[cman1444]

I think the main point is the manner in which these cuts were conducted. These were chaotic, very quick, and reckless. Very little empathy was shown. They were conducted by 19-23 year olds with the world's richest man (who bought his position) in charge of them.

[thordenmark]

Sure, but if they weren't done quick they wouldn't be done at all. Have some empathy for the middle class that has to carry this terrible tax burden.

[ModernMech]

This is not true, as it's been done before by a previous government, the Clinton administration, which actually did post a budget surplus in the 90s. Their method was to go slowly and methodically, so you are not correct to say that it cannot be done unless it's done quickly.

However, you're also wrong about "what's been done" -- this year the government will not only post a deficit but the highest deficit in US history. So to the extent that you support this administrations effort to cut the deficit, they have abjectly failed to do so. So perhaps it's more true that you cannot cut costs if you try to do it quickly, because doing it quickly has not worked. My prediction is in the next 4 years, the deficit will increase every year.

Moreover, you stated in your earlier reply that it is "obvious" the government was "inefficient it had to be trimmed and optimized". This is not obvious.

For starters, you (and also DOGE) neglected to define "efficiency", so we are left wondering what is being optimized. Efficiency is a weasel word -- it doesn't mean anything on its own -- so using it without measuring anything is immediately suspicious. How can you say you've made it more efficient by cutting spending if you don't have a metric for efficiency?

I'll give you a metric: in 2024 there were as many government employees as there were in 1970, despite the population growing by 140 million people, a 70% increase. Population explodes, yet government does not... that's efficiency. So no, it's not "obvious" the government as it existed in 2024 is inefficient.

Look at these two charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_employees_in_the_Un...

First chart shows where the extra work is being handled, it's at the local level. That's what should be happening, so nothing to correct there.

Second chart shows what is actually growing: government dependents. So when you say "Have some empathy for the middle class that has to carry this terrible tax burden." I direct you to the following collection of lamentations of middle class people, his supporters, pleading for the President to stop the economic damage he's doing to the middle class: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace

Actually what you're suggesting is that we have to save the middle class by cutting lower class social support systems. But Trumponomics (all tariffs all the time, crony capitalism, mob-like strongarming of private companies) is driving a reduction of the middle class to the point where they need more social services.