US pauses all federal aid and grants
bbc.com
bbc.com
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
It makes me a little sad just reading your criticism.
When we hit a point of diminishing returns do I still need to pay incrementally more into this?
I should bear 0 cost.
It looks like US Foreign Aid is ~1% of the Fed budget, so 1% of my taxes. So again, too much.
It's a bundled deal, sorry. It's not just governments that avoid admin overheads - no auto insurance I know will let you pick which specific impacts to insure against a la carte, just to reduce your premiums.
Also, no 2 people will ever agree on the same government spend (to the nearest million), so I don't see the point of your exercise to personally quantify how ones tax dollars should be directed. The point of having a representative government is so that individual citizens don't need referendum on how much to pay for toilet paper at an USAF base in Japan, or disease reconnaissance in central Africa - but both things benefit US citizens (broadly speaking) and need to be done, so congress allocates the money.
And this is why Trump turned it all off. The bundled deal is not working for too many voters. They want Trump to negotiate a new deal on their behalf.
I am certain they'll get the deal they deserve. For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong
All I can say is, probably not none.
And maybe a note on diminishing returns, in that we might want to reflect on the eradication of smallpox and the near total eradication of polio, and what it has meant to you and to your community to not really have to worry about those diseases.
If it is clearly personal and you do not have an objective answer then let this be a cause we can choose to donate to based on our personal assessment.
Who makes shoes/other goods, mines the earth, or other dangerous work? The people in those poor countries. These programs are often the stepping stone that western countries use to enter countries and "develop the economy" in these areas to the benefit of everyone. Developing the economy brings jobs then brings peace. Then the cost of goods stays down.
Fewer orphans. More experience treating diseases. More stable economies to exchange goods and services with.
Very likely these programs pay for themselves via your taxes via price of goods and services. Entirely ignoring the moral good
All of these programs came after we established our position.
$14.03 per American per year.
The policy mechanisms that are coming into play today were the ones proposed in Project 2025. We had been talking about this for months before the election.
I mean, you aren't going to like playing second fiddle to China, but that's the choice you are making right now.
Considering the Covid lab-leak theory has been confirmed now, we can confidently say that paying for disease research in the world causes more disease.
These people are beyond logic.
You wanted everyone to admire the US and exported the American dream to be the ideal of the world.
Why is it important for America to enforce freedom in every oil rich country - apparently even Canada now!
You can take a "mission accomplished" stance and be done with it, but if America wants to maintain it's standing in the world, these sorts of programs will need to continue.
Without the US footing the bill for this, China will come in with Chinese aid, and teach these countries how to adopt the Chinese ideology.
Trump-Americans are indeed rejecting the post-WWII world order. It is no longer serving us.
Trump is renegotiating the deal with the rest of the world. It could blow up in our faces or we could end up in a more favorable position.
That order was defined by the tension between the east and the west during the cold war, and it can't be overstated what an existential threat communism was perceived as by the west during this period.
Half a century of American politics were based on the premise that if the US did not win against the Soviets, the entire world would live under a world wide oppressive communist regime. Freedom would be a historical footnote.
This meant that the US urgently needed to have its shit together at all points, not just function well, but also look good. The war against communism was fought in the hearts and minds of the world's population.
Since the Soviet union fell, and with nobody to keep the US honest anymore, it's arguably let itself go.
In part it's metaphorically stopped sucking in it's stomach, to hide its flaws and present itself as flawlessly glamorous. Some of the American decline is problems that have existed for a long time that have now been brought to the surface; but I think the lack of competition is also just as big of a factor.
New powers have emerged in the vacuum left behind the Soviet union, yes, but these are all knock-on effects, and I don't think they're perceived as the sort of existential threat as the communists were. Some are trying to paint them that way, but it's not nearly the same.
“I’m worried WW3 is coming… best we destroy our alliance between the wealthiest and most powerful nations on the planet first!”
Brilliant strategy.
Aka you probably should he worried about exceedingly damaging deranged behavior on the part of an individual who is bent upon expanding the powers of the already most powerful office in the land.
It will cause lasting damage.
Trump has already managed to unify all of latin America against him. Bullying will have consequences, and creating enemies out of friends is a very foolish path.
If cost savings were the true concern, there are many less harmful ways to effect them, so don't give me a story of necessity. The belligerence and cruelty is intended.
The Latin America stuff is not bullying. Look at Colombia, Petro's government collapsed after his stunt because even his own government knew he was stupid and picked a bad fight.
Cost savings is just one of the concerns here. A lot of bad things happen downstream of these US Taxpayer funds, including NGOs who use those funds to enable mass illegal immigration.
I'm a Canadian so I'm biased on the topic but it seems what Trump is doing to Canada is completely unreasonable.
Now you just buy media.
Gates has given many billions to public health initiatives as well
However, it also has other factions, especially since Trump and his often bizarre, even irrational takes on what's important, basically took over the Republican Party, making a number of Republicans now also shun programs that previously, they wouldn't have so much as blinked at. This is cowardly of these people, but it's also par for the course with ideological shifts in political leadership.
The rest of the world is in competition with China. They are trying to sell, not buy.
Cool story though.
> Ah yes, the desperately poor are notorious for pulling the strings of global finance. Best to stay on their good side.
You wanted everyone to admire the US and exported the American dream to be the ideal of the world.
> The American dream has nothing to do with giving our money away to foreigners, actually.
Why is it important for America to enforce freedom in every oil rich country - apparently even Canada now!
> focus
You can take a "mission accomplished" stance and be done with it, but if America wants to maintain it's standing in the world, these sorts of programs will need to continue.
> Our standing is derived from our success--from our military, financial and cultural dominance. Your opinions as to our generosity have no bearing whatsoever on our standing.
Without the US footing the bill for this, China will come in with Chinese aid, and teach these countries how to adopt the Chinese ideology.
> These countries don't matter.
but whats the costs overall of changing the official US name of "gulf of mexico" to "golf of mexico"
or the cost to everyone of all this disruption?
whats the costs ive had to pay from Turmp bungling the covid response? how many bungled responses am i going to have to pay for because trump doesnt want the US to have a leading role in the WHO?
the cost of all these deportions? both immediate and future? why am i paying for this RTO mandate that Musk wants to run?
whats the cost of all these tariffs trump's about to put in? wheres my opt out?
Strange thing to be asking honestly.
America is home to over $750 billionaires who would be paying zero income tax. Personally I think that should be what changes.
This is not a serious position. Cost is always a factor.
You may like the stench of death and despair all around you - I sure don't want to live in that world.
If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove to you that it was all going to care for those less fortunate than you, would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%?
What quality of life are you aiming for the recipients? Do they each get a cot in a shelter? Their own room? Their own apartment or house? Do they get it with no strings attached or do they have to try to improve their own lot while the taxpayer helps them?
How long do we want to extend lives for? Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. Should a 95 year old get hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend their lives for 6 months?
These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now.
Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing.
That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength.
Edit:
> that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending
The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.
We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.
1- Campaign on promise of mass deportations and massive cuts to Fed gov
2- Win the election
3- Begin presidency
4- Deliver campaign promises to cut spending & deport illegal immigrants <--*We are here*
I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both.
I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.
What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.
The social safety net that governments provide today used to be a function of community charities and churches. Even modern healthcare has an analogue here.
That is absolutely not a given. The currently in-power minority earnestly believe that people are only due the level of healthcare they can personally fund and afford, period.
> These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now.
Which Americans? There's no grand debate happening right now, just a table-flipping tantrum.
It's a fun exercise to do the chin-stroking thing of asking about efficiency and tax rates and so on, but it's so disconnected from the reality of the federal budget that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a cynical tactic.
Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending, and there are effectively no limits to it. Meanwhile, extremely high-leverage foreign aid (like the HIV-related treatments that have been mentioned) are always first on the chopping block, along with things like school lunches and early childhood education that have been demonstrated to be effectively free in terms of how much spending on remediating bad outcomes later in peoples' lives.
>Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending
This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.
In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.
Did we watch the same campaign? Trump absolutely campaigned on ending DEI too. The electorate hates DEI programs. Cutting spending and DEI programs is what got him the popular vote.
sigh
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59729
Defense accounted for $805B out of a total discretionary budget of $1.7T. The next largest category (using the CBO's classifications, not mine) are veteran's benefits @ $131B, and it goes down from there. If you want to quibble with what "overwhelming majority" means, I guess you can do that, but I doubt that's interesting to anyone.
I'll wait for you to 'disprove' the above.
tbc, I am not surprised by any of this (as you say, he was very clear about his intentions), but let's not pretend that there is any policy-specific valence to the outcome of any vote in the current electoral system. People vote as they do for their own (usually terrible, and usually unrelated to policy) reasons, and the people that win get to do what they will with the power bestowed upon them. Insofar as Trump's and Republicans' actions make life for the bottom ~80% harder, don't be surprised as buyers' remorse sets in pretty heavily. And so goes the "debate".
805/1722 = 0.467
I should have said is that defense is the largest single category of discretionary spending, by a large margin. The thrust of the point remains.
Defense spending is absolutely a priority of this administration. SecDef Hegseth's whole thing is about reorienting the Pentagon back to American defense as the priority. Remember that getting Hegseth confirmed was a major push for the brand new admin.
So spending won't go down but will hopefully be spent more effectively.
Until last November, Hegseth's "whole thing" was being a frat anchor / defense witness for Fox. Talking about him being anything like a serious figure is absurd.
Why ask about raising individual American taxes while turning a blind eye to Trump gunning at lower corp taxes even more than he already had? And we know it will happen because he gets it done, for America *cough oilarchs*
I would be okay with Trump raising the corporate tax rate, instead of saving some 296 of the largest US companies $240B in taxes between 2018-2021[0]. Though this time should be even more, right? He's going to take it to a whole new level of lowest tax rate for Corporates than "any nation on earth". Can't wait for him to lower the tax burden on Big Corp even more, Those C-suites, investors, have such a hard life scrapping by the way they do. No wonder they can't afford better wages for the workers. Let's keep the tax burden on the middle class where it belongs so we can Make America Great Again.
[0] https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-...
No they’re actually not. You made those questions up as absurd examples, and they’re absurd.
Americans are already paying far more in privatised taxation - tribute - to healthcare companies, landlords, fossil fuel companies, and loan sharks of various kinds - than they would pay with higher federal tax rates investing in R&D, infrastructure, education, clean energy, and public health.
There's nothing hypothetical about pointing out that the billionaire economy is massively distorted and extractive, and is caused huge public harm which will literally remain visible for geological timescales.
An issue with this is that it isn't just current tax payers and tax revenues that are paying for this federal spending, but a ballooning debt due to a budget deficit. The brunt of this debt's interest burden is going to fall on the future tax payer.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment on whether this pausing action was warranted. I'm only responding to the part of the user's comment implying that federal spending is being paid for by current taxes, when it is not necessarily. As a decent chunk is paid for by debt, some of the current federal spending will be the responsibility of future tax payers, including those who cannot yet vote, as these future tax payers will be the ones paying off the interest.
Create an emergency that wasn't there (cut all the fed aid and grants, muck up the government, etc)
Make a solution that will fix it (the soon to be tax bill, also the secretary positions and other stuff)
Stuff that solution with every policy candy you can (pro-life, tax cuts, guns for tots, funding catholic schools, etc. It's going to be a conservative jelly doughnut)
Due to the emergency, we must pass this bill (ram through the tax bill asap, no need to read the thing, blame the slackers, etc)
Declare victory, hope that helps reelection
EDIT: To be clear, I don't think that's what is going through the new admin's heads. At best, I think it's more of a 'pull things out of the engine until it stalls, then put things back in and hope it runs again' kinda thing. But more likely, it seems they really haven't a clue what they are doing. All those people in the first admin that put country in front of self are gone this time around, and it shows.
It is beyond me how younger people especially are not rioting in the streets with the amount of money that the government has been spending.
But if the government acted more selfishly , like a corporation (it's heading that way), then yes you are also competing with the government in certain areas. It partly depends if the billionaires in question and your semi-fictional idea of government are colluding directly. In which case you would be competing with a n-trillion dollars of capital for things like housing, some of which is controlled by billionaire beneficiaries. Essentially government monopolies are what you might be worried about, which do exist.
In reality the government also spends some of its money on infrastructure and other common-goods, which creates common wealth. The government (with central banks) also creates money so the idea of direct competition (which makes no sense to me outside of something like sovereignty over large amounts of land / mineral wealth / taxable subjects ) isn't so relevant.
How do you know your taxes are not going where they should? Do you wish for them not to be used to help the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable?
Was DARPA's tax payer investment in ARPNET worth it or DOD with GPS?
I'm not saying there is abuse in the system, any should be found and dealt with. Nor saying spending should stays the same, money needs to move improve the health, well-being and wealth of non-rich.
Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes.
Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive.
Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872.
* Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.
As I stated, it is much easier to double growth when you're small and ultimately, growth rate doesn't matter as you can't spend growth rates. Nominal growth matters. The economy increasing by $5.5k per capita (2011 $) in the period after the civil war is a lot less impressive than increasing by $23k after WW2.
That is also the time period of the Labor wars. Those with money and power were miss-treating the average worker. Again goes against the health, well-being, and wealth of the US citizens. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S...
Part of the hilarious hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party is that they long for the glory days of the 1950s...but are completely opposed to the tax policy required to pay for it or the economic and social policies to implement it.
I think these particular people would be happy to forego all economic progress made in the last 70 years if it meant they could return to a time when being male, white, straight, and Christian was all it took to be at the top of the social order.
why the state sponsored militia, when i could be contributing to some other militia?
I'm all for reigning in government spending and our unprecedented deficit, but not sure throwing a stick of dynamite into the grant office is the best approach.
In many ways, Americana seem to be voting for the country to devolve into anarchy.
I think that's overstating the case. There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. They might or might not be empirically wrong in their beliefs, but don't mistake voting for enthusiasm.
And "the majority" of voting Americans is technically 49.8%. With 63.9% turnout, that's only 31.8% of eligible voters.
Even if both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt to about the same extent there is still large variation among individual politicians in both parties.
P.J. O'Rourke, a well known conservative author and journalist, said it well in 2016 when he announced this:
> I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary.
> I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place.
> She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is palpable.
Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose, and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.
Evidence is that they don't.
They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over.
If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices.
They wanted Trump--specifically.
> If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices.
I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections.
Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress.
In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.
It's interesting that in this entire thread following my original comment, not one comment has defended Democrats by describing how they do good things and significantly help the public. Talk about a severe lack of imagination.
That the choice is always phrased in terms of harm reduction just proves my point about the duopoly and corruption. Why are better things never possible?
One of the all time great tweets. People might well want a chaos agent on their TV, because politics has become wrestling. They absolutely will not like it when the chaos comes back to them, which they have assumed it won't. Look at how many people were complaining about the price of eggs before the election; now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government.
What makes you think we had a "functional" federal government before the election?
You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. When the people are desperate, they make desperate choices. There's a reason that Biden was extremely unpopular at the end of his term. Don't ignore that.
False equivalence or just false.
By many measures the Democratic Party is still an ordinary political party that tries to enact particular policies to address particular problems based on facts and a cost-benefit analysis. The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on. You may disagree with these priorities, but the majorities who elected them do agree with them. And in fact, typically a majority of Americans, including many who vote against Democrats, also agree with these priorities.
The Republicans also run on platforms but are much less successful at converting their positions into legislation, largely because their coalition contains a fractious contingent that is motivated by attention more than policy goals, but also because in the event they get cold feet: they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example. The repeated attempts to repeal the ACA is another.
What you're reacting to, I think, is the failure to pass policy due to checks and balances -- you need both houses of the legislature, the executive, and, increasingly, agreement of the courts. But even if the policy passed, nearly 50% of the populace would think they had been failed by its passage.
I hope you and I don't have to learn how functional the government was before the Republicans broke it. The avian flu is a great test case. International trade is another. Here's hoping the mass layoffs Trump intended to set into motion and the collapse of state and local governments due to sudden budget shocks doesn't set off another Great Depression. That would be another interesting test case. What happens when ram the ship of state into a granite cliff?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081114051543/https://barackoba...
The IRA?
The ACA was more or less Romneycare, a Republican idea, but ironically passed with zero Republican votes. The ACA was a permanent government subsidy to the very health insurance companies that people hated and continue to hate, as evidenced by the recent celebration over the murder of a health insurance CEO. The ACA has not resulted in universal health care. It has not ended medical debt and bankruptcy. It has not ended the practice of claim denial. It has not controlled health insurance premium costs, which have surpassed the inflation rate despite bad inflation in recent years.
In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are contolled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
> they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example.
Um, they succeeded at that. Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
I agree with much of what you say, but the ACA is popular. Its popularity is growing. Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something. The rest is just goalpost moving. You set out an extreme position: "completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades". They passed the ACA. The ACA is popular, has brought the cost of healthcare down, brought health coverage to millions of people, etc., etc. I wouldn't have preferred this system, but it obviously is not a complete failure.
> In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are controlled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
Sure, and this sucks, but "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans" is a recipe for cynicism and resignation, not revolution.
> Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
I pointed this out precisely because they did succeed at it. They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well. In every national election this year around the world the ruling party was thrown out. This is the first time since ... well, since the chart I got this fact from begins, that no election was one by an incumbent party:
https://jabberwocking.com/bad-economies-only-recently-starte...
That Harris came as close as she did actually shows that the headwinds against the Republicans have continued.
My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
It's more popular than nothing, of course. I wouldn't trade it for nothing either.
> Its popularity is growing.
This is somewhat misleading. Over the years, its polling has gone up and down within a range. https://news.gallup.com/poll/654101/health-coverage-governme...
> Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something.
This is the kind of Sophie's Choice I hate. Single-payer health care was proposed in the US in the 1970s but was killed by Jimmy Carter, inspiring Ted Kennedy to primary challenge him. We could have had it, and still could have it.
Polling doesn't tell the whole story, because single-payer was taken off the table for decades. It wasn't part of the public debate, because hardly any political leaders advocated for it, not even Democrats. Bernie Sanders, a socialist, almost single-handedly resuscitated single-payer. Regardless of the polling, single-payer is demonstrably superior, as shown by nearly every developed country in the world besides the United States. The reason we don't have it is massive corruption, the health care industry buying off opposition. Buying Democrats as well as Republicans.
> "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans"
I didn't say that. I said they're both corrupt.
> They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well.
Third? What third? Dobbs was decided in 2022. To say that Republicans "struggled" seems like an overstatement. Perhaps they won fewer seats in Congress than they could have, but they still took control of the House in 2022, adding the Senate and Presidency in 2024. If only Democrats experienced such a "struggle".
> My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
Republicans gained full control of the federal government a mere two years after Dobbs. That's winning, not losing.
Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understatement.
Trump sells fucking bibles to schools. Trump launched a shitcoin right before his inauguration. Trump took 1 million dollars per CEO for his inauguration. The corruption scales are off the charts with Trump. You can’t talk about "the lesser of 2 evils" when one of them is a literal wannabe dictator / mafia boss / cult leader. Come on.
I wasn't trying to argue about who exactly is the lesser of evils. As I said, the voters might be wrong about who that is. My point was merely that not everyone who voted for Trump, or voted for Harris (or Biden or Clinton), was enthusiastic about their choice. Not everyone was trying to "own the other side". In fact, many people vote primarily based on their beliefs about their personal economic prospects. As a famous 1992 campaign slogan said, it's "the economy, stupid".
The president ran on a platform of brazen corruption and retribution against political foes, and he's following through.
Democrats doing insider trading and other low stakes small ball shit really should not be mentioned in the same conversation.
Er, plus supporting genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and repression of peaceful protest of the same with our tax dollars. Not what I would call "low stakes small ball shit", and not something I will ever overlook or forget.
Democrats had four years to find a strong candidate to beat Trump, or to find a way to hold him accountable. It didn't seem to me like they even tried very hard to do that.
Even after all their 'mistakes', if that's what they were, they could still have handily won the election simply by promising to enforce an arms embargo. They had lots of polling showing this fact very clearly. Over 30% of 2020 Biden voters in battleground states said the lack of an arms embargo would probably affect their vote!
You - and every 2024 Dem voter - might ask yourselves why Democrats would rather hand the Presidency to Trump than stop supplying the bombs killing Palestinians.
If the Democratic Party leadership were capable of learning, they would ask themselves what they could have done differently to turn out the folks who stayed home. Instead they will blame the left, put their head in the sand and run the same losing strategy next election expecting different results. The fact that democrats are our best defense against authoritarianism means this country is pretty much toast.
https://truthout.org/articles/rights-groups-say-bidens-israe...
... And? What is the point you're trying to make here - that there's a 12 month statute of limitations on openly advocating for ethnic cleansing?
How many residents of Gaza ended up in Egypt or Jordan? I rememeber that kerfuffle and basically Egypt and Jordan said absolutely not, and it didn't happen. Trump is a loudmouth, so it's unlikely that he'll follow through on this (fortunately) but personally I count the chances of him doing something like this much, much higher than I did for the other US party (both of whom's policy on Gaza/Palestine has been really bad).
* Four UN ceasefire vetoes said otherwise.
* Over 100 weapons shipments, including 2,000 lb unguided bombs, said otherwise.
* Using the power of the government to smear peaceful student protesters spoke mountains.
* Biden's repetition of debunked mass rape lies painted a pretty clear picture.
* Constant gaslighting from Blinken, Patel and Miller re Israeli atrocities such as Hind Rajab or the Al Nasr babies said otherwise.
* A firm commitment from Kamala that there would be no arms embargo, "no matter what", said otherwise with crystal clarity.
I find the rewriting of history on this topic deeply disturbing.
Source on that?
You can Google the term and find articles referencing it, and a quick search on any social media platform will show usage as well. You can even find it used on HN. You can buy "Genocide Joe" merch on Amazon. People called him that to his face[0].
[0] https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/genocide-joe-yelle...
If a politician happened to enrich themselves while simultaneously helping the public, then shrug, I can live with that. But the latter part, the most important part, isn't happening.
There is no equivalent of Trump or JD Vance on the democratic side.
My bold prediction: the deficit will continue to grow at record levels.
He does not have the mandate from the electorate that he claims, so let’s stop acting like he does.
Maybe this is a way of doing the same thing. If people defend funding something strongly, it might deserve it, and if not...
And how many NGOs have become too powerful and too meaningless and even detrimental to the US? I simply don't see aligned incentives. For instance, the more homeless are on the street, the more funding an NGO gets. Then how will the NGO have any incentive at all to truly help the homeless? Similarly, the more illegal passing at the border, the more funding NGOs will get. Then, why would they help close the border at all?
That assumes the NGOs, like for-profit corporations*, are motivated solely by funding. Have you ever worked for an NGO seeking to help the homeless? Do you know anyone who does? I assure you they are differently motivated from a big-tech CEO. They typically work to achieve a sense of purpose, not power boats.
* And of course for-profit corporations almost always have more motivations than just profit. Sometimes they even describe them to shareholders. Cynics label official motivations for a corporation other than profit as "virtue signaling", as though the corporation has both true and feigned feelings, but it has neither. And if the feelings of the officers, employees, and owners of the corporation align with its official "feelings" is immaterial, only whether progress towards the goals they motivate is measurable.
So, how quickly will this be overturned?
That, or they impeach, which is utterly laughable.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/non-profits-health-groups-sue-...
[2] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...
EDIT:
And it has been blocked, for now: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants...
Why is this submission flagged?
While I agree that OpenVMS is cool, I think the fate of over 20 million lives (due to the suspension of PEPFAR) deserves more weight than an obscure 50 year old operating system.
This question, phrased in the general case, is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. (Look for "Why is A ranked below B even though A has more points and is newer?")
In the present case, users flagged it and it set off the flamewar detector. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42857139.
Overall as a non-american HN to me is a technical forum.
I know everything involves politics, but I honestly don't come to HN to know about about the US budget Federal decisions.
The general gist of it is "well, everyone else likes this so you should be okay with it too". Usually the person arguing in that direction is one of "everyone else".
I've never found it super convincing.
Personally, I don't actually think that the technical discourse here is super great- occasionally I see things from highly knowledgeable folks, but a lot of the time it's just hacks out a hackin.
HN is a forum run by venture capitalists and folks who are tied to that either aspirationally or professionally.
I get a lot of information about how that group of folks thinks from this site, and I find it helpful in understanding their affect on the world I live in.
You're welcome to have whatever preferences you have for the site, but it's not how I have been interacting with it for the last decade.
To the point about flagging, I am always surprised how willing folks are to believe that every other social media algo is gamed, but just assumed that there is no manipulation going on with their own media consumption.
I mean, go write a bot to flag stuff using ghost accounts, I don't care- I get my "HN front page" from a set of search terms, which will show a lot of dead and flagged content. It's pretty trivial to see what happens if you're looking to know that kind of thing, and other folks have written at least two tracking systems I know of for killed HN content.
I can totally buy that the reality of empire and its internal contradictions are uncomfortable enough for the tech bros that seem to make up the most of the site. The idea that they reflexively repress anything "political" sounds reasonable.
That doesn't seem like a great premise, but I buy it better than the idea that I should be beholden to that same ideal in my use of the site.
As a non-American, this is massive on its own, and could be absolutely world-changing depending on how it evolves. The US are where they are thanks to a great brain drain, powered by both industry and government money. Messing with this will have consequences, particularly coupled with visa restrictions. Or not, if Trump flip-flops once more. In any case, this is very important news for any technology- or science-adjacent field, including health and medicine.
I know it's satisfying, but that's a risky way to think if you care about the truth.
Users flagged the submission and it also set off the flamewar detector, a,k.a. the overheated discussion detector.
No mods or admins touched this post. , or even saw it until someone sent an email about it. Then I turned off the flags and the flamewar penalty.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790729 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716926 (please don't say "paywall", there are so many submussions under the paywall from US-based magazines)
Who are these "users" and how to stop them? Thank you.
You guys do get that HN is not a site for arguing angrily about the hottest political controversies and/or divisive personalities? If so, it shouldn't be a puzzle why community members flagged those posts: that kind of thing is not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I have to be very careful in my support for the "wrong" side in touchy topics lest I be down-voted and flooded with low-effort jabs by frankly very smart and knowledgeable people. These people can bash me with their "intelligence" despite them many times being wrong or not understanding my point or seeing that we have simply have different principles manifesting in different views. This transcends tech, politics and any other realm we regularly discuss here.
You made it sound like you were linking to evidence, but it’s just another post by yourself making the same unsubstantiated claim. That’s worth nothing. If anything, dang has shown over time they avoid silencing these discussions, it’s obvious users are the flaggers.
All the entities that were receiving those grants and aid have already obligated it. They have rented office space, hired employees, purchased equipment. And all of the entities they have contracted with using this money have done the same. If they have to dissolve, they won't be there to start up again if the courts manage to compel the administration to execute the laws as written. (And Trump is also famous for protracted lawsuits which he wins by default when some deadline has passed.) Closed storefronts don't tend to open with the same business.
I don't mind when rich fools learn hard lessons. Their self-esteem drops but their quality of life doesn't. It sucks when poor people are the blackboard on which this hard lesson is written.
First the inspectors general firing, and now this - which seems to be illegal impoundment?
How long until these get pushed up to the constitutional courts where the judges can be legally bribed?
An impeachment of a GOP president, by a GOP House and GOP Senate? With one of the GOP reps trying to give him a third term:
* https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...
* https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-third-term-amendment-c...
Sure.
The GOP are now basically accomplices.
They also know which way the crowd/mob leans, and they know if they want to achieve their goals/agenda
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
they need to have power
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
If you don't have power you can't do shit. Just ask Harris/Biden/Clinton.
“The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” ― Abbie Hoffman, Steal This Book
At this point, at least in the US, ideals are for suckers and losers. You can have ideals once you're in, but being effective is more important before that.
It's honestly astonishing.
Trump was impeached twice by the House but was not convicted by the GOP-controlled Senate twice.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
The second impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection".
Pardon my bluntness, but what planet are you living on?
There is no "opposition" power structure in the US system.
If congress brings a bill to a vote, democrats can threaten to filibuster it, but the GOP can pretty easily call that bluff right now.
That's it. That's the only "power" a minority party has in the US system.
Can you enumerate some of the things that they could do, given recent actions have all been Executive Orders, which is the prerogative of the Executive branch.
Unless things start happening in the legislature, where perhaps things like filibustering are an option, what options do the Democrats have against purely Executive actions?
Biden had a very long time to do a lot of things. You can get a lot done with a bit of creativity and a willingness to cause a few constitutional crisis'.
By supporting someone who attempted a self-coup:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_T...
[0] https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...
Some of these could hurt the districts with republican representation the most. Like food stamps, unemployment, and similar. So maybe something this stupid will wake people up?
A lot of other policies could be twisted so trump isn’t directly blamed. This is… pretty cut and dry if you suddenly stop getting money you rely on.
So maybe it’s actually possible? One can hope.
Maybe I'm just too cynical anymore but I have almost no faith in the American electorate.
I think the only way I am going to be sane over the next 2 or 4 years is to hold out some sliver of hope…
But... hasn't Donald Trump ready been impeached, trialed, found guilty of several crimes, several times with total impunity?
Like, at.this point from here it seems he can do as he pleases. He could very well shoot someone and he will get away with it.
The only hope for the US as a country is some kind of natural disaster (heart attack , stroke or similar).
See: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/26/nx-s1-5195528/trump-impoundme...
So presumably he wants this to go to the Supreme Court. If the court rule against him, then Congress's authority is preserved, so I doubt they will impeach him. If the court rules in his favor, then I doubt they'd impeach him over something the court agrees with him on.
do you think Trump is playing this by ear? this term is unique because he has an experienced team that has already served one term, they are aware of what comes after leaving office, they had 4 years to plan ahead, and they can blame the previous administration for a lot of stuff.
if Trump was going to serve two terms anyway, this is the worst-case scenario for democrats.
Businessmen do enjoy their short-term gains afterall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/deb7af80-48b6-4b8a-... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25506191-omb-memo-1-...
Side note the OMB (agency issuing memo in question) website redirects straight to whitehouse.gov, which seemingly was not previously the case.
Was written twice. I appreciated that.
So, as of this order, the US just had an ~$3 the trillion drop in GDP. Much of it to research and nonprofits.
I guess the article or link has been updated?
--Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Trump denied any affiliation, claimed he didn't know these people. (Even though many are folks he's already worked with.) The media accepted that unquestionablably & regurgitated Trump's obvious lies.
>> It seems to be what people wanted!
> It is not what he campaigned on […]
"Trump’s vow to only be a dictator on ‘day one’ follows growing worry over his authoritarian rhetoric"
* https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar...
"Trump reiterates he wants to be a ‘dictator’ for ‘one day’ at Wisconsin rally":
* https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-re...
Shit is going to get awful. It's already to the point that, when I'm on reddit, I can't distinguish between r/news and r/collapse headlines.
- Kamala: He's going to do Project 2025.
- Trump: No I'm not ;)
- You: Well he said he wasn't going to do it, he lied!
You missed the wink and the fingers crossed behind his back, but the rest of us picked up on it. Sorry you weren't paying attention to that, but Kamala pointed it out to you, so you can't say you weren't warned.
People in the right-wing media ecosystem are not presented with anything that might threaten their image of their politicians.
Goddamn, like imagine if Hilary Clinton made a social media company called "Truth Social"!
But there always seems to be double standards
When he comes for the military, Supreme Court, and Congress, that is the trend you want to look for.
Over-exaggerating what Trump does plays into his handbook.
> Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.
"immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate"
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states.
(Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.)
But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished.
> Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans?
> The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war
And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
What if he just ignores the impeachment?
What are your opinions on January 6th? That would include both the fake electors plot and the riot attempting to interrupt congressional proceedings.
Oh and he's already started firing people from the military...
Shrugging the shoulders is what lead us here, and you keep doing it.
> January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law.
No, he was not. He was acquitted. Twice
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up...
> Oh and he's already started firing people from the military
This is common. For example: Obama
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-tw...
Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable.
Trump argued:
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment"
As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said:
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us."
As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.
"practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day" does not make the thing he did illegal. "so they left it up to the courts", which again is the rule of law.
"So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law." If the laws does not find someone guilty then that is the rule of law working. Being above the law would be being found guilty and then not having any consequences. He was not found guilty. Period.
Do you want mob rule? Vigilante justice? Or the rule of law?
Let me make it clear, I do not like Trump in the smallest bit, but acting like an authoritarian does not make me a better person.
As for the law, the legal process did not fully play out. We were promised courts would be the appropriate venue by McConnell when he voted to acquit despite saying that the evidence shows he is guilty. That's not really an acquittal in the way you're trying to portray because the only reason the acquittal happened was because McConnell felt the case deserved to be tried in court, not in the Senate.
But where is that trial? It was curtailed due to Trump's election as POTUS, and it was stymied by people he appointed to the court. So how are you going to talk about the rule of law, when justice has been denied to the American people for the crimes committed against us? Where is our trial? It was cancelled because... what's that? He's above the law until he's actually demonstrably bound by it. So far that demonstration has been elusive.
What I want is a trial, with evidence, a judge, and a jury. That's not mob rule.
And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with, and the sheer luck they had.
What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want to rock the boat.
There is already plenty reason to be concerned.
Now we will see the extent to which these powers can, and should be used. The way the USA is supposed to work is a balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers. The problem mainly is that the legislative branch refuses to compromise and do anything. The judicial and executive branches seem to be taking the lead, with the executive, that is the president, at the helm.
I expect even the conservative Supreme Court to rule against most of the recent activity, though. Especially the 14th amendment stuff.
This is a test I'm eager to see, but I'm not very hopeful about it.
If we never question taxation. And never question spending. Where do we end-up?
It is sustainable?
Why is it that we can never question either one of these things?
Are these things like fundamental laws of gravity?
Are politicians never to be questioned for their spending or desire to tax us more?
Or how they use our money?
Is it wrong to periodically evaluate the results obtained by every dollar spent?
If so, why?
Does that mean we should allow politicians and agencies to spend as they wish and without supervision or accountability?
Is there ever a good time for oversight?
Etc.
Today it was revealed that we were sending USD $50 million to Gaza for condoms. What? This is insane. And, I suspect, likely the tip of the iceberg.
C'mon folks. Questioning how our money is spent and how much money is taken from us by government is what we should be doing all the time. It should not be the exception. Without accountability, politicians (from all political angles) will take and spend as much as they are able to.
I have this hypothesis: If the government did not take taxes out of your paycheck every week and people had to write them a check every month, there would be riots in every city of this nation. People are blind to taxation and the related spending because they never see that money, it's magic money. You don't feel the pain. If you did, you'd be up in arms when you learn that $50MM of your dollars are going towards buying condoms on the other side of the planet.
And, BTW, those condoms are likely made in China. If they are needed, why doesn't China donate the condoms? Why do US taxpayers have to foot the bill and likely support a healthy profit margin in the process?
We are not going to end-up in a good place if we do not clean-up our attic and bring the house to order. I trust Elon/DOGE and, by extension, the current administration, to do just this. Enough is enough.
Put a different way: We DESPERATELY need to invest this money on internal growth, education, security, health, etc. We need housing, better health outcomes, much better education and myriad other things. Money is not unlimited. Instead of spending $50MM for condoms in Gaza, we should put that money to work where it will do the most good at home.
In order to know where and how much we are wasting, we need to put a microscope on everything and, perhaps, put a number of things on hold while we sort things out. It's a necessary part of the process.
This is a patently obvious and gross mischaracterization. The US has been providing a broad spectrum of humanitarian assistance addressing urgent needs such as emergency medical aid, food, water.
Whether or not you agree with that, you undermine our chances at constructive discourse when you exaggerate or otherwise decontextualize a situation.
It's also absurdly disingenuous to claim that "we never question taxation. And never question spending." Of course these concerns are the subject of continuous debate by much more serious people than yourself.
Again, whether or not you agree with the outcome, the assertion that "we never question taxation" is utterly, and completely divorced from reality.
> This is a patently obvious and gross mischaracterization.
Looks like it hasn't been confirmed yet, but let's not pretend like there aren't really odd and weird and arguably wasteful items in the US spending bills that serve no immediate purpose for US citizens.
Rand Paul releases a yearly report of some of the most prominent ones that he uncovers. I assume they're all hidden in thousand-page spending bills that make it through. These are the results of people that are really un-serious and I wouldn't trust them with our money, they're just drunk on the numbers. To them, a million here a million there is peanuts and essentially bargaining chips in the little games they play in senate/congress.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-releases-202...
I'm busy reading the report now, but the summary notes:
"$4.8 million on Ukrainian influencers, $32,596 on breakdancing, $2.1 million for Paraguayan Border Security, $3 Million for ‘Girl-Centered Climate Action’ in Brazil, and much more!"
Without context, this is meaningless. This may be wasteful, or may create a community space where needed, or sponsor an Olympic team, or... There's many ways that 32k may be an easy investment for a much bigger return.
You are proving my point. You have decided it is absurd to question anything. You have unilaterally decided what I said isn't true and whatever the hell you believe is, in fact, the only truth. Therefore, nothing to see here. Do not question authority. Do not question spending. Do not even bother to engage in any level of forensic accounting to see what's going on.
> It's also absurdly disingenuous to claim that "we never question taxation. And never question spending."
You are also confusing politicians TALKING about taxation and spending with us DOING something about it. For all that debating, we throw money at (likely) millions of things we should not be funding at all. One of those categories is what I call "stupid foreign aid".
At the state level, things are not any better. Here in CA we have been duped by politicians into throwing money at a ridiculous high speed train that went from "We can build it for $10 billion" to now being somewhere over $130 billion and rising. They are saying it will require another $140 billion to complete. Here we are, nearly twenty years after voter passed a $10 billion dollar proposition and got nothing for it. This stupid thing will probably cost half a trillion dollars and will never attract enough riders to even approximate direct and indirect costs.
You have to wonder how many projects like this exist in the federal budget. Crap that is doing nothing but burning cash.
> by much more serious people than yourself.
And then, having nothing to say, you resort to personal attacks. As if that is going to change reality in any way. Good for you.
We must kneel down, bow our heads and accept what we are told. Taxation is OK. Do no question it. Ever. Spending is OK. Do not question it. Ever.
Got it.
Presented without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
They are both very interesting attempts in support of the idea that notation can be important, or, as Iverson put it, a tool for thought.
That said, BQN is the language that, I think, could be said to be the more direct descendant of APL in every sense. It fixes some of APL's problems and expands functionality. UIUA, for example, is stack based, something that I am not sure is the right approach and certainly not the way APL operates.
As for the future, well, this is uncertain. Software engineers these days are not generally exposed to non-C-like languages in school. Languages such as Forth, APL and LISP are so rare to them that most have never heard of them. This, I think, is really unfortunate. Learning to think about solving problems computationally using different approaches is, in my opinion, invaluable. For example, if you studied APL, NumPy instantly makes sense and is easy to learn.
My guess is that lack of familiarity and closed minds (due to lack of exposure to diverse ideas) will always get in the way of adoption of notation-based computing.
There's another argument that is just as valid: If what we have today works well, there is little motivation to change. In other words, shifting to a notation-based system would have to deliver an unquestionable delta in value for it to make sense.
And then there's the age of AI-based programming. In an age when writing code might come down to writing specifications, the output language might be of little consequence outside of platform, performance and other metrics. Want performance? As the AI to deliver optimized C code. Want compatibility with a set of libraries/ecosystem at the expense of performance? You might ask for Python. Etc.
One silver lining of this madness is I expect bipartisan support for clarifying and codifying the scope of executive power into law at some point in the future (sadly likely after Trump is long gone, though).
Absolutely not going to happen.
Trump Republicans want him to function more like a supreme executive/king instead of a president with controls on his power.
Other Republicans are too scared of losing their jobs to stop this either.
Democrats do better with an enemy, so they actually have a perverse incentive here.
If we make it through this mess with our democracy intact, I will definitely be surprised. I hope I'm being dramatic, but I'm afraid I'm not.
I don't see Republican constituents blaming Republican politicians. They'll find a way to spin it to fit their existing world view. Democrats as well; same story, different words. Division is the name of the game.
Chaos power grab.
There is no silver lining here. The USA fell gradually, then all at once. It's over, done. We lost.
Now for effect, The US cannot even keep Europe aligned with them, and the fallout will be that much sharper in the next few years. You have bought cash money the sinking territories of Micronesia (great for UN votes, but not much else) What you have left is The English Speaking Conglomerate of USA, England (Not the UK - because I don't think you can count on Ireland, Scotland and Wales), Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And of these "Five Eyes", in a Sino-American conflict, two of them will be felled very quickly by their neighbour China (Australia and New Zealand) and Canada will have to fend off a massive assault by it's neighbour Russia (China's BFF) That leaves the original "greatest friendship". The enduring Anglo-American powerhouse.
Now I would think that England has not done itself any favours with Brexit. How is that going for them? So Europe is not a certain ally for them either. The EU is Europe, ask Turkey :-)
What you have left is an Anglo-American vs Sino-Russian battle for the future of humanity. The thing is the rest of humanity has already decided who they are betting on. Hint - It's not Anglo-America.
You Anglophones have managed to take control of 3 of the 6 continents. Is that not enough? And if it isn't then expect that there will be hell to pay, because at this point, the world will rather die on it's feet then endure more suffering under your boot.
Goeiedag en Dankie.
HN is just another social network, with a bias for programmers and tech enthusiasts. I enjoy it and believe it does a lot right to promote good discussion, but let’s not kid ourselves: there are no “megabrains” here, certainly not in any meaningful way. There are a ton of misguided people who think being passable at coding reveals some type of deeper understanding for how the world works, but that’s just hubris. HN is filled with flawed humans which, if anything, may have a bigger blind spot for their own limitations than most. Don’t idolise HN frequenters, we’re all just people here. People in a community who rightfully gets relentlessly made fun of in other corners or the internet precisely due to using terms like “megabrain” to describe its members.
To strengthen your statement, people in the US also seem to forget that China has done some major investments through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has secured influence in 150 countries through massive infrastructure projects (roads, railways, ports, digital networks).
The US is excluding itself from the world. Quite literally.
Goeiemoggel
Most Canadians would like to strengthen our bonds with the EU, but unfortunately I think it's going to mean getting pretty cozy with China as you said. No I don't think China is better than the US but the world is getting a wakeup call for how stupid it was to put all our eggs in one basket. From now on having any one partner dominate to the degree the US has is going to be seen as a huge weakness.
This was said by Grover Norquist, a thought leader amongst Republicans in the early 2010's. I've always thought that China or Russia would appreciate being able to drown us in a bathtub as well.
See:
Norquist actually said that in 2001, not the early 2010s.
Like, I've no doubt that Putin is very happy that he was elected, and the FSB and GRU probably put their finger on the scale to at least some extent, but it's probably more a case of a convenient idiot than a Manchurian candidate.
that only applies when you have a flat prior. stupidity should be random - one action moves the needle one way, another action moves it back and you have an average of zero. when every action moves the needle the same way and somebody benefits from it, there's something going on.
sometimes they just do a Nazi salute in front of the world's cameras and people rush to their defence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42851328.)
That's disappointing, I wonder why those aren't getting paused? If you want to get spending under control and you're already breaking the law then you might as well stop everything.
Medical science, of course, is delaying it somehow.
People regularly vote against their own interest out of spite:
They can also trivially rig elections by just organizing things to criminalize the majority of your opponents, but that's overkill.
At the end of the day, their win was total and permanent. There are no realistic fears of reelection issues to ever worry about.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
Military spend is less than 20% (combination of “Defense” and “Veterans Benefits and Services”). Some of the Vererans benefits and services are old age healthcare and defined benefit pension, so that can get subtracted from military spend and moved over to social security and Medicare (since it would happen anyway regardless of military spend).
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid m, and other healthcare subsidies are 21% + 14% + 13% = 47%.
Income security is another 9%, like food stamps, social security supplemental income, earned income tax credits, all stuff for lower income/wealth households.
So 60% of US federal government spend is welfare. Less than 20% is military. 13% is interest costs. And the remaining ~7% is for everything else.
Still, social/income security and healthcare (and education) should be the last places one should cut budgets.
Also, the US spends more in their military as a percentage of their GDP than any other developed nation. This sounds like an excellent place to cut. The US government subsidizes a lot of weapons research as well, for companies that'll later sell the tech the government helped them develop to foreign countries at a profit. I don't think it's fair to subsidize a private enterprise this way.
The largest amount of the money is in the unfunded liabilities for social security and healthcare over the next 50 years. It is hard to even know what it is, 60, 70, 80 trillion?
Younger people will end up both paying for this while getting old from higher interest rates and inflation and then when actually old? The money has all been spent. Sorry, no services.
If you think the price of things are bad now try some fiscal dominance and debt monetization. I suspect it is already too late to avoid fiscal dominance. At 50, maybe I won't see it though. At 20? A 20 year old probably has a good chance of fiscal dominance, debit monetization and maybe even USD losing reserve currency status.
It is obvious to anyone that well raised children provide a huge ROI...but not to a large portion of voters due to the shape of the population histogram. Instead, countries are spending tons and tons of resources on 80+ year olds' dialysis, heart bypasses, hip replacements diabetes management, and end of life care. And keeping their property taxes low even though they live in large houses on large lots. Cold or hot, there is obviously no ROI there.
Speaking of Social Security, I did an interesting calculation. If each year starting with the year I first paid Social Security tax the government had taken that money each month and the matching amount my employer paid and put that money in a one year T-bill, and each year rolled the maturing T-bills over into new T-bills, that would have grown enough that by retirement it would be enough to pay my benefits for close to my expected remaining lifespan.
It was surprising how well it matched although I think it may be coincidence. Benefits go up if you had higher income when working and down if you had lower income, but it is not linear.
Someone with half my income would have benefits lower than me, but their benefits as a percentage of their income would be higher and so T-bills wouldn't have earned enough to cover them [1]. Similarly for someone earning twice as much as me T-bills would have earned more than needed to coverer their benefits. I apparently came in right at the spot where it balances out.
[1] Your benefit is calculated based on the average monthly income for your 35 highest income years. If your monthly average was M, and you become eligible to start collecting social security in 2025, your benefit at full retirement age is the sum of:
90% of the first $1226 of M
32% of the the amount from of M from $1226 through $7931
15% of the amount of M over $7931
If anyone is curious you can get the adjustment factors here [2].
Defined benefits need to be reduced, via changes such as raising retirement age, changing the bend point in the benefit formula, and changing the inflation measure.
Also, that left hand right hand change of funds from social security trust fund to US treasuries is not meaningful. At the end of the day, if the government is not collecting enough tax revenue to offset the spend, it is resulting in decreased purchasing power of the currency (which is a form of welfare in my eyes from young workers older non workers).
For Medicare, you have things like having to see a PA/NP rather than an MD, or having to wait longer times for appointments. And people generally get far more healthcare than the accumulated value of their FICA contributions.
It is, mathematically, today’s young workers paying for old people’s healthcare. And they should bet on getting less.
Absence of politics is an illusion. They'll still affect you regardless of you wanting to see it or not.
Using such a broad definition dilutes the term to the point of meaninglessness.
I'm also not interested in all popular topics on HN, but I'm OK with seeing a list of posts where only a few interest me. A different matter would be subjects that can be triggering to people, but I haven't seen complains about that.
Again, I totally get if this was news about civil rights, abortion, or whatever but I just don't see what most people outside of the US can make of information or articles like this.
I wouldn't mind an article that summarised or explained the first 10 days of the trump administration or something like that, but there's been a lot of posts like these recently.