The US has by far the lowest spending (fed + state + local) among the major advanced economies in the world. [1]

The US also has by far the lowest taxes (fed + state + local) among them too; in fact, the US could have raised taxes by more than 15% and still been lowest. [2]

Regardless, if someone does believe spending should be cut, what specifically should be cut, and what % of the 11.5T/y [3] gov spending does it add up to?

[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/Ap...

[2] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/ap...

[3] https://www.bea.gov/data/government/receipts-and-expenditure...

The US was literally founded over concerns related to large governments and governments gaining too much power. The idea we have some of the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP shouldn't be surprising, its originally by design.

I also don't really care how much other countries choose to spend, that's their choice and I shouldn't have a say in that.

I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut, there's plenty of data I don't even have access to. From my experience with both local and federal governments, though, there is plenty of waste in the US that could be handled without even impacting the end result our programs are intended to deliver.

1. You make strong definitive statements like "there is plenty of waste" that could be cut "without even impacting" programs' results, but then can't actually quantify it? How can you make strong definitive statements if you simultaneously say "I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut"?

2. Regardless, is there any national politician who has named and quantified the items that they would cut that you support? As this seems to be a large, long-running problem within the right ('news', politicians, etc.) where they will make significant claims about wanting to cut gov spending without ever actually naming the programs they want to end and what % of the ~11T/y spending it adds up to.

3. You pointed to how when the US was set up in the 1700s that the government had different goals, and that there were wildly different expectations of what government provided for its citizens. Do you think the expectations of what the government provided in the 1700s are still relevant for what US citizens expect (or demand) of government services in the 21st century?

4. Every program will have some waste and abuse, and organizations typically then spend money to combat the waste and abuse. Sometimes the cost of fighting the waste and abuse, and/or the increased bureaucracy and overhead to prevent the issues in the first place, even exceed the costs of the waste and abuse that is being combatted. But my point is that even if waste exists, the 'cure' might be worse than the 'disease' in terms of increased costs, increased bureaucracy/oversight, etc. I'm not even necessarily opposed to those increased costs, bureaucracy, etc. in order to combat the possibly-smaller-costing waste and abuse, but it's certainly not as simple as "___ exists, so we can spend less by just not doing that."

In theory I agree with you.

In practice every time someone goes to Washington to "clean house" the first things to get gutted are welfare and funding for science and research, because unfortunately a lot of Americans consider all of that to be waste. Never the military, never the police, never the pork.

If states can require balanced budgets, I see no reason why the federal government can't be required to as well

I'm not arguing that the federal government can't be required to balance the budget. I'm arguing that cutting social spending and science and research in order to balance the budget should not be allowed, and that social spending shouldn't be contingent on a balanced budget.

Only entitlements are protected from the austerity budget cutting acts. Social spending and science don't fall into the entitlement category.

That’s not at all the point they raised?

All of those programs have to be on the table. We can only afford what we can afford, that means a combination of increasing revenues, clearing out wasted spending, and reducing expenses by cutting programs.

Somehow we can always afford a military several orders of magnitude beyond what's necessary for self defense, we can always afford a global surveillance infrastructure, we can always afford the infinite pit of black budget programs.

But for everything else - anything with the stink of "empathy" on it - every penny has to be justified. We cut USAID and destroyed a useful source of soft power and intelligence and killed hundreds of thousands of people because the program helped gay and transgender people in some way. We cut funding to HHS, welfare, science, education, infrastructure and the environment. And then we approved the biggest military budget in history. Netanyahu makes a phone call and we burn $3 billion dollars a month on a war with Iran without a second thought or an end in sight.

So I respectfully disagree. Under a fair and impartial system you would be correct, but American politics is neither. Every program isn't on the table. Every attempt to balance the books is nakedly partisan and punitive.

Let’s start by cutting the military budget (including all the ways they indirectly fund the military) by at least half

I known I don't have nearly enough information to know if that's feasible or advisable, I assume you don't either. Though yes, I would like it if we didn't need such a large military and I take issue with the concept of a standing military during peace time in general.