we sure don’t want them hurting our girl caterpillars. Where are the feminist caterpillars when you need them.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Unless you want to cut Medicare social security or the military (and Trump wants to cut none), you can’t make a huge dent.

The best thing to do is raise the retirement age to 67-69, to accommodate for longer lives, and start to decrease SS benefits. But no politician will do that if they want to be re-elected.

And balancing the budget won’t even work, we need a surplus (a massive one) to pay off our debt.

But you can clean out the fraud and misappropriation of funds.

 

[jpzd33]

Well we sure don’t want them hurting our girl caterpillars. Where are the feminist caterpillars when you need them.

The next superhero movie... Instead of SpiderMan... CaterpillarThem

 

[Athens62]

The American citizen is going to be shocked at how ridiculously careless our gov spends money.

It’s time to balance the budget my friends, period.
If there is any way in hell to do it. AND mandate term limits.

But the stupidity will be revealed and the spending secrets will be revealed.

I want to see every line item besides military, roads and judicial concerns.

I want to see what we spend on every other budget line, all of which should be reduced, with many eliminated completely.

The gov should be out of the benevolence and money laundering business.

Balance it on expected revenues.

Then investigate

1) How elected officials get rich during their time in office.

Let’s see what happens.

Add Voter ID laws & additional measures to shore up election integrity.

 

[TivoliDawg]

But you can clean out the fraud and misappropriation of funds.

Again, you cannot make any significant dents by cutting out “fraud” and “misappropriation” of funds.

That’s not how the federal budget works.

As much as I hate to admit it, the thing that would make us safest/ strongest is to do my suggestions above and (gulp) have huge tax increases for thr next ten years. Even then, that would only cut the debt in half, and neither democrats nor republicans have any interest ins spending less.

 

[WyoDawg307]

Either healthcare gets reigned in or it will bankrupt the country. You cannot ever balance the budget by spending 1 out of every 3 dollars on healthcare. I would rather see the Medicare fraud and the healthcare complex taken on by DOGE instead of only focusing on general government waste. The largest target would reap the biggest savings.

FAQs on Health Spending, the Federal Budget, and Budget Enforcement Tools | KFF

As some policymakers in Washington are pushing to reduce the federal deficit and debt, this brief provides a concise explanation of federal spending for domestic and global health programs and services, which could be part of any conversation about curbing federal spending. These FAQs answer...

www.kff.org

How much support does the federal government provide for health programs and services?​

The federal government provides support for health programs and services both through spending on programs and services and through tax expenditures. Federal spending on domestic and global health programs and services accounted for 29% of net federal outlays in fiscal year (FY) 2023 (taking into account offsetting receipts), or $1.9 trillion out of $6.4 trillion (Figure 1). Specifically, Medicare accounted for 13% of the total, Medicaid and CHIP accounted for 10%, other domestic health spending accounted for 4%, hospital and medical care for veterans was 2%, and global health was 0.1%. By comparison, Social Security accounted for 21% of federal outlays in FY 2023, while defense accounted for 13%.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Again, you cannot make any significant dents by cutting out “fraud” and “misappropriation” of funds.

That’s not how the federal budget works.

As much as I hate to admit it, the thing that would make us safest/ strongest is to do my suggestions above and (gulp) have huge tax increases for thr next ten years. Even then, that would only cut the debt in half, and neither democrats nor republicans have any interest ins spending less.

I mention fraud and misappropriation in a different context from the budget.

Transparency of expenditure lines is good for the citizen to understand how our elected officials handle our tax dollars irresponsibly and ridiculously.

In regards to debt and budget, we should never spend more than our revenue allows, never, when premeditated line items are considered.

And it means getting the gov out of the benevolence business

 

[brimur]

Unless you want to cut Medicare social security or the military (and Trump wants to cut none), you can’t make a huge dent.

The best thing to do is raise the retirement age to 67-69, to accommodate for longer lives, and start to decrease SS benefits. But no politician will do that if they want to be re-elected.

And balancing the budget won’t even work, we need a surplus (a massive one) to pay off our debt.

No politician can actually get elected being honest with the American people, because we are spoiled toddlers. We want all our benefits and we don’t want to pay for them.

 

[wwforest]

But, but, that $15 million federal grant to study how climate change affects transgender caterpillars is essential to protect our democracy!

Caterpillars say "love is love". Why you hate?

 

[PotimusWillie]

Either healthcare gets reigned in or it will bankrupt the country. You cannot ever balance the budget by spending 1 out of every 3 dollars on healthcare. I would rather see the Medicare fraud and the healthcare complex taken on by DOGE instead of only focusing on general government waste. The largest target would reap the biggest savings.

FAQs on Health Spending, the Federal Budget, and Budget Enforcement Tools | KFF

As some policymakers in Washington are pushing to reduce the federal deficit and debt, this brief provides a concise explanation of federal spending for domestic and global health programs and services, which could be part of any conversation about curbing federal spending. These FAQs answer...

www.kff.org

How much support does the federal government provide for health programs and services?​

The federal government provides support for health programs and services both through spending on programs and services and through tax expenditures. Federal spending on domestic and global health programs and services accounted for 29% of net federal outlays in fiscal year (FY) 2023 (taking into account offsetting receipts), or $1.9 trillion out of $6.4 trillion (Figure 1). Specifically, Medicare accounted for 13% of the total, Medicaid and CHIP accounted for 10%, other domestic health spending accounted for 4%, hospital and medical care for veterans was 2%, and global health was 0.1%. By comparison, Social Security accounted for 21% of federal outlays in FY 2023, while defense accounted for 13%.

The issue on Medicare and Social Security is that both are directly charged to the citizen against income earned prior to retirement age. These fees are actuarially determined based on various assumptions.

The citizen should privately and individually prepare for their age when no longer working.

Social Security and Medicare was never meant to serve the retired citizen as the only means of income or medical support. It was meant, in some benevolent way by politicians, to be an assist for those who don’t plan well financially.

Social Security “taxes”, paid by the citizen to the government, was to be set aside, invested, and paid back to the citizen.

Medicare “taxes” were set in the same way.

Both of these were placed on the citizen by the government to help provide for the citizen.

While other government programs are funded by taxes, social security and Medicare are taken from citizens even when private options are available, so the return to the citizen who paid into it should be guaranteed as in any investment. These “taxes “ are are actually investment accounts held by and managed by the government.

The problem comes in actuarial formulas. In any investment program, funds available are limited to the deposit and interest earned.

When the entity managing the account misappropriates the funds, the funds are not available to the depositor as promised.

Theses funds have been mishandled and used inappropriately to fund support programs that were never intended or anticipated. Any investment firm that handled our investments in the manner our government has would be shut down with officers in jail.

Bottom line. Allow DOGE to line item government expenditures transparently to show the ridiculousness of our debt structure.

 

[trillium]

Unless you want to cut Medicare social security or the military (and Trump wants to cut none), you can’t make a huge dent.

The best thing to do is raise the retirement age to 67-69, to accommodate for longer lives, and start to decrease SS benefits. But no politician will do that if they want to be re-elected.

And balancing the budget won’t even work, we need a surplus (a massive one) to pay off our debt.

You realize some people work in jobs they can’t do at that age right? Lineman etc work outside and do physical work and most of their bodies are wore out by 60 and most earlier! This is my opinion but I believe when ever someone is able to retire with their company they should be able to access their Social security at that time whether that is 55 or 65… shouldn’t have to wait til 62 to access our own money we paid in… I started as a teenager and will have 30 years with my company in 3 years but will only be 49 but plan on working til 55 and it would be nice to access social security at that time but I’ll be ok but a lot of guys have to continue to try and work when their bodies are saying retire lol

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Unless you want to cut Medicare social security or the military (and Trump wants to cut none), you can’t make a huge dent.

The best thing to do is raise the retirement age to 67-69, to accommodate for longer lives, and start to decrease SS benefits. But no politician will do that if they want to be re-elected.

And balancing the budget won’t even work, we need a surplus (a massive one) to pay off our debt.

So why are those wishing to cut spending always pointing to benes that citizens actually paid taxes for 40 yrs in order to receive the benefits. Benefits I might add that are cut to $250.00 if the citizen dies before they start drawing. I get the Jesse James theory that it's were the money is but in 2019 the Fed gov spent 4.4 trillion. In 2023 the Fed gov spent 6.1 trillion. My guess is the increase in spending wasn't aimed at SS recipients.

 

[TivoliDawg]

So why are those wishing to cut spending always pointing to benes that citizens actually paid taxes for 40 yrs in order to receive the benefits. Benefits I might add that are cut to $250.00 if the citizen dies before they start drawing. I get the Jesse James theory that it's were the money is but in 2019 the Fed gov spent 4.4 trillion. In 2023 the Fed gov spent 6.1 trillion. My guess is the increase in spending wasn't aimed at SS recipients.

It’s harder to solve then the average citizen would think.

60% of the federal budget every year is spent on just four items, Medicare, Social Security, the military, and interest on our federal debt.

Those are “non-discretionary“ spending, and very difficult to decrease. Also, although it’s possible, you will not be reelected if you campaign on cutting Social Security, Medicare, or the military. So well our politicians do the right thing or the thing that gets them reelected? Historically, both parties are going to do the thing that gets them reelected, which is spend spend spend.

40% of the budget is discretionary spending, but each member of the house, and each member of the senate has a certain portion of that discretionary spending spent in their districts, and they are not usually going to vote to cut benefits in their own districts because, again, they will lose their job.

It has been a very long time since we’ve had a politician who wants to do the right thing for the country versus do the right thing for their own political career.

This is the main reason we need term limits, because people start to view serving in Congress as “a job“ as opposed to a duty, we go to the country.

 

[TivoliDawg]

You realize some people work in jobs they can’t do at that age right? Lineman etc work outside and do physical work and most of their bodies are wore out by 60 and most earlier! This is my opinion but I believe when ever someone is able to retire with their company they should be able to access their Social security at that time whether that is 55 or 65… shouldn’t have to wait til 62 to access our own money we paid in… I started as a teenager and will have 30 years with my company in 3 years but will only be 49 but plan on working til 55 and it would be nice to access social security at that time but I’ll be ok but a lot of guys have to continue to try and work when their bodies are saying retire lol

I understand. But what you were describing, is precisely the reason that you are not allowed to tap into Social Security until a later age. Everybody thinks their own situation is unique and they know best. And the data shows that people will spend 110% of everything that you give them and then they end up completely impoverished. As a society, we have decided that is not how we want to live so we prevent people from harming themselves by accessing benefits early.

I’m sure in your singular case it would be fine, but has a population, it would be a complete disaster. And we have already tried it.

 

[TivoliDawg]

No politician can actually get elected being honest with the American people, because we are spoiled toddlers. We want all our benefits and we don’t want to pay for them.

This is why we need term limits. Serving in Congress should not be thought of as a job, it’s a duty. If the legislature knew they could never serve again, they would act more honestly.

We need to raise taxes from current levels, especially on the highest earners, raise the age for SS and Medicare, generate a surplus, and use that to pay down the debt for about 20 years. And only then, would we break even.

Some debt is fine, but it’s too high and will only get higher.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

It’s harder to solve then the average citizen would think.

60% of the federal budget every year is spent on just four items, Medicare, Social Security, the military, and interest on our federal debt.

Those are “non-discretionary“ spending, and very difficult to decrease. Also, although it’s possible, you will not be reelected if you campaign on cutting Social Security, Medicare, or the military. So well our politicians do the right thing or the thing that gets them reelected? Historically, both parties are going to do the thing that gets them reelected, which is spend spend spend.

40% of the budget is discretionary spending, but each member of the house, and each member of the senate has a certain portion of that discretionary spending spent in their districts, and they are not usually going to vote to cut benefits in their own districts because, again, they will lose their job.

It has been a very long time since we’ve had a politician who wants to do the right thing for the country versus do the right thing for their own political career.

This is the main reason we need term limits, because people start to view serving in Congress as “a job“ as opposed to a duty, we go to the country.

I understand all of that but why do the defenders of the spending orgy ALWAYS start with cuts to SS and medicare would have to be made instead of welfare and medicaid? Instead of starting with programs that benefit citizens, why not start with waste, fraud, abuse, over-staffed and redundant federal positions, and on and on. It seems to me you'd start by cutting the little things that would add up to big things first before you started looking at cutting benes the most vulnerable in our society literally paid forty yrs or more in order to receive?

 

[TivoliDawg]

I understand all of that but why do the defenders of the spending orgy ALWAYS start with cuts to SS and medicare would have to be made instead of welfare and medicaid? Instead of starting with programs that benefit citizens, why not start with waste, fraud, abuse, over-staffed and redundant federal positions, and on and on. It seems to me you'd start by cutting the little things that would add up to big things first before you started looking at cutting benes the most vulnerable in our society literally paid forty yrs or more in order to receive?

1) because the little things are little things. Medicaid is like 2% or less of the total budget. So even if you eliminated it completely (which is absurd) you don’t save a lot.
2) even if you were to cut 10-20% of the federal spending every year (which he won’t) that is then offset by Trump’s impending tax cuts. So it’s net neutral.

If you were to cut spending and raise taxes from current levels, I would say you were serious. But if you’re talking about Keeping taxes where they are cutting only a handful of percent, that is nowhere near enough to pay down our federal debt let alone run a surplus every year.

The math is simply not there.

3) you ask why do people talk about Medicare every time they talk about cutting spending. When Medicare was created, the median life expectancy in this country was about 70 years old. So Medicare was only expected to cover medical expenses in the last few years of life. We regularly have people live into their 80s and 90s now and I think the overall life expectancy is 78 years old. As the life expectancy increased, we never tied the Medicare age to that. Technically speaking, the year you should be eligible for Medicaid should be age 73 at this point. It was never meant to be a massive insurance program for 40% of the country.

But that’s what it has turned into, and there’s not a single Republican in the United States who is going to have the balls cut it. Because old people vote at a high percentage

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

1) because the little things are little things. Medicaid is like 2% or less of the total budget. So even if you eliminated it completely (which is absurd) you don’t save a lot.
2) even if you were to cut 10-20% of the federal spending every year (which he won’t) that is then offset by Trump’s impending tax cuts. So it’s net neutral.

If you were to cut spending and raise taxes from current levels, I would say you were serious. But if you’re talking about Keeping taxes where they are cutting only a handful of percent, that is nowhere near enough to pay down our federal debt let alone run a surplus every year.

The math is simply not there.

3) you ask why do people talk about Medicare every time they talk about cutting spending. When Medicare was created, the median life expectancy in this country was about 70 years old. So Medicare was only expected to cover medical expenses in the last few years of life. We regularly have people live into their 80s and 90s now and I think the overall life expectancy is 78 years old. As the life expectancy increased, we never tied the Medicare age to that. Technically speaking, the year you should be eligible for Medicaid should be age 73 at this point. It was never meant to be a massive insurance program for 40% of the country.

But that’s what it has turned into, and there’s not a single Republican in the United States who is going to have the balls cut it. Because old people vote at a high percentage

I'm not talking about balancing the budget in the next X number or yrs. I'm saying start with everything we can identify as unnecessary first. As Everett Dirksen said "a billion here a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money". Imo, the only way to eventually get to a balance budget is by economic growth, reducing regulations that don't pass the benefit vs expense test and lower tax rates that actually increase revenue by spurring economic growth.

You're right, there will be no meaningful cuts to SS and medicare and rightly so. This money wasn't intended to help supplement the federal spending orgy, it was money taken from the worker with the intent of returning it to the worker. The owner of a private company running a pension program the way the fed gov runs SS would be cellmates with Bernie Maddoff.

 

[TivoliDawg]

I'm not talking about balancing the budget in the next X number or yrs. I'm saying start with everything we can identify as unnecessary first. As Everett Dirksen said "a billion here a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money". Imo, the only way to eventually get to a balance budget is by economic growth, reducing regulations that don't pass the benefit vs expense test and lower tax rates that actually increase revenue by spurring economic growth.

You're right, there will be no meaningful cuts to SS and medicare and rightly so. This money wasn't intended to help supplement the federal spending orgy, it was money taken from the worker with the intent of returning it to the worker. The owner of a private company running a pension program the way the fed gov runs SS would be cellmates with Bernie Maddoff.

If you are advocating for the idea of a SS lockbox, sign me up. Absolutely no politician will suggest that, only us citizens would, because that’s how it was pitched to us. Shocker - politicians lied.

As of today, I think I like lies from Trump better than lies from Harris. But to be extra clear, they are both completely lying to the citizenry.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

If you are advocating for the idea of a SS lockbox, sign me up. Absolutely no politician will suggest that, only us citizens would, because that’s how it was pitched to us. Shocker - politicians lied.

As of today, I think I like lies from Trump better than lies from Harris. But to be extra clear, they are both completely lying to the citizenry.

Idgas about lies, Igas about actions and results. What I know as the stone cold truth is both sides of the aisle and the exec branch have been spending the tax payer's treasure with reckless disregard. I also gas about spending a billion dollars a piece for 7 EV charging stations and hundreds of millions on green energy companies that go belly up because the tech isn't comparable to crude and coal.

Imo, if we get our government back to performing their constitutional task and honoring their obligations to the citizenry and stop reckless spending and social engineering schemes, the budget will take care of its self in the long run.

 

[WyoDawg307]

I understand all of that but why do the defenders of the spending orgy ALWAYS start with cuts to SS and medicare would have to be made instead of welfare and medicaid? Instead of starting with programs that benefit citizens, why not start with waste, fraud, abuse, over-staffed and redundant federal positions, and on and on. It seems to me you'd start by cutting the little things that would add up to big things first before you started looking at cutting benes the most vulnerable in our society literally paid forty yrs or more in order to receive?

Nuance is hard for some. For others they know it is the 3rd rail that is sacred and it will scare the people who want to do the cutting into giving up. Trump cannot run again, so why not go for every sacred cow within reason? The most meat comes from the biggest animal. Same for fraud. The biggest operations have the largest amount of fraud.

As much fun as gutting the Dept of Energy and Education would be, fraud enforcement on Medicare would reap the biggest bang for the buck. Maybe they can repurpose those 90k IRS agents to chase Medicare fraud instead. A lot more money can be "saved" by pursuing this angel, than chasing down a guy who sold $1000 worth of items on ebay or Stubhub and didn't file a 1099.

 

[Georgia Jim]

Don't underestimate the power of a transgender caterpillar..

Yep...took the Gerbils place some time ago as the go to....

 

[WyoDawg307]

The issue on Medicare and Social Security is that both are directly charged to the citizen against income earned prior to retirement age. These fees are actuarially determined based on various assumptions.

The citizen should privately and individually prepare for their age when no longer working.

Social Security and Medicare was never meant to serve the retired citizen as the only means of income or medical support. It was meant, in some benevolent way by politicians, to be an assist for those who don’t plan well financially.

Social Security “taxes”, paid by the citizen to the government, was to be set aside, invested, and paid back to the citizen.

Medicare “taxes” were set in the same way.

Both of these were placed on the citizen by the government to help provide for the citizen.

While other government programs are funded by taxes, social security and Medicare are taken from citizens even when private options are available, so the return to the citizen who paid into it should be guaranteed as in any investment. These “taxes “ are are actually investment accounts held by and managed by the government.

The problem comes in actuarial formulas. In any investment program, funds available are limited to the deposit and interest earned.

When the entity managing the account misappropriates the funds, the funds are not available to the depositor as promised.

Theses funds have been mishandled and used inappropriately to fund support programs that were never intended or anticipated. Any investment firm that handled our investments in the manner our government has would be shut down with officers in jail.

Bottom line. Allow DOGE to line item government expenditures transparently to show the ridiculousness of our debt structure.

Love ya and I agree with what you said, but I didn't reference social security and I was only talking Medicare and associated health spending. Sure, if a perfect world I could buy market rate insurance for my health the same way I buy auto, home and life insurance. But big government during WW2 made it tax deductible for the employers and here we are today, mired in a morass of another failed government intervention.

Most any Libertarian-leaning or Austrian economist will say that SS is NOT the problem and it can be protected with a couple of actuarial tweaks. Healthcare spending has exceeded inflation (the government lie on the % of inflation) forever. And as such it has grown faster than the overall economy until it is an unbelievably huge and unsustainably large segment of the GDP and budget. Allow millions more illegals in for "free healthcare" just doubles down on healthcare ruining the overall budget.

Nothing costs more that "free government spending". Whether it is college or healthcare, the same element drives up the cost of these items and that comes from our government's intervention in the free market.