In The Dead Of Night Republicans Sneak In A Billion Dollars For Trump’s Ballroom

Inflation from 2000-2020 was 2.1% Then we had 4 years of Biden. 

So revenue has kept up. 

The current mess is a small part of our government's history. It was quite obvious that my comments were not limited to the current administration. It was a remark on government generally, and was in response to a comment that referred to the last 26 years. 

My world and comments do not revolve around "MAGA". My critiques of government are not meant as an embrace of "MAGA"  and I certainly do not lean that way. I find that rather insulting. 

Honestly I feel you are way too quick to label someone that way simply because they disagree with you on a political topic or issue. 

Sometimes I think you act as if you think the only two political philosophies available are "Democratic Socialism" or "MAGA Fascism". 

Just because one thinks the government tends to spend too much money and be wasteful does not mean they are MAGA.

Just because one disagrees with you on the proper role of the federal government and feels it should be more limited does not mean they are MAGA. Things are more nuanced than that. 

I have been critiquing government authority, waste, and spending long before MAGA existed. I will likely continue doing so long after "MAGA" is extinct. 

I'm use to this. For all of my adult life my more "liberal" friends have accused me of being some sort of right-wing wacko, and my more conservative friends have accused me of being some left-wing nut job.

Im stuck in the middle taking it from both sides. Everyone hates a centrist. 

Such is the life of a libertarian and/or classical liberal. 

I don't disagree.

Fiscal responsibility is one of the last attributes I would give to the current administration. 

You're conflating my observation that you concur with many MAGA positions with "you're a MAGA." I've never said the latter. And for what it's worth, I actually do agree with some conservative/Republican/MAGA positions. I'm not an "automatic" liberal by any means, and I think the Democratic party has done some spectacularly stupid things and constantly shoots itself in the foot.

That said, while both parties are prone to fuckups, only MAGA is plain stone cold evil. And the reason I say MAGA is that the Republican party doesn't exist any more; it's been co-opted by Trump fascism.

The trouble with being a "centrist" is that things are rarely at the center, neutral, whatever you want to call it. Virtually every action, policy, stance, thought is either positive or negative; does more good than harm or vice versa; is advisible or not. And as far as the classic definition goes, I think any political position that does not lean strongly in the anti-Trump direction is misguided at best. I also think that liberalism is much, much more faithful to the human condition than conservatism, because change is fundamental to our existence.

I didn't mean to insult you, and I apologize if that's the way you took it. I did want you to compare the government revenue drop in the last eight fiscal years with the concurrent spending increases. That might open your eyes as to whether the current mess is a spending problem or a revenue problem.

Your apology is appreciated. 

If you are saying that you looked up the numbers and that over the last 8 years revenue has decreased more than spending has increased, it sounds plausible and I am willing to accept it as true. Until someone demonstrates otherwise.

However I fully expect that by the time this term ends, spending will have increased by a far greater amount. This administration is certainly no stranger of wasteful spending. 

I expect the administration to make a great show of the taxes that they cut while they hope the people ignore the huge increase in deficit, debt, and spending. It is a slight of hand trick that previous administrations have used. 

That propaganda is already In full force, with the "wastefraudabuse" bleating to try to justify SNAP, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts. And you surely recall the drastically counterproductive adventures of Elon and "Big Balls" about this time last year.

I think any blanket opposition to government spending, mild or vehement, misses the point. There is good spending and bad spending. The definition of both varies from person to person and from one political philosophy to another, but let me pose two:

a) Humanitarian: we look after and pay for the health and security of all Americans. If we can afford to, we also do that for those who live here and those who visit, regardless of nationality. If we can afford that as well, then we contribute to the well-being of those peoples who are not as fortunate as we are.

b) ROI. We focus our spending on the return it generates. We don't do things that wind up costing more than if we hadn't done them.

I cut the Gordian knot by observing that social services and universal medical care fulfill the requirements of both a) and b). Dropping boomity booms on Iranian schoolgirls does not. Building a Fuhrerbunker does not.

Simple.

Addendum: IMHO we should plan our revenues and spending as if everyone who lives in the US was part of one large family (and yes, I'm including FEELTHY IMMERGENTS, but I would make it much easier for them to live here as long as they had a job or were family members if those already here).

Actually now that I think of it. You saying more revenue has been cut than spending has been increased makes me wonder if that figure includes the current war. Or the murders at sea. I would speculate that this current those have cost more than what they cut in taxes. 

I believe there is certainly a debate about whether or not it is the federal government's role to provide the types of social programs you mentioned. (My preference leans towards most of those things being state issues)

 However I also feel that if I was making a list of wasteful or improper federal government spending that we should consider eliminating. Those programs are way down on the bottom of the list. Undeclared/unconstitutional wars/conflicts, Corporate handouts, enforcement of unconstitutional laws, and many other things should be cut first. 

  What murders at sea? Apparently you have no problem with those boats bringing drugs into the U.S., essentially murdering American who take the illegal drugs.

I only used government figures through 2025. But to hypothesize, at the current rate of bleeding, and assuming the Turd doesn't amp things up, this war will cost a third of a trillion dollars by the end of this year. That's about an 8% increase in the deficit. And that ignores the horrific costs to the American consumer.

As many others have pointed out, the persistent MAGA position against wasteful government spending should produce vehement opposition to the Turd war for that reason alone. There are very few people (Boilerman being an exception here, and the Millerpig persona) who want to see their taxes go toward killing Iranian schoolgirls.

The trouble with reducing social programs to state jurisdiction is that doing so would produce rampant inequality: the quality of life would vary drastically from one state to the next. And politics quite aside, some states are wealthier than others. The upshot would be that people would be healthier and live longer in California than, say, Arkansas, and I don't think that's acceptable (the difference in social services and the resultant quality of life due to politics between affluent states like California and Texas is stark enough).