We don't have a monarchy (yet). The Constitution does not say "anything in here is void at the whim of the President". An electoral win does not allow him to unleash a gang of thugs through all of the agencies, to shut down Congressionally mandated agencies, to violate civil service protections, etc. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
You could make arguments of overreach but they don't come even close to "coup."
> coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.
> Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
Trump and the Republicans control all three branches of government: the office of the President, the House, and the Senate. Who exactly are you contending they are overthrowing?
That's not how any of this works. Read up on separation of powers. Just to take one example...
> the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that when Congress directs that money be spent, the president is obliged to do it. [...] Presidents can certainly send recommendations to Congress that funds should be cut. The Impoundment Control Act provides an expedited procedure for having those recommendations considered. But the president simply doesn’t have this unilateral authority.
We’ll see in a year or two how this really works. My view is that there was a coup against the Constitution about 90 years ago and as a result we have decades of judicial Calvinball that need to be sorted through. Just to start with, can you find the part of the Constitution that authorizes NIH and NSF to exist in the first place?
In terms of following the strictures of the Constitution, nothing the administration has done has made things any worse in that regard and in fact, has the potential to make things much better. The bureaucracy has grown into an extraconstitutional (which is to say, unconstitutional) fourth branch of government with separated powers of its own. Destroying that independence and returning executive power to the elected executive is a massive step in the right direction.
I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied.
I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised.
I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party.
> On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection?
> I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate.
Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework.
Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans.
> I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
> That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection?
And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them.
> Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework.
Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202. Further laws which cover this title are 5 CFR § 2641.104 and 17 CFR § 200.735-12. Musk is performing legal duties, entitled to him under democratically instituted and operationalised laws.
> I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy.
> And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them.
Otherwise why he would be personally so close to this project then? That doesn't make sense.
> Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law
That's not enough to make what Musk is doing legal, this status is mostly for an advisor and Musk is an active executive member. The real way of making it legal is going through congress.
Not to mention the other DOGE workers which as far I know have no status at all.
> I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy
Well there's two things which are not true here in this sentence. First he lied about his actions (unless you can find me a statement where he says that he'll put Musk in charge of dismantling the government), so it's not the will of the people, it's the will of Trump.
Secondly, he's not using the executive and legislative right now so it's hardly democratic, it's something you see in authoritarian regimes. In the EU, only Hungary works like that.
Hell of a coincidence. When an influential think tank puts out a guidebook for what their party’s nominee should do after winning the presidency, and then that person puts a bunch of the people involved in his administration and starts carrying it out, I’m not inclined to think this is all by chance.
A lot of accepting what's going on requires us to ignore the broader context of current events, and all of American history, as well as the history of democracies including those who have fallen to an authoritarian dictator.
It still wouldn't make sense. A democratically elected president conducting a coup is a tautology. He can't suddenly seize power by force because he already has it. You could be worried about him refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and should that occur, with the use of the military, you could describe that as a coup. We are many years away from that word making sense.
So if a presidential promises to execute all of his opposition in the legislature and execute the judges that disagree with him and execute anyone in the bureaucracy that fails to obey his orders, and then he gets elected, and then he does those things, while blatantly breaking any and all previously passed laws that he cares to, is it a coup?
Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were ever elected as heads of state. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor, but that is the head of government. The head of state is the President. Hitler was able to manoeuvre into that position using his personal army to murder opposition. Napoleon had an old fashioned military coup in 1799, then attempted to legitimise it with a falsified plebiscite in the following year.
In both cases, the issue was the murder, not the democracy. It is important that we not blame democracy for the actions of evil men.
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress.
As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people.
Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
> The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate.
The existence of the filibuster seems to be a current part of things working as intended. That they might hypothetically get filibustered and have trouble passing legislation doesn't provide carte blanche to do whatever. Rather it should suggest that the rules around the filibuster should be amended beforehand or perhaps after it actually appears as a material issue.
Your reply also runs counter to the parent comment I was replying to where they state that Congress would repair any irregularities after the fact. Frankly it feels like people are making things up to support their guy doing things counter to the established mechanisms of government and your own constitution.
Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place.
The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
> But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place.
The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not.
And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025.
But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
In case anyone was curious, the interest being paid on the national debt is of the order of $1 trillion per year, while the amount collected in taxes (federally only) is of the order of $5.5 trillion per year.
federally only is about $1.6Trillion, the rest is state taxes and never goes near the federal government to cover the interest on their debt. ($1.8Trillion at a poultry 5% interest)
dont know where you are getting your numbers. sounds like are confusing revenue and spending. relying on some AI maybe?
US collects about $12Trillion in taxes total (30% ish of GDP), under $2trillion of that is given to the federal government for medicare, medicade and the military, they spend more than $5trillion, which is what they spend on medicare, medicade the military and the interest on the $37Trillion debt they have accumulated spending more than they were given by the states for medicare medicade and the military - mostly bank and insurance fund bailouts to prop up the failed US financial system, adding about $3trillion to the federal debt each year, which is why it has gone from $30trillion at the end of 2022, to $37trillion now.
Getting downvoted because I do my own research instead of believing the latest gormless chatbot, that's new.
Of that, individual income tax was about $2.4 trillion, payroll tax was $1.7 trillion, corporate income tax was $530 billion, and there's about $253 billion of "other."
How exactly are you saying they spent 2T more than they collected in revenue again? Is this a Joe Biden forget where he put it or smth?
Meanwhile
Debt now
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
$36.4T
=$33,167 end of FY 2023, spent $3.3T on interest, Collected and spent $2.2T on medicare,medicade and the military.
= $33.1 +3.3 -2.2 +2.2 = $36.4T
good luck have fun. Im out. enjoy your fantasy economics for the few months it has left. Last group of federated states with group finances in a similar position was the USSR circa early 1991, pop quiz, can you guess what I think happens to the US next?
You sure did edit the hell out of your post. Obviously you aren't operating in good faith. But I should have figured that when, in your first post, you claimed the US collects $12T in taxes without reference and then ignored my reference showing it false. Have a great week.
The states of the united states collect about $12T in taxes total.
That is GDP times taxation as a % of gdp
roughly $36T times 30%
Precisely what that is doesnt matter, could be $10T, could be $20T
The federal government collects its tax from the states which it does through programs approved in congress.
Those programs are medicare, medicade and military spending + a few hundred billion total in scraps like the FAA or NASA. in total that sums to around $2T, which is all the states are obliged to give the federal government from the taxes they collect, if they dont like it they can choose the nuclear option and simply exit the union - California has a reasonable campaign long time ongoing to do exactly that called calexit - although right at this moment it lacks momentum. According to wikipedia there are growing movements in Alaska, California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and New Hampshire to secede.
Those movements will grow very very quickly when the states are actually presented with the now inevitable choice of doubling what they give the federal government while the federal government stops spending on pretty much every federal program - which is the only way the federal government can sustain paying its bills now the interest on their debt is larger than they take in revenue.
> The federal government collects its tax from the states which it does through programs approved in congress.
You’re aware that income tax, corporate income tax and payroll tax are paid directly to the federal government from individuals and companies right? The states don’t collect on the federal government’s behalf.
>nuclear option
There is no nuclear option. The country decided that 160 years ago.
I think it's just my belief that government should be slow and methodical, that the government should be thorough, and coming in and slashing and burning, without seemingly even checking whether they're legally allowed to do it, just seems to be a vengeful fit. I want government to be stable, relatively predictable, and wanting to follow the laws more than any other entity in the country. If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
It has to be in the first two weeks, 90%+ of DC voted for Kamala. There's going to be resistance and lack of support. People are going to want to keep their jobs. Layoffs suck but there's not a great way to do them, and the government shouldn't be immune to them.
This wasn't a surprise to people following him. People like his head of OMB from his first term was on Tucker talking all about this. They've talked about the legal aspect of things and have prepared. They've had 4 years to prepare for the resistance to change in DC and the law will be used to resist.
> If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
I think this is the biggest issue we have in society. Trump supporters have been screaming that this has already been an issue for decades. The majority of Trump supporters would 100% agree with you. While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump and calling his supporters conspiracy theorists, we aren't looking at the crimes our corrupt government has committed. There is no trust that our DOJ is on the side of the people and not just another tool of the corrupt establishment. The list of accusations made by Trump supporters is large and damning and absolutely deserve to have their questions answered. The hate and neglect of Trump supporters includes a massive blind eye to evil in DC that's been going on for decades
This is what i never understand. Okay, not enough money, soooo _tax more_. Or at least stop giving tax cuts to the richest people in the history of the planet? Like, implement a 5% tax on their wealth, and just fix all the problems. We could have services _and_ rich people, we just have to make insanely rich people contribute to our world like we all do to theirs
> Like, implement a 5% tax on their wealth, and just fix all the problems.
My understanding is that's nowhere near enough.
The USA deficit is $1.8 Trillion a year with $30T total. The net worth of all USA billionaires is around $4.5T. So 5% would reduce the deficit by 10% until the billionaires wise up and move their wealth out of the country.
Even confiscating it all in a one-off pile reduces the national debt by about 15%.
It's a strategy, called Starve the Beast. The idea is to collect taxes, which then forces the current government to cut expenditures. The current Trump administration is no difference, this is what all the talk about government bloat is about.
It's pretty clever in its cruelty: Once you have cut taxes, it essentially doesn't matter which party wins the next election: The have to gut expenditures anyway.
> Once you have cut taxes, it essentially doesn't matter which party wins the next election: The have to gut expenditures anyway
See the current Labour government in the UK, who would very much like to spend money on government initiatives but can't because the Tories made sure there was nothing left.
The worst part about it is we already have a playbook to actually reduce the US debt, which we did very well in the 90s.
Elect US senators and Representatives to go to the floor and debate about individual programs on CSPAN so people can actually hear arguments about it.
This is why, for example, the ISS didn't get cut, but the SSC did. Both were huge science programs that cost tens of billions of dollars and Clinton's administration explicitly wanted to keep both programs but the voting public, through senators and house reps, including democrat members of both forced them to pick only one.
> The worst part about it is we already have a playbook to actually reduce the US debt, which we did very well in the 90s.
Uh, we didn't. Even in the “balanced budget” years 1998-2001, the debt increased.
Unless you mean reducing the debt to GDP ratio, which we did in parts of the 1990s, and some periods since, but that's not much explained by the spending control methods you discuss, but by growing the economy.
I thought we actually ran a surplus for a year or two? My impression is the "how", though, was "take in more revenue than expected because of the tech bubble", which isn't exactly a "how" we could or should replicate.
So, not really a demonstrated playbook to reduce the debt.
OTOH, for a longer period in the 1990 (starting about 1995), in the last half of the long and strong 1990s expansion, the arguably more important debt: GDP ratio was going down. The 2010s might have seen something similar -- it had roughly, though more noisily than in the 1990s, plateaud before the Trump tax cuts, and might have dropped even with similar spending patterns without them.
But, yeah, the secret there is largely strong economic expansion, though you can still screw it up on the fiscal policy side.
People want the US debt number to at the very least, stop going up. I'm not in any hurry to see the debt go to zero this decade, but some people insist it's necessary (I don't agree) and they got enough sway to own our country this political cycle.
I said we have a playbook to reduce the US debt. A more correct statement would have been "We already have a playbook to audit and reduce US government spending".
It is NOT done by giving one of the least competent ketamine junkies in front of a computer with a list of budget item names and tweeting the ones he finds most offensive.
Air that shit in congress where it can face PUBLIC scrutiny and debate, not in a forum literally controlled by the guy doing it. That's how we got rid of the unfortunate boondoggle SSC and kept the better ISS.
The fed reports a doubling of tax receipts from 1990 to 2000. There has been at least another doubling since then. Because Trump is a corrupt grifter and a shill for certain corps, he has already floated a plan to cut more taxes. Trump supporters do not want to bring taxes back up on companies apparently. They'd rather keep seeing their own taxes go up.
So they're going to cut stuff. Probably good stuff, probably important stuff. I'm saying there is a demonstrated productive way to cut stuff in the US system while limiting the pain and cutting of actually important stuff and that's what they would be doing if they actually wanted to fix any problem
Also I'm pretty sure the GAO has a standing list of things to do. That would also be better than this.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. That’s not why MElon elected a president using twitter to brainwash people. They are there to get rich, not to share their wealth.
Trump is passing as much stuff as quickly as he can to bypass the separation of powers while they catch up.