alt.hn

4/25/2025 at 4:38:34 PM

A Scaled Down Look at Spending, Revenue, and What's Being Cut

 https://www.debtinperspective.com/

by mifydev

4/25/2025 at 6:01:04 PM

This page is very long-winded at getting to the main point which is at the bottom of the page, in small type, in gray text on a gray background: "DOGE cuts represent 0.95% of federal spending"

That should be the headline, and then an explanation of why those probably aren't even real savings (e.g. cost of payouts to fired workers).

by xnx

4/25/2025 at 6:39:19 PM

This page is... Very very short. What are you talking about?

by thisisnotauser

4/25/2025 at 6:48:59 PM

The problem is, most of those people who need to understand this require sound bites.

by cyanydeez

4/26/2025 at 3:54:12 AM

Ah yes, look here officer, we've found someone not carried violently downstream by the relentless tugs of the attention economy.

by esseph

4/25/2025 at 6:13:25 PM

Towards the end, the solution offered is supposed to be a bigger multiplier of the DOGE cuts, but then they sneakily include “over 10 years”. I was bought in into the narrative until then. Please don’t do that.

by darth_avocado

4/25/2025 at 6:37:33 PM

Usually I would agree, but the amount of distortion depends on what portion of DOGE savings are one-off (eliminating grants and contracts) and what portion are recurring annually (workforce reductions).

If DOGE savings are one-off then it would be fair to present alternatives according to their lifetime debt impact, since the presented DOGE numbers would already be "lifetime."

And TFA states "Please note: only grants and contracts posted on the doge.gov website with receipts are counted towards the total saving value. For this reason, the total savings value on the doge.gov website may appear larger, however due to the lack of supporting receipts, this value is unverifiable." So it looks like DOGE's recurring savings are (mostly?) not included here since they are undocumented.

by mactrey

4/25/2025 at 10:48:06 PM

I understand that the total impact should be compared, which is fine. But I take issue with how the narrative is presented. If your point is to convince me that me cutting down my smoking habit is far better than me canceling my car purchase, then you need to be a little more upfront and clear about the fact that it will take almost 30 years worth of cigarettes to have a similar impact.

by darth_avocado

4/25/2025 at 6:32:00 PM

Yeah, the fair way would be show DOGE estimates for 10 years as well

by mifydev

4/25/2025 at 11:54:53 PM

It's also slightly deceptive to describe the DOGE cuts to USAID programs as "one time cuts." This is technically true, but it implies that the programs will be replaced with different programs with a similar cost, which likely isn't the case considering the Trump admin is trying to axe USAID permanently. The actual savings are whatever USAID's budget would have been had it continued to exist.

by trefoiled

4/25/2025 at 5:58:56 PM

I'm curious who is tracking the costs which have been incurred by DOGE. Say, for example, they claim a savings of X from firing a bunch of people, what is the cost Y from the hiring of contractors to fulfill the obligations those X people filled?

How much are they costing us?

by hidingfearful

4/25/2025 at 6:22:19 PM

By far the largest cost of DOGE has been destroying the credibility of the United States. Investors are fleeing US bonds, driving up the rates, and the amount we're spending on extra interest that we wouldn't have paid otherwise is multiples of even what DOGE claims to have "saved", likely 1000s of times higher than actual "savings".

by jeffbee

4/25/2025 at 10:37:27 PM

The cause of distrust is the tariffs and threats of invasion, not DOGE.

Overseas we’re watching DOGE with a giant bucket of popcorn on our lap, but it’s not going to change our government policies towards the USA.

by jiggawatts

4/25/2025 at 10:48:42 PM

DOGE is eliminating American soft power, but ultimately that should come up as neutral or even a positive depending on a country’s relationship with the USA. Iran, China, Russia would think of them as a positive, for example.

by seanmcdirmid

4/25/2025 at 7:59:23 PM

Someone on Twitter made the excellent quip, “Every government program is either too big to change or too small to matter.”

by thecabinet

4/25/2025 at 7:04:27 PM

I really enjoyed the deficit reduction game ("Deficit Reduction Options")

With only some moderate rate increases to taxes on business and top earners along with moderate spending cuts I was able to create a plan that reduced the deficit by 25% over 10 years without screwing over the poor and middle class.

When will a total Federal Government Simulator game be released?

by adiabatichottub

4/25/2025 at 9:59:05 PM

The problem with all of this is that the majority of spending is in three areas:

1. Health care services (About 33%)

2. Social Security and other transfer payments (About 25%) (EITC, SNAP, housing subsidies, etc)

3. Defense (About 15%)

4. Interest on the debt (About 11%).

There's simply not all that much to cut from everything else. Each of those areas also has a giant constituency that will fight cuts.

If I had to give an area where you could probably cut the most, it would be health care, but that has proven to be a very thorny problem.

by cameldrv

4/25/2025 at 5:58:55 PM

Really awesome project! Scaling this down to household scale is so helpful.

by bananatron

4/25/2025 at 6:37:45 PM

The notion that there is no point saving money because the total amount of debt is high is effectively saying that the problem can never be solved.

A billion dollars is still a billion freaking dollars.

I encounter the same attitude sometimes with program optimization too. Sometimes it’s death by a thousand cuts and you just need to shave off 0.1% at a time until your program is fast.

by Negitivefrags

4/25/2025 at 6:45:18 PM

Sure, but the goal was first a trillion dollars, then $150 billion dollars.

There's also the question of what is actual savings versus what is going to end up costing us more in the long run. You can save money in your personal budget by cancelling oil changes on your car, but that doesn't represent a real long-term savings. In fact quite the opposite.

Things like the National Parks produce huge amounts of economic activity in the surrounding communities. Things like food safety regulations and testing promote consumer confidence in our food and agricultural industries. Social Security money not sent to seniors or children of deceased parents places a larger burden on our communities. Not every cut is a savings, and the information being given about what has been cut across all of these agencies has been less than stellar.

by stetrain

4/25/2025 at 6:54:06 PM

27% of the federal budget for 2024 was spent on health care [1]. A lot of that is because health care in America is, on average, twice as expensive as in other rich countries [2]. Clearly, it ought to be possible for us to achieve the same level of care while shrinking the budget by about 13%. If you actually care about the deficit, then that's what you should be focusing on.

If you don't actually care about the deficit, then ya; just gut a ton of minuscule social services that add up to <1% of the budget but can be touted to your base as "political wins" while actually kneecapping American scientific competitiveness.

[1]: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/what-does-the-feder... [2]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

by bloppe

4/25/2025 at 5:58:39 PM

Any savings with just be eaten by a tax cut, which will predominantly benefit the upper 2% of Americans, while the services cut will hurt the rest of the 98% both in the short-term and long-term.

These people are idiots.

by etchalon

4/25/2025 at 8:18:36 PM

Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by the obvious presence of the malicous in a net zero game like politics or class warfare.

by satanfirst

4/25/2025 at 7:25:14 PM

I like the premise, but why scale by 36m - wouldn't per capita/~350m make more sense?

by mnahkies

4/25/2025 at 7:18:00 PM

The article shows the DOGE miserable savings and gives the alternative for government to earn more by taxing stuff. Government capitalism makes socialism i guess.

by llIIllIIllIIl

4/25/2025 at 6:30:55 PM

Putting aside the conclusions about alternatives (which I can't say are necessarily persuasive given externalities they would cause), I think the methodology could be improved here. In particular, why choose 36 million as the divisor? A more reasonable divisor would be 340M, or the total US population. At least that way, you could get to tax burden per resident, which feels like a far more useful unit quantity.

To take it even further, you could group current annual revenue sources by individual/business/transaction based revenue/taxes and then determine unit burden for the different kinds of units. I think that would lead to a more illuminating analysis and set a framework for a potentially more revelatory discovery process.

by yowlingcat

4/25/2025 at 5:20:27 PM

I don't think DOGE is about saving money. It's about some kind of ideological purge, intimidation, and possibly gathering data.

I expect that Trump's second term is going to massively balloon the deficit just like most Republican presents have since Reagan.

by api

4/25/2025 at 6:10:07 PM

> I don't think DOGE is about saving money. It's about some kind of ideological purge, intimidation, and possibly gathering data

You are not alone in this assumption, they've made it clear from the outset via Project 2025. They want to dismantle the government and sell it off to their friends.

It's a pity too, in that we should be continuously trying to make government more cost effective. It's one of the countless missteps of the Dems to not do this themselves (but in the right way: provide valuable services while trimming waste). Another misstep is in not educating the public on the value the public gets from the tax dollars spent.

by pstuart

4/25/2025 at 6:43:29 PM

>provide valuable services while trimming waste

I'm going to zero in on the issue with this. The way unions exist in the US is not conductive to smart reforms. We have structured labor relations in the US to be as hostile as possible which makes them as hard as possible. This was deliberate, going back to the Pinkerton era. Since certain standards were enacted that prevented violent strikebreaking, business owners needed an enemy, and by making these negotiations as fraught as possible, they are able to go to the public and thereby politicians, and plead their case about how damaging unions are to the economy, even though businesses themselves have conducted themselves in such a manner and supported legislation that makes it this way

Thereby, any attempts at reform - which will likely mean eliminating or retraining positions - typically only comes when all austerity measures come, which by then is too late or useful to be meaningful, and often due to reactionary and hurried processes of enactment, are not well thought out, trimming too much or too little and not much in between.

If we had a sane labor relations paradigm we could do more here and it would benefit everyone - the tax payer and the workers - without inducing undue harm.

This stretches into private industry as well. Labor relations are incredibly adversarial there too.

I do want to also point out, that the reason its this way is due to businesses (and by proxy, pro business politicians) being unwilling to compromise and fighting labor tooth and nail, even in 2025, which has set the historical tone for these situations. Had businesses been more reasonable during the Pinkerton era organized labor would be healthier than it is now for both sides.

If we had things like sectorial bargaining and a better overall organized labor system, I think the US wouldn't have such tension in achieving smart reforms

by no_wizard

4/25/2025 at 8:59:54 PM

> It's one of the countless missteps of the Dems to not do this themselves (but in the right way: provide valuable services while trimming waste). Another misstep is in not educating the public on the value the public gets from the tax dollars spent.

Murc’s law in action.

by intermerda

4/25/2025 at 5:46:06 PM

Well, I'm also fair certain that there are a lot of foreign intelligence services which, having infiltrated through DOGE, are currently leaving digital "gifts" throughout all of our systems.

So it's also about spying.

Not blaming those foreign agencies. I'd do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

But congrats. Get your laughs in now. The US will be back. We'll have our day. Just takes time, patience and studied observation. We have a long memory.

by bilbo0s

4/25/2025 at 6:40:35 PM

The Rest of the World are back. You have had your day. Just takes time, patience, studied observation and after all, my house has been standing longer than your country has existed.

We have a long memory.

by blitzar

4/25/2025 at 7:27:08 PM

And you should have a long memory. That's how a nation looks after its own interests. As I implied in my original comment, I applaud and admire that about these foreign agencies.

Also, many nations do have houses older than the US. My compliments to your ancient engineers. Time will tell how long ours will last. I would caution however that, unless I miss my guess, I suspect we both know ours will outlast the surrogates currently being used to leave digital gifts in our systems.

by bilbo0s

4/25/2025 at 6:06:39 PM

Considering how often our presidential elections keep selecting the candidates from the party that implodes the economy for tax cuts for the rich, our memory is not long enough.

by stevenwoo

4/25/2025 at 6:12:14 PM

Presidential elections are won on emotions, not logic. And the emotions in question are usually negative.

This is why the Culture War exists -- to stir up anger, hate, and fear and leverage that to sway voters.

by pstuart

4/25/2025 at 6:50:02 PM

Not to mention, trade wars are class wars. There is a reason alot of incredibly wealthy people - by any standard - support the tariffs. Its a way to assert more control over the economy so that when the tariffs come down - and they will come down - they've already primed themselves by taking more control of goods or having done so while the tariffs are still active. Its a means of control.

I expect a wave of corporate consolidation happening soon across most sectors that will be driven by this outlook

by no_wizard

4/25/2025 at 8:20:34 PM

Absolutely agree.

They want to replace income taxes with tariffs, because rich people.

The last tax cut promised to create jobs but (surprised pikachu face) instead went to stock buybacks.

by pstuart

4/25/2025 at 5:43:57 PM

It's a tool, along with the tariffs and other stuff Trump is doing, to dismantle the post-WW2, America-as-global-leader/policer government

by littlecorner

4/25/2025 at 5:57:33 PM

The vast majority of the cuts impacted domestic initiatives.

by etchalon