ADVERTISEMENT

If DOGE is truly transparent

The Senate, with the secret vote of thune as it's leader,....is still the swamp,..the very fact that senators wanted the voting secretive means that they are going against a presidential mandate

We can say the Republicans run all branches of govt,...but the establishment still runs the Senate even if they call themselves Republicans
 
I think it could also help if we could figure out a way to limit direct lobbying by former members. I worry that if you replace the venal motive for re-election with the venal motive for a lobbying gig after they are term-limited out. Without strict lobbying limits, time in Congress becomes an extended job interview for a gig in government relations for a corporation or union. That happens now, but this could exacerbate it.
You're right, lobbyists are the bigger problem. That and term limits are a joint issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brimur
You're right, lobbyists are the bigger problem. That and term limits are a joint issue.
I think there is a way to make term limits work and I can definitely see how they could help in some ways. Just have to avoid the unintended consequences
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lava-Man
I think there is a way to make term limits work and I can definitely see how they could help in some ways. Just have to avoid the unintended consequences
Reform the lobbyist class and how it functions/wields power and set term limits. I'm sold!

While were at it, get rid of PACs, corporate donations, and make it so only registered voters can make limited donations. Campaign spending is out of control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: celticdawg
People have little clue how many government jobs serve no purpose. It’s a significant portion. Aside from spending. The sheer amount of useless jobs they have is astounding.

How much money did California spend on homeless problem? Billions? And ….. their homeless problem is …… they have government officials working for these programs making 6 figures with no incentive to actually fix the problems
 
I’m glad we both agree there is zero chance they are going to cut $2 trillion per year from our current federal budget.

Is decreasing federal spending by $500 billion annually a spectacular outcome? It depends on what gets cut. Are they saving money by decreasing the amount of food safety regulators? I think most people would say that’s not a good cost savings. Are they saving money by taking the FDA review panel for new drugs and taking that from 12 people down to two? I think most people would say that’s not a good savings.

I do believe that each individual government employee could work harder, and there could be potential for layoffs, which could save money, but the idea that whole departments and divisions are just going to be let go as both wrong, and frankly is not going to happen.

Like the ridiculous idea to get rid of the department of education. Absurd. I just don’t want all of the Trump fans to get really mad when none of these things happen. Kind of like when he promised he was going to build a wall and it did not happen. I certainly hope it happens, but anyone who is follow Donald Trump from more than the last 10 years knows that he is full of bluster.
Why cant we rid ourselves from the DOE? Easiest cut there is.
 
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
Not to mention, like a former high ranking government official speaking at a political rally in Georgia said recently, “We have a population problem in America…..”

We don’t have the population necessary to support the benefits like SS & Medicare late in life. When SS was created there were on avg 16-20 workers for every retired person now there is less than 5 I believe (educated guess). Not to mention the life expectancy has increased causing the need of the benefits to last longer.
 
Why cant we rid ourselves from the DOE? Easiest cut there is.
I agree wholeheartedly! Give it back to the states and let them fire all those lazy union teachers that are not qualified to teach. The federal government has ruined education as we used to know it. They only contribute like 10 percent of the budget to the schools yet they run them with all their regulations which has destroyed public education.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT