4 ms·

…youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and contin

by bbor 2y ago

…youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and continued urbanization. But that’s… those are some of our nations most shameful, inequal, racist years in its entire history. The federal government as it exists now was just getting started after we realized we needed it thanks to the civil war, and many local democratic systems were completely broken. More relevantly, we didn’t have cancer researchers, epidemiologists, the NSF, or, most relevantly, nuclear weapons. Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face, unless they’re young and don’t know anyone older than them, and/or advocates isolationism. Regardless, this exact story makes it clear that the goal isn’t cutting the size of the government at all — it’s politicizing the civil service, and bringing it under the exclusive control of a supreme executive. They’re not exactly ashamed of it!

ty6853 2y ago
>social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face Who says I don't advocate cutting those too, if you're asking? And I am grey haired, not sure about the ageism.
- bbor 2y ago
  Well, all I'll say is this then: you are a tiny minority.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Yet the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE. Majority is just a collection of tiny minorities, in this case my minority opinion partially aligns. As it turns out minority isn't aways what you think.
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      This RMG survey reports 19% of all voters knowing what DOGE was in December of 2024. https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-what-doge-is https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-wh... (PDF) https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-1209-mini-toplines-doge.pdf https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-12...
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Less than 19% knew what the nuclear safety team was, so be careful with the point you're making. There was probably more informed consent for DOGE than many eliminated positions.
        Hasu 2y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. People did not, in fact, vote for DOGE.
        ty6853 2y ago
        I said 'the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE.' They moved the goalposts to what fraction of voters were questionably polled to know about DOGE, because my claim is pretty much irrefutable. Then when I use their own criteria suddenly we cry foul that I used their own goal posts that they shifted to.
        confidantlake 2y ago
        You are single handedly making this discussion unbearable. Congrats I guess?
        someothherguyy 2y ago
        > so be careful with the point you're making I was attempting to find evidence for your claim, and I found that survey. If you can find other surveys, please share, as I am seeing this being repeated a lot.
- rzz3 2y ago
  I think defense _spending_ could be cut dramatically without changing our defense _posture nor preparedness_, simply by modernizing inefficient systems, reducing waste, renegotiating contracts, etc. Our defense spending is relatively insane. We should look at Medicare and Medicaid in the same way. I wouldn’t want to see benefits reduced, but we certainly should be optimizing costs. I really hope the idea of reducing government waste hasn’t become a partisan thing just because the folks doing it right now are doing it very badly.
amluto 2y ago
> Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face I think plenty of people would like to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending, not by reducing service, but by cleaning up the unbelievably broken medical system in the US.
- ericfr11 2y ago
  The issue is not with Medicaid: it's with the Big Pharma, their lobbies, and the corruption they generate. For-profit companies can't be in control as something as critical and universal like human health.
Spooky23 2y ago
Many are very much in favor of cutting these services. As President Musk said, “that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity”
- bbor 2y ago
  I am so confident that that is untrue, I don't even feel the need to link studies; questioning whether the American voting public supports SS and Medicare is like questioning if they oppose slavery or endorse family values & apple pie. An extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence, for sure. And, sadly, I won't take "Trump won the election and then put Elon in charge of cutting stuff, so clearly Americans support that decision" as evidence instead of direct, scientific surveys. For one thing, much less than half of the voting public voted affirmatively for Trump; for another, I hope we can all agree that people on all sides very often vote for reasons very loosely related to the candidate's actual positions on policy. Apologies if I'm rude, really grateful that such convos are happening on HN in the first place! Separate from "would we be better off with or without the New Deal welfare state and/or the entire federal government", I think this is an appropriate place to agree on empirical facts about the current situation. And "that idea is extremely unpopular" is such a fact, IMHO.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Many, many people figure “fuck it, im not getting social security, so why should the others.” It’s enough to tip elections for particularly odious candidates. See: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v81n4/v81n4p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v81n4/v81n4p1.html They’ve been fed a lie that the system is failed and believe it. This isn’t my opinion. I’m a widow and survivors benefits for my children has significantly eased the burden of taking care of them. I’m strongly in favor of expanding these programs and soaking the rich to pay for them. Instead they’re getting their money, and someday find themselves on the wall.

by bbor 2y ago

ty6853 2y ago

>social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face Who says I don't advocate cutting those too, if you're asking? And I am grey haired, not sure about the ageism.

bbor 2y ago
Well, all I'll say is this then: you are a tiny minority.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Yet the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE. Majority is just a collection of tiny minorities, in this case my minority opinion partially aligns. As it turns out minority isn't aways what you think.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    This RMG survey reports 19% of all voters knowing what DOGE was in December of 2024. https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-what-doge-is https://napolitannews.org/posts/19-percent-of-voters-know-wh... (PDF) https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-1209-mini-toplines-doge.pdf https://napolitannews.org/assets/pdfs/67633dc0cced7-gcm24-12...
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Less than 19% knew what the nuclear safety team was, so be careful with the point you're making. There was probably more informed consent for DOGE than many eliminated positions.
      - Hasu 2y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. People did not, in fact, vote for DOGE.
        ty6853 2y ago
        I said 'the public voted for someone openly stating they'd carry out DOGE.' They moved the goalposts to what fraction of voters were questionably polled to know about DOGE, because my claim is pretty much irrefutable. Then when I use their own criteria suddenly we cry foul that I used their own goal posts that they shifted to.
        confidantlake 2y ago
        You are single handedly making this discussion unbearable. Congrats I guess?
      - someothherguyy 2y ago
        > so be careful with the point you're making I was attempting to find evidence for your claim, and I found that survey. If you can find other surveys, please share, as I am seeing this being repeated a lot.
rzz3 2y ago
I think defense _spending_ could be cut dramatically without changing our defense _posture nor preparedness_, simply by modernizing inefficient systems, reducing waste, renegotiating contracts, etc. Our defense spending is relatively insane. We should look at Medicare and Medicaid in the same way. I wouldn’t want to see benefits reduced, but we certainly should be optimizing costs. I really hope the idea of reducing government waste hasn’t become a partisan thing just because the folks doing it right now are doing it very badly.

amluto 2y ago

> Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face I think plenty of people would like to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending, not by reducing service, but by cleaning up the unbelievably broken medical system in the US.

ericfr11 2y ago
The issue is not with Medicaid: it's with the Big Pharma, their lobbies, and the corruption they generate. For-profit companies can't be in control as something as critical and universal like human health.

Spooky23 2y ago

Many are very much in favor of cutting these services. As President Musk said, “that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity”

bbor 2y ago
I am so confident that that is untrue, I don't even feel the need to link studies; questioning whether the American voting public supports SS and Medicare is like questioning if they oppose slavery or endorse family values & apple pie. An extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence, for sure. And, sadly, I won't take "Trump won the election and then put Elon in charge of cutting stuff, so clearly Americans support that decision" as evidence instead of direct, scientific surveys. For one thing, much less than half of the voting public voted affirmatively for Trump; for another, I hope we can all agree that people on all sides very often vote for reasons very loosely related to the candidate's actual positions on policy. Apologies if I'm rude, really grateful that such convos are happening on HN in the first place! Separate from "would we be better off with or without the New Deal welfare state and/or the entire federal government", I think this is an appropriate place to agree on empirical facts about the current situation. And "that idea is extremely unpopular" is such a fact, IMHO.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Many, many people figure “fuck it, im not getting social security, so why should the others.” It’s enough to tip elections for particularly odious candidates. See: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v81n4/v81n4p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v81n4/v81n4p1.html They’ve been fed a lie that the system is failed and believe it. This isn’t my opinion. I’m a widow and survivors benefits for my children has significantly eased the burden of taking care of them. I’m strongly in favor of expanding these programs and soaking the rich to pay for them. Instead they’re getting their money, and someday find themselves on the wall.