Who? Who is “they”? When and where did “they” deny its existence? Was someone claiming that there wasn’t a database tracking US government spending? Who?
Alex Jones famously went bankrupt because he lied about kindergartners being killed and claimed their parents were making it up. He is not a credible source.
Unfortunately, Trump controls the parts of the government that enforce court orders, and he’s installed people whose only qualification is blind loyalty to lead them.
I think media was previously aligned, not captured in the sense I’m worried about now. Journalism is dominated by people who grew up in coastal suburbs and went to elite liberal arts colleges. Common experiences lead to a common worldview.
That can create problems, but it’s a different and much less troubling than a situation where the government is bullying newspapers to control what they publish, or corporate owners intervening in the editorial process to protect their friends. For one thing, journalists honestly and rigorously committed to truth-seeking would be expected to be aligned to a great degree, so beyond some margin disalignment must be worse at truth-seeking.
For another, the actual way in which news media has been historically aligned includes values like democracy, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of information – classical liberalism. The new captured media I’m concerned about is one that aligns against these values. And these values create feedback mechanisms that check excesses, so alignment against them is harder to revert (and while Fox has spent a lot of time caricaturing the excesses of liberal media, it was created in 1996 when the excesses the right was concerned about were things like welfare, single moms, and atheism).
I notice that you are unable to point to a “they” who denied the existence of a government database tracking government spending.
You should notice that too, and update your beliefs. Noticing that you have no idea where you got the idea from or who “they” refers to should make you less confident that anyone ever actually said it.
No. There is an unreasonable lack of resistance from Congress.
You seem to believe a lot of false claims about what’s happening in the US federal government right now, because you take tweets and tiktoks from professional liars at face value and don’t update on conflicting information.
The US is in the midst of a constitutional crisis, and the resistance within the civil service is the proper response.
The basic political problem with the idea of resistance vis a vis elections is that it is not enough. There was resistance to Trumps first term. Yet, when it succeeded, under Biden, the economy did relatively well compared to the rest of the world, but, the income gap remained large with most Americans struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. This was the biggest source of voter dissatisfaction in 2024. It is what gave Biden the edge against Trump in 2020 and Trump against Biden in 2024. If the standard of living for the working class does not improve under Trump I predict he will lose in 2028 if he is able to finagle the system and run for a third term as he has suggested, no matter what else he does. The Republican party will also lose its majorities in Congress in the mid terms of 2026.
Search Labs |AI Overview
Income inequality in the United States has increased since 2000, especially for low-income men and Black and Latino households.
Income inequality by race and ethnicity
In 2023, median income for Black households was 63% of that for white households.
In 2023, median income for Latino households was 74% of that for white households.
Earnings differ by race and gender.
Income inequality by location
In 2021, the per-capita average income in metropolitan New York was $69,000, while in Saginaw, MI and Ashland, OH it was $32,000.
The spread in per-capita local Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has also increased since 2001.
Income inequality by gender
Earnings for low-income men have fallen.
Women earn less overall, but gaps remain.
Income inequality by income group
The top 1% of taxpayers’ share of after-tax-and-transfer income rose from 9% in 1960 to 15% in 2019.
The total market income for the top 1% averaged $3.4 million in 2021.
The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.
The relative poverty of most younger voters stares them in the face every time they go on the Internet and see the Tech bros with their billions and their symbols of conspicuous consumption.
…from a direct source… and the matter pertains to knowledge not belief, in that the situation either did or did not happen.
.
Is this a majority (as far as you know) opinion, or just an observation on your part?
.
Now the Constitution matters, now that Trump is in… because it sure didn’t seem to matter before.
A constitutional crisis or a constitutional reawakening? …I say the latter.
.
A yes or no would have sufficed, as I’m asking if it would make a difference depending on whom the message was coming from?
But, that aside… I had met a Democrat Senator at an event a couple of years back, and he confided in us that his Party had ‘lost/were not in control of’ their government and hadn’t been for a long time - I had never seen someone so anxious and worried in all my life, as he.
Direct meaning in person? Someone told you in person that that database didn’t exist? Someone that you can’t name, or describe what makes their comments meaningful? Is this person more or less credible than Alex Jones?
Mags, you are sticking to your guns on a totally frivolous claim. No one who knows anything about the functioning of government claimed that the US wasn’t tracking its spending, that’s preposterous. You damage your credibility more by refusing to just admit it and move on.
I can say with some confidence that it is a majority opinion among people who have read the US Constitution that Congress controls spending, and the President is charged with the faithful execution of the laws.
I have not heard anyone claim that the President isn’t eliminating spending authorized by law, so I’m pretty confident that it’s majority opinion that that’s what’s happening.
Several of Trump’s Executive Orders have been stayed by courts asked to review them, and indicated that they are likely to be struck down. So I’m also reasonably confident that it’s a majority opinion among people who have read the US Constitution that Trump is assuming powers that belong to Congress in contravention of the Constitution.
The tepid response from Congress is unreasonable to me. About half of Congress agrees with Trump on the outcome, and many of them likely find it reasonable to allow Trump to ignore the Constitution to achieve their preferred policy outcomes. Those who disagree with the policy aims may believe that their best strategy involves remaining quiet for the time being. So I am not confident that mine is the majority opinion, though I think it is increasingly popular.
When? Are you talking about something specific? Some specific stance I’ve taken, or something that previous administrations have done? I think I’ve been consistent across administrations, and no modern* Democratic administration has done anything nearly as flagrantly unconstitutional as Trump is doing right now.
*It is true that FDR did a lot of flagrantly unconstitutional things.
Sorry, I misinterpreted “the exact same thing” as referring to Jones’ false claims about the parents of dead kindergarteners.
But I think you were asking about Jones’ claim that “Musk Discovers Over $100 Billion Of Stolen Funds & Fraud After Auditing Just 1% Of The Federal Government!” Is that right?
Assuming it is: I’m still not sure who “all those who are saying” refers to. I’m also not sure what Jones is referring to when he says “Stolen Funds & Fraud”. I have seen claims similar to this made by similarly unreliable witnesses (Trump, Musk). I’ve seen lots of credible witnesses reporting that government grants to things like basic science research were shut off, which I wouldn’t describe as “Stolen Funds” or “Fraud”, but I’m not someone who makes his money by stoking outrage online.
Which one?
How long exactly? The Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2022, which given current polarization meant that the Democrats in Senate really did lose significant control (setting aside the depressing fact that the Republicans were still a viable party after J6).
Who is “us” here? In what context was he “confiding”? Was he trying to get something from some group – support, funding, agreements…?
Without context, it’s hard to evaluate this. Was he talking about how Congress was unable to impeach someone who had attempted a coup and stoked a violent mob threatening to lynch his own Vice President? That felt like a loss of control to me, I could see why someone in Congress would feel that way.
More generally, Congress has been dysfunctional for a long time, and while Republicans have taken better advantage of that dysfunction, I’m not sure that they’re more responsible for it (I’d blame the party system more generally). In any case, I could imagine a Senator feeling like he had little control.
Considering that the unelected Deep State officials are doing everything in their power to keep the elected Government away from all financial records I’ll stick to what I said,…
Apparently, what your ‘Congress’ is doing is tantamount to a coup as there are no legislative-grounds that support what they are doing.
.
Thisv…
While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds.
Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do
A PRESIDENT CAN . . .
make treaties with the approval of the Senate.
veto bills and sign bills.
represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.
enforce the laws that Congress passes.
act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.
call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.
make suggestions about things that should be new laws.
lead his political party.
entertain foreign guests.
recognize foreign countries.
grant pardons.
nominate Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices and other high officials.
appoint ambassadors.
talk directly to the people about problems.
represent the best interest of all the people
A PRESIDENT CANNOT . . .
make laws.
declare war.
decide how federal money will be spent.
interpret laws.
choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.
Who controls the spending of money?
Every year, Congress decides the amount and the type of discretionary spending, as well as provides resources for mandatory spending. Money for federal spending primarily comes from government tax collection and borrowing.
…you credit him with way much-less authority, than he actually has.
.
Your idea of flagrant and more-Liberal ideas of flagrant, are two totally different things from what others actually consider flagrant… you speak of unconstitutionalism whilst omitting/ignoring all the insane policies that were implemented over the prior four years that the majority of people on the planet looked-on in horror and disbelief at.
I’m not asking you to change your mind, I’m simply asking that if the last four years were nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors x bread-and-circuses cover, under which the country was financially fleeced?
.
Research grants are one of the most well-known ways to funnel funds through, as are minor and major projects that end up in costs spiralling out of control and into a black hole, costing Nth more times than originally agreed… like our Olympic Dome and HS1 and HS2 projects for instance,
.
He basically said that the Government were not running the country, which is probably how all those insane LGBTQ-overkill transgender-surgery puberty-blocking kiddie-drag-hour unethical-sex-ed initiatives were pushed through… because there is no way in hell all that would have passed, otherwise. That is what he was anxious about/deeply-disturbed by… weren’tyou?
Just to be sure we’reon the same page, this is what you said:
So, taking as a given that “unelected Deep State officials are doing everything in their power to keep the elected Government away from all financial records”, are you able to say who said this preposterous thing? Or can we just acknowledge that no one said that?
What are you referring to when you talk about “what they are doing”? (And why did you put Congress in scare quotes?)
Who are you quoting here? Just curious, I mostly agree with the description of the separation of powers.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying. The President’s job is to enforce the law – he not only can, he must (US constitution, Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”). He can’t write or un-write the law, even if he disagrees with them. He does the actual spending, but he is required to do it as directed by law.
It is flagrantly unconstitutional for the President to ignore the law, to decide he will not spend money that Congress has directed him to spend.
There being wasteful research grants doesn’t turn every single research grant into “Stolen Funds & Fraud”, but I would not be surprised if professional liar Alex Jones would describe them that way in his outrage bait.
In any case, there are a number of ways to reform things if Trump thinks it’s a problem he would like to tackle. His party controls both houses of Congress, they could pass legislation that reforms spending. That’s not what he’s doing. Instead, he’s ignoring the law and violating the constitution.
How much work is “basically” doing here? Also, again, who and when?
Re culture-war bait, it’s a nonsequitur. But if you name a specific initiative, we can talk about how it got passed –specific, Mags. Like point to a law by name or number, or an EO, or a press release, or something. I don’t know what you’re referring to, and it sounds made up.
I’m not accusing you of lying, I’m accusing you of credulously repeating things you read from professional liars like Alex Jones. I’m pretty sure that you had no specific policy in mind.
Sorry that I don’t know what you’re talking about, and that it sounds like the vague outrage bait that people like that have been making up for years, using the culture war as a wedge to prevent conversations about real things.
A federal judge said on Monday that the White House had defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has expressly declared that the Trump administration is disobeying a judicial mandate.
The ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court ordered administration officials to comply with what the judge called “the plain text” of an ruling he issued on Jan. 29.
Even Nixon complied with judicial rulings. But, then, unlike now, Republicans in Congress demanded that he respect the courts. That hasn’t happened yet this time around. Trump supporters in Congress are following Trump’s defiance in lock step. I will be looking for any signs of Republicans defecting from Trump. That will likely depend on feedback they get from voters in their states or congressional districts. This is where contacting your Senator or Congressperson can have an effect on how they vote if they want to get re-elected.
.
The guy [Democrat Senator] was from the Party in Government at that time… he had concerns and wanted to share them - F that have to do with Alex Jones? so… irrelevant.
I cited nothing from the Alex Jones playbook in regards to him, but here you are, using that to discredit my entire position… even though those two points [Democrat Senator/Alex Jones] have zero to do with each other, so what I said still stands.
.
I do not feel at liberty to reveal the Senator’s name, and what part of “We are not in control of the Government” are you having difficulty understanding?
I didn’t take your “LGBT-overkill” comments to be from the senator or Jones:
Are you saying that a democratic senator said that?
Jones is an example of someone with zero credibility that you cited as a source for one of your beliefs. He’s evidence of your epistemic hygiene. So when you say things that sound made up, I assume you read a tweet by some other professional liar about it and took it at face value, as you did above with Jones on a different issue.
As I said, I’m not calling you a liar, I’m calling you credulous, and pointing to your reference to Jones in this thread as evidence for you being credulous.
If I’m wrong, just point to any specific policy you’re talking about! It should be easy if you are actually talking about a bunch of specific policies. Refer specifically to any of them so that I know what you’re talking about.
The context. Who said it, when, to whom, why. There are many ways in which a statement like that is true that have nothing to do with deep state conspiracy theories (e.g. divided congress, failure to impeach after an attempted coup, party supporting coup is still viable). There are many reasons a senator might make a claim like that (e.g. seeking funding/allies/agreements). There are many circumstances that could make it literally true - you’ve only just added that the Democrats were “in Government”, but we have a bicameral legislature and a directly elected executive who isn’t necessarily of the party that controls either house, not to mention that in the past two administrations the Democratic coalition has been divided enough to make their technical majority ineffective in practice (c.f. Sinema and Manchin).
Again, because I don’t think you’re lying about having heard a democratic senator say something like this, I’m trying to understand the context in which he said it to understand what he meant by it and what to conclude from it.
Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.
We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.
And another expert, specifically addressing my balance of powers points:
Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.
The American Bar Association is, among other things, responsible for accrediting US law schools. Their opinion on the law and the Constitution is as mainstream as it gets.
Yesterday the Vatican published a letter the Pope wrote to US Bishops:
The letter addresses the mass deportations policy being pushed by the Trump administration, and offers a significant rebuke:
I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality. At the same time, one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.
This is not a minor issue: an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized. The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all — as I have affirmed on numerous occasions — welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable. This does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. However, this development cannot come about through the privilege of some and the sacrifice of others. What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.
You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.
In a subsequent tweet Vance indicated that he was expressing the catholic idea of ordo amoris, the “order of love”. Pope Francis appears to be calling him out:
Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.[…] The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.
Vance is nominally a Catholic; if he’s sincere in his beliefs he should be absolutely abashed to be directly rebuked by the Pope.
