DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What am I missing?

trump says he is doing everything he can to reduce the deficit. But the big stupid bill raises the debt limit. What am I missing?

It raises the debt ceiling which is necessary to meet payments already passed by Congress. Now the national debt may go up because of additional spending in the bill you mentioned.

Donald Trump is lying. There is a pattern. All he cares about is using the government to enrich his portfolio.

It is the golden rule in action… He that has the gold makes the rules.

The debt will continue to rise.



Any time someone tries to cut spending and waste, just look at the outcry over the last few months. Everybody is getting something from the government even if that something is paid for programs like social security. I am not blaming anybody. Everybody has their own ideas of what can be cut and what should be expanded.

You cant compare tax breaks to the rich with social security that every America has paid into. trump has said he has cut 15 trillion in debt. Why does he need to raise the limit? Oh right he is lying.

Ah, Cutting just to cut is idiotic. We need to cut waste and fraud.. No doubt. But look at some things that the "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL" actually cuts.... Youth Cancer Research, Veterans Care, Medicaid Etc....

Is there waste, seems to be. But you go after it with a scalpel not a machete. You save that which is worthwhile and elimate that which isn't. But this regime just says, to hell with that.

As for this bill, everything I've read on it says we are not gonna like what it does to the national debt. Yet, here we are,,

but but trump says it cuts 15 trillion!

There has not been any actual serious or substantive discussion into making legitimate cuts. Everything we've seen so far has been nonsense. That's a strong stance to take, but I think it's also backed up by the facts. DOGE was a mess and their assertions were inaccurate, at best, when you compared what they said against the FPDS data.

If it comes down to eliminating the deficit without increasing revenue, it comes down to one inescapable fact: The great majority of our spending (I want to say 70%?) focuses on healthcare, social security, and defense. This administration just increased the latter by $150B, so that is going in the wrong direction.

Nobody in politics (regardless of party) wants to talk about cuts to the prior two, unless it's Medicaid.

POTUS instructing to eliminate the deficit without increasing revenue or touching Medicare or Social Security is like telling someone to make sure the grass stays green without using water.

On top of all that, we're increasing spending, so....

He is playing a typical bait and switch con game.

On one hand he handed out tax cuts to appease his base. This makes them think he is looking out for them by putting more money in their pockets. When in fact the vast majority of those tax cuts will go to the wealthy. So as per usual they get the cookies while the average American gets the crumbs.

On the other hand he imposes tariffs so the average American will pay more for goods and services that will wipe out all of those tax cuts and cost them more than they gained from the tax cuts which will end up being a net negative to them.

He wraps the import taxes up in a flag and claims it will be good for America to sell it to his base. He brags about all the money these import taxes are bringing in like it's someone else who is paying it. He actually raised their taxes and somehow they can't seem to figure that out.

The taxes we will all be playing in trump's import taxes are how he will try to reduce the deficit while he will make it sound like a brilliant idea. And it will be all of us paying the bill for it.

Same as it ever was.

Works the same as your household expenses-If you have more going out than coming in-you run a deficit.




CBO estimates that Public Law 119-21 will result in a net increase in the unified budget deficit totaling $3.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period, relative to CBO’s January 2025 baseline updated to reflect enacted legislation. That increase in the deficit is estimated to result from a decrease in direct spending of $1.1 trillion and a decrease in revenues of $4.5 trillion.

Some of those budgetary effects are associated with programs that are classified as off-budget. The increase in the on-budget deficit over that period is estimated at $3.4 trillion.

Senate panel rejects Trump cuts to NIH, other health agencies

The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the Trump administration’s massive proposed funding cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), advancing a measure that would increase the agency’s budget by $400 million.

The White House budget called for slashing NIH funding by $18 billion, a decrease of 40 percent. Instead, the committee advanced the bill on a 26-3 vote, delivering a bipartisan rebuke of the administration’s efforts to defund medical research.

“This committee has had multiple hearings over the last several months and heard from patients, families and researchers about the importance of NIH funding,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said. “This committee has, in a bipartisan manner, prioritized NIH and the research it supports to develop life-saving treatments and cures for devastating diseases.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the Trump administration’s massive proposed funding cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), advancing a measure that would increase the agency’s budget by $400 million.

The White House budget called for slashing NIH funding by $18 billion, a decrease of 40 percent. Instead, the committee advanced the bill on a 26-3 vote, delivering a bipartisan rebuke of the administration’s efforts to defund medical research.

The committee rejected the administration’s plan to revamp the way the NIH pays universities, medical schools and other research centers for overhead costs, as well as a proposal to restructure the agency and consolidate all 27 NIH institutes into eight new entities.

The bill includes a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s disease research, a $150 million increase for cancer research, and a $30 million increase for the Office of Research on Women’s Health.

“To the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration: this committee’s resounding message is yes,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee’s vice chair.

“Congress has your back — we’re not going to give up the fight against cancer, Alzheimer’s, or rare diseases,” Murray said.

Democratic committee members also expressed frustration at the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) repeated encroachments into the appropriations process and attempts to halt spending of money that was already approved by Congress.

Since President Trump took office, the NIH has terminated or frozen nearly 5,000 awards totaling $4 billion, while another approximately $15 billion has not yet been obligated.

“Right now, they are illegally hiding apportionments data that would let us know whether funds we passed are being spent as intended and help us strengthen the bills we are in the middle of writing on. It is absurd we have to mark up bills, while being kept in the dark,” Murray said.

Murray and other members repeatedly mentioned an OMB memo from earlier this week that, through a footnote, abruptly prevented the NIH from issuing grants. While the decision was reversed, Democrats said it showed the administration’s disdain for congressional spending authority.

“One footnote, from an unelected bureaucrat — overruling Congress and even NIH, to block $15 billion in funding for things like cancer research,” Murray said.

Outside of the NIH, the bill maintains flat funding for other health agencies and programs, including the Title X family planning program and domestic HIV prevention.

The bill also rejected the nearly $4 billion — or 50 percent — cut and consolidation to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs included in the White House budget request.

But looming over the process is the possibility of another rescissions package from the administration.

“Should the administration put forward a new rescissions package, in many cases, in our bill, we have rejected proposals that the President has made to make drastic cuts. That’s Congress speaking up and saying we have a different position on that, and so I expect my Republican colleagues will stand by the decisions we’ve made,” Baldwin told reporters ahead of the hearing.

Still, the Health and Human Services (HHS) budget is far from being final. The House has so far only passed two of its annual funding bills and has not held an Appropriations Committee markup on its version of the HHS bill.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/senate-panel-rejects-trump-cuts-215236890.html

This may also be something many people missed.

Please explain why DOD gets a 150 billion increase when the rest of the government is taking a haircut.

Homeland security is another issue, it is not DOD. DOGE never sniffed DOD and that was the cherry to pick.

The simple answer is national security. No doubt there is waste. I think most of it is built in to issued contracts. Hard to change that. For the record, I don't mind stout defense spending and understand that defense contractors have to try to recoup some money for contracts that were awarded elsewhere. It's kind of like drug companies. They spend a lot of money developing drugs that never make it to market. It's easy to say tough luck, but you don't want them to close their doors either.

For specifics, ask dawglover. He works for the DOD.

This conversation proves my point. Two people with differing views on what should be cut and what shouldn't. That is why nothing of substance ever happens. On the Congressional level I think they know that things need to be cut, but not in their district or state.

For the record, we often pay for development too. It’s a some source gouge because of all the M&As. Development is a very small fraction of the cost in the life cycle of a platform to boot.

I’ve said before that there are a lot of simplistic ways to reduce defense spending rather substantially. None of it would be a spectacle enough to jump off headlines. I’ve talked about it before. Biggest problem is the stranglehold the defense industry has on both sides of the aisle.

If voters wanted to have a serious look at defense spending - it would include not only how much waste/inefficeincy there is, but also what level of spending is actually needed to keep the country safe. Possibly in order to answer that question look at other countries and decide how safe they are - would anyone mess with China? No ? Well they spend about 1/3 less than the US on defense. Some of that would be cost of product, some might be effienciency. Most of it is because as someone just mentioned - in the US defense spending is tied to politics and in many cases pork barrel spending.

A list of the top 12 spending countries shows just how out of whack we appear to be.


------------------------------Total----- Total % ----GDP%
1 United States 🇺🇸 ------$997B-----36.7%-------3.4%
2 China 🇨🇳----------------$314B-----11.6%-------1.7%
3 Russia 🇷🇺----------------$149B-----5.5%--------7.1%
4 Germany 🇩🇪 ------------$88.5B ----3.3%--------1.9%
5 India --------------------$86.1B-----3.2%---------2.3%
6 United Kingdom 🇬🇧 ---$81.8B-----3.0%---------2.3%
7 Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 -------$80.3B-----3.0% --------7.3%
8 Ukraine --------------- $64.7B-----2.4% --------34.0%
9 France 🇫🇷 --------------$64.7B-----2.4% -------- 2.1%
10 Japan ------------------$55.3B-----2.0% -------- 1.4%
11 South Korea 🇰🇷 --------$47.6B-----1.8% --------- 2.6%

To put some of that into perspective some countries like India, Ukraine and Korea have conflict on their doorstep.

Another factor to justify a reasonably dramatic reduction in US defense spending - NATO countries have not been spending enough. Well below the 2% number agreed. But they are all committed to increasing that spending to 3.5% - so that will be a massive increase in spending within the alliance the US is very much apart of. For every extra $1 spent by EU in 2025, 2026, 2027 .... there should reasonably be an expectation that the US budget can be reduced by a % of that extra contribution to NATO. No?

If we wanted to actually be real—how much of our defense spending is jobs programs for congressional districts? The Pentagon can’t even pass an audit, but we’re supposed to believe we need to outspend the entire planet in order to protect our borders/interests? Maybe it’s time to ask and examine in earnest what are we actually paying for?

I will say that one reason we spend substantially more than other countries is our ability to project power far exceeds any other country, and that aspect is understandably costly.

However, it all comes down to that 60 Minutes episode with Shay Assad, that falls in line with what you are saying when it comes to looking at what we are spending. If you track the cost of our weapon systems over time, there would not be an escalationary index found anywhere that could justify the substantial increase we have had in weapon systems like The Patriot, legacy fighter jets, tanks, etc.

The sole source setup (one manufacturer/OEM) is what is absolutely destroying us. It's not the only thing, but it's probably the worst. There are ways to combat the problems we encounter, but nobody in Washington talks about it. You hear people like Ro Khanna and others talk about getting rid of cost-plus contracts, but that is actually quite moronic. What we have to do is hone in on fixed price contracts for legacy systems, and we are starting to do that. One item of leverage we have - for now at least - is we can request actual costs incurred for previous productions. Contractors fight like hell against it, but we're still entitled to it. That way, we measure prices paid vs costs incurred. We do that both at the prime level, and the subcontract level, which is actually a bigger problem than the prime level. What we often see is contractors realizing substantially lower costs than were forecast to us in their proposals, leading them to achieve windfall profit margins.

Aside from that, we really do need to change the culture of corporate welfare the DoD has become. People often like to use welfare in terms of talking about how it enables people to be lazy. Well, the same goes for corporations. I can say with near certain confidence, if companies like Lockheed and Raytheon were forced to compete in commercial markets, they would get their butts handed to them. They've spent decades now with substantially less competition and it has enabled them to proverbially lie down on the couch all day and make money.