I think this is hard to discuss because if you disagree with the premise that the cuts are targeting “fraud waste and abuse” then you’re already talking past th

I think this is hard to discuss because if you disagree with the premise that the cuts are targeting “fraud waste and abuse” then you’re already talking past the other side. In order to have a productive discussion you need to defend the specific spend being cut, not argue about the ideal spend pie chart. Trump’s administration believes they are cutting legitimately outrageous spending across every piece of the pie. We can ra ra all day about how an effective and ethical government shall include some layer of social welfare, but cutting out pieces of the pie is not specifically what DOGE is doing or was tasked to do. So we should spend on elderly: why must it be 36%? What makes up the 36% and is it legitimate? Are there portions of that percentage deployed in a way that does not serve taxpayers’ interests? Is the workforce tasked to manage the “give money to the elderly” program performing to expectations? Are there redundancies? Why are any of those type of questions bad to ask especially when you’re asking them unilaterally (across all gov’t programs)?