695
Bernie Sanders blasts Trump for federal loans and grants freeze: ‘He is not a king’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
695 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19607 readers
4178 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Legality aside, you guys should consider doing a rundown of wasteful spending. There is this growing concern on the taxpayer citizens that many, if not all, of the projects that the federal government funds through grants are ridiculous.
It also seems like a lot of federal grants go to NGOs that are carrying out essentially political activities.
I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the federal departments were still awarding grants and loans that directly went against the executive actions Trump put into place.
Say what you want, but at least is logically consistent to do a broad review of federal grants and loans as long as they eliminate some of the wasteful spending. Now, even though there's not a lot of details about how this is going to be carried out, I'm pretty sure it's not going to fix the budget, but it's a start.
I'm guessing (because why not) that the concern Trump has is that if they just did a spend review on a case by case basis, things would get slow-walked to the point that the reviews never happen.
By stopping everything and making re-starting it conditional on passing a review to ensure it's in line with the new standards it provides a strong motivating force to get the reviews done ASAP. Basically subsidizing on demand.
IMO this is a direct result of all the #resistance undermining of Trump during his first term by administrative staffers.
BTW, all this craziness? It really highlights how much power the executive branch has accumulated over the years.
Remember to never give power to someone you like if you’re not willing for someone you don’t like to have that same power. That’s why failsafes and spreading out the keys to power is important in a democratic republic
The government giveth, the government taketh away
You might be giving Trump too much credit here with regards to this move being an attempt to review and reduce wasteful government spending. This is just another move to force organizations to kowtow to him or be dissolved.
Totally agree with you on reducing the concentration of power in the executive branch though.
If the organizations are not that vital but still deemed necessary, they might secure private funding, with all it implies.
Also reducing the number of organizations on the budget WILL reduce spending, like it or not, wasteful or not.
About the kowtowing, I am unsure. If you read the text of the official memo:
"The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve.”
They clearly think some of the things the taxpayer money is going are not improving their lives.
So basically if that's not true, there should be like, maybe protests of people demanding those organizations to be kept, surely.
Like it or not, People voted for this. You can look up hundreds of polls where the American people view the federal government as wasteful and bloated.
And how not to think like that? Look at the doc of the programs they look to pause:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25506813/govdoc20250128-263582.pdf
Just a cursory search gave me 17 hits on programs related to counter terrorism.
22 related to railroad maintenance and workers safety
2 duplicate sexual assault programs that apparently differ in that one of those is due minorities and other is not?
Do you really believe someone will bat an eye if those 17 counter terrorism, or 22 railroad programs are gone and rolled into one? given that, for the common voter, just having one central program for those specific needs would probably look better on an audit, and more streamlined?
We will see what happens if the status quo for most people changes, for better or worse, after all these cuts are made.
We're talking about a pause on all federal grants and loans, he's going to disrupt the economy and people's lives just to reduce spending to maybe more efficiently allocate funding. You bring up the number of programs for counter terrorism and railroad maintenance and safety, but they probably have different goals or jurisdictions. Not to say that they couldn't be merged or their spending audited, but Trump's method of just breaking everything and see what happens is dangerous and irresponsible.
Also the polls you bring up don't justify Trump's method here. Most people agree that some government spending is wasteful but that can't justify all actions Trump takes so long as he says it's for reducing government spending.
That is your opinion.
Clearly the majority disagree.
Myself, do not see it as breaking things. It's very simple for those programs to continue, they just need to comply with the requested.
Those who don't, will get culled just by not qualifying. This might translate in lower taxes in the long run. But it has to start somewhere.
I think that it is irresponsible to spend the taxpayers money "just because" it is simpler for inertia to take hold and just do nothing.
I also think that taking 4 years twiddling your fingers, bidding the time to do those changes as carefully as possible to not bother anyone is irresponsible as well for the taxpayer who's breaking their backs working everyday to fund things that they may or may not see a direct benefit.
In the end, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
As if anything he’s doing is to help the fucking taxpayers… Certainly not the majority of them. Maybe the ones in the top brackets, so they can pay even less while the working class gets tax hikes and inflated prices for everything essential.
I will agree that this is what was voted for. Now the idiots get to lay in the bed they’ve just shat in.
Those "fucking taxpayers" are voters.
And if you ever dream of winning another election, you need them
So yeah maybe take that into account
About it helping or not, we will have to wait and see. You don't usually reduce spend just for the kicks of it. Ideally it is to stop taxing the people or redirecting to specific emergency needs
Why are the eggs being broken always regular people's paychecks and food stamps? Why not rich people's third vacation homes or yachts?