Gov't Spending Cuts Leaked ... Trial Balloons?

[Spare_change]

Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.

Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)

Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.

I understand that my initial questions were remedial but I was trying to gauge where you were coming from. I'm sure you've seen a fair share of complete morons in this board so I wanted to see how you would respond. I asked the descrtionary question to see if you were factoring in potential policy changes that would effect mandatory spending like SS and Medicare that may occur.

The main flaw I saw in your arguement was a trillion dollar per year cut on a 1.2 trillion budget with a proposed trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that Trump has proposed and that which you left out. There is just no way it all makes sense.

I was hoping for good Conservative fiscal policy after this election and was hoping for an administration that could increases the efficiency of government programs and cut much of the waste. I'm hopeful that Trump can do this but thus far there has been a tremendous lack of details and specifics about how this can be achieved. Mich of the math doesn't add up. The time for empty talk and campaign propaganda is over. It's time for action. I hope he can perform.

As I said, I wouldn't put too much faith in the CONTENT of their proposal, but focus more on the INTENT.

There was not intended to be specificity - it is a target sent up to determine who is going to shoot at it, and who is going to support it. While I strongly believe that the government could reduce its manpower by 20% without impacting performance or programs in the slightest, I also don't believe that will ever happen.

I do know this, however ... when we would brief a new project to Congress (I was in the space business), we were directed to add over 38% to program cost to cover government oversight. A satellite that would cost us $1 million to build (including profit that ranged from 7-10%) would be funded for $1.38 million. So, I think it's safe to say that cutting that add-on to only 30% (80% x 38), wouldn't significantly impact oversight.

 

[Slade3200]

Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)

Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.

I understand that my initial questions were remedial but I was trying to gauge where you were coming from. I'm sure you've seen a fair share of complete morons in this board so I wanted to see how you would respond. I asked the descrtionary question to see if you were factoring in potential policy changes that would effect mandatory spending like SS and Medicare that may occur.

The main flaw I saw in your arguement was a trillion dollar per year cut on a 1.2 trillion budget with a proposed trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that Trump has proposed and that which you left out. There is just no way it all makes sense.

I was hoping for good Conservative fiscal policy after this election and was hoping for an administration that could increases the efficiency of government programs and cut much of the waste. I'm hopeful that Trump can do this but thus far there has been a tremendous lack of details and specifics about how this can be achieved. Mich of the math doesn't add up. The time for empty talk and campaign propaganda is over. It's time for action. I hope he can perform.

As I said, I wouldn't put too much faith in the CONTENT of their proposal, but focus more on the INTENT.

There was not intended to be specificity - it is a target sent up to determine who is going to shoot at it, and who is going to support it. While I strongly believe that the government could reduce its manpower by 20% without impacting performance or programs in the slightest, I also don't believe that will ever happen.

I do know this, however ... when we would brief a new project to Congress (I was in the space business), we were directed to add over 38% to program cost to cover government oversight. A satellite that would cost us $1 million to build (including profit that ranged from 7-10%) would be funded for $1.38 million. So, I think it's safe to say that cutting that add-on to only 30% (80% x 38), wouldn't significantly impact oversight.

Of course you could cut the fat and padding in government programs. They are mostly horrible managed... there would be a temporary spike in uneployment but hopefully followed by better management and efficiency. But you also have to understand it is a drop in the bucket and that problems exist in other areas that have a much more significant effect on the national debt. Consider that plus the 1 trillion in infrastructure spending and I just don't see how you can take anything Trumps has said about his economic plan seriously, let alone believe it will actually work towards a balanced budget

 

[danielpalos]

The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air

why isn't the drug war being chopped?

 

[Spare_change]

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)

Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.

I understand that my initial questions were remedial but I was trying to gauge where you were coming from. I'm sure you've seen a fair share of complete morons in this board so I wanted to see how you would respond. I asked the descrtionary question to see if you were factoring in potential policy changes that would effect mandatory spending like SS and Medicare that may occur.

The main flaw I saw in your arguement was a trillion dollar per year cut on a 1.2 trillion budget with a proposed trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that Trump has proposed and that which you left out. There is just no way it all makes sense.

I was hoping for good Conservative fiscal policy after this election and was hoping for an administration that could increases the efficiency of government programs and cut much of the waste. I'm hopeful that Trump can do this but thus far there has been a tremendous lack of details and specifics about how this can be achieved. Mich of the math doesn't add up. The time for empty talk and campaign propaganda is over. It's time for action. I hope he can perform.

As I said, I wouldn't put too much faith in the CONTENT of their proposal, but focus more on the INTENT.

There was not intended to be specificity - it is a target sent up to determine who is going to shoot at it, and who is going to support it. While I strongly believe that the government could reduce its manpower by 20% without impacting performance or programs in the slightest, I also don't believe that will ever happen.

I do know this, however ... when we would brief a new project to Congress (I was in the space business), we were directed to add over 38% to program cost to cover government oversight. A satellite that would cost us $1 million to build (including profit that ranged from 7-10%) would be funded for $1.38 million. So, I think it's safe to say that cutting that add-on to only 30% (80% x 38), wouldn't significantly impact oversight.

Of course you could cut the fat and padding in government programs. They are mostly horrible managed... there would be a temporary spike in uneployment but hopefully followed by better management and efficiency. But you also have to understand it is a drop in the bucket and that problems exist in other areas that have a much more significant effect on the national debt. Consider that plus the 1 trillion in infrastructure spending and I just don't see how you can take anything Trumps has said about his economic plan seriously, let alone believe it will actually work towards a balanced budget

I'm glad you mentioned the infrastructure spending. Those who aren't listening to what's being said get all hyper about spending $1 trillion on infrastructure. But, as far back as August, Trump made it clear that there was a government/business approach he proposed.

A good portion of the $1 trillion will come from commercial investment. Company XYZ will rebuild Airport ABC, and in return, will receive rent from all the users. Company DEF will rebuild Highway STU and set up toll booths to recover their investment. He proposed that a set percentage of "profit" will determine exactly when the asset will be returned to government control. For example, invest $50 billion in Ohare Field in Chicago, agree to a recovery of $70 billion, and when that threshold is reached, the government resumes ownership/management of the airport.

The nice thing about this is that it is not always in the best interest of the company to recover its "profit" in the shortest possible time. A known, predictable, income is a valuable asset for a company. It can be used as leverage/collateral for other projects, lessening the company's risk. That should lead to holding the price for services at a relatively stable rate.

As for drop in the bucket - I'm not sure I understand why you say that. Government spending in 2015 was $3.9 trillion. Of that, approximately $1 trillion was in labor (contract and employee). Recover 20% of labor - $200 billion - and 10% of the remainder - $300 billion. Half a trillion a year is a SIGNIFICANT drop in the bucket.

Will he save $10 trillion? Of course not - that is a number pulled out of the air in order to get everybody's reaction. But, it eliminates the deficit, and actually starts paying down the debt. That is one hell of a start.

When you couple that with the increased tax revenue from the infrastructure program - you're talking about real money.

 

[Spare_change]

The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air

why isn't the drug war being chopped?

You're approaching this from the wrong angle -- the idea isn't to eliminate government programs. The idea is to run those programs more efficiently.

If you want to discuss eliminating the drug war, I suggest you start a new thread. However, it is my personal opinion that the drug war shouldn't be stopped - but rather, increased in effectiveness. The cost of not fighting drugs FAR exceeds the cost of the drug war.

But, as I say, this isn't the place to discuss that.

 

[sealybobo]

The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air

And they'll spend the money somewhere else. More bombs.

Will your taxes go down?

 

[Spare_change]

The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air

And they'll spend the money somewhere else. More bombs.

Will your taxes go down?

That's a different, and unrelated, question.

But, my opinion is .... somewhere, some day, somebody is going to have to pay for all the excess spending. The sooner it starts, the less the pain.

I'm not entirely convinced that Trump's tax plan will cause taxes to go down - but I am convinced that his economic package will stimulate growth, generating more tax revenue. Increased tax revenue plus decreased spending means the debt has to come down, money in the "bank", or you don't have to pay as much taxes ---- I suspect it will be a combination of the two.

But, it remains to be seen.

 

[Slade3200]

Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.

I understand that my initial questions were remedial but I was trying to gauge where you were coming from. I'm sure you've seen a fair share of complete morons in this board so I wanted to see how you would respond. I asked the descrtionary question to see if you were factoring in potential policy changes that would effect mandatory spending like SS and Medicare that may occur.

The main flaw I saw in your arguement was a trillion dollar per year cut on a 1.2 trillion budget with a proposed trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that Trump has proposed and that which you left out. There is just no way it all makes sense.

I was hoping for good Conservative fiscal policy after this election and was hoping for an administration that could increases the efficiency of government programs and cut much of the waste. I'm hopeful that Trump can do this but thus far there has been a tremendous lack of details and specifics about how this can be achieved. Mich of the math doesn't add up. The time for empty talk and campaign propaganda is over. It's time for action. I hope he can perform.

As I said, I wouldn't put too much faith in the CONTENT of their proposal, but focus more on the INTENT.

There was not intended to be specificity - it is a target sent up to determine who is going to shoot at it, and who is going to support it. While I strongly believe that the government could reduce its manpower by 20% without impacting performance or programs in the slightest, I also don't believe that will ever happen.

I do know this, however ... when we would brief a new project to Congress (I was in the space business), we were directed to add over 38% to program cost to cover government oversight. A satellite that would cost us $1 million to build (including profit that ranged from 7-10%) would be funded for $1.38 million. So, I think it's safe to say that cutting that add-on to only 30% (80% x 38), wouldn't significantly impact oversight.

Of course you could cut the fat and padding in government programs. They are mostly horrible managed... there would be a temporary spike in uneployment but hopefully followed by better management and efficiency. But you also have to understand it is a drop in the bucket and that problems exist in other areas that have a much more significant effect on the national debt. Consider that plus the 1 trillion in infrastructure spending and I just don't see how you can take anything Trumps has said about his economic plan seriously, let alone believe it will actually work towards a balanced budget

I'm glad you mentioned the infrastructure spending. Those who aren't listening to what's being said get all hyper about spending $1 trillion on infrastructure. But, as far back as August, Trump made it clear that there was a government/business approach he proposed.

A good portion of the $1 trillion will come from commercial investment. Company XYZ will rebuild Airport ABC, and in return, will receive rent from all the users. Company DEF will rebuild Highway STU and set up toll booths to recover their investment. He proposed that a set percentage of "profit" will determine exactly when the asset will be returned to government control. For example, invest $50 billion in Ohare Field in Chicago, agree to a recovery of $70 billion, and when that threshold is reached, the government resumes ownership/management of the airport.

The nice thing about this is that it is not always in the best interest of the company to recover its "profit" in the shortest possible time. A known, predictable, income is a valuable asset for a company. It can be used as leverage/collateral for other projects, lessening the company's risk. That should lead to holding the price for services at a relatively stable rate.

As for drop in the bucket - I'm not sure I understand why you say that. Government spending in 2015 was $3.9 trillion. Of that, approximately $1 trillion was in labor (contract and employee). Recover 20% of labor - $200 billion - and 10% of the remainder - $300 billion. Half a trillion a year is a SIGNIFICANT drop in the bucket.

Will he save $10 trillion? Of course not - that is a number pulled out of the air in order to get everybody's reaction. But, it eliminates the deficit, and actually starts paying down the debt. That is one hell of a start.

When you couple that with the increased tax revenue from the infrastructure program - you're talking about real money.

See there you go... you say that spending in 2015 was 3.7 Trillion but that was total spending... DISCRETIONARY spending was only 1.2 Trillion, this is the reason I asked the "stupid" question about discretionary spending.

I've always had a problem with the size of government and the inefficiency around how they spend our money. I hope Trump will negotiate better deals and cut much of the fat to get those departments running at better efficiency. I think he will be better at this than Clinton would have been and am hopeful for some progress in this area.

My worries are in the rhetoric and promises that he has made as his economic plans are largely based on cutting taxes for businesses and the wealthy. We can hope that these cuts stir investment, but with interest rates rising, and the enormous problem with have with wealth inequality in this country, I am fearful of the effects. Most of all I am uneasy about the dishonesty in his messaging. His philosophy is about presentation not details. When he talks he promises these amazing spectacular things. Thats all marketing. That may work when trying to sell people on the Trump brand, but he is in a different business now and the campaign is over. I question his ability to perform and very much hope that I am wrong.