• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    Sure, but there are all kinds of issue with that. First, Trump has significant investments in TS, so having the government fund that would be a massive conflict of interest. Second, conservatives love to rail on places like NPR getting public funding, and funding X is a bit too much of an about-face IMO.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      You may be right, but I think it’s more likely than say deporting 10 million immigrants, or cutting spending by more than discretionary spending, or a number of things that people think are likely to happen. It’s not like conservative rags are actually going to tell their readers the truth anyway.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah, my coworkers were kind of excited about Trump cutting $2T, and I tried to explain to them that’s not feasible with the way budgets are set up. They could maybe cut $1T if they really went deep, but to get anything more, they’d have to cut SS, Medicare, and the military, and Trump said that’s off limits.

        I doubt they’ll hit $500B. They might get $2T over 10 years (so $200B/year) though, which I guess is how Congress likes to quantify spending changes to lessen the blow.