What will happen with spending under Trump?

[TheTexan]

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit, that trade can create dependencies, and dependencies can cause wars.

Such a thing is self-evident.

 

[pmbug]

Under Trump, this nation will experience the greatest spending cuts this country has ever seen. We are talking Trillions with a "T" in cuts. No president before has ever made the kinds of cuts and this is just the beginning! These cuts will be so big, they will be epic! They will be the biggest spending cuts the world has ever experienced. And, the growth will be huge.

Trump and Musk have a date with Milei. They are going to learn the ways of the chainsaw.

 

[Matt Collins]

Trump and Musk have a date with Milei. They are going to learn the ways of the chainsaw.

Under Trump, this nation will experience the greatest spending cuts this country has ever seen. We are talking Trillions with a "T" in cuts. No president before has ever made the kinds of cuts and this is just the beginning! These cuts will be so big, they will be epic! They will be the biggest spending cuts the world has ever experienced. And, the growth will be huge.

Milei has near dictatorial powers down there. The US President does not, thankfully. And Congress will never go along with any actual spending cuts.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Milei has near dictatorial powers down there. The US President does not, thankfully. And Congress will never go along with any actual spending cuts.

So Ron would not have been able to cut spending if he were President?

 

[pmbug]

Milei has near dictatorial powers down there. The US President does not, thankfully. And Congress will never go along with any actual spending cuts.

This is not correct. Milei was able to effect some changes via executive order same as POTUS can issue executive orders. For a lot of his platform, he had to work with a hostile legislature. He was able to get some, but not all of his agenda passed. Trump will have a friendly legislature by comparison.

 

[Matt Collins]

So Ron would not have been able to cut spending if he were President?

Yes, an Executive can cut Executive branch spending but that only goes so far. Most of the spending is done in Congress.

 

[Matt Collins]

It was our trade dependencies with the British empire that got us into WWI and WWII, and Japan's trade dependency on us provided the spark for our entry into WWII.

Uh no, not quite. Japan is an island that doesn't produce any oil, they have to trade. And the US government cut them off.

Cuba wasn't about trade, it was about a missile base during the cold war, a cold war we fought because of our trade dependencies that were threatened by the communist empire.

Uh no. Castro wasn't a Marxist until the US government sanctioned their sugar cane. Do some research.

 

[Matt Collins]

Your examples are complete embargos due to US empire ambitions. Not due to tariffs. Different things are different.

Yes and no... I agree may not be an apples to apples comparison, but free trade (true free trade, not "managed trade") is good for peace and prosperity. When barriers to trade are enacted it leads to angst, hostility, and scarcity.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Uh no, not quite. Japan is an island that doesn't produce any oil, they have to trade. And the US government cut them off.

Unavoidable or not it was the trade that led to the war, we cut them off because of our trade dependencies on the British Empire, they attacked us because of their trade dependence on us.

More trade ties increase the odds of war.

Uh no. Castro wasn't a Marxist until the US government sanctioned their sugar cane. Do some research.

That's garbage, the left lied about him to sucker Americans into supporting or ignoring him, but he was a commie from the very beginning.
And why did sanctioning the sugar cane lead to hostility? because we were importing it and Cuba was dependent on exporting to us.
That sanctioning didn't nearly cause nuclear war either, putting medium range missiles close to Russia did, and the entire cold war was caused by trade dependencies and the competition for access to foreign resources.

More trade increases the odds of war over trade interests, it always has and it always will.

 

[Madison320]

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit, that trade can create dependencies, and dependencies can cause wars.

Such a thing is self-evident.

Should we ban trade between the states?

 

[PAF]

Trump/Thiel/Musk/Lutnick/BlackRock/et al already stated their exact plans if only people would listen to them. Folks believe it will lead to liberty, but quite the contrary is going to happen.

https://rumble.com/v5o2szb-555-how-...genda-with-whitney-webb-and-mark-goodwin.html

 

[TheTexan]

Should we ban trade between the states?

Yea, we should. The United States as a federal entity would disappear overnight. Texas would be fine, but smaller states would generally be fucked.

But I only care about Texas

 

[TheTexan]

Yes and no... I agree may not be an apples to apples comparison, but free trade (true free trade, not "managed trade") is good for peace and prosperity. When barriers to trade are enacted it leads to angst, hostility, and scarcity.

The Ron Paul position, as I understand it, is that managed trade of any kind ("barriers to trade" or otherwise), creates entangling alliances. And thus wars.

And we've had nothing except managed trade since at least the Fed, arguably much longer.

If one were to make the argument that the trade we've identified as causing wars is causing wars because its managed trade, I would definitely be open to hearing that argument, and in fact, I've been waiting for someone to make that argument for a very long time.

Instead however, people apparently would rather deny that trade causes wars at all.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Ron Paul position, as I understand it, is that managed trade of any kind ("barriers to trade" or otherwise), creates entangling alliances. And thus wars.

And we've had nothing except managed trade since at least the Fed, arguably much longer.

If one were to make the argument that the trade we've identified as causing wars is causing wars because its managed trade, I would definitely be open to hearing that argument, and in fact, I've been waiting for someone to make that argument for a very long time.

Instead however, people apparently would rather deny that trade causes wars at all.

Now that makes some sense and I would tend to agree. But free trade doesn't cause wars. Granted, we don't currently have free trade.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Ron Paul position, as I understand it, is that managed trade of any kind ("barriers to trade" or otherwise), creates entangling alliances. And thus wars.

And we've had nothing except managed trade since at least the Fed, arguably much longer.

If one were to make the argument that the trade we've identified as causing wars is causing wars because its managed trade, I would definitely be open to hearing that argument, and in fact, I've been waiting for someone to make that argument for a very long time.

Instead however, people apparently would rather deny that trade causes wars at all.

Trade has always been managed and it always will be, it needs to be managed for the national interest and the good of the people instead of for the wealthy and powerful international class.

If you don't manage your trade the countries you trade with will manage it to their benefit.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Should we ban trade between the states?

No, we should have interstate taiffs capped at some fraction of the international tariffs.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Trump/Thiel/Musk/Lutnick/BlackRock/et al already stated their exact plans if only people would listen to them. Folks believe it will lead to liberty, but quite the contrary is going to happen.

https://rumble.com/v5o2szb-555-how-...genda-with-whitney-webb-and-mark-goodwin.html

Bunk.

 

[TheTexan]

Trade has always been managed and it always will be, it needs to be managed for the national interest and the good of the people instead of for the wealthy and powerful international class.

If you don't manage your trade the countries you trade with will manage it to their benefit.

I'm inclined to agree, but I remain open minded with actual "free trade" as I acknowledge there may be factors that I haven't considered that address my concerns with it. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for it, but I'm not going to say a compelling case for it cannot be made, as very few have even tried to make that case.

One thing that I find is ironic, is if the United States were to go into full "free trade" mode, while the rest of the world remained on managed trade, the United States would be basically cut off from all trade with other countries. Which would be a good thing. So if that's what free traders are proposing, then I'm all on board

 

[Madison320]

Trump and Musk have a date with Milei. They are going to learn the ways of the chainsaw.

For the people that think Trump is going to cut spending, what changed since the last time he was president?

I think there's a very slight chance he may cut spending based on the fact that he has people around him that are warning him about the debt. But only a slight chance. Maybe 1%.

And remember that for the cuts to be real, spending has to actually go down during the next 4 years. No "reductions in the rate of increase" or "future cuts".

 

[pmbug]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named Elon Musk to a role aimed at creating a more efficient government, handing even more influence to the world's richest man who donated millions of dollars to helping Trump get elected.

Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy will co-lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency, an entity Trump indicated will operate outside the confines of government.

Trump said in a statement that Musk and Ramaswamy "will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."
...

More:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...-department-government-efficiency-2024-11-13/