Can you provide any evidence or reasoning that cutting the weather services would help move the needle on our deficit? Are you sure that not having them won't cause an increase instead, for example if the lack of data causes destruction or worse crop yields? Are the groups advocating for doing this taking steps to reduce the deficit elsewhere, or are they increasing it instead? Do we actually need to address the deficit?

▲

_heimdall a day ago | parent [-]

Cutting spending to any existing program will decrease the deficit relative to where it would be without cutting that spending. I'm not sure what evidence you'd really need there, say the budget is currently $150m and you reduce it to $0 - the deficit decreases by $150m. Given that the government doesn't use a zero-based budget, for better or worse, that decrease extends into all future years as the default otherwise is for that same $150m to be spent every year.

We absolutely do need to address the deficit as well as our debt. Expenses just to service the debt are a large chunk of our annual budget now. Do you know of any example of a country that ran up a debt to GDP (or similar) ratio this high and didn't have meaningful economic issues? Similarly, do you know of any country that debased its own currency through aggressive money printing and didn't end up collapsing, hyper-inflating, or both?

▲

seanmcdirmid a day ago | parent [-]

> say the budget is currently $150m and you reduce it to $0 - the deficit decreases by $150m.

Interest accrued on debt must be added to the deficit as well, unless you are including that in the budget? I'm not sure how defaulting on debt payments would play out though.

The Republicans went nuts when Bill Clinton started reducing debt with a surplus. They thought debt reduction was a really really bad thing. American is actually pretty average in debt/gdp ratio for developed countries, however. Nowhere near as crazy as Japan.

	▲	_heimdall 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Interest accrued on debt must be added to the deficit as well, unless you are including that in the budget? I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm talking only about reducing the deficit, any debt already owed would still be there and interest on it would still be owed. Cutting spending to reduce deficit would just slow down how quickly the debt grows. > American is actually pretty average in debt/gdp ratio for developed countries, however. Nowhere near as crazy as Japan. Oh sure, though in my opinion that's a sign of how many countries are in similar debt trouble rather than it being okay. The US debt to GDP is currently around 124%. Until very recently it was broadly agreed in economics that over 100% was a huge risk and over 120% was effectively a point of no return before you follow in Japan's footsteps. Those warning sign levels only got moved once the US passed them. Maybe they're right and it isn't actually a problem, but I can say those original levels came with specific historical examples of countries that failed after those levels and today's understanding of what ratios are okay seem to come with vague explanations and hand waving.