Does the House really want to reduce spending?

[Melensdad]

At least 3 House members seem to be firm NO votes.

Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky each have at least 1 GOP member who is a firm NO. And let's hope these 3 can sway the rest of the house to actually cut spending. Because the proposed budget actually increases spending.

Here is Kentucky House Member Thomas Massie explaining, in simple terms, why this bill should be trashed.

 

[waybomb]

No politician wants to reduce spending.
And if DOGE is doing what it's supposed to be doing, why is the budget increasing?
And it did there that Trump endorsed it.
And the democrats are saying DOGE isn't doing anything, but only pointing out past waste.
So if the democrats are wrong, shut isn't the budget being reduced, significantly???.

 

[Doc]

No politician wants to reduce spending.

I agree. They have had decades to get er done. They give it lip service and that's about it. Then they blame others in congress for failing to reduce spending. It's worked for them for decades.

 

[waybomb]

Trump needs to get his shit together on this budget. He should be denouncing it. Loudly Why not?
We'll lose the bigly in 4 years of he doesn't.
A lot of glad handing this last month with this now. Phuk

 

[waybomb]

So they passed out and guaranteed 3 years in a row of deficits. It's budgetted.

 

[Patriot]

So they passed out and guaranteed 3 years in a row of deficits. It's budgetted.

Depending, of course, on the level of spending cuts and revenue increases there are as well.

 

[Melensdad]

So they passed out and guaranteed 3 years in a row of deficits. It's budgetted.

And under the best circumstances, most optimistic scenarios, we add another trillion or so to the debt.

So we better hope that DOGE can cut $2T

 

[waybomb]

We are being played.
The democrats will be back in 4 years. They will take this bs to the bank.

 

[FrancSevin]

Hmmmmmmm?

Perhaps you guys are over reacting.

As I understand the system, the Congress passes the spending bill which authorizes the President to spend the allocations. So far, President Trump has been cutting back on waste and spending. So, it being under his control, spending may well be reduced.

To get the bill passed is one thing. Actually, writing the checks is a whole nuther matter.

 

[waybomb]

I sure hope so.
But I have doubts

 

[Melensdad]

Hmmmmmmm?

Perhaps you guys are over reacting.

As I understand the system, the Congress passes the spending bill which authorizes the President to spend the allocations. So far, President Trump has been cutting back on waste and spending. So, it being under his control, spending may well be reduced.

To get the bill passed is one thing. Actually, writing the checks is a whole nuther matter.

As Fred said . . . but I have doubts.

So I'll ditto that.

Right now we have judges that are ordering Trump to spend the "frozen" funds.

So we need to see where the power sits. Will the courts win and mandate that the executive branch MUST spend money allocated by the legislative branch? We know that Biden froze projects and got away with it, but now that an activist judiciary has gotten involved this will all play out in the courts.

 

[300 H and H]

So we need to see where the power sits. Will the courts win and mandate that the executive branch MUST spend money allocated by the legislative branch?

They will eventually lose in court, and they know it. But it is about the only thing they can do to slow the Trump Sonomi down.

The power sits with the President I am told, clearly in the Constitution articles.

 

[waybomb]

So we now have a tracker up. Very nicely done. Very informative.

Polymarket - DOGE Savings Tracker

Stay updated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiatives. Access real-time news, analyze spending cuts, and track progress towards the goal of reducing federal expenditure by up to $2 trillion with our comprehensive tracker.

polymarket.com

 

[Melensdad]

Ok, so clearly just a 'snapshot in time' here with $360 in savings per tax payer.
And I am NOT complaining about that savings.
But doesn't each taxpayer 'owe' something like $100,000

 

[waybomb]

If there are 200 million taxpayers, it's 185,000 each.
And IF they actually can sustain 2 trillion per year savings, it's only 18.5 years.
Don't hold your breath.
The approval of the current budget by the house tells me it ain't happening.

 

[snowstorm]

Hmmmmmmm?

Perhaps you guys are over reacting.

As I understand the system, the Congress passes the spending bill which authorizes the President to spend the allocations. So far, President Trump has been cutting back on waste and spending. So, it being under his control, spending may well be reduced.

To get the bill passed is one thing. Actually, writing the checks is a whole nuther matter.

I tend to agree funding is one thing spending is another add in doge and considerably tightening the belt on these departments they may pull it off. Like I said I’m not completely convinced, but they’re definitely working with more information than their sharing. I also think that they’ve got some numbers on what tariffs are going to generate along with their gold visa program. We’ll see. I hope they’re right damn site better than where we were.

 

[waybomb]

SCOTUS just over ruled the activist judge and we don't have to send all that money tonight. Billions saved.

 

[waybomb]

Ok, so clearly just a 'snapshot in time' here with $360 in savings per tax payer.
And I am NOT complaining about that savings.
But doesn't each taxpayer 'owe' something like $100,000

View attachment 188291

It's Friday and nothing has changed?