3 ms·
The federal government is incredibly inefficient, about 50x too large, most of the money is just shuffled into pockets of senators or their high value buddies.
by exabrial 2y ago
The federal government is incredibly inefficient, about 50x too large, most of the money is just shuffled into pockets of senators or their high value buddies. Despite incredibly decisive evidence of this, there is a massive backing to increase taxes. I truly don’t understand the disconnect here. If the federal government was on charity navigator, it would have negative stars for deliverability.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoCan't really expand the programs I want without money Fighting corruption would be cool but I don't have a lever for that I'm more perplexed as to who is still voting for Republicans
- exabrial 2y agoIt’s amazing that it’s always the people you dislike are the problem.
- skhunted 2y agoI think you have it backwards. I dislike the people who are the problem.
- kaliqt 2y agoYeah but it won't work, so... Stop being daft and start killing government instead of growing it? It's not a one way road you know, we can fix it.
- jayd16 2y agoI don't think anyone is for raising taxes per se, just who gets taxed. If you're persistent about taxing the powerful at least efficiency becomes a priority of the powerful. I'm all for smart legislation that makes things more efficient, but where are all the proposals with efficiency gains and not blanket cuts?
- OutOfHere 2y agoSpeaking of inefficiency and waste, I was recently looking at a list of recent federal hires for a fresh team, 60% (6) of which were managers, only 1 was a scientist, and 0 were engineers. It is bureaucracy through and through, all at the taxpayer's dime, with goals that have zilch to do with serving the people. If the Republicans weren't so anti-liberty, anti-democracy, and anti-climate, I'd consider voting for them, but they are.
- Terr_ 2y ago> The federal government is incredibly inefficient, about 50x too large, Compared to what, though? While I agree many improvements are possible, whenever I see this kind of claim it seems seems based on a vague theorized Golden-Age/Location/Situation. I mean, have you seen what it's like in a modern country which have public-sector employment rates only 1/50th of the US? Trick question: Nobody knows, they don't exist. I feel this strongly implies that there is something rather "inefficient" about such systems, since something that cannot form or survive doesn't accomplish much. (At least with the social and technological building blocks available to humanity today.)
- googledocsftw 2y agoThe closer to zero, the less like a nation you are. Can you have say 10m people, an elected government that cant do much and then corporations do the rest?