[tstactplsignore]

How do you reconcile these deeply basic facts with your point of view?

1. The US economy was the best in the world in 2024.

2. The NIH, USAID, and NSF budgets make up just a percentage point or two of US spending.

3. These programs consistently generate ROI >>1.

In light of these painfully obvious facts, isn't it clear that the priorities of this administration have nothing to do with government finances? And that even trying to frame the discussion that way is blatantly irresponsible?

[SquibblesRedux]

Although there are minor fluctuations in the US debt load, the mean is clearly going up without bounds. Interest creates an exponentially worsening problem with increasing competition for resources. Competition for resources breeds conflict.

Congress' lack of will to compromise leads to winner-take-all scenarios with wild swings in policy.

Language such as "deeply basic facts" and "blatantly irresponsible" is part of the problem. I am as guilty as the next person for experiencing heightened emotions and using adverbs carrying negative connotations that lack denotational substance. However, my experience has been that the storms are best weathered by calm, consistent, and persistent actions or behaviors.

[tstactplsignore]

I don't think there's anything about that wording that implies heightened emotions - I think both are factually accurate adjectives in context. I don't think they imply anything about emotional state, and I don't think that emotional state implies anything about accuracy.

In that sense, you've committed three errors in your response, but the primary fourth error is in avoiding the actual subject at hand, which is still the fact that these governmental actions will not reduce spending, so your original claim was incorrect.