7 ms·

The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state,

The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. Although I am not inclined to agree, it is fair to dispute specific funding cuts or firings. It would also be reasonable to temper those arguments against the futility of general cut-backs without specific cuts. Consider a few hypotheticals: If we accept that special interest groups exist for spending, then it would also be reasonable to accept that these groups would protest cuts in the most hyperbolic way imaginable. If we accept that the Federal gov. is not free from corruption, selective enforcement, what is in effect "legislation from unelected bureaucrats", or entrenched bureaucracies which oppose the will of the people - If we accept that any of this exists or is possible, it is not unreasonable to accept that some of these bureaus would be cut or eliminated. It is reasonable to expect that these bureaus and special interest groups would stand in solidarity. They have every incentive to join together and expand the largess of the central government. It makes sense that partisan media groups would paint any criticism or cuts in the most hyperbolic and odious terms. All of these things are easy to reason about. It is also easy to take cursory glance at the historical record. It is easy to examine the economic and political ideologies of the odious authoritarians which the partisans are so quick to invoke. Where did these odious authoritarians cut spending? Where did they reduce the purview of the state? If we examine this, we will find that cuts and reductions are entirely antithetical to the authoritarian platform. It is a contradiction in terms. For these reasons, I regard the comparisons as ridiculous hyperbole. Humor me here. How is the following not a non-sequitur, "Cutting spending and regulation is authoritarianism. What we need are more regulations, central planning from unelected bureaucrats and socialism"? Can anyone here explain that?

mentalpiracy 2y ago
> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. It is easy to construe blatantly illegal and facially unconstitutional acts as authoritarian, actually.
- _t9ow 2y ago
  And it seems like many conservatives have collective amnesia about January 6; the fake electors plot; the Trump–Raffensperger phone call; how an astonishing number of Trump's colleagues and staffers in his first administration have unambiguously spoken out about his fascist sympathies and ambitions; how Trump unabashedly praises Putin, MBS, and Kim; how he frequently threatens journalists who write unflattering articles about him; how he describes people who do not support him as "enemies from within"; etc. While these facts are not related to spending cuts, they are profoundly germane to any assessment of the President and the intentions behind his policies. But you can't argue with these conservatives; at this point it is fair to assume that they don't debate in good faith.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The silence over groceries once the election ended pretty much showed how much they really cared about getting better lives. Or maybe Dead Internet Theory and I've just been arguing with a lot of bots. Bot that convinced a country we needed 4 more years of this.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  Agreed on all points. However, it still leaves the question: Were cuts possible in terms of realpolik in any other way? We can argue that there should have been more nuance and in the ideal world, yes, we would like more measured cuts. Additionally, even if we found areas to cut which are generally agreeable, the proponents of that spending would use every means possible to oppose those cuts. The special interests would have every incentive to use the most inflammatory language to incite aligned partisans.
  - namaria 2y ago
    You keep hammering on the point of cuts; what do you say about the fact that Trump has increased debt more than Obama or Biden in his first term?
Terr_ 2y ago
The ultimate in smaller government structure is a single despot: "Do what I say or I'll kill you." The ultimate in removed regulation is an apparatchik unhelpfully advising: "Just don't screw up." The ultimate in simple taxes is serfdom. Those are the end-states of looking only at quantities while ignoring the changes in the character and mechanics of a government.
- Dracophoenix 2y ago
  Often, the most despotic legal institutions have what are among the largest and most centralized legal structures for their time. One does not carry out a Soviet-style purge on little more sheer whim. It takes quite a bit of organization to achieve such carnage and displacement that soon follow. > There ultimate in removed regulation is an apparatchik unhelpfully advising: "Just don't screw up" What you posit as merely "unhelpful advise" is in practice an unpronounced threat: "Do it the way we expect or else". It isn't a removed regulation but an obscured one where the final interpretation rests with the apparatchik. >The ultimate in simple taxes is serfdom I never got the memo when black became white. The simplest tax paid is zero taxes. Serfdom renders individuals as property fixed to the land/estate they pay tithes/taxes to. They couldn't by an be further from each other.
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    Serfdom sounds pretty reasonable. No taxes means no redistribution of wealth, leading to a few growing richer and richer, because of accumulated advantages. While the majority go porer and porer, eventuellt might have to work all the time to be able to buy food and pay the rent, scared of protesting against an abusive employer. That's a kind of serfdom. Not literally the same thing but ... Look up "the working poor", is a little bit already a reality to some
Tadpole9181 2y ago
So you don't even have a cursory understanding of the law or why it exists? As long as it fits your agenda, literally anything goes. Legality, lawfulness, fairness, the wellbeing of tens millions of people? All be damned.
cycomanic 2y ago
So this seems to be the current strategy, as soon as someone opposes the actions of the Trump (and by extension the Republican party which has by now almost completely purged of dissent) everyone argues they are partisan (the whole if you are not supporting us you must be against us). This by the way is a very common strategy of authoritarian regimes. Regarding spending cuts being antithetical to authoritarian regimes, note that the cuts don't affect the military or law enforcement (except for people who were involved in prosecuting Trump) that's very much in line with many authoritarian regimes.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. There is plenty of precedent for both spending cuts and shrinking (in some areas, usually while expanding others) government from US Presidents. Simply refusing to spend appropriated funds as directed by law where even the excuse given isn't either of those but imposing ideological constraints not contained or authorized at the discretion of the executive in the governing law is, on the other hand, not. Openly ideological and patronage oriented purges of the federal workforce (at least, since the adoption of civil service laws expressly to to stop that) again is not, and is neither about shrinking the scope of government or cutting spending.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  >Simply refusing to spend appropriated funds as directed by law... Again, this is how the issue is being played in a partisan fashion. Yet, when we dig deeper, beneath the soundbite interpretations, we find that legal scholars and Supreme Court justices have complex and conflicted views on how much authority The President has over government bureaus. >...the President’s authority over independent agencies depends not on the Constitution but on a common statutory phrase, which allows the President to discharge the heads of such agencies for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This phrase—the INM standard—is best understood to create a relationship of residential review—and a particular remedy for legal delinquency flowing from that review. It allows the President to discharge members of independent agencies not only for laziness and torpor (inefficiency) or for corruption (malfeasance) but also for neglect of their legal duties, which includes egregiously erroneous decisions of policy, law, or fact, either repeatedly or on unusually important matters... https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/03/Sunstein_Vermeule_Presidential-Review-The-Presidents-Statutory-Authority-over-Independent-Agencies.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-con... https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220053.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-cont... The cited sources illustrate how complex the law is. If we accept the authority of the state, then it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on the specifics. If the ruling is in favor of Trump's actions, we can again reasonably expect the partisans to paint this as an out-of-control judiciary. From that point we may see more arguments for "packing the court", the entire narrative around "authoritarianism" again becomes an exercise in partisan hypocrisy. The point about cutting budgets, agencies and reducing the purview of the state remains. It is in direct contrast to authoritarian ideology, which without exception seeks to expand the purview of the state. Many quips have been leveled here, but no one has approached this point.
affinepplan 2y ago
is it hyperbole? seems pretty literal

mentalpiracy 2y ago

_t9ow 2y ago
And it seems like many conservatives have collective amnesia about January 6; the fake electors plot; the Trump–Raffensperger phone call; how an astonishing number of Trump's colleagues and staffers in his first administration have unambiguously spoken out about his fascist sympathies and ambitions; how Trump unabashedly praises Putin, MBS, and Kim; how he frequently threatens journalists who write unflattering articles about him; how he describes people who do not support him as "enemies from within"; etc. While these facts are not related to spending cuts, they are profoundly germane to any assessment of the President and the intentions behind his policies. But you can't argue with these conservatives; at this point it is fair to assume that they don't debate in good faith.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  The silence over groceries once the election ended pretty much showed how much they really cared about getting better lives. Or maybe Dead Internet Theory and I've just been arguing with a lot of bots. Bot that convinced a country we needed 4 more years of this.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too

palmfacehn 2y ago
Agreed on all points. However, it still leaves the question: Were cuts possible in terms of realpolik in any other way? We can argue that there should have been more nuance and in the ideal world, yes, we would like more measured cuts. Additionally, even if we found areas to cut which are generally agreeable, the proponents of that spending would use every means possible to oppose those cuts. The special interests would have every incentive to use the most inflammatory language to incite aligned partisans.
- namaria 2y ago
  You keep hammering on the point of cuts; what do you say about the fact that Trump has increased debt more than Obama or Biden in his first term?

Terr_ 2y ago

The ultimate in smaller government structure is a single despot: "Do what I say or I'll kill you." The ultimate in removed regulation is an apparatchik unhelpfully advising: "Just don't screw up." The ultimate in simple taxes is serfdom. Those are the end-states of looking only at quantities while ignoring the changes in the character and mechanics of a government.

Dracophoenix 2y ago
Often, the most despotic legal institutions have what are among the largest and most centralized legal structures for their time. One does not carry out a Soviet-style purge on little more sheer whim. It takes quite a bit of organization to achieve such carnage and displacement that soon follow. > There ultimate in removed regulation is an apparatchik unhelpfully advising: "Just don't screw up" What you posit as merely "unhelpful advise" is in practice an unpronounced threat: "Do it the way we expect or else". It isn't a removed regulation but an obscured one where the final interpretation rests with the apparatchik. >The ultimate in simple taxes is serfdom I never got the memo when black became white. The simplest tax paid is zero taxes. Serfdom renders individuals as property fixed to the land/estate they pay tithes/taxes to. They couldn't by an be further from each other.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  Serfdom sounds pretty reasonable. No taxes means no redistribution of wealth, leading to a few growing richer and richer, because of accumulated advantages. While the majority go porer and porer, eventuellt might have to work all the time to be able to buy food and pay the rent, scared of protesting against an abusive employer. That's a kind of serfdom. Not literally the same thing but ... Look up "the working poor", is a little bit already a reality to some

Tadpole9181 2y ago

So you don't even have a cursory understanding of the law or why it exists? As long as it fits your agenda, literally anything goes. Legality, lawfulness, fairness, the wellbeing of tens millions of people? All be damned.

cycomanic 2y ago

So this seems to be the current strategy, as soon as someone opposes the actions of the Trump (and by extension the Republican party which has by now almost completely purged of dissent) everyone argues they are partisan (the whole if you are not supporting us you must be against us). This by the way is a very common strategy of authoritarian regimes. Regarding spending cuts being antithetical to authoritarian regimes, note that the cuts don't affect the military or law enforcement (except for people who were involved in prosecuting Trump) that's very much in line with many authoritarian regimes.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. There is plenty of precedent for both spending cuts and shrinking (in some areas, usually while expanding others) government from US Presidents. Simply refusing to spend appropriated funds as directed by law where even the excuse given isn't either of those but imposing ideological constraints not contained or authorized at the discretion of the executive in the governing law is, on the other hand, not. Openly ideological and patronage oriented purges of the federal workforce (at least, since the adoption of civil service laws expressly to to stop that) again is not, and is neither about shrinking the scope of government or cutting spending.

palmfacehn 2y ago
>Simply refusing to spend appropriated funds as directed by law... Again, this is how the issue is being played in a partisan fashion. Yet, when we dig deeper, beneath the soundbite interpretations, we find that legal scholars and Supreme Court justices have complex and conflicted views on how much authority The President has over government bureaus. >...the President’s authority over independent agencies depends not on the Constitution but on a common statutory phrase, which allows the President to discharge the heads of such agencies for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This phrase—the INM standard—is best understood to create a relationship of residential review—and a particular remedy for legal delinquency flowing from that review. It allows the President to discharge members of independent agencies not only for laziness and torpor (inefficiency) or for corruption (malfeasance) but also for neglect of their legal duties, which includes egregiously erroneous decisions of policy, law, or fact, either repeatedly or on unusually important matters... https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/03/Sunstein_Vermeule_Presidential-Review-The-Presidents-Statutory-Authority-over-Independent-Agencies.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-con... https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220053.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-cont... The cited sources illustrate how complex the law is. If we accept the authority of the state, then it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on the specifics. If the ruling is in favor of Trump's actions, we can again reasonably expect the partisans to paint this as an out-of-control judiciary. From that point we may see more arguments for "packing the court", the entire narrative around "authoritarianism" again becomes an exercise in partisan hypocrisy. The point about cutting budgets, agencies and reducing the purview of the state remains. It is in direct contrast to authoritarian ideology, which without exception seeks to expand the purview of the state. Many quips have been leveled here, but no one has approached this point.

affinepplan 2y ago

is it hyperbole? seems pretty literal