The partisan stuff doesn't interest me. Various sources will cook numbers differently. One trick is to include entitlements or exclude them from the debt. Rate of increase vs. debt in real terms offers another stunt mode. COVID spending is yet another area for partisan squabbling. When it suits the agenda, partisans will claim, "But congress has the final word on spending". You can even find that in this thread.
The rate of increase in debt has been increasing consistently. Even with Clinton's so called balanced budget, the total amount of debt has increased over the long term.
If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises. Even with these actions, I'm cautiously optimistic at best.
I'm not a die hard Trump supporter or enthusiastic about any politician. Generally I dislike politicians and the political classes. It wouldn't be a terribly inaccurate to generalize by calling them all looters. These cuts make it possible to consider hope.
>>If Trump were not taking this radical approach in his first weeks, I would assume that his talk about cuts were empty campaign promises.
>You're assigning an awful lot of trustworthiness to a known liar...
Am I? Did you bother to read my above comment?
In my view, all politicians are liars by necessity. They have every incentive to make the most grandiose promises while campaigning. Once in office they can begin looting. The long term health of the polity is of no concern to their particular set of incentives. They need only worry about the next election campaign. Bankrupting or exploiting the public is almost a foregone conclusion. Individuals may differ, but these are the incentives inherent to the political game.
>... for someone who claims not to support him.
These are my assessments of politics and politicians. I've even been explicit about them previous to spelling them out in more detail here. Despite that, you insist on projecting your partisan nonsense onto my views, as if you have some kind of crystal ball that allows you to read my mind or another telepathic power which would preclude you from engaging in good faith.
Take another look at this discussion. You've gone off the deep end here.
"You'll believe what I accuse you of believing and defend the straw-men I attribute to you", isn't a strong argument here. It is entirely personal and divorced from the original thread.
>> Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation.
Description of facts
> The hyperbole is a bit much for me.
Your assessment.
Then you respond to every calling out as "I'm neutral"
Why is your perception of my views even on the table? Argue the topic, not the person.
>there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch...
As I've attempted to illustrate here repeatedly, authoritarianism is in direct contrast to cuts in state power. Especially as it concerns the specific comparisons to National Socialism made on this site. Totalitarian statists seek to increase the power of the state, not cut it. Your assertion is a non-sequitur.
>...purges of the executive branch as a whole...
The president is the head of the executive branch. With other administrative agencies, there is some dispute over the extent of presidential authority.
Deporting illegal immigrants is not comparable to Dachau or the actions of the National Socialists. Making this comparison trivializes genocide.
>I can only laugh at this point.
I don't find it funny in the least.
You would be right to say that mass deportation will probably involve violations of civil rights and profiling in practice. I hope we can agree in our opposition to this. However, illegal immigration is illegal. Circumventing immigration law by funding NGOs with taxpayer money is a greater expansion of state power. We should be more concerned with the victims who have been trafficked, including women and children. The incentives of the "amnesty" program's abuse led to the exploitation of minors. The abuse has to stop.
If partisans want immigration reform, they should pass the laws. Until then, enforcing the existing laws is not an expansion of state power. Circumventing the laws via NGOs is an expansion of state power. It is an usurpation of the democratic process you claim to value.
