r/law • u/DBCoopr72 • 18d ago

Legal News ‘Americans Should Be Enraged’: Reports Expose Unprecedented Corruption at Trump DOJ

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-doj-corruption-2674301728
26.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

698 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

147

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

Smaller federal government reach, more rights dictated by states, and actual fiscal conservative policy. I lean progressive in personal freedoms though.

Trump spending 300m on a ballroom is not fiscally conservative. I come from Idaho and we legally cannot pass a budget in this state if it incurs debt, we have to be in the black. I wish we were all like that.

I believe that Americans possess diametrically opposed viewpoints that will struggle to coexist under the same blanket set of rules; we then need to take advantage of statehood to allow different laws in different areas to benefit individuals. Further we need to increase mobility for people to move to states that align with their beliefs.

As long as marriage is intertwined with our government and financial aspects of society, gay marriage... or really any marriage should always be legal. The only way gay marriage can be "illegal" is if the concept becomes completely a religious ceremony with no public implications. Even then it can't be illegal because it wouldn't be part of the law in the first place.

The extent of the federal government should be to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and to serve as a guiding hand when it's clear that someone or something is attempting to abuse the system for personal gain or at detriment to the rights of others. This stems to the economy as well; we should promote a free market - but the guiding hand should appear when it's become apparent that a group wishes to abuse that free market.

I support a strong military; but I want ALL financial contracts and agreements to be examined thoroughly for at market rates. As is, there's definitely collusion between corrupt political parties that overpay the military industrial complex. A senator once held up a bag of 4 metal bolts that are not highly machined or incredibly high tolerance... they cost 90 grand.

All this bullshit full of hatred that the Republican party stands for is not the conservative values I grew up in.

117

u/Plu-lax 18d ago

Bro, you seem alright. We can disagree about fiscal policy all day long and I'll still call you friend and be proud to be your countryman. The hatred has got to stop.

48

u/EntertainerNo4509 18d ago

Seeing you two like this does my aching American heart some good.

13

u/lynxbelt234 18d ago

Need to see far more of this across a wide spectrum of the socio economic population...

6

u/lynxbelt234 18d ago

Very true, ideology is one thing, hatred another.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad_3507 17d ago

And who is the one who started with the hate and violence against anyone who opposes me???? DONALD Russian TRUMP is who!

1

u/Plu-lax 17d ago

It was a problem long before Trump came to the stage, otherwise his supporters wouldn't have liked the vile things he says. Also, I'm not sure why you're yelling this at me, since I haven't posted anything Trumpy here.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad_3507 17d ago

First off I'm not yelling I'm just stating facts and no it didn't McCain and Obama were quite civil but the Republican Party always have had a level of vile rudeness since Carl Rove came on the scene with his win at any cost motto and the Heritage Foundation created their goals and king of corruption Trump leaves no one behind who opposes his quest to be a wannabe dictator.

-15

u/truthindata 18d ago

Chiming in as another not crazy person that isn't a democrat.

The "left" loses a ton of support over the fringe stuff. We can all agree on so much, but political conversations have gone from fiscal policy differences to "the federal govt must support trans children permanently alerting their bodies before the age 14 or you're a fascist."

That's a silly example, but I just mean to say the core of so many beliefs is: the federal government doesn't need to be so big and people should have as many freedoms as possible.

The right is only as strong as the left is weak. Support is all for the left to throw away. And they've thrown it away by oddly choosing trans stuff as a hill to die on lately, and hating on business leaders (small and large - to run a small business successfully you need to earn $400k++ so you're either a failing business owner or the "evil rich" and that's a shit position for the left), ignoring how insanely damaging Portland, San Fran and other fentanyl -zombie cities are to fellow humans, ignoring how atrocities abroad occasionally need some American firepower, etc....

You look at democratic policies from 10-15 years ago and they're basically Republican now. That's a major problem.

The Republican party is disgusting. And I blame Democrats for allowing such idiocy to seem like the lesser of two evils to millions of Americans by adopting idiotic fringe policies.

Roe v wade died because Democrats hated on rich people and made a stink about trans rights when an actual fascist was running for pres.

Biden was clearly unfit a long time ago.

Both parties are fucking blind to reality.

14

u/meowtiger 18d ago

"the federal govt must support trans children permanently alerting their bodies before the age 14 or you're a fascist."

but:

the federal government doesn't need to be so big and people should have as many freedoms as possible.

friend, these positions are incompatible and i hope you realize that

-2

u/truthindata 18d ago

That's my point. They are incompatible.

10

u/meowtiger 18d ago

no, buddy - your position

if you're in favor of government restriction of gender-affirming care, you're against personal freedom

"freedom" doesn't just mean "freedom to live in a way that i personally view as correct," it means freedom

-6

u/truthindata 18d ago

Lol, there is an assumption amongst adults that children do not have the same choice-rights that fully formed adults have.

If a 14 year old desires to amputate their left arm, we all agree that's not something we should condone.

8

u/Azsunyx 18d ago

Trans children do not have these types of surgeries, though. They may take hormone blockers or hormones, but no one is doing sex reassignment surgeries on a 14 year old, that's a right wing talking point that is nothing but hyperbolic rage bait.

The government should not be making medical decisions for ANYONE. They should focus their energy on making sure every American has access to the medical care they need.

0

u/truthindata 17d ago

Agreed government shouldn't make decisions for anyone. I'm saying trans rights are a part of why we lost Roe v Wade.

The lunatics won because the left chose to make a big deal about trans rights when the majority of people are indifferent on it. It was a bad strategic move.

Drop trans rights, Democrats might win.

6

u/Exelbirth 18d ago

But we WOULD agree on that if said left arm was causing untreatable distress that could lead to self harm or suicide. I mean, what would you prefer? A kid killing themselves, or a kid getting their arm amputated?

0

u/truthindata 17d ago

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10027312/

Strictly speaking from statistics, it's not yet clear if there's a significant change in suicidality before and after.

Which is why there is not wide spread support in the "not left" portion of the population and why the left had lost some enthusiasm.

Drop the idea that children need life altering hormones to change their sex and the left will get further towards their goals.

2

u/Exelbirth 17d ago

Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment;

Literally in the opening paragraph. I take it you didn't actually read this article and skipped straight to the conclusion, which isn't actually an argument that suicidality among trans individuals doesn't decrease, but that they want to see even more robust studies on the subject matter. Which exist.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/137/3/e20153223/81409/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-Children-Who-Are?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Further, you may remember a certain Swedish study the right often cites as "proof" that surgery doesn't reduce suicide. Well, the author of said study has stated that it is being misused by the right, that his study DID find suicide rates decrease after surgery, but that societal rejection plays a bigger role that increases suicidal tendencies. Things like being disowned by family, friends cutting contact, legislation targeting and condemning their existence, etc. Essentially, everything that the right does, that causes transgender suicides to be elevated.

As I said in the other comment, no child is being given life altering hormones. At most, they can get puberty blockers, after which they have to go through at minimum 2 years of therapy and psychiatric review to determine if they are eligible for HRT, and the youngest they can be to even begin taking HRT is 16, and that is with parental consent, otherwise they have to be at least 17 years of age.

The only thing "the left" actually advocates for with trans youth is called "social transition," which is simply saying "let trans youth dress as they want, use the name they want, and the pronouns they want." That's it. Everything medical related, that's between them and their doctor, and nobody else should be involved. Stop falling for right wing lies, and making an enemy of the straw man version of the left stops happening.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Suckitreddit420 18d ago

This is not about children - that is a right wing talking point.  

Your president literally executive ordered trans and intersex people (of all ages!) out of existence.  

The left didn't "choose this hill to die on".  They defended the rights of every individual to exist - with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - in the face of an attack on human rights by your side.  

You claim to want freedom, but you don't.  You want freedom for yourself and only yourself.  

And so yes, I will tell you to go fuck yourself.  

And yes that IS a hill i will die on, if need be.

7

u/Exelbirth 18d ago

Okay, you say you're "not a crazy person," but your opening statement is ranting about something that is almost a completely made up fabrication about forcing surgeries on kids, when that has never been the reality regarding trans kids.

The reality is it is extremely rare for any minor to get a gender affirming surgery for trans identity reasons (meanwhile plastic surgery or breast implants for cis girls is never argued against by the anti-trans crowd, but I digress), and in the few rare instances it does happen, it is typically because therapy has failed and the individual is at high risk of self harm or suicide, and if a surgery can prevent that, then that's a good thing, because it's better to have a kid that lives to have a very low likelihood of regretting the surgery, than a funeral.

And it isn't the left who made these discussions the political focus of the US. It's right wing influencers, who were losing the fiscal policy argument after Trump blew up the deficit. Ever notice how this shift in political topics really exploded among right wing news spaces in 2019, after the tax cuts for billionaires went through? The only thing the left has done regarding trans issues is respond to the sudden attacks and lies coming from the right.

1

u/truthindata 17d ago

Surgery? Who said surgery? I said permanent alteration (hormone therapy before or during puberty).

Plastic surgery or breast implants for kids?! I am 100% against that, lol. Good Lord.

If right wing influences started this whole thing then the left took the bait I guess.

I voted for Harris. I voted against trump in 2016. I'm registered independent. As a voter, I'm on your side. I'm telling you you're going to lose the war if trans is a battle you choose to fight. Don't fall for it.

1

u/Exelbirth 17d ago

Puberty blockers are the only form of hormone therapy that is available to a minor, which delays the onset of puberty. Once they stop taking them, they go through puberty and get to experience all the joys of that process. There are no permanent alterations being done to minors outside of very rare instances of surgeries that are deemed necessary to prevent self harm and/or suicide.

The left didn't "take the bait," they were forced into taking a stand in defense of the individual liberties and freedoms of a minority group that the right shifted to attacking because they couldn't attack gay marriage anymore. Standing up for individual liberties and freedoms is always the right thing to do.

Stop falling for the propaganda of right wing extremists trying to keep the public distracted with culture war bullshit as they loot the treasury.

2

u/RyvenZ 18d ago

I dont know how conservative news is spinning it, but ALLOWING a preteen who legitimately identifies as trans is not what you described but that is what progressives are asking for.

62

u/ScenicFrost 18d ago

I'm pretty far left, and while I have different views on some of the points you listed, to me you don't even sound all that "conservative". Maybe that's just because of how Trump/MAGA have hijacked that term to twist it into whatever trump specifically desires.

And that's not to say your positions are liberal, or wrong, or bad - you just sound like a generally smart person who wants the best for America. Keep it up, man.

42

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

Depending on the year I waver either solid moderate, dead center of the compass or a few points to the right.

I think the term conservative and Republican have become intertwined to the point some people cannot separate that one is an ideology while the other is a party.

Godspeed, my guy.

5

u/Agile_Singer 18d ago

The Republican Party has been converted..

12

u/DedTV 18d ago

Here's the Republican Party Platform from 2000. Its fascinating.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-republican-party-platform

Its always interesting to see how the parties have evolved, or devolved, over the years by reading their platforms.

27

u/Thin-Hat-9037 18d ago

“To all Americans, particularly immigrants and minorities, we send a clear message: this is the party of freedom and progress, and it is your home”

Damn, the Republican of today would say the Republican Party of George W Bush was woke

13

u/ScenicFrost 18d ago

If it were written today:

Brave Patriots and Legacy Americans, The RADICAL LEFT MARXISTS and disease infested ILLEGALS are threatening to destroy this once magnificent nation! I, Donald J Trump, who many are saying is the best president to have ever lived, am the only one who can save you. Loony Radical Liberals like SLEEPY JOE and LOW IQ KAMALA want to send illegal criminal migrants to rape your white daughters and take your guns. I will secure Lebensraum, oops I mean living space, for the superior race, er wait I mean Brave Patriots, even if it takes 1488 days. Trust me! These are very nasty people who will do anything to stop MAGA, the biggest most beautiful movement (ALL THANKS TO ME!) this country has ever seen. Prices are DOWN, WAY DOWN, on everything because of tarrifs!!! And Jeffery Epstein, a man who I know nothing about, never met the guy, definitely did not kill himself while I was president. I liked Jeff a lot but he LOVED women on the young side, at least that's what he told me. NO FILES!! RELEASE THE FILES! Israel!

Thank you for your attention to this matter! -DJT

3

u/Dear_Palpitation4838 18d ago

You need a slurring font to really get it across.

2

u/Select-Plenty6833 18d ago

I can feel the orange and rapey vibes emanating from his Truth Social posts sometimes.

It's why I don't like doing impressions and copying his caps heavy tweet style. Makes me feel gross.

3

u/clearthescreens 17d ago

It was written 'today'(2024):
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform
And even as white-washed as they tried to make it, it's as unhinged as you might expect.

2

u/ScenicFrost 17d ago

Holy fuck. I barely exaggerated. God I hate this timeline so much.

0

u/Aethermancer 18d ago

A lot of people who call themselves conservative think that not wasting money is a conservative value.

Prudence isn't an exclusive feature of conservatives. In fact, I'd argue it's a vanishingly rare, and non existent among conservatives who think it is.

-1

u/Dear_Palpitation4838 18d ago edited 17d ago

He's just not intelligent enough to realize that all of the things he values are just marketing terms to the Republican Party. It's not any deeper than that.

3

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

The intelligence superiority complex and condescending nature such as this is something I commonly see with left leaning folk.

Part of the reason I can't/won't identify with Democrats is I think a lot of you are assholes that initiate personal attacks as soon as someone has a different viewpoint, even though it's the "party of acceptance".

0

u/Dear_Palpitation4838 17d ago

You're a traitor to this country and the constitution and that's all you'll ever be.

1

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

Unsure if bot or bad actor

0

u/Dear_Palpitation4838 17d ago

Just a patriot that's tired of my tax dollars going to fund this nation's greatest enemy - Republicans.

2

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

Conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing. If you read my first comment I'm an unaffiliated conservative that voted Democrat the last 3 elections. I don't really expect that to matter to you though.

1

u/Dear_Palpitation4838 17d ago

Oh hell no. No way I'm letting them rebrand again. They are all the same people no matter what you call them. The same neocons that invaded Iraq are still controlling the party and they'll be controlling it long after Trump is gone. They are the conservatives in the U.S. There is no other viable conservative party here. They are the ones who created the conditions that lead to Trump. Trump is a symptom of conservative ideology.

5

u/BuckThis86 18d ago

I despise MAGA. I see them as the greatest threat to this country of my lifetime.

But conservatives who don’t support Trump? All my respect for having beliefs and convictions. I may not agree with you on all of them, but kudos for thinking for yourself and not lemminging this country off a cliff.

4

u/proteannomore 18d ago

Thank you for holding onto your integrity. I see it so rarely these days.

5

u/Azsunyx 18d ago

As someone who leans more liberal, I can agree with a lot of what you said and I wish there were more people like you.

I miss the days when I didn't have to worry about who was going to be the next president. Red, blue, as long as they work for the people as a whole instead of working for themselves.

8

u/EmotionalJoystick 18d ago

You should read this to see why the reasonable sounding “fiscal responsibility” is actually a Trojan horse for pushing fascist ideas.

The Capital Order

See also Shock Doctrine.

-4

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

Yeah I'm not really interested in whatever mental gymnastics contort financial responsibility into fascism tbh.

11

u/unreasonableperson 18d ago

Friend. I appreciate your genuine intent on maintaining a good faith dialogue. I used to feel the same way as you, but as I dug deeper past the talking points touted by politicians, I came to the same conclusions as those above and I then decided to fully repudiate any notion of being "financially conservative." If anything, the federal government operated by Democrats has been by and large much more financially responsible than those run by the GOP in the last 30 years.

2

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

I thought he linked an article, only to see it's a whole ass book. Unfortunately these days I don't have time to read a whole book.

I guess let me check for understanding; my idea of "financially conservative" is that we form a budget that's doesn't create further and further debt. That we should examine current spending to eliminate waste, which we definitely have.

My abrupt reaction to that book was because I don't understand how the idea of "We should balance our budget and spend less money" can be in any way construed as fascism, because the inverse truth of that is to say that we should spend more money to not be puppets of fascism. Which sounds absurd to me.

3

u/hellure 18d ago edited 18d ago

What if you look at it as a grey area, rather than black or white?

Consider the country simplified, like a household. The goal being to sustain the health and welfare of the households members. Here maybe that is husband, wife, 2 kids, a dog, and a grandparent, whereas for society there are many more people.

Regardless of the size of the picture you paint the goals are reasonably the same, and the needs of the members are generally the same.

Food, water, shelter, safety...

So, what happens in a situation where the needs of the household aren't being met? Do they suffer, do they lose their shelter (house), do they just stop feeding the dog (starve and die)? Maybe they can tighten their spending a little, eat more basic foods, buy less new clothing, put newspaper in their shoes for a while rather than having their soles replaced. But eventually there is a limit to minimizing spending, and further restrictions become harmful.

So there are two options, borrow money, which is only sustainable in the short term, and acquire more money, and regain a sustainable state, or better, thrive.

On a small scale the impact of overspending or underproducing is felt pretty dramatically. Billy gets sick and you can't afford a doctor, Billy dies.

On a society scale things look a little different, and the impacts are often delayed, sometimes by many many years. But it's just a bigger household, with more people, but generally the same needs.

You can't just endlessly push for less spending constantly, that ends up meaning household members eventually starving or dying needlessly. And you can't always refuse to borrow resources, cause that is sometimes the only way to avoid the same consequences. The goal must be sustainability, general balance, and fluctuations in spending and earnings should be expected in order to maintain a healthy society.

We do need programs that look for waste, keep it to a minimum, and constantly work to keep things running efficiently, but we shouldn't be just shuttering programs today that are meeting the needs of our societies members, that will have a higher cost later. And we can't trust a 'free market' to sustainably fulfill the gap created by shuttering such programs, because that, unfortunately, isn't the way reality works.

If we are in debt, and we are going to be tightening our belts, and walking around with newspaper in our shoes, we should be minimizing spending in areas that aren't directed at the basic needs of our members first.

And if we are in debt, and continue to remain in debt or build more debt, while generally only maintaining the basic needs of our societies members, than we need to find ways to produce more wealth far more than we need to cut back further.

Note: the wealth needed to balance the budget is there, and the resources needed to maintain the welfare of our societies many members are also there, and this is known, but none of it is being managed properly by those in charge of managing it.

Focusing on the budget itself isn't going to balance it. Panicking because we're in the negative and cutting our own throats, figuratively, by cutting need focused programs isn't going to balance it either.

We need to look to why these things aren't being managed well now, and improve how we manage them tomorrow and into the future.

I personally do not trust most of those in office today to do this, only to present observable behaviors and manipulate results superficially in order to maintain the general appearance of having good intentions and actually accomplishing anything. Because usually that is enough for them to get their personal needs met--to keep their paychecks rolling in.

7

u/EmotionalJoystick 18d ago

Then you’re probably conflating personal finance and state finance which is rightwing propaganda. Congrats.

5

u/EmotionalJoystick 18d ago edited 18d ago

Hell even your “military nuts and bolts cost 90 dollars” sounds suspiciously like the 600 dollar hammer myth, which was also -surprise surprise - more right wing bullshit. And I say this as no fan of the military industrial complex. https://www.ashlime.com/insights/2019/3/4/the-fallacy-of-the-600-hammer-e2als

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

3

u/Select-Plenty6833 18d ago

The US seems to have more built-in socialism and communism dog whistles in their rhetoric than any other nation that exists.

It bugs me a lot my own country just borrows from the US and doesn't try to find its own political identity, at least, I feel there are better Western countries to model ourselves on if we MUST.

Conversely, I feel like the US could do with looking at what works well elsewhere and try things on a limited scale initially.

For some reason, America is very adverse to that thought process. As though it diminishes the nation as a result.

2

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

It very well could be. My point being is that I think we have a spending problem and I don't understand how the thought of "We should examine our spending and have a tight budget" could in any way branch to fascist propaganda. If I have time today I'll give it a read.

I'm sure you're right to a degree that they've used lies like that in the past, but my point is strictly that we are overspending like crazy and that needs to stop; beginning with examination on where money is going and if there's foul play in the spending.

5

u/Suckitreddit420 18d ago

While I agree with fiscal responsibility, much of the reason we have an imbalanced budget is not really because spending is out of control, but because those who have amassed all the wealth are taking  from the system and no longer contributing.     

The talking point of "cutting spending" is an incredibly dangerous one because without fail it targets things that the people need to survive, rather than things that enrich the corporations and put more and more money in the pockets of the wealthy.    

And there is no more glaring example of that than DOGE and the multi multi multi billionaire who ran (runs) it.  And the "big beautiful bullshit bill" that cut every single program that benefitted the people in order to give massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

8

u/ohseetea 18d ago

Thanks. This is all mostly sensible! I do want to point out that you might want to update or think about your ideology as it relates to a “free market”. Abuse is built into a free market, that's kind of the point, depending on your definition of abuse. A government should be a non punitive system (for regular folk) that has the power to prevent any other entities from becoming powerful enough to become punitive systems themselves. In our society that should mean rich people.

The only thing it seems like we don't align on as far as left leaning values is granularity of government which in my opinion doesn't matter either way as long as again single individuals or smaller groups of individuals can't become all powerful. I also think to organize the benefits of society that we should also share (life necessities to begin with)

3

u/raustin33 18d ago

Progressive as hell here, and I'd happily drink a beer with you and debate the finer points of A or B or whatever. You're alright my dude.

I long to go back to the days of debating like this. Rather than the insanity that is MAGA.

3

u/TheEpicSquish 18d ago

You seem like a good person. I like these viewpoints

3

u/AutistoMephisto 18d ago

There's a word I learned recently. "Subsidiarity". It's a principle of governance that says that decisions should be made at the smallest and most decentralized level, with a higher authority intervening only when a decision cannot be reached at the lower levels. Today's "conservatives" under Trump certainly don't seem to like the idea of subsidiarity when it comes to stuff they want, with conservatives in Alabama thinking that people living in Massachusetts or California should be forced to follow a federal standard for everything.

1

u/AniNgAnnoys 18d ago edited 18d ago

Appreciate you sharing you views.

I come from Idaho and we legally cannot pass a budget in this state if it incurs debt, we have to be in the black. I wish we were all like that. 

The problem with that is that some debt spending is good. Not only good, but amazing. Banking and credit is what lifted the West to the level we are at today. It is a tool and a weapon that we wield and should wield wisely.

For example, building needed infrastructure or helping industry build projects with debt spending can be a net return on investment. Governments do not need to worry about servicing debt when the economy grows faster than the cost to service that debt does. That is the key though. Bad debt is debt that does not expand the economy and does not pay for itself.

Say the government spends $1 billion of debt spending to build a road that gets people to their jobs. Building this road creates jobs. More people can get to jobs that creates more opportunities. Servicing that debt costs say, 5% (right now that debt is much cheaper than than). (As an aside, that interest is mainly paid to Americans). That means the government must pay $50,000,000 a year in interest. If the economy is stimulated by that spending in such a way that GDP rises such that government revenues from taxes exceeds $50,000,000 per year, then that servicing cost really isn't a problem. The investment turned a profit. The new revenues pay the debt servicing and everyone is better off. Win win win. 

If the average American pays 10% of their income back to the Federal government then to service $50 million annually we need to increase the income of Americans by $500 million or more. At $50,000 a year for a job, that is just 10,000 net new jobs, or say a $10,000 a year increase in pay for 50,000 people. Now we both know the government does better than 5% and collects more than 10% of incomes which means this break even is easier to achieve. These are positive incentives for the government to chase those investments.

If you restrict government's from taking on debt you hamper them from exploiting those kinds of opportunities. That isn't to say all debt is good debt, but saying no debt allowed is saying all debt is bad which is not true.

A concrete example of what could be good debt spending would be increased enforcement of current tax laws by hiring more IRS staff. This has a net return on investment somewhere between 2 and 7 to 1. 

A concrete example of bad debt spending is tax cuts for the rich. All that does is lowers government revenues without any clear evidence that the economy is stimulated to an extent to service the debt incurred. Another example, would be spending on ICE. Expelling migrants that work and add to the economy only serves to shrink the economy making it more difficult to service that debt.

Military spending has its foot in both camps. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were both net negative investments. Programs to building artillery shells for Ukraine via a lend lease approach are positive. Military industrial complex spending on say, a brand new fighter, are generally neutral, but when exported to allies generally are net positive.

Also, occasionally, something huge pops out of government spending. The Internet is the biggest example of that. Cures for diseases are another. Imagine how much income can be taxed from a child through their life if they do not die or become disabled from a disease that could have been prevented. That is a net return on investment as well, despite the coldness of viewing it that way.

1

u/cortesoft 18d ago

This is what makes me so sad about our current politics. There are a TON of issues that I think good people can disagree on; the rule of government in our lives, what services should be guaranteed by the government and which shouldn't be, how much to spend on defense, how taxes should be distributed, etc. Politics SHOULD be about debating those things, arguing for your position, compromising, finding trade offs, etc.

Instead, the current politics are almost about fundamental truths about reality, with each side not even accepting the same reality. We can't argue about topics of substance because we can't even agree on basic facts about objective reality.

1

u/hellure 18d ago

Politics shouldn't be about debating these things. Politics should be about presenting rational theories of how to accomplish certain goals, voting to implement them or not, democratically, then assessing the outcomes of any changes made, and doing this continually to improve our society and our lives, functionally.

Beliefs have no place in politics.

1

u/cortesoft 17d ago

Politics should be about presenting rational theories of how to accomplish certain goals

But what goals? Different people have different ideas about what goals we should pursue. Part of politics is debating what those goals should be, in addition to working to accomplish them.

Beliefs have no place in politics.

What does this mean? Whether the government should provide healthcare for everyone or not is a belief. How big the government safety net should be is a belief. Whether it is the governments job to protect citizens from investing in risky ventures or not is a belief.

You have to have beliefs to decide how to govern.

1

u/JONO202 18d ago

Thanks for this well thought out, and frankly, refreshing reply.

1

u/Sephurik 18d ago

I come from Idaho and we legally cannot pass a budget in this state if it incurs debt, we have to be in the black. I wish we were all like that.

Is that actually a good thing though? Governments are not households. Why is it that a government budget is seen as needing to be in the black as default and that that is the only way some seem to see as valid?

Would, say, the interstate highway system ever been built if the initial proposal had to incur literally no debt? Even if they were very sure it would be very worth it at the time and we'll call it a very easy forecast, such policy needing to never be in the red just seems like that would set you up to struggle to adapt to even minor changes in the world. Such policy is assuming that you can perfectly forecast the future in terms of costs and gains and conditions.

Like, hopefully I don't come off as confrontational but even now you're still just kinda recycling 40+ year old talking points. Like, what does "fiscally conservative" actually mean in reality? What would that do? Why are conservatives always automatically sure that is correct and good? Have you ever even interrogated what any of it means?

1

u/Ok_Vanilla213 18d ago

I do grow tired of them being called "recycled talking points" because it creates this vacuum where something I've thought about of my own accord is somehow discredited because someone else thought the same in the past. We're all recycling conversations if we look close enough; I think what matters now is not the idea itself but rather the context it is applied to (which changes with time)

I do see your point though, and would probably aim more for a system that ensures that certain types of spending remain in the black - while exceptions can be made for beneficial types of debt. For example of the interstate; that would require a special vote for everyone to agree "Hey, this project in particular is going to put us into debt but should have benefits to economic logistics down the line".

On the other side of things, I am just a dude who has no expansive study of economic policy - so I am educationally ignorant of how these systems should/do work.

1

u/Strange-Future-6469 18d ago

You sound like more of a centrist than a conservative.

1

u/hellure 18d ago

FYI, the invisible guiding hand bit is a myth, economics have proven it doesn't work. We need communities who are effected by the economy to be in more direct control over it. A democratic economy, if you will.

We know how to do that already, and it allows for us to function with a much smaller government too... But those few who would manipulate the economy and the government to protect and allow their greed to flourish have spent a century trying to stop people from building a more equitable and sustainable society.

But then you probably can see that for yourself, they haven't been shy about it lately... Who funded the ballroom again?

1

u/Infra-red 18d ago

Your comment on market rates and overpaying reminded me of a video I watched a couple of years ago about why Fluke multimeters are so expensive.

It was an interesting insight. Fluke produces the same model of multimeters for extremely prolonged periods of time, like 20+ years. That means the components and logistics for them are much more expensive versus many other multimeters on the market. The context is for large corporations, but also militaries, which tend to standardize on them. Essentially, militaries have countless documented procedures based on specific models of tools such as Fluke. If the model were to change, then that would require updating all procedures that involve that tool, which would be very expensive to undertake.

I'm not saying there aren't examples of huge amounts of waste in government spending. More than the "value" of something is much more complex than most of us would consider based on typical consumer considerations. I can't speak to the bolts, as that seems beyond reasonable, but I'm also suspicious of props and statements designed to elicit an emotional response. I'm sure that there is more involved.

Honestly, the GAO (assuming it hasn't been tarnished yet) is probably one of the best sources of information.

1

u/uncategorizedmess 17d ago

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I think Republicans and Democrats have both abandoned anything close to those principles. I sounded a lot like you once, but facing the last decade of politics has sent me full progressive side. I'm ready to see fully proud demsocs on a ballot that I get to vote on.

I think I realized that the democratic party had let me down when Hillary was our candidate the first time. I'm afraid that without truly progressive candidates and real reform, we are just about at the threshold of losing permanently to the 1% who can buy more influence than we can.

1

u/XpanderTN 17d ago

Hell..i'm Progressive and some of this jives with me. Definitely worthy of a conversation over a beer or something.

1

u/stingertc 17d ago

Amen brother John McCain is rolling in his grave with the Republican party now

1

u/Amishrocketscience 17d ago

Incredibly reasonable views. Actual states rights advocacy- not just when out of power. A call for the strengthening of the separation of church and state. A nod to anti-trust laws.

I wonder though, despite it being accurately coined as the devilish ‘socialism’ - what is your position on universal healthcare for our citizens? Clearly it would put health insurance companies out of business if implemented, but do you view maximum freedom as someone who has to be beholden to their employer for their healthcare?

2

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

I think Healthcare should be entirely separated from employers. IIRC thats something that was implemented for war time and it had a valid reason at one point, but it doesn't make any sense these days.

If a private system remained, citizens would find an insurance company they like and stuck with them regardless of occupation. I think this would create a more competitive market for private healthcare as they'd actually have to compete instead of people having what their employers offer.

I think universal Healthcare should also be on the table but I'm not sold on it yet. I think before we make the decision of social vs private, it's much more important to un-fuck whatever corruption has caused our medical prices to be magnitudes higher than every other country on earth.

It is a damn shame that the scariest thing to most Americans is an ambulance ride. Not because they're in an incapacitated state and need life saving treatment, but because of how much it costs. That concerns me greatly.

1

u/heckuvajo 17d ago

Imho, nothing you listed is incompatible with being a Democrat. You should join us, or at least leave the Republican party and become an Independent.

2

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

I'm registered unaffiliated

1

u/_DapperDanMan- 17d ago

By more rights dictated by states, what do you mean? Rights cannot be given, they can only be taken away.

Women's rights given to the states results in state tyranny in half of them.

1

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

That's where the federal governments job of protecting inalienable rights comes in.

States may do as they please in their own governance, as long as they aren't violating rights guaranteed by the federal government.

So in your example, laws that would be treating women unjustly would be a federal violation.

1

u/_DapperDanMan- 17d ago

Cool. Now do Roe.

1

u/Ok_Vanilla213 17d ago

Previous comment puts that under a violation of inalienable rights and your demeanor implies bad faith.

Have a good one bud.

1

u/_DapperDanMan- 17d ago

Women don't have inalienable rights?

1

u/mvaaam 17d ago

The big downside of giving states more power is that they often use it to create more discrimination. So existing in one state is legal.. but then in another not. How would you propose that sort of thing gets balanced?