When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
And here's the tough part: that sounds impressive. But it's merely a side-show. Sure, a $400 BILLION side show. Guess who can't fund ActBlue anymore? Guess who can't funnel money to the Democrats anymore? Guess who has to go out and get a REAL job now? All the wives and husbands of our politicians..
DOGE claims to have targeted a reduction in wasteful spending by appx $180 billion annually. Now, that's a hotly disputed figure, but I'll take it at face value.
USAID is part of the Department of State. The President has said that he wishes to slash the State Dept's budget by 50%, so let's assume that this actually comes to pass. The State Dept's annual budget at the moment is $54.4 billion, half of which is $27.2 billion.
So that's about $207 billion in total annual savings, in a best-case scenario.
It sounds impressive.
It is not. Six months. SIX. MONTHS. It's ******* impressive. Let's revisit this in four years.
The "Big Beautiful Bill" which Trump has been ramming through Congress aims to increase deficit spending in the US to $936 billion this year alone, steadily increasing to $1.4 trillion dollars annually by the year 2034.
That's not total debt, that's the amount EACH YEAR by which the government will spend more than it takes in, thus adding that amount to the total debt each year.
It means that, if all goes according to plan, the total US debt will increase from its present level of $37 trillion dollars (which is $323,052 per taxpayer) to $50 trillion after 10 years. Maybe. But again, scored by the CBO. Have they been wrong before? Well yes, every time they score a Trump policy.
The Trump administration is putting on a puppet show with this business of DOGE and USAID, to make you feel as though they are making incredible strides towards reducing government waste. When they are, in reality, pushing through the largest increases in deficit spending and debt-accumulation in US history.
That's what matters, and that is what is not being talked about.
Trump's second administration became more consequential than Biden's four years, simply with this move. The post was generated on X.com, which is where I go for lots of laughs.
I took a buddy on Monday to my favorite brewery in the "surf ghetto" in San Clemente. It's an awesome indoor/outdoor space with great food, great atmosphere, but low-key and comfortable. He wasn't drinking beer, but he perked up when he saw a Coke in a glass bottle.
"OOOhhh, is that Mexican Coke?" Yep. Made with sugar, not corn syrup. That's what he ordered.
Here is a direct copy-n-paste, straight from the first section:
(4) DEFICITS.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $936,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $961,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,073,837,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,239,653,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,177,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,265,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,282,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $1,321,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $1,466,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $1,404,891,000,000.
(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $36,525,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $37,838,733,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $39,140,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $40,566,455,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $42,102,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $43,583,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $45,068,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $46,595,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $48,382,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $50,481,979,000,000.
Got that? It is the stated goal of the President and the Republican-majority Congress to increase the annual budget deficit from $936 billion this year to $1.4 TRILLION by 2034, and to increase the total debt from $37 trillion to $50 trillion during the same period.
This is not conjecture, speculation, or analysis. It is the plainly-spelled-out thing which the Republicans who we elected last year are now, at this very moment, voting in favor of.
We need to reduce spending by reducing the size of the government.
I agree.
This is exactly the opposite of what the President and the Congress are actually doing right now, while we are distracted by the little trinkets they are waving in front of us in the form of miniscule layoffs at highly public agencies.
It seems to me that everyone is arguing about which side is more feckless than the other, when the reality is that the difference between Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative is like the difference between Swiss chocolate and Dutch chocolate, at least on the national stage.
The real conflict is between the D.C. lizards and the people like us who have to finance their power trips. I’m afraid that we’ve already lost.
My favorite quote from the original Star Trek - “Only a fool fights in a burning house.”
This is exactly the opposite of what the President and the Congress are actually doing right now, while we are distracted by the little trinkets they are waving in front of us in the form of miniscule layoffs at highly public agencies.
See my post directly above this one.
I don't think that a new administration CAN reduce the size of government---either side--simply because of the corporate capture. That's why I think that Trump is messing with tariffs. And reducing the size of government in a meaningful way. AND reducing the main costs of government, which is health care and illegal aliens using all of our social programs. It ain't just one thing.
Regardless, you're right (along with millions of others) to point out that Washington has a spending problem. Hell, I stopped watching Sean Hannity years ago, but his big push was for Connie Mack and Mike Enzi's "Penny Plan." No more "baseline budgeting", and reduce spending by 1 penny on the dollar for 10 years.
Seems simple, right? And yet Washington won't do it.
Edit: If Grok was my brain, it would say:
(edited for length)
1. Where Did the Build Back Better Act Get Its Deficit and Debt Numbers? The Build Back Better Act’s fiscal projections were primarily based on CBO cost estimates, supplemented by analyses from other sources like the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and, to a lesser extent, the Biden administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Here’s how it worked:
Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
Methodology: The CBO started with its baseline budget (assuming current laws), then added the bill’s spending (e.g., $1.7 trillion for social and climate programs) and subtracted revenue increases (e.g., $1.2 trillion from taxes and IRS enforcement). Debt estimates included deficit impacts plus interest costs, calculated using projected interest rates (e.g., 2.5% for 10-year Treasury notes in 2021) ().
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT):
Biden Administration and OMB:
Other Sources:
Last edited by cordycord; Jul 17, 2025 at 01:46 AM.
I don't expect much change out of the federal government during this administration because the federal government is fully captured by longer-term actors than any single president.
35,000 kids sex-trafficked by NGO's and HHS? Is it true?
Does any of this EVER get prosecuted? If thousands of kids were indeed sex-trafficked, will anyone pay? Lately it seem like there's only outrage, but no punishment.
It's full of ads, its full of half-truths, it's full of big bold headlines that never come true, it's full of unverified statements, it's a shitty junk rag.
I think they reported once that Tucker was going to leave FOX to become the Director of OAN...
It's full of ads, its full of half-truths, it's full of big bold headlines that never come true, it's full of unverified statements, it's a shitty junk rag.
I think they reported once that Tucker was going to leave FOX to become the Director of OAN...
I've lost faith is most outlets, left and right-leaning. They suck. You need to aggregate by yourself and then discern (divine?) what's really happening.
I've lost faith is most outlets, left and right-leaning. They suck. You need to aggregate by yourself and then discern (divine?) what's really happening.
Somewhere out there, Rick Astley is smiling. Just like Sergio Perez every F1 weekend.
0
