https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-federal-expendit...
Turns out all the cuts are only a fraction of a percent of the federal budget. It's an ideological purge, nothing to do with efficiency at all.
Was a Deacon at a church that bought a strip mall (fire sale price). They had to pay regular taxes on income from the other businesses. Even the church's own thrift and book sales had to collect and pay sales tax.
Perhaps that church is committing tax fraud?
Perhaps it’s the third-or-fourth-hand story telling.
Likely after having passed through several motivated reasoning filters along the way.
That seems fraudulent.
I was a member of a non-profit org that owned a building and rented out some of it. We paid no taxes on the parts that were used for the non-profit, but owed property taxes on the rental.
The individual agencies collectively spend only around $100b.
Likewise the other large fraction of the total budget outside the DoD is healthcare spending. We spend a huge amount of money and we don't seem to have healthcare outcomes which justify these costs.
Right now 1 out of every 5 dollars of spent GDP comes from the government. 85% of that money comes from individual tax payers and only 7% from businesses. The system is flailing from top to bottom.
Why prefix with "Right now"? It's been roughly 20% since 1975, and only marginally lower for the 25 years before that.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
The other side of that (taxes) has changed much more substantially during that time (lower).
I'm probably just a bit older than you might assume.
> and only marginally lower for the 25 years before that.
Really I was doing a bad job of highlighting this problem:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
> has changed much more substantially during that time (lower).
The burden has shifted /more/ onto individual tax payers and less from business and excise taxes was the particular point I was driving at. It suggests more clearly who actually got those "lower" taxes and why our linked graphs paint a bad future.
Imagine the benefits to defense if the US reduced health care costs from the 2x-3x it spends relative to peers. I've thought that would be an appealing way to sell healthcare reform to Republicans.
It never stood - what facts and reasons have you provided to support it?
Dollars spent on “defense” are dollars we could spend on healthcare, education, infrastructure, housing, the arts and more.
Give me reasons we should spend nearly $1T on our military.
Clinton's cuts were ultimately only temporary, since the military-industrial complex got fat again in the post 9/11 gold rush. A correction is long overdue.
That this isn't really even considered is pretty telling about the real motivations of the current regime.
I'm not sure they have the authority to do this anyway they lack power of the purse and all that.
Why do you think that? I would think the technological advantage the US military currently has doesn’t need more money to maintain, but maybe I’m missing something.
The technological edge is unknown against a near peer.
Any edge has a non-zero maintenance cost.
Adversaries are not going to stop improving their capabilities so any advantage naturally decays.
The US Military directly employs a couple million people.
Our current military industrial complex is highly reliant on free trade agreements with allies.
Most of the airframes are in their twilight years. The Navy is in a conundrum... the surface fleet strategy is probably not strategically sound, and we slowed down submarine production at one point so many of those assets are also aging and in need of maintenance.
The Ukraine war is full of learnings that should be driving transformation and investment. Reality is that a rogue billionaire could probably build drones that could threaten strategic military assets in the field. As time goes on, that capability will likely get cheaper and better.
Probably more by improving how other functions perform and identifying people like a guy I worked with a decade ago who literally slept at his desk all day and never got fired for it (not even a union shop, just supervisors refusing to do their job).
What is that based on? Just suspicion? (At least that honest!)
DoD before the rise of China (and Russia) could afford to cut back. But China is an enormous problem, and an enormous problem of resources.
Wealth drives victory in war more than anything else, except maybe population. Obviously China far exceeds the US and allies in population. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's economy was (much, I think) smaller than the US, and the Warsaw Pact's was smaller than NATOs. By 2050, with four times the population, if China is only half as wealthy as the US per capita, it would have an economy twice as large. The US has never faced a threat like that.
DoD already cuts and restricts many programs because they can't afford them. For example, the NGAD fighter plane - the next generation fighter plane, a big deal - faces great uncertainty (despite Trump's showboating) because the US can't really afford it. That's just one program of many.
Allies help share the burden, but we are alienating all of them.
> There are a lot of programs that are failing to execute and have for years
Which ones? And programs exist to solve problems - what better ways do you have for solving the problems? The problems don't go away.
> if they're already late then we aren't getting any value from them at this point
We should cancel every late program? Again, what better solutions do you have? Start a new program and lose the progress of the existing one?
Now these are all just words backed by suspicions. Give us some reason to believe!
It's based on the sections of DOD I worked in, with, and had visibility into around me, along with reading GAO reports (there are too many to read them all, but grab a few and you'll see some remarkable waste and failures). At one point I had a job to help a group become more efficient (in context: delivering on time instead of late, delivering on or at least near budget instead of grossly over), what I saw looking under the hood was exactly what I suspected. A small corner of the DOD that was wasting at least 10-20% of their budget every year because of ineffective coordination across teams often over absolutely stupid things, and that was just the parts I studied relevant to my job at the time. I'm extrapolating from that experience and the other information I've seen over the years.
And, importantly, I'm talking about what can be cut before it impacts capabilities and readiness. Somewhere in this range you'll have to do reorganizations and realignments to continue reducing the DOD budget while maintaining capabilities.
If we went back in time 7 or 8 years I could give you a lot better information than that because I was more actively tracking things. Here are a couple reports though that demonstrate the kinds of things I saw at the time:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106912
I haven't gone over it all but it's not a pretty picture. Most of the projects they examined are delayed by more than a year, some as much as three, and have had median budget increases of $163 million. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. IT procurement in DOD is fundamentally broken, and accounts for billions in wasted spending.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106749
$1.84 billion spent on modernizing ships that will never sail.
It's possible that some efforts will start, become OBE and abandoned after spending a lot of money (maybe even billions) but this is normal in DOD, rather than extraordinary.
> I'm talking about what can be cut before it impacts capabilities and readiness. Somewhere in this range you'll have to do reorganizations and realignments to continue reducing the DOD budget while maintaining capabilities.
I see evidence of inefficiencies and some failed programs, but in one of the world's largest organizations with the largest budget, inevitably that will happen. For generations, people have railed against and joked about the inefficiency and waste of large bureaucracies, in government, business, etc. I can't think of one that people have called efficient.
I don't see evidence that you or anyone else has a serious way to improve it; nor that having improved it, we should make cuts rather than reap benefits. And I don't see evidence of your claim about capabilities and readiness (and the latter is already pretty low). Just cutting things isn't a serious solution worth addressing - it's not a plan at all. How could the situation seriously be improved?
And let's be realistic: The GOP wants to cut everything in government and will say anything to rationalize it. One method of rationalizing they do is endlessly repeat things until they become a perceived truth - in these cases that Agency X is corrupt and inefficient. DoD is just the latest target.
We’re literally torching two billion dollars a day on the military when we’re not at war and not under threat.
(And it's not like partisans are locking up Congress to spite him.)
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
We were in a (physical) proxy war with Russia via Ukraine until very recently, and we are currently in a digital war against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and probably other nation-states.
Should this be under the purview of the actual military? I don't know, although that arrangement is effective for Israel's cybersecurity command.
Regardless, there is an active need for defense spending now, just not the way we've been spending it.
Not according to this administration - they recently ended "cyber operations" against Russia:
https://apnews.com/article/cyber-command-russia-putin-trump-...
So, we're basically going to just let Russia do whatever they want.
Would you just start spending when the war starts? Then you'll get a war much sooner (the enemy will see your weakness) but you'll save money (the war will end quickly).
> not under threat
China, most of all? Russia? Iran?
If the US is weaker militarily, the risk is less and they are more likely to take it.
> War with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind. Fentanyl is not the only the big lie. That Canada does not really exist is the other. The way that this fiction is formulated is strangely Putinist. Trump's rhetoric about Canada uncannily echoes that of Russian propagandists towards Ukraine. The claim that the country is not real; that its people really want to join us; that the border is an artificial line; that history must lead to annexation... This is all familiar from Putin, as is Trump’s curious ambiguity about a neighbor: they are our brothers, they are also our enemies; they are doing terrible things to us, they also don’t really exist.
> The imperialist rhetoric has to be seen for what it is, which is preparation not just for trade war but for war itself.
The US is preparing for war. It’s not a joke.
/s, of course.
They never say 'I'm jailing / prosecuting these people to suppress my enemies', they accuse them of fraud, corruption, etc. Xi Jinping did it in China, the new dictator in Saudi Arabia did it, ... it's an old one.
Note that dictators are vulnerable - they still need to justify themselves to the public.
The current flavour of politics is not pragmatic. It’s a luxury belief system.
The left wing excesses of the 2010s were luxury beliefs, the current thing is all just luxury beliefs too.
Basically, when people are economically comfortable and have no real problems, they’ll blow something out of proportion or just plain invent issues in order to feel something.
I have luxury beliefs of my own, many people do. We are free to hold them in North America. But there’s a cost, and that cost shouldn’t be surprising.
"You'll be rich because we're so good with the economy" has raced over to "We've been rotting in decadent lifestyles, true strong patriots will be happy to sacrifice for the glory of the fatherland."
"Tons of people globally are screwing screws into iphones. We are going to bring those jobs here."
"Inexpensive goods from overseas aren't actually prosperity. You don't want these things."
"You probably didn't earn your job in the government anyway."
True decadence is looking at a society that is broadly functioning and deciding "we need a fight" and blowing it up just for some aggressive notion of dominance.
Is there better, less charged terminology?
I've heard similar versions of this argument, usually something about modern poor people having it pretty good because they have microwave, while Carnegie didn't.
>I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine. [0]
We're now complaining about people studying painting, poetry, etc.
[0]https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L178005...
That said, choosing a field of study only has the risk of bankrupting yourself.
The excesses of the 21st century, whether that’s blowing up the supply chains that got you out of stagflation, or injecting Maoist rhetoric into academia, will have a much larger and more destructive blowback.
It's not all the same person, getting comfortable and making up problems.
Does this mean that when we're all poor the Right will stop demonizing trans people?
What on earth does that even mean
The spendthrift belief is to just not care what people do with their personal lives, what bathroom they use, etc.
And, of course, comprehensive sex ed that reduces the negative externalities of human sexuality on society, and doesn’t interfere with the positive.
This isn't the issue. What people choose to do in their personal lives should be accepted or at least tolerated, as long as it's not harming anyone.
> what bathroom they use
This is the problematic part. A male using the women's bathroom is committing a violation against women.
> etc.
This includes males in women's prisons, males in women's changing/locker rooms, males in women's sports. All of which are violations against women.
It isn't about "hating LGBT people" as you suggest, but about compelling males to respect women's and girls' boundaries.
For far too long, a subset of males have been getting away with not doing so, just because these males express a desire to be female. It's quite absurd that it's taken Trump of all people to attempt to rectify this. The political left should have reeled in their activists, who were promoting all this, a long time ago.
It's mostly men saying this [1]. (Specifically, uneducated men over the age of 50. Especially if they're conservative, Republican or attend weekly religious service.)
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say...
Mine, lax and libertarian, perhaps too unconcerned with traditional gender roles and stereotypes.
Yours, worried and authoritarian, focused on an imaginary moral panic propagated by reactionary Internet forums.
So, which luxury belief costs more? Mine might require a transition to single user bathrooms, yours depriving a gender minority of liberty…
Ideally we'd be rid of these stereotypes. They're part of the problem.
> Yours, worried and authoritarian, focused on an imaginary moral panic propagated by reactionary Internet forums.
The authoritarian side is the one insisting that males who call themselves women actually are women, and punishing those who disagree. In some states it is actually illegal to have a female-only space. It has to be female plus any male who says he's a woman.
That's not liberty is it, certainly not for women who want or need spaces without any males present.
There are so many cases where this type of policy has demonstrably harmed women. At the most extreme end is males being incarcerated in women's prisons on this basis, who have then raped, sexually assaulted and even impregnated the women locked up with them.
This is the consequence of these "luxury beliefs" capturing institutions of the state.
With people who go on about 'luxury beliefs', the belief that they're referring to is nearly always 'trans people are people', I assume because it's such a new coinage (it's only a few years old) and that was what the far-right were mostly scared of at the time.
Anyone wingbrained enough can have luxury beliefs, and I’m not immune.
For example, I previously supported a very liberal drug policy, and still do in many respects… though I realize it failed spectacularly in the fentanyl era and have had to live with the consequences of that.
Better than the alternative? Well, we aren’t ruining as many lives over cannabis…
I generally agree with this (as a mostly democratic leaning citizen)
> that privileges males and actively harms women and girls.
But was surprised to see it followed by this. Can you explain your logic here? Not disagreeing. But at a glance it seems to me that it's the rolling back of DEI policies that is privileging males and harming women and girls.
Or in internet cultural terms tumblr/redditization of environments that should be intellectually neutral, because “it’s called being a good person sweatie”
You are, as long as you're not brown.
I’m brown. I’m fine. This administration is at war with Americans who aren’t rich.
My taxes are being cut. I’m buying investment cropland on the cheap from idiots who voted for him to trash their livelihoods. They’re mostly white. But they’re not rich.
I don't understand this sentence.
Are you saying you are researching sellers' voting records, then buying the farms of the ones who voted for Trump?
I’m buying cropland from creditors. They can sell it because the farmers are behind on their loans. They’re failing to make payments because we’re in a trade war.
As an ethical limit, yes, I look up the property owner and have only been buying if they’re registered Republican. That doesn’t mean they voted for Trump. (Though they’re all in heavily Trump-voting precincts.) And I don’t think people should lose their farms just because of how they voted. But it does increase the chances I’m not profiting from someone who had nothing to do with a mess they found themselves in versus someone who sort of brought it on themselves.
After all, rich people can eat the extra $$$ imposed by tariffs. Maybe with grumbling… but, at a certain income level paying $5 vs $2 for a can of corn or soup won’t materially affect you, so you can use that extra $3 you paid to complain about immigration, or hierarchies or whatever.
It's sad to see how many are utterly defenseless.
I really hope that's not going to happen, but that fits with strangling the parks for the necessary resources needed to operate. (And then mandating that they remain open.)
But 70 million Americans don’t think that way.
In other words, if you show people that the Government can be dismantled little by little without any big revolution coming their way, then they'll next have the impetus to go for the jugular, i.e. Medicaid and Medicare.
Looking at it another way, the cuts are actually decreasing overall efficiency since they're cutting things that deliver decent benefits given that they only cost a small fraction of federal spending. Maintaining things like hiking trails and parks is incredibly cheap compared to the benefits they produce in terms of intangibles like well being and related economic activity. The National Parks Service for example helps generate a huge amount of tourism dollars that exceeds their budget several times over.
> It's an ideological purge...
See that's the part I really struggle with. Cratering foreign aid has an obvious ideological component, but who hates hiking trails? Like I'm sure there are a few people who hate the outdoors and a handful of oligarchs who want to privatize everything, but where's the constituency for it?
Answer: people who don’t want constituents to believe that the government can be effective and deliver good services. That’s the ideological component.
“Government bad” is amazing platform to run on because it’s pretty easy to deliver.
I don't blame them in the slightest for either.
The tariff situation is a disaster that will only further increase the tax burden and cost of living on the poor and middle class. For rich people, a 30-50% increase in their grocery costs is barely a drop in the bucket of their budget they won't feel beyond getting annoyed.
The low income energy assistance program LIHEAP just got shut down, not even with any notice so states can try to spool up something. If this had happened a month or two ago we'd be seeing news stories about seniors freezing to death in the midwest and northeast. Soon we're going to see hyperthemia stories. In some areas AC isn't a luxury, it's a necessity as much as heating is in the cold winter states, if not more so. You can't "bundle up" from the heat.
For a large swath of America, this will mean people going hungry. And turning to property crime to try to make ends meet....or to get into jail where conditions might really suck, but at least their most basic needs are (kind of) being met.
It's one thing to be denied entry and put on a plane back to your original country, entirely another to be put into federal prison for an indefinite amount of time before being sent back.
America clearly doesn't want visitors at the moment.
It's a lot easier to put you on a return flight if you're at the airport.
It might be reasonable to consider visiting the US but being sure to arrive by air, and not by land. But it's understandable if you choose to visit somewhere that's more friendly.
Both countries can't refuse, so one will have to detain.
And especially when they're targeting the IRS. What use is it cutting 1% if you lose 10% of your revenue because you don't have the resources to pursue outright cheats or lawyered-up people.
Even before all this, the IRS was spending most of its auditing resources on auditing the poor - especially people using the earned income credit - and losing thousands of dollars or more on each audit because they either didn't find anything, or it was an inconsequential amount of money.
National parks generate tourism dollars, funding for science research leads to new advances with economic impact, etc. The "savings" from the cuts assumes the money is being set on fire with no economic benefits, but even if you disregard the obvious direct impacts like federal employees or recipients of federal dollars buying stuff just like everyone else, the impact of the service being provided is almost certainly non-trivial if admittedly harder to measure. Any reasonable approach to efficiency and cost cutting needs to take that into account.
They don't care about constituency. They could pass these cuts as part of a deal but choose not to specifically because it wouldn't be popular. They are trying to sell national parks to oligarchs.
It always ways. It is a media campaign where significant damage is caused to a large number of programs - with the claim that they are cutting expense. But actually none of these cuts will cause any meaningful reduction in government or deficit because these programs never were the big ticket items. The biggest ticket item is tax handouts to the rich. They are not touching that.
Many people can see through this presidential scam. But the MAGA cult is so full of vitriol and hatred for others that they don't see the scam. They don't realize that MAGA voters are themselves being scammed by their beloved Trump.
And thus, we still have always Trumpers. America is just a sad country right now.
> This data tool allows users to track the flow of federal funds in real time. It shows actual daily, weekly, monthly, and annual processed outlays to key programs and departments, as well as to states, Congress, and the Judiciary. This tool only reports outlays of federal funds, meaning the actual transmission of funds from the federal government to another entity.
> This tool makes few to no adjustments to the data, meaning that cyclical, seasonal, idiosyncratic, and expected variation in patterns of outlays over time remain. Because this tool only reports outlays, one cannot discern directly whether there is a gap between obligated funds and their outlay. Furthermore, if federal agencies have changed the rate at which they are newly obligating funds (e.g., by declining to sign new contracts), those changes would only gradually be reflected in outlays.
The fact that you attack the messenger (and not in any way questioning the methodology of the data collection, for example) explains why so many of us in the current environment are so sick and tired of these lazy attempts at "argument". I'm sure you have your own alternative facts, though.
I feel like either -
A) people hurling Karl Marx around have never actually read and considered his writings
B) they are being intellectually dishonest and creating the pretext for ideological oppression
Or, mostly likely c) all of the above
I am sad our future has taken this turn into darkly oppressive dystopia. I still think we can save things and get back to a world where all political views hash out compromise, but I fear we aren’t going in the right direction with no clear leader of right minded cooperation emerging from the cacophony. I mourn that my daughter will live in the world the conservative right is constructing for her generation - one that rolls back everything my grandparents generation gifted to me.
That said, what would it mean for the US to go bankrupt?
The US is a sovereign, the sovereign. The country can borrow until the faith and credit in our ability to pay is lost. There's no such thing as bankruptcy, you can default or print money.
The US is rocketing towards depression. Slowing down the velocity of money is the single worst thing you can do for an economy. We're implementing the largest tax increase in history, taking away pensioner benefits, and pushing the cost of healthcare up, nuking consumer demand. There's no adults keeping Trump away from doing stupid shit -- he'll set off an economic death spiral.
Utter insanity.
If our debt and deficits are a revenue problem, they are objectively insoluble.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Security...
Maybe the super-rich can create their own nonprofit to fund commercial space tourism or whatever absurdity they've deemed so important that it needs spending elsewhere to be cut and diverted to them.
We can hold non profits accountable in ways that we can't with the government. Accountability in government takes 4-6 years when we get an election cycle. If a non profit is mismanaging funds it takes 4-6 minutes for me to give my money to a different non profit.
If we accept the federal government can’t do anything what are we paying taxes for? Get rid of social security too, I’m not going to make it to whatever stupidly high age they raise retirement to.
I used to be a big government liberal, but the problem is eventually people you disagree with start running super government.
If I want to live in a high tax state with a social safety net, cool. Others can move to Mississippi pay no taxes and brag about how they have a higher GPD than Spain ignoring the actual quality of life is much worse
The systems are cracking and breaking and I think the only outcome is going to be balkanization.
I have a hypothesis that Americans are so scared of others benefitting from themselves that they miss that many, many more people are deserving and it makes for a better society. But they don’t see that and would rather punish the deserving and themselves, if it means the undeserving will hurt more. I think this thinking also bleeds into your social justice movements.
Is it too much mental gymnastics that it’s a lot more interesting to talk to happy, sophisticated, educated people? To enjoy maintained public parks? To learn from the past in museums that present all kinds of viewpoints? To have a strong workforce that is confidently going to the doctor?
I’ll never get what’s so hard about things affecting other things, even if it doesn’t immediately yield a profit.
I’m all for having better checks and stopping fraud. But not at the expense of helping no one. I’d rather keep a system running even if there is waste as long as it mostly works.
I feel like this sort of comment (from someone with 14k+ “karma” points) is a kind of DoS attack on their self-perceived opponents.
But nonetheless, here’s three benefits for all, regardless of usage:
- reduction in healthcare costs, both physical and mental
- increased tourism
- increased appreciation for environment which in turn loops back into this list from the top
Just focusing on health alone has wide ranging benefits. And if all you care about are tax revenues and GDP, a healthy, happy workforce goes quite a way to improving both.
I’m not going to list anymore because I got other things to do and think about. And this isn’t going to change your mind anyways.
It’s definitely a few notches above “very few”.
If you actually walk along a few trails on a regular cadence, it's clear that there are many different people - it's not just the same people every weekend.
let’s take it a step further, let’s cut spending to anything that brings people joy! let’s all be crabs in a bucket together. convert public beaches to private beaches, public parks to private parks, make every school in the country a private school.
this will surely increase the well being of our society (sarcasm).
where does this crazy fallacy end? Taxes (and life) is not about min-maxing what benefits YOU personally. It’s about min-maxing your community and society. Kind of like how there is no “I” in team…
- Moped
GA-ME 2010
Volunteer maintainer Smarts Mountain Ranger Trail (AT side trail) 2021-present.
Landowner and volunteer maintainer on the Cross Rivendell Trail (CRT) 2023-present
My wife, who also thru-hiked the AT, before we met is on the CRT board.
We spent three days of our vacation in 2023 helping to re-roof Jeffers Brook Shelter on the AT.
We are also members of the ATC, GMC, MATC, and PCTA and have been for some combination of those between us since before we met.
ETA:
Oh yeah, also two weeks ago we helped hump a 200 pound bear box in to Velvet Rocks Shelter on the AT.
These cuts would not just put trail users (which aren't just hikers but also firefighters, hunters) in danger but also cause damage to national parks and national forests as trail users would have to find alternate routes that go off trail.
* It is, in my opinion, the most scenic terminus of all national scenic trails. The (half built) ugliness of the looming wall is an insult to the beauty of the American West.
-- https://www.npr.org/2025/03/28/nx-s1-5343474/trump-collectiv...
I hate this timeline.
But yea, we are well overdue for a reminder on why we made unions to begin with. For their sakes they better hope all these lawsuits save them from much more disruptive actions.
> Interior Secretary Doug Burgum likes chocolate-chip cookies—preferably freshly baked and still warm.
> This peculiar fact became the talk of the Department of Interior in recent weeks after his chief of staff, JoDee Hanson, made an unusual request of the political appointees in his office: Learn to regularly bake cookies for Burgum and his guests, using the industrial ovens at the department headquarters.
* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archi...
On Burgman:
> How rich? Forbes estimates Burgum’s net worth to be at least $100 million—enough to place him among the most loaded 2024 hopefuls (only Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy are richer), but far from enough to qualify for our World’s Billionaires list.
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylemullins/2024/11/15/just-how...
> Burgum sold the company to Microsoft for $1.1 billion in 2001. While working at Microsoft, he managed Microsoft Business Solutions. He has served as board chairman for Australian software company Atlassian and SuccessFactors. Burgum is the founder of Kilbourne Group, a Fargo-based real-estate development firm, and also is the co-founder of Arthur Ventures, a software venture capital group.
by 2028 there will be millions (more) people living out of their cars and doing Amazon/Walmart deliveries during the day
the new difference is they will have 4-year college degrees while homeless