> I disagree with your implication that my viewpoint is partisan. Truth is neither Democratic nor Republican. If the facts line up on one side, then perhaps one side is right on a particular issue (while they could still be wrong on another issue). Again, feel free to disagree about what the facts are, but let's not make this about partisanship.

"Facts line up on one side"? I didn't see much facts, I just saw what one party is repeating again and again when interviewed. Saying cutting small amounts is nothing while factual, is an attempt at arguing any small cuts are worthless, which isn't true. Saying money is "spent" on tax cuts is not factual it's an opinion, since you're presupposing taking less money from someone is "spending" on them when it's their money in the first place.

But I agree, let's not make this about partisanship.

> And for the purposes of discussion, instead of solely appealing to the future authority of the courts, we can also reason about what happens if all of this is deemed constitutional.

I find it funny to say "appeal to the authority of courts", when in fact the court are the authority. If they decide the President has the powers to impound wasteful spending, then that's what the Constitution says. That's how things are done until the Constitution is changed (or the court rule differently).

> Here's my answer: it will be long, drawn out, and politically damaging, because too many people will have a chance to realize what these spending cuts are really taking away. Trump, Musk, and the crew are trying to pull a fast one on the American people, and this kind of anti-democratic maneuver is exactly what the framers were worried about when they wrote the Constitution in the first place.

Every change the government tries to do is a long, drawn out and politically damaging (look at ACA!). I think the American people have looked at Congress and the President "try" for decades and decades to rein in government spending and any approach the relies on Congress agreeing to substantial cuts has resulted in trimming around the edges and usually more spending added at the same time.

It's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. He's willing to try something different. I see lots of people on HN recoil at the stories of the DOD failing audit after audit. You're not going to fix an almost 1T budget that can't pass audit with a few nips and tucks here and there, it's going to require radical action to fix.

And I don't agree that DOGE is undemocratic (the courts will make the decision in the end) and I would argue the framers would spin in their graves if they saw what the government had become and abdication of powers by the various branches.

> Umm, okay, good luck. Here's a breakdown of YTD US federal spending according to treasury.gov [2]: - Social security (21%) - National defense (15%) - Health (14%) - Net interest (13%) - Medicare (13%) - Income security, i.e., various financial assistance programs for the poor (9%) - Veteran benefits and services (6%) - Everything else (9%)

Cut "everything else", and that's ~600B off the budget. Great. See A1 in my original post: that's not going to pay for the tax cut Trump wants. And what do you give up? All science funding? All "education, training, employment, and social services"? (All while AI might start to displace more and more jobs?)

DOGE has already said it's going to take DOD and CMS (healthcare), so that's another 29% that can be cut. And presumably once we move to budget surpluses, that 13% were't spending on interest won't be quite so large any more. Suddenly we are talking real change to government spending.

> Sure, please do the math and show me how this is going to happen. Where are $2T in spending cuts going to come from?

Where does the $2T come from? I'm reading $3T over 10 years, or $300B per year, or a 6% reduction in federal revenues in 2024.