But he isn't. This isn't framed as a "we need to bring down costs and stop paying for things and that's just going to be hard" initiative. This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs.

In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.

The idea you have is nice, but congress doesn't pass real budgets any more. That means that there is a lot more ability to make the money slosh around.

Like it or not, the budgets passed by congress are budgets from the perspective of the constitution.

We are wildly far beyond strict constitutionalism. This has been a trap for conservative causes for a very long time. We are now playing the game the same way the left does: win and govern.

You'll have to excuse me for being mortally terrified of "we are unencumbered by the law and will do whatever we want with power."

Laws have never encumbered humans. We're governed by social norms and those have been destroyed: massive immigration, sexual mutilation of children, and wanton spending of US taxpayer dollars.

This ends with you shooting me in the head.

deeply weird of you to say this.

>This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs.

Did we watch the same campaign? Trump absolutely campaigned on ending DEI too. The electorate hates DEI programs. Cutting spending and DEI programs is what got him the popular vote.

Right, but that's not what this order does. People were locked out of Medicaid payment portals today because of this, how is that shutting down DEI? It seems that they really had no idea what they were shutting down with this, order.

Maslow's hierarchy would tend to suggest that when you shut down the trough to progressive leaning aid recipients they and their reps will tend to negotiate away other mere desires. Not saying you should do that, but Trump is transactional and not above using blunt tactics.

Yeah but red states and his own voters are the biggest beneficiaries of Medicaid so...

Their sacrifice is one he's willing to make.

Fox brainwashed viewers hate DEI. 1% (vote margin of win, roughly) electing a person to an office does NOT equal a popular mandate for any particular policy and its silly to claim that the voters hate what you apparently hate.

White people don't like getting called racists for existing.

You hate white people. Just day it.

It's okay to hate whites on hackernews, just call them Trump-tards.

Not all white Americans voted for Trump. The one's that did are certainly okay with racism and for a not insignificant number it was a selling point.

>His first act was eliminating institutionalized racial practices with employment, aka "DEI" initiatives.

The purpose of the narrative that DEI is "institutional racism" and the goal of its elimination is to normalize the belief that non white straight male and able-bodied people are inherently less qualified for any position, and to allow legal systemic discrimination against such people.

Which is racist, yes. And sexist, and homophobic and transphobic and ableist.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle, which is also against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

If you could please not create accounts to break HN's rules with, we'd appreciate it.

We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Keeping thinking this way and keep losing elections.

>> Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending > > This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.

sigh

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59729

Defense accounted for $805B out of a total discretionary budget of $1.7T. The next largest category (using the CBO's classifications, not mine) are veteran's benefits @ $131B, and it goes down from there. If you want to quibble with what "overwhelming majority" means, I guess you can do that, but I doubt that's interesting to anyone.

I'll wait for you to 'disprove' the above.

tbc, I am not surprised by any of this (as you say, he was very clear about his intentions), but let's not pretend that there is any policy-specific valence to the outcome of any vote in the current electoral system. People vote as they do for their own (usually terrible, and usually unrelated to policy) reasons, and the people that win get to do what they will with the power bestowed upon them. Insofar as Trump's and Republicans' actions make life for the bottom ~80% harder, don't be surprised as buyers' remorse sets in pretty heavily. And so goes the "debate".

You clearly wrote "non-discretionary". Now I see you meant "discretionary", but even so you're still wrong. It is not even a simple majority.

805/1722 = 0.467

Ah, indeed, I was sloppy in my wording in that prior message.

I should have said is that defense is the largest single category of discretionary spending, by a large margin. The thrust of the point remains.

Okay, addressing the main thrust:

Defense spending is absolutely a priority of this administration. SecDef Hegseth's whole thing is about reorienting the Pentagon back to American defense as the priority. Remember that getting Hegseth confirmed was a major push for the brand new admin.

So spending won't go down but will hopefully be spent more effectively.

"Effective for what?" is always the key question. Various unhinged "proposals" (invading greenland, invading panama, an iron dome-like system to cover basically all of north america to shoot down...whatever Canada and Cuba will launch at us??) suggest nothing other than full funding++, used in dumb ways (which I suppose is better than circa 2002 WoT defense spending?).

Until last November, Hegseth's "whole thing" was being a frat anchor / defense witness for Fox. Talking about him being anything like a serious figure is absurd.

You are ignoring the Veterans Benefit part to skew your numbers. Its 55% when you lump that in. You don't get to simply write that off.

That's a definition of defense spending that no one except you uses, so no I don't have to use your made up definition