[HN Gopher] US pauses all federal aid and grants
___________________________________________________________________
US pauses all federal aid and grants
Author : miohtama
Score : 200 points
Date : 2025-01-28 11:34 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| mrbluecoat wrote:
| > It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything
| in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit
| charities
|
| I'm all for reigning in government spending and our unprecedented
| deficit, but not sure throwing a stick of dynamite into the grant
| office is the best approach.
| kccoder wrote:
| Which is something many americans should've realized before re-
| electing a chaos monkey with a heart of stone.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care
| about anything as long as they get to own the other side.
|
| In many ways, Americana seem to be voting for the country to
| devolve into anarchy.
| lapcat wrote:
| > It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care
| about anything as long as they get to own the other side.
|
| I think that's overstating the case. There's a political
| duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and
| many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what
| they believe to be the lesser evil. They might or might not
| be empirically wrong in their beliefs, but don't mistake
| voting for enthusiasm.
|
| And "the majority" of voting Americans is technically
| 49.8%. With 63.9% turnout, that's only 31.8% of eligible
| voters.
| tzs wrote:
| > There's a political duopoly, both parties are
| obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both
| sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be
| the lesser evil.
|
| Even if both _parties_ are obviously, blatantly corrupt
| to about the same extent there is still large variation
| among individual politicians in both parties.
|
| P.J. O'Rourke, a well known conservative author and
| journalist, said it well in 2016 when he announced this:
|
| > I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for
| Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary.
|
| > I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her
| empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can
| happen to this country, but she's way behind in second
| place.
|
| > She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's
| wrong within normal parameters.
| lapcat wrote:
| People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal
| parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich
| and famous dude, but they haven't been working well for
| normal people. For better or worse, they want to shake
| things up.
|
| People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of
| the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos
| agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally
| speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is
| palpable.
|
| Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose,
| and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > I'm all for reigning in government spending and our
| unprecedented deficit,
|
| My bold prediction: the deficit will continue to grow at record
| levels.
| vdupras wrote:
| Not for a long time. We'll keep firing economists in charge
| until the reported deficit is satisfactory.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| More tax cuts for the rich sure won't help either
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Impeachment speedrun.
|
| First the inspectors general firing, and now this - which seems
| to be illegal impoundment?
| lupusreal wrote:
| Not giving money to researchers is hardly a criminal matter. Of
| course some congressmen could propose impeachment anyway,
| pretty sure some already have, but they don't have the numbers
| to kick him out of office so it's just posturing for their
| constituents.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Well, at this rate, and by his actions, Trump is basically
| telling congress to get f'ed.
| rbanffy wrote:
| His disregard with what Congress already signed into law is
| troubling, but he might find sympathy from members who were
| not in Congress before, as well as members who didn't sign
| the legislation he's overriding.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Then those new members can pass a law ratifying these
| cuts and doing so legally. This is just crime.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Executive impoundment is explicitly illegal and
| unconstitutional, _actually_. The president does not have the
| power of the purse, that 's congress.
| franktankbank wrote:
| Arguably this is only temporary. I don't think Congress
| sets the timeline do they?
| dllthomas wrote:
| It's not immediately clear to me how we should read the
| Constitution on that question, but the Impoundment
| Control Act seems to explicitly include "delay" alongside
| "withholding" in things that it might be forbidding.
| imperial_march wrote:
| No it's allowed, and has been done before by other
| presidents.
|
| 3 trillion is a lot of cash, how much of it is
| wastage/unnecessary?
|
| My bet is - most of it.
| ActionHank wrote:
| Who will enforce the law against him?
| dmix wrote:
| There's a long list of EOs that have been overturned by
| courts.
| rbanffy wrote:
| JD Vance might be his insurance policy. I can easily imagine
| him being even worse.
| dllthomas wrote:
| Absent context, I think there's a reasonable argument to be
| made. Remember, though, that we're comparing a JD Vance who
| was recently impressed with the importance of following the
| rules with a Trump recently impressed by the opposite.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Impeachment speedrun._
|
| An impeachment of a GOP president, by a GOP House and GOP
| Senate? With one of the GOP reps trying to give him a third
| term:
|
| * https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-
| propo...
|
| * https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-third-term-
| amendment-c...
|
| Sure.
|
| The GOP are now basically accomplices.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I am sure at least some of them know right from wrong. It'd
| be a tragedy if representatives were loyal to a president
| over the country.
| jounker wrote:
| It's almost like you haven't been watching US politics for
| the last eight years.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I should have said I'm hopeful. I'm always hopeful people
| can behave like adults and see the long term consequences
| of their action (and inaction) over others as well as
| themselves.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I am sure at least some of them know right from wrong._
|
| They also know which way the crowd/mob leans, and they know
| if they want to achieve their goals/agenda
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
|
| they need to have power
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
|
| If you don't have power you can't do shit. Just ask
| Harris/Biden/Clinton.
|
| "The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it."
| -- Abbie Hoffman, _Steal This Book_
|
| At this point, at least in the US, ideals are for suckers
| and losers. You can have ideals once you're in, but being
| effective is more important before that.
| Loughla wrote:
| There is no if in that sentence. It is Trump's party. The
| party of what used to be personal freedom is now in support
| of what amounts to a king.
|
| It's honestly astonishing.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _It 'd be a tragedy if representatives were loyal to a
| president over the country._
|
| Trump was impeached _twice_ by the House but was not
| convicted by the GOP-controlled Senate _twice_.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
|
| The second impeachment was for "incitement of
| insurrection".
|
| Pardon my bluntness, but what planet are you living on?
| Novosell wrote:
| Knowing right from wrong and acting on that knowledge are
| entirely different though.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Plus it's not like there are Democrats doing _anything_ to
| fight it.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Exactly. There is no need for fascism because there is no
| left opposing him. That is what people do not understand.
| We have corporate government that will be dictating your
| lives and you are focused on Trump and not the Oligarchs
| that control everything.
| rbanffy wrote:
| They lack the numbers. And it seems everyone is
| frightened by everyone else's obsequiousness towards
| borderline illegal orders.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| What would a hypothetical "left" do differently than the
| current Democrats? Assuming this "left" is similarly
| handicapped like the Democrats are, having just lost
| control of the House, Senate and White House?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't get to blame the Democrats anymore. They were
| voted out in November, and are no longer in power in any
| way.
|
| There is no "opposition" power structure in the US
| system.
|
| If congress brings a bill to a vote, democrats can
| threaten to filibuster it, but the GOP can pretty easily
| call that bluff right now.
|
| That's it. That's the only "power" a minority party has
| in the US system.
| lawn wrote:
| Oh, when the republicans are turning to fascism let's blame
| the democrats that lost the election completely and has no
| power to do anything anymore.
| DFHippie wrote:
| What things do you think the Democrats should do but aren't
| doing? Your "anything" suggests you think there are many
| such things. A list would be helpful.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Plus it's not like there are Democrats doing_ anything
| _to fight it._
|
| Can you enumerate some of the things that they could do,
| given recent actions have all been Executive Orders, which
| is the prerogative of the Executive branch.
|
| Unless things start happening in the legislature, where
| perhaps things like filibustering are an option, what
| options do the Democrats have against purely Executive
| actions?
| anonymousab wrote:
| > Can you enumerate some of the things that they could
| do,
|
| Biden had a very long time to do a lot of things. You can
| get a lot done with a bit of creativity and a willingness
| to cause a few constitutional crisis'.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| So the Executive and majorities in both houses of the
| Legislative branch are all aligned? How does that make them
| "accomplices" and not just a valid government doing
| governance?
| nerdjon wrote:
| Since it isn't clear what exactly will be stopped here.
|
| Some of these could hurt the districts with republican
| representation the most. Like food stamps, unemployment, and
| similar. So maybe something this stupid will wake people up?
|
| A lot of other policies could be twisted so trump isn't
| directly blamed. This is... pretty cut and dry if you suddenly
| stop getting money you rely on.
|
| So maybe it's actually possible? One can hope.
| Loughla wrote:
| I have zero faith. Republicans in those districts will find a
| way to spin this, and the people will eat it up.
|
| Maybe I'm just too cynical anymore but I have almost no faith
| in the American electorate.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I mean. You're not wrong.
|
| I think the only way I am going to be sane over the next 2
| or 4 years is to hold out some sliver of hope...
| silverquiet wrote:
| Donald Trump could do truly terrible things that I will not
| list because I would be accused of hysteria and the GOP would
| not impeach, let along convict him. The only sin I can imagine
| they would not forgive is to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's
| going to be a long, strange four years, and perhaps more.
| xtracto wrote:
| So, I'm not American and have just seen all the Trump circus
| from afar in the las 10 years.
|
| But... hasn't Donald Trump ready been impeached, trialed, found
| guilty of several crimes, several times with total impunity?
|
| Like, at.this point from here it seems he can do as he pleases.
| He could very well shoot someone and he will get away with it.
|
| The only hope for the US as a country is some kind of natural
| disaster (heart attack , stroke or similar).
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Even if he was impeached (he won't be), then its DJ Vance, who
| will just continue the playbook. Looking at the next 6 people
| in the presidential line of succession, everyone on of them
| would be fully onboard with keeping this up.
| rsanek wrote:
| nothing new. Reagan fired 15 IGs too soon after his 1981
| inauguration
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Nope. Congress destroyed the power of the impeachment in
| Trump's first term.
| exe34 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ActionHank wrote:
| Not weaken, destroy.
| rbanffy wrote:
| No intelligence agency would enlist him. He can't keep secrets.
| DFHippie wrote:
| A stick of dynamite can't keep secrets either but it does its
| job.
| rbanffy wrote:
| That's a good point. And, after the damage is done, who
| cares who started it? It's not like there will be
| repercussions for Putin.
| silverquiet wrote:
| "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to
| get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
|
| This was said by Grover Norquist, a thought leader amongst
| Republicans in the early 2010's. I've always thought that China
| or Russia would appreciate being able to drown us in a bathtub
| as well.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Grover Norquist_
|
| See:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This was said by Grover Norquist, a thought leader amongst
| Republicans in the early 2010's.
|
| Norquist actually said that in 2001, not the early 2010s.
| p3rls wrote:
| I thought we tried this last time, didn't we?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| He has much more conplete control of fhe Republican Party
| and, fhrough that, much less practical constraint in both
| policy and personnel this time, so this Administration
| reflects his will and intentions much more purely than did
| his first.
| exe34 wrote:
| he also has control of the courts.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Doesn't really matter at this point. But if he were, he would
| not be behaving any differently.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be
| explained by stupidity, and all that.
|
| Like, I've no doubt that Putin is very happy that he was
| elected, and the FSB and GRU probably put their finger on the
| scale to at least some extent, but it's probably more a case of
| a convenient idiot than a Manchurian candidate.
| exe34 wrote:
| > Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be
| explained by stupidity, and all that.
|
| that only applies when you have a flat prior. stupidity
| should be random - one action moves the needle one way,
| another action moves it back and you have an average of zero.
| when every action moves the needle the same way and somebody
| benefits from it, there's something going on.
| ModernMech wrote:
| I wish people would apply Hanlon's razor more critically.
| Because the way people apply it allows evil people to act
| dumb and get away with it all the time. Guess what: evil
| people don't come out and say "I'm evil!" They don't wear
| super villain costumes, and they don't look like evil
| monsters. They look like everyone else, and they say all
| the right things like everyone else. Evil people _rely_ on
| plausible deniability and Hanlon 's razor to get away with
| their deeds. At every turn they are called out, they will
| say "I didn't mean to, I'm really a good person honestly!
| You're overreacting! I was just joking!" At some point you
| have to put on your critical thinking skills and stop
| allowing people to lie to you.
| exe34 wrote:
| > Guess what: evil people don't come out and say "I'm
| evil!" They don't wear super villain costumes, and they
| don't look like evil monsters.
|
| sometimes they just do a Nazi salute in front of the
| world's cameras and people rush to their defence.
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| (We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42851328.)
| cjrp wrote:
| > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by
| Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the
| scope of presidential power.
|
| So, how quickly will this be overturned?
| nappy-doo wrote:
| Have you met the current congress? They have to care first.
| cjrp wrote:
| Is it up to congress though? Not the Supreme Court?
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Someone with standing needs to sue, which is then moved
| through the court system. We would need a US v Trump.
|
| That, or they impeach, which is utterly laughable.
| extra88 wrote:
| Anyone who's supposed to receive that money has standing
| and a federal judge can quickly rule that the status quo
| must remain while the case proceeds. The Trump
| administration can appeal that ruling but I think it
| would make it's way through the available steps
| relatively quickly.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The next steps are probably to cut funding anyway. I have
| a gut feeling that this is part of a larger power play
| that demonstrates that (this specific) President has no
| limitations on his power.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| This assumes that they are the only party with standing to
| sue, which is not likely the case. (Previous rulings on the
| lack of the authority of the executive to withhold
| appropriated funds have come in suits by intended
| recipients.) Both private parties (nonprofits and businesses)
| [1] and a group of 23 states [2] have already filed suit over
| the order.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/non-profits-health-groups-
| sue-...
|
| [2] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-
| bont...
|
| EDIT:
|
| And it has been blocked, for now:
| https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-
| grants...
| DFHippie wrote:
| How quickly did any of the Trump trials conclude?
| addandsubtract wrote:
| They concluded pretty quickly once he won the election.
| trilbyglens wrote:
| Yooouch
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The cases don't have to conclude to get a binding interim
| order (preliminary injunction) blocking the action.
| snailmailstare wrote:
| All you have to do is make the secret service perfectly
| efficient and the problem solves itself.
| pards wrote:
| He's rapidly trending into dictator territory
| rbanffy wrote:
| Hardly a surprise.
| roland35 wrote:
| It seems to be what people wanted!
| rbanffy wrote:
| This is the most disheartening part of it all. I have immense
| respect for the ideals that formed the United States, but I'm
| increasingly in doubt about the actual implementation.
| jrs235 wrote:
| "A republic, if you can keep it."
|
| --Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's
| question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a
| monarchy?"
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| It is not what he campaigned on, nor what the majority of
| voters wanted. Not once did I hear "we are going to shut down
| clinical trials so your loved ones die." I did hear a lot
| about grocery prices, which certainly aren't going down
| because of this.
| timeon wrote:
| AFAIK there was information about Project 2025, so this was
| not secret was it? And lot of people still support this as
| you can see it even here (as this thread is already
| flagged).
| Kye wrote:
| There are enough people who will reactively flag anything
| that touches the lines between politics and everything
| else, usually under a misunderstanding of the guidelines,
| that it's hard to infer intent behind a flag kill.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Project 2025 was getting grassroots attention & was
| becoming rabidly unpopular.
|
| Trump denied any affiliation, claimed he didn't know
| these people. (Even though many are folks he's already
| worked with.) The media accepted that unquestionablably &
| regurgitated Trump's obvious lies.
| highcountess wrote:
| It is actually what he campaigned on. It is largely thought
| that the centralized powers of the mainstream media have
| suppressed that aspect, the restoration efforts to revive
| the intended structure of the United States, a pluralistic
| republic of sovereign states, not a dictatorship by
| legislative communist committee.
|
| In fact the way the USA and the Constitution have been
| corrupted, especially over the last 120 years, essentially
| leaves no difference between a communist system where
| Congress has become the communist committees dominating and
| dictating people's lives, let alone subverting and
| effectively neutralizing the sovereignty of the states.
|
| It's essentially exactly the same thing that is going on in
| the EU where you look around and ask the sudden this
| illegitimate imitation government that calls itself the EU
| has somehow bait and switched all democratic power from the
| people of each state/country and is destroying them just
| like the federal government communist subversion in the USA
| has destroyed the unique identities and cultures of the
| various states over the decades and turned the USA into a
| world dominating evil empire of war and mayhem.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Communism? This looks like the end stage of capitalism
| affirms horseshoe theory. It was the capitalists who were
| sitting front row at the inauguration, not communists.
| lightbendover wrote:
| Then frankly you weren't paying attention. This was all
| laid out in Project 2025 and there were plentiful ties
| between it and Trump despite his deflection.
| throw0101c wrote:
| >>> _He 's rapidly trending into dictator territory_
|
| >> _It seems to be what people wanted!_
|
| > _It is not what he campaigned on_ [...]
|
| "Trump's vow to only be a dictator on 'day one' follows
| growing worry over his authoritarian rhetoric"
|
| * https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-
| authoritar...
|
| "Trump reiterates he wants to be a 'dictator' for 'one day'
| at Wisconsin rally":
|
| * https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
| news/trump-re...
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| It's been a lot longer than a day.
| ModernMech wrote:
| The thing about dictators is once you give them power,
| you can't take it back, even if they promise they want it
| just for one day.
| kccoder wrote:
| Give a sociopathic malignantly narcissistic chaos monkey
| an inch and they'll take...well...everything.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Can you find even one actual Trump voter that says they
| regret voting for him? All the supporters I know still seem
| pleased with their choice.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Being a dictator is absolutely what he campaigned on. He
| literally said it, and signalled it in every way possible.
| Those that didn't see that coming either weren't paying
| attention or wanted it to happen.
| kccoder wrote:
| Then you weren't paying attention. There were plenty of
| clues that this is precisely what was going to happen.
| There were many of us sounding the alarms and too many
| people scoffed. If you want to see what comes next, take an
| in depth look at project 2025. It's all there. It's the
| plan. It was always the plan.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I'm astonished that anyone believed things would unfold
| any differently than they have. We were told exactly what
| will happen by everyone in power. And the kissing of the
| King's ring before inauguration should have been a clue.
|
| Shit is going to get _awful_. It 's already to the point
| that, when I'm on reddit, I can't distinguish between
| r/news and r/collapse headlines.
| mapt wrote:
| Most people that voted for him either weren't paying
| attention to the clips you and I saw of what he said he
| wanted to do, or didn't believe him.
|
| People in the right-wing media ecosystem are not presented
| with anything that might threaten their image of their
| politicians.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| And people in the right-wing media ecosystem RABIDLY
| sequester themselves away from any possible source of
| contrary information.
|
| Goddamn, like imagine if Hilary Clinton made a social media
| company called "Truth Social"!
|
| But there always seems to be double standards
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| No, he is not. Many of these are ordinary powers that could
| have been used by any president.
|
| When he comes for the military, Supreme Court, and Congress,
| that is the trend you want to look for.
|
| Over-exaggerating what Trump does plays into his handbook.
| DFHippie wrote:
| Refusing to execute laws passed by Congress is not an
| ordinary power.
| ModernMech wrote:
| He wouldn't be refusing to execute laws passed by Congress,
| he would argue he is exercising his own power that Congress
| is trying to restrict unconstitutionally. Incidentally he
| believes his own power is limitless, and it appears SCOTUS
| does as well.
| nappy-doo wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs
| n144q wrote:
| Not so fast.
|
| > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by
| Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about
| the scope of presidential power.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| If he can face legal challenges he is no where close to a
| dictator.
| rbanffy wrote:
| SCOTUS already said he's immune from any official act he
| does as president.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| That is not at all close to what the ruling said.
|
| "immunity for official acts within an exclusive
| presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate"
|
| Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a
| landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the
| United States in which the Court determined that
| presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
| presumptively extends to all of a president's "official
| acts" - with absolute immunity for official acts within
| an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot
| regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the
| military, execution of laws, or control of the executive
| branch.
| rbanffy wrote:
| This covers a lot of what he's doing.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| He's immune _from prosecution_. He can still lose court
| cases that say that he doesn 't have the constitutional
| authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
| jhp123 wrote:
| At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the
| ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling
| overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders
| are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States
| decision.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things
| that could stop him:
|
| 1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of
| being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a
| functioning government if he fires them all.
|
| 2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
|
| 3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore
| the constitution, then they're going to ignore _him_ (and
| the whole federal government), since it 's only the
| constitution that says that they need to listen to the
| president. If the president tries to enforce it by force,
| then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country
| just collapses into the states.
|
| (Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the
| constitution, not to the president. If the president is
| giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and
| contrary to a court order stating that the orders are
| against the constitution - it is far from clear that the
| military will obey them.)
|
| But if none of those happens, then sure, the president
| can order whatever he wants.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning
| government if he fires them all.
|
| Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the
| bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished.
|
| > Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
|
| Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.
| Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he
| was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by
| holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit
| his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with
| the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for
| removal via impeachment. The Senate _agreed_ with him and
| acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you
| think that would go any differently a second time? And
| who is going to bring those articles? Republicans?
|
| > The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore
| the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and
| the whole federal government), since it's only the
| constitution that says that they need to listen to the
| president. If the president tries to enforce it by force,
| then it becomes a civil war
|
| And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only
| path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and
| Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he
| has the right to use the military against US citizens.
| jhp123 wrote:
| I do think that congress would impeach if he said "I
| declare martial law and cancel elections". He'll have to
| get there piecemeal without creating a single moment for
| opposition to coalesce.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Why though? Why wouldn't the Republicans just go along
| with the new dictatorial regime, as they have been every
| step of the way? If they really had the character you
| imagine, they would have held the line at the
| insurrection. Instead they whitewashed it and put him
| back in power. I am in no way confident that group of
| people would check his power again.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
|
| What if he just ignores the impeachment?
| ModernMech wrote:
| He's not immune from prosecution, but prosecution
| requires evidence. But he controls the evidecne and
| witnesses, and there's no way to compel him to produce
| evidence, witnesses to testify, or really conduct any
| substantive investigation. So, how does one prosecute
| that case? And who prosecutes it? The DOJ he controls? Or
| the Congress who are in his cult? And who rules against
| him, the SCOTUS and judges he appointed? Who would
| enforce the decision, himself?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Only immune for core constitutional powers
| ks1723 wrote:
| Big "if": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United
| _States_(2024...
| nkassis wrote:
| That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of
| worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts
| to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court
| decision they dislike because they have the ultimate
| power of enforcement.
| hypeatei wrote:
| > When he comes for... Congress
|
| What are your opinions on January 6th? That would include
| both the fake electors plot and the riot attempting to
| interrupt congressional proceedings.
| lawn wrote:
| January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive
| punishment because he's above the law.
|
| Oh and he's already started firing people from the
| military...
|
| Shrugging the shoulders is what lead us here, and you keep
| doing it.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| In no way I am shrugging my shoulders. We gain more ground
| holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods.
|
| > January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive
| punishment because he's above the law.
|
| No, he was not. He was acquitted. Twice
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-
| up...
|
| > Oh and he's already started firing people from the
| military
|
| This is common. For example: Obama
|
| https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-
| tw...
| ModernMech wrote:
| > We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily
| debunked falsehoods.
|
| Then you should display more candor in describing these
| situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was
| acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things,
| but because his political allies determined the things he
| was guilty of were not impeachable.
|
| Trump argued: "If a president does
| something which he believes will help him get elected, in
| the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro
| quo that results in impeachment"
|
| The "thing he did to help him get elected" in this case
| was holding up Congressionally appropriated money to gain
| leverage over a foreign nation (Ukraine), which he used
| to to attempt the extortion of a bribe (opening a
| pretextual investigation against his political opponent,
| Joe Biden). That they acquitted him does not mean he
| didn't do those things. It was conclusively proven he did
| that. It's just that Republicans think that's legitimate
| political behavior, and refused to remove him.
|
| As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch
| McConnell said: "There is no question
| that President Trump is practically and morally
| responsible for provoking the events of that day... We
| have a criminal justice system in this country. We have
| civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune
| from being held accountable by either one... I believe
| the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution
| does not give us."
|
| Many of the Senators had the same reasoning, which is
| that while they blamed Trump they didn't feel they had
| the power to impeach him at that time, so they left it up
| to the courts. So no, they did not really acquit him, and
| yes, they did lay the blame at his feet for what happened
| (found him guilty).
|
| As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a
| criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but
| Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that
| could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So
| if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not
| by the courts, he's above the law.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'd hate to compare Trump to Hitler, but many forget that
| Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power
| completely by legal means - truly a feat of political
| engineering.
|
| And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure
| many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by
| the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many
| whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They
| (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with,
| and the sheer luck they had.
|
| What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way
| that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take
| action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's
| the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want
| to rock the boat.
| rbanffy wrote:
| The playbook is to slowly destroy the limits of power. First
| step is to bombard the opposition with a flurry of orders
| that will need to be questioned. Some will be, but some will
| stick. Rinse and repeat and, the next time, orders could be
| more extreme. By then, they'll be harder to stop, either
| because you are still fighting the first round, or because
| there is no one left to question the next.
|
| There is already plenty reason to be concerned.
| amazingamazing wrote:
| I don't like Trump, but many of the things he is doing
| technically could have been exercised a long time ago.
| Fortunately (or unfortunately) decorum was generally a thing,
| so said powers were not exercised.
|
| Now we will see the extent to which these powers can, and
| should be used. The way the USA is supposed to work is a
| balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers. The
| problem mainly is that the legislative branch refuses to
| compromise and do anything. The judicial and executive branches
| seem to be taking the lead, with the executive, that is the
| president, at the helm.
|
| I expect even the conservative Supreme Court to rule against
| most of the recent activity, though. Especially the 14th
| amendment stuff.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > I expect even the conservative Supreme Court to rule
| against most of the recent activity, though. Especially the
| 14th amendment stuff.
|
| This is a test I'm eager to see, but I'm not very hopeful
| about it.
| csomar wrote:
| The most important detail (the amount) is being left. Is this
| just a few dollars (in terms of the US budget) or a sizable
| portion? How is the money split between the different categories?
| drewbug01 wrote:
| Those details aren't known; because the order is so broad and
| vague. That's part of the problem.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Have you read it, it's downright insane. "Marxist", "woke",
| etc. it carves out an exception for Medicare and Social
| Security, but that's _literally_ it. Even things like Pell
| grants, food stamps, and Medicaid are up in the other because
| the wording here is _that_ bad.
|
| So, as of this order, the US just had an ~$3 the trillion drop
| in GDP. Much of it to research and nonprofits.
| absolutelastone wrote:
| Not literally: "Medicare and Social Security benefits will
| not be affected, nor will any programme "that provides direct
| benefits to individuals", including Supplemental Nutrition
| Assistance Program, known as SNAP or food stamps, the White
| House said."
|
| I guess the article or link has been updated?
| amazingamazing wrote:
| Ignoring the legality of this, I don't really see what this is
| trying to accomplish. Even if the spending is not in line with
| Trump's priorities, it's not like he can unilaterally change the
| budget (of course, that's not stopping him...).
|
| One silver lining of this madness is I expect bipartisan support
| for clarifying and codifying the scope of executive power into
| law at some point in the future (sadly likely after Trump is long
| gone, though).
| Loughla wrote:
| >I expect bipartisan support for clarifying and codifying the
| scope of executive power into law
|
| Absolutely not going to happen.
|
| Trump Republicans want him to function more like a supreme
| executive/king instead of a president with controls on his
| power.
|
| Other Republicans are too scared of losing their jobs to stop
| this either.
|
| Democrats do better with an enemy, so they actually have a
| perverse incentive here.
|
| If we make it through this mess with our democracy intact, I
| will definitely be surprised. I hope I'm being dramatic, but
| I'm afraid I'm not.
| amazingamazing wrote:
| We'll see but I believe you're probably wrong. This
| particular action, e.g. federal aid pause, will affect people
| from all states. The constitutes will be rightly angry and
| threaten their congressmen, which will result in the outcome
| I mentioned earlier.
| Loughla wrote:
| I just think that politicians have figured out how to
| spread whatever lines they want into the public
| consciousness better than ever.
|
| I don't see Republican constituents blaming Republican
| politicians. They'll find a way to spin it to fit their
| existing world view. Democrats as well; same story,
| different words. Division is the name of the game.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > I don't really see what this is trying to accomplish.
|
| Chaos power grab.
|
| There is no silver lining here. The USA fell gradually, then
| all at once. It's over, done. We lost.
| DFHippie wrote:
| We hired someone to manage our obligations who was famous for
| signing contracts and then stiffing his contractors. It makes
| perfect sense that, once freed from underlings who were loyal to
| anyone or anything but him, he would continue this practice.
|
| All the entities that were receiving those grants and aid have
| already obligated it. They have rented office space, hired
| employees, purchased equipment. And all of the entities they have
| contracted with using this money have done the same. If they have
| to dissolve, they won't be there to start up again if the courts
| manage to compel the administration to execute the laws as
| written. (And Trump is also famous for protracted lawsuits which
| he wins by default when some deadline has passed.) Closed
| storefronts don't tend to open with the same business.
|
| I don't mind when rich fools learn hard lessons. Their self-
| esteem drops but their quality of life doesn't. It sucks when
| poor people are the blackboard on which this hard lesson is
| written.
| hypeatei wrote:
| > Medicaid and Social Security benefits are not affected
|
| That's disappointing, I wonder why those aren't getting paused?
| If you want to get spending under control and you're already
| breaking the law then you might as well stop everything.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Because no Republican would ever be elected to national office
| ever again?
| rbanffy wrote:
| I don't think societies have such long attention spans, or
| the rationality, to follow through that.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Every single democracy in the world is facing the same
| problem of gerontocracy. The old people (or about to be
| old) vote the most, they have the most numbers, and they
| cannot enact any policies that will help the young by
| cutting old people entitlements.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Luckily, this is a problem that solves itself.
|
| Medical science, of course, is delaying it somehow.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| How does it solve itself if successive generations are
| smaller and smaller?
| rbanffy wrote:
| The current ones will eventually retire from public life.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| But that's not the problem. The problem is
| disproportionate share of society's resources going to
| old people.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Hopefully they leave their inheritance to a number
| greater than 1.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Because no Republican would ever be elected to national
| office ever again?_
|
| People regularly vote against their own interest out of
| spite:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness
| hypeatei wrote:
| Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was a rhetorical question.
| We all know why they don't do it: because a significant
| percentage of their voter base are boomers who rely on that
| stuff.
| anonymousab wrote:
| You severely underestimate Trump, the GOP and a tamed media
| and tech industry's ability to spin things as the Democrats'
| fault.
|
| They can also trivially rig elections by just organizing
| things to criminalize the majority of your opponents, but
| that's overkill.
|
| At the end of the day, their win was total and permanent.
| There are no realistic fears of reelection issues to ever
| worry about.
| rbanffy wrote:
| All that is a rounding error next to military spending. You
| want the deficit under control, cut military spending.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| This is completely wrong:
|
| https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-
| guide/feder...
|
| Military spend is less than 20% (combination of "Defense" and
| "Veterans Benefits and Services"). Some of the Vererans
| benefits and services are old age healthcare and defined
| benefit pension, so that can get subtracted from military
| spend and moved over to social security and Medicare (since
| it would happen anyway regardless of military spend).
|
| Social security, Medicare, Medicaid m, and other healthcare
| subsidies are 21% + 14% + 13% = 47%.
|
| Income security is another 9%, like food stamps, social
| security supplemental income, earned income tax credits, all
| stuff for lower income/wealth households.
|
| So 60% of US federal government spend is welfare. Less than
| 20% is military. 13% is interest costs. And the remaining ~7%
| is for everything else.
| rbanffy wrote:
| You are right. I never suspected this would be the case.
|
| Still, social/income security and healthcare (and
| education) should be the last places one should cut
| budgets.
|
| Also, the US spends more in their military as a percentage
| of their GDP than any other developed nation. This sounds
| like an excellent place to cut. The US government
| subsidizes a lot of weapons research as well, for companies
| that'll later sell the tech the government helped them
| develop to foreign countries at a profit. I don't think
| it's fair to subsidize a private enterprise this way.
| cma wrote:
| Fed children that don't suffer from easily treatable
| diseases contribute back more than the cost. Blanket
| actions like this are very poorly thought out even under
| that kind of cold ROI perspective.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is the dilemma for democracy, isn't it?
|
| It is obvious to anyone that well raised children provide
| a huge ROI...but not to a large portion of voters due to
| the shape of the population histogram. Instead, countries
| are spending tons and tons of resources on 80+ year olds'
| dialysis, heart bypasses, hip replacements diabetes
| management, and end of life care. And keeping their
| property taxes low even though they live in large houses
| on large lots. Cold or hot, there is obviously no ROI
| there.
| greentxt wrote:
| "everything from development assistance to military aid."
|
| Was written twice. I appreciated that.
| benterix wrote:
| I don't understand one thing.
|
| Why is this submission flagged?
| basementcat wrote:
| Also, why is this not on the front page? This has over 110
| points while a post about OpenVMS on the front page has 34
| points.
|
| While I agree that OpenVMS is cool, I think the fate of over 20
| million lives (due to the suspension of PEPFAR) deserves more
| weight than an obscure 50 year old operating system.
| dang wrote:
| > _why is this not on the front page? This has over 110
| points while a post about OpenVMS on the front page has 34
| points._
|
| This question, phrased in the general case, is in the FAQ:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. (Look for "Why is
| A ranked below B even though A has more points and is
| newer?")
|
| In the present case, users flagged it and it set off the
| flamewar detector. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42857139.
| tredre3 wrote:
| Simple: many (perhaps even most?) visitors take the name "
| _hacker_ news " literally and are not interested in
| discussing socioeconomic news. At least not on this forum.
| jeanlucas wrote:
| I am not the one who flagged it, but here's probably why: users
| feels this is off topic.
|
| Overall as a non-american HN to me is a technical forum.
|
| I know everything involves politics, but I honestly don't come
| to HN to know about about the US budget Federal decisions.
| basementcat wrote:
| Whether we like it or not, US federal budget decisions impact
| NASA, Fermilab, academic AI researchers and the health of
| over 20 million people suffering from AIDS (among many many
| others).
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| I see this form of thought here a lot.
|
| The general gist of it is "well, everyone else likes this so
| you should be okay with it too". Usually the person arguing
| in that direction is one of "everyone else".
|
| I've never found it super convincing.
|
| Personally, I don't actually think that the technical
| discourse here is super great- occasionally I see things from
| highly knowledgeable folks, but a lot of the time it's just
| hacks out a hackin.
|
| HN is a forum run by venture capitalists and folks who are
| tied to that either aspirationally or professionally.
|
| I get a lot of information about how that group of folks
| thinks from this site, and I find it helpful in understanding
| their affect on the world I live in.
|
| You're welcome to have whatever preferences you have for the
| site, but it's not how I have been interacting with it for
| the last decade.
|
| To the point about flagging, I am always surprised how
| willing folks are to believe that every other social media
| algo is gamed, but just assumed that there is no manipulation
| going on with their own media consumption.
|
| I mean, go write a bot to flag stuff using ghost accounts, I
| don't care- I get my "HN front page" from a set of search
| terms, which will show a lot of dead and flagged content.
| It's pretty trivial to see what happens if you're looking to
| know that kind of thing, and other folks have written at
| least two tracking systems I know of for killed HN content.
|
| I can totally buy that the reality of empire and its internal
| contradictions are uncomfortable enough for the tech bros
| that seem to make up the most of the site. The idea that they
| reflexively repress anything "political" sounds reasonable.
|
| That doesn't seem like a great premise, but I buy it better
| than the idea that I should be beholden to that same ideal in
| my use of the site.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Overall as a non-american HN to me is a technical forum.
|
| As a non-American, this is massive on its own, and could be
| absolutely world-changing depending on how it evolves. The US
| are where they are thanks to a great brain drain, powered by
| both industry and government money. Messing with this _will_
| have consequences, particularly coupled with visa
| restrictions. Or not, if Trump flip-flops once more. In any
| case, this is very important news for any technology- or
| science-adjacent field, including health and medicine.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| I think you and I know why at this point. HN and YC as a whole
| are all in on this administration[1]. It's the reason why it's
| going to get censored.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42774698
| dang wrote:
| > _I think you and I know why at this point._
|
| I know it's satisfying, but that's a risky way to think if
| you care about the truth.
|
| Users flagged the submission and it also set off the flamewar
| detector, a,k.a. the overheated discussion detector.
|
| No mods or admins touched this post. , or even saw it until
| someone sent an email about it. Then I turned off the flags
| and the flamewar penalty.
| hooverd wrote:
| There's a joke around the orange website in here somewhere.
| r00fus wrote:
| Because digg-style "bury brigades" are still a thing.
| 93po wrote:
| I flagged stuff like this because there's no real curious
| conversation to be had, it's not interesting in a technical
| way, it's unrelated to hacking and startups, and basically just
| incites lazy dog-piling that, while I don't disagree with it,
| is not interesting to read for me. I will go to reddit if I
| want to read that sort of commenting.
| basementcat wrote:
| Over 20 million lives are at risk after the PEPFAR program was
| suspended. Within a few weeks viral loads will return to
| pretreatment levels again. This is a human caused public health
| catastrophe.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Why are US taxpayers on the hook for this?
| Clamchop wrote:
| Less disease in the world benefits everyone. Very much a
| social good.
|
| It makes me a little sad just reading your criticism.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| At what cost? How much cost should I personally bear to
| reduce disease worldwide?
|
| When we hit a point of diminishing returns do I still need
| to pay incrementally more into this?
| spaethnl wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what cost do you believe that you
| currently personally bear for this?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| How much _should_ I bear or how much do I _actually_
| bear?
|
| I should bear 0 cost.
|
| It looks like US Foreign Aid is ~1% of the Fed budget, so
| 1% of my taxes. So again, too much.
| sangnoir wrote:
| How much would you pay to not get Ebola or another
| haemorrhagic disease, should it find it's way into your
| community? How much are you willing to pay to hedge
| against that risk by squelching outbreaks near the
| source?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Absolutely willing to pay for this. What % of the budget
| goes to that? Do I need to accept everything else to get
| this service or can I just whitelist this line item?
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Um yes? I am convinced you're a child with how you think
| everyone can line pick their own items and only those and
| somehow that works or would provide enough for the causes
| lmao. It's like the people who only wanted 1 or 2
| channels and they then realized how much those actually
| cost without everyone subsidizing.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Do I need to accept everything else to get this service
| or can I just whitelist this line item?
|
| No 2 people will ever agree on the same government spend
| (to the nearest million). The point of having a
| representative government is so that individual citizens
| don't need referendum on how much to pay for toilet paper
| at an USAF base in Japan, or disease reconnaissance in
| central Africa - but both things benefit US citizens
| (broadly speaking) and need to be done, so congress
| allocates the money.
| Clamchop wrote:
| I don't know why you're asking me to answer questions
| that are clearly personal to you, and have no objective
| answer.
|
| All I can say is, probably not none.
|
| And maybe a note on diminishing returns, in that we might
| want to reflect on the eradication of smallpox and the
| near total eradication of polio, and what it has meant to
| you and to your community to not really have to worry
| about those diseases.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| I don't know how my community benefits from worldwide
| eradication of those diseases more than just US-only
| eradication along with rigorous border controls stopping
| smallpox-infected people from visiting. Again,
| considering the cost along with the benefit.
| cma wrote:
| With RFK you're going to see huge populations of
| unvaccinated, border control won't help in that scenario
| with how contagious it is, but immigrants will provide a
| scapegoat. RFK is probably going to push for removing MMR
| vaccine requirements for legal immigrants too. His
| organization got many killed in American Samoa from
| measles.
| Clamchop wrote:
| There is no upper bound here. The eradication of smallpox
| is money saved and suffering prevented every day for as
| long as humans are around.
|
| Border screening clearly has a high failure rate, our
| recent experiences with this should be fresh in your
| mind. Besides threatening public health domestically,
| outbreaks in foreign nations are nevertheless a major
| economic liability. If COVID had never left China, we
| would still have seen a huge worldwide disruption, for
| example.
|
| And anyway, screw them, we got ours is a shit
| perspective. Empathy should be part of the conversation
| when talking about so much suffering and death.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| "No upper bound" is not a serious policy position. Sorry,
| I can't engage that.
| Clamchop wrote:
| And yet, it is obviously true.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| This may surprise you, but US citizens travel. And US
| citizens get sick in other countries. Unless you want to
| argue that we should take away rights from US citizens
| and either prevent them from entering the country,
| unlawfully detain them or prevent them from leaving.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| We absolutely can and should bar US citizens from entry
| back into the US while sick. This is not illegal. It is
| in fact a very old and accepted form of disease control,
| commonly called "quarantine".
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Worked so well for covid
| singleshot_ wrote:
| Quarantine would only work in a society that respected
| the whole nearly as much as the individual, which you
| would know if you had been alive in 2020.
| ks1723 wrote:
| You sure know the concept of incubation time. Barring
| infected persons from entering if they have no symptoms
| is not possible. And quarantining every single person who
| enters is also not possible.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Who's going to pay for the quarantines - the same
| overburdened taxpayers you were concerned about?
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Ah yes because covid was stopped so well
| sangnoir wrote:
| How much are you willing to pay for screening a very long
| list of diseases - both in administrative costs and
| traveler time wasted? Will you be quarantining citizens
| too, as some infections have an incubation period before
| they can be detected - who will pay for all of that? How
| many tourism dollars will be lost due to this additional
| friction?
|
| Now that we have established you're willing to pay to
| prevent diseases spreading to the US, why do you think
| that screening at the border is superior to reducing the
| worldwide incidence, or eradicating them and never having
| to screen for them ever again?
| mu53 wrote:
| The US is the wealthiest country in the world, and the US
| got to that place by having these programs in place.
|
| Who makes shoes/other goods, mines the earth, or other
| dangerous work? The people in those poor countries. These
| programs are often the stepping stone that western
| countries use to enter countries and "develop the
| economy" in these areas to the benefit of everyone.
| Developing the economy brings jobs then brings peace.
| Then the cost of goods stays down.
|
| Fewer orphans. More experience treating diseases. More
| stable economies to exchange goods and services with.
|
| Very likely these programs pay for themselves via your
| taxes via price of goods and services. Entirely ignoring
| the moral good
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| The US got to this place by winning a world war with
| virtually no negative impact to our own country. We were
| literally the last ones standing.
|
| All of these programs came _after_ we established our
| position.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| >At what cost?
|
| $14.03 per American per year.
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| He's just too poor I guess.
| pedalpete wrote:
| Because you want people to pay in US dollars, buy US goods
| and pharmaceuticals.
|
| You wanted everyone to admire the US and exported the
| American dream to be the ideal of the world.
|
| Why is it important for America to enforce freedom in every
| oil rich country - apparently even Canada now!
|
| You can take a "mission accomplished" stance and be done with
| it, but if America wants to maintain it's standing in the
| world, these sorts of programs will need to continue.
|
| Without the US footing the bill for this, China will come in
| with Chinese aid, and teach these countries how to adopt the
| Chinese ideology.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| You may be right.
|
| Trump-Americans are indeed rejecting the post-WWII world
| order. It is no longer serving us.
|
| Trump is renegotiating the deal with the rest of the world.
| It could blow up in our faces or we could end up in a more
| favorable position.
| lordfrito wrote:
| The post-WWII world order has been slowly falling apart
| over the last decade or so. America is a bit late to wake
| up to this reality. We're now in a pre-WWIII world.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Yes! America needs to adjust our spending to reflect this
| new paradigm
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| The post-WWII world order fell apart when the Berlin wall
| fell.
|
| That order was defined by the tension between the east
| and the west during the cold war, and it can't be
| overstated what an existential threat communism was
| perceived as by the west during this period.
|
| Half a century of American politics were based on the
| premise that if the US did not win against the Soviets,
| the entire world would live under a world wide oppressive
| communist regime. Freedom would be a historical footnote.
|
| This meant that the US urgently needed to have its shit
| together at all points, not just function well, but also
| look good. The war against communism was fought in the
| hearts and minds of the world's population.
|
| Since the Soviet union fell, and with nobody to keep the
| US honest anymore, it's arguably let itself go.
|
| In part it's metaphorically stopped sucking in it's
| stomach, to hide its flaws and present itself as
| flawlessly glamorous. Some of the American decline is
| problems that have existed for a long time that have now
| been brought to the surface; but I think the lack of
| competition is also just as big of a factor.
|
| New powers have emerged in the vacuum left behind the
| Soviet union, yes, but these are all knock-on effects,
| and I don't think they're perceived as the sort of
| existential threat as the communists were. Some are
| trying to paint them that way, but it's not nearly the
| same.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| America wants to run an empire without doing the work that
| is accustomed to it.
| sangnoir wrote:
| American soft power enables a multitude of benefits to US
| taxpayers, but as a higher-order effect. Leaders who only
| apply first-order thinking will disrupt complex systems
| without understanding them.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| At what cost to those US taxpayers? Leaders who only look
| at benefits without understanding costs will bankrupt the
| American people.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Why are you not questioning the defense budget then? Aid
| like this is mutually beneficial. Countries get free
| medicine, US gets favorable trade deals, the money spent
| stays with US companies and flows down to US taxpayers in
| terms of wages and taxes the companies making the drugs
| pay back. But if you think that's not beneficial, then
| why do we need trillions every year for defense?
| r00fus wrote:
| Because it's enlightened self-interest. I personally love
| paying taxes that go to these functions because they keep
| people in homes and off streets, they keep people from dying
| early.
|
| You may like the stench of death and despair all around you -
| I sure don't want to live in that world.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| How much are you willing to pay for this?
|
| If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove
| to you that it was all going to care for those less
| fortunate than you, would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%?
|
| What quality of life are you aiming for the recipients? Do
| they each get a cot in a shelter? Their own room? Their own
| apartment or house? Do they get it with no strings attached
| or do they have to try to improve their own lot while the
| taxpayer helps them?
|
| How long do we want to extend lives for? Surely we all
| agree on medication and life-saving care for children.
| Should a 95 year old get hundreds of thousands of dollars
| to extend their lives for 6 months?
|
| These are real questions that Americans are trying to
| answer right now.
| Bjartr wrote:
| These are questions with long standing answers arrived at
| iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue
| to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is
| throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once
| while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that
| results in net improvement to American society? Probably
| not.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| Whether it was right or not to pause federal aid and
| grants, the issue is partly that it isn't just current tax
| revenues that are paying for this federal spending, but a
| ballooning debt due to a budget deficit. The brunt of this
| debt's interest burden is going to fall on the future tax
| payer.
| Balgair wrote:
| I mean, the playbook here is pretty well used:
|
| Create an emergency that wasn't there (cut all the fed
| aid and grants, muck up the government, etc)
|
| Make a solution that will fix it (the soon to be tax
| bill, also the secretary positions and other stuff)
|
| Stuff that solution with every policy candy you can (pro-
| life, tax cuts, guns for tots, funding catholic schools,
| etc. It's going to be a conservative jelly doughnut)
|
| Due to the emergency, we must pass this bill (ram through
| the tax bill asap, no need to read the thing, blame the
| slackers, etc)
|
| Declare victory, hope that helps reelection
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42849061
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-28 23:01 UTC)