Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I don't think anyone, even the most pro-spending liberal, is actually advocating for spending on things that we obviously don't need*.  The point that a lot of us on here are making vis-a-vis entitlements is that you simply can't even have an appreciable impact on overall federal spending, deficit, and debt without taking on entitlements. 

The federal budget, revenue, and expenditures are hard for most people to even comprehend because it is just so freaking big. 

I would guess that everyone here is probably willing to take your word for it that the US Fish and Wildlife Service's vehicle servicing facility on Matagorda Island is 100% unnecessary and a complete waste of money.  You guessed $3M for the entire project. 

Total Federal Spending for FY 2024 was $6.8 Trillion and revenues were $4.9 Trillion leaving a deficit of $1.83 Trillion. 

You would have to eliminate 610 THOUSAND items equivalent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service's vehicle servicing facility on Matagorda Island just to reduce the current year deficit (not the total debt, just what gets added to it in a year) by 1%.  That kind of scale is just really hard to comprehend. 

Two notes:

• I *THINK* I did the math right above but there are so many freaking zeros that I might have messed up transcribing them, and
• The "*" above is to note that there is an exception for spending for Keynesian reasons during times of economic distress.  We got a lot of grants during the aftermath of the 2008 credit crunch and again during the Pandemic in which the statutory language literally stipulated that the the language of the grants was to be interpreted liberally in FAVOR of the grantee.  That is legalese for the Feds basically saying "We don't care what you spend this on, just spend it to juice the economy." 

Again, we've all agreed that something like this isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket.  That the only way you can reduce the FD&D is to cut entitlements, raise taxes, or a combination.  But the best way to get yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.  I firmly believe that Elon truly could have trimmed $1 trillion from the budget, but even if they truly only did save $200 billion or whatever the number ended up being it's that much less we have to borrow.  We have to stop digging, even if the "shovels" are the size of thimbles.  Death by a thousand cuts is what I'm referring to.  

Again, we've all agreed that something like this isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket.  That the only way you can reduce the FD&D is to cut entitlements, raise taxes, or a combination.  But the best way to get yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.  I firmly believe that Elon truly could have trimmed $1 trillion from the budget, but even if they truly only did save $200 billion or whatever the number ended up being it's that much less we have to borrow.  We have to stop digging, even if the "shovels" are the size of thimbles.  Death by a thousand cuts is what I'm referring to. 

I don't disagree and I said back then that I thought DOGE had the potential to be not only a major benefit for the country but also a MASSIVE political win for Trump.  

Someone on here, it might have been you said something to the effect that if Trump said to breathe a substantial portion of Democrats would hold their breath until they passed out.  

IF (a VERY big if) Trump/Elon/someone really did tear into Federal Expenditures and scour them for things like a complete $3M waste of money vehicle servicing station on whatever Island and managed to cut say $200 Billion that would help a little.  As a practical matter, not much because $200 Billion is ~10% of the FY 2024 deficit.  That said, obviously $200 Billion is a LOT of money and I *THINK* that most Americans would see that as a worthwhile accomplishment.  

Meanwhile, the Democrats probably wouldn't be able to help themselves.  Those "I'll pass out holding my breath if Trump says to breathe" types are inherently going to fight tooth and nail against literally ANYTHING that Trump does and, if he played his cards right, Trump could end up framing the Democrats as the party of wasteful spending on $2,500 toilet seats, $1,500 hammers, and $3M unneeded vehicle servicing stations.  

Politically that isn't a winning argument for Democrats.  They'd try to redirect by framing it as a debate over cuts to things that are less black-and-white obvious wastes but frankly the shorter, punchier argument usually wins so in a contest of "They are defending $2,500 toilet seats and $1,500 hammers" vs "We think that some of the cuts should be reevaluated and that useful governmental services blah blah blah . . . blah blah blah . . . (go on for three pages) . . . blah blah blah", Trump wins.  

A thing about NATO expenditures on defense, none of them have any military force need in the Pacific (to speak of).  We do.

Much of our spending is to have the ability to project force.  Most other countries have militaries intended for defense and minimal force projection.  Nobody else has anything like 10 fleet carriers, and the US also has a number of smaller carriers that can and do operate F35B fighters.  Projecting force costs a LOT of money.

Hey I voted for him "But my hypocrisy only goes so far"

The above would be a massive cut and it would be a political fight of epic proportions and the end result would be to reduce Defense spending enough to cut the deficit from $1.83 Trillion to $1.45 Trillion. 

That last sentence explains why it doesn't happen.  

well, that's stoopid
cutting the deficit at all should be a GREAT reason why it should happen

Seems we're having to hire back a bunch of the DOGE cuts.  

Who could have predicted such a thing?!?

B2 thermal exhaust is directed such that it isn’t seen from below very much. 

The B21 obviously should be more advanced.