4 ms·

> But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.' This is such an unbelievably lazy respons

> But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.' This is such an unbelievably lazy response. Every single person in existence thinks there’s some amount of government waste that we wish were cut and either returned to the citizens or put to better use elsewhere. The interesting and important question which GP poijted out—and which you completely dodged—is where and what should be cut. DOGE is looking at the set of government spending that accounts for less than 9% in aggregate of the entire federal budget. At best if they found that 10% of this money was abuse, it would account to less than 1% of the overall federal budget. This isn’t about reducing government spending. If it was, they’d be going after larger targets. It’s about fulfilling their long-stated wet dream of finally drowning the government in a bathtub.

tdeck 2y ago
> It’s about fulfilling their long-stated wet dream of finally drowning the government in a bathtub. Except for the parts for the government that can shoot you or kick down your door. Those parts are sticking around for sure.
- aikinai 2y ago
  Yeah, those parts are the primary reason to have a government.
  - 8bitsrule 2y ago
    As I recall, the reasons are to: "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" Whether all that was sincere or not is not the question: that was the promise I learned. 'Common defense' is well taken care of ... unlike 'general welfare' and/or liberty, particularly for 'our posterity'
    - aikinai 2y ago
      Good point! I’m not a constitutional scholar but I think basically all of those except “general welfare” are related to defense and peacekeeping. I’d forgotten about “general welfare” and now I wonder how that got in there considering it didn’t really make it anywhere else in the founding vision. Maybe they didn’t intend it like our modern reading at all?
      - stouset 2y ago
        Sure, let’s just discard the evidence that doesn’t fit our preconceived beliefs!
caminante 2y ago
> The interesting and important question which GP poijted out—and which you completely dodged—is where and what should be cut. This is false on a substantive level. The parent challenged (1) the premise that federal spend should scale and with GDP and (2) whether current healthcare cost levels are justified. It's also notable that you redacted a key part of the parent's quote. Here's the full quote: > Given the complexity in the details, I don't think a 'serious discussion' about this is even possible in this forum. But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.'
- stouset 2y ago
  All sorts of complex discussions are had here on a daily basis. This topic is no different. Using that as an excuse to ignore the actual question which was asked so you can throw yourself the softest of softballs is what is unbelievably lazy.
  - caminante 2y ago
    Even on a cynical level, looking at the current state of the thread, I think he called it. Others made the same point in top comments.
    - stouset 2y ago
      If this type of opinion is getting eviscerated in the comments, maybe the problem is with the opinion itself and not the forum on which it's being expressed.
      - cwalv 2y ago
        If your goal is to 'eviscerate' an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't engage. If the objective of a debater is to get the other side to simply shut up, they're missing the real value of debate. They might think they've 'won the debate' by getting others to stop talking, but in reality they'll keep thinking the way they do, and just exclude you from the conversation. You'll only learn how they really think when you see election outcomes, or which side they're standing on when it's 'ok' to dissent, and by then it's too late.
ethagknight 2y ago
“Cut all of it” is a serious response. Yes, cut a significant percentage of government spend across the board. Reduce my taxes. Let me decide how and where to reinvest my capital and how and where to give my charity. The fact that DOGE is only focused on the items it has access to is not a logical critique of DOGE’s effort.
- achierius 2y ago
  But you know what effect that would have, yes? You (or rather the aggregate "you", i.e. the average American tax-payer) wouldn't give nearly as much to charity as you currently pay in taxes -- and that's even taking into account the fact that Americans are some of the most charitable people on the planet (in financial terms). So people who are currently struggling, and rely on government assistance to get by? They will struggle more. People who fall on hard times, and need a bit of help to get back on their feet? Much less likely to get it. We live in an era of unprecedented abundance. That we are unwilling, that our system is unable, to provide even a basic standard of living for all of our citizens -- that on its own is already a deep, deep, condemnation of how we do things. To go even further, to destroy the bits of aid we do give out, without even trying to replace or rebuild them?
  - ethagknight 2y ago
    Meh. It’s provable over and over that excess government creates a charity trap for the vulnerable. it is my direct and repeated experience working with various charities, an unwillingness to leave government programs is what holds so many people in poverty. I am more than happy to discuss a re-written Social Security net for American citizens who are truly struggling, but not those looking for lifelong paycheck for nothing. Today we have a grossly abused, wildly expensive, and unbudgetable aid program. And it’s all by design. We can by all means cut fraud written systems today with plans to add back the necessary functions later. Rewrite and consolidate for the modern era.
- stouset 2y ago
  “Cut all of it” is a lazy and exceptionally dangerous response. There are an enormous number of government services for which the benefit to society is straight multiples of the cost. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is an phenomenally efficient way to make sure we all suddenly start paying more. For a blindingly obvious example, see universal healthcare (or more specifically, our country’s lack of it). As the one developed economy without it, we pay multiples of what other people do for worse results. Consider me not particularly enthusiastic about finding out what else we can start paying more for to receive worse results. > The fact that DOGE is only focused on the items it has access to is not a logical critique of DOGE’s effort. Of course it fucking is. Just like it is, was, and continues to be a valid critique that California asking residents to cut back on water use when the aggregate of all urban use counts for about 8% of the water is a pointless waste of time, resources, and political energy. Instead of actually tackling deficits and government spending, they’re putting on a show while cutting to the bone extremely valuable services we rely on. NOAA and FAA are critical for air travel. NASA, the NSF, and scientific research funding in general are critical for our continued technological dominance and for attracting the best and brightest to our country. The CFPB has done incredible work in protecting individual consumers from the worst of banking practices. The parks service, USFS, and everything else under the department of the interior protect our remaining natural spaces which can never be reclaimed once lost. This is just a microscopic fraction of what’s being dismantled in front of our eyes, and all for the “benefit” of pointlessly saving relative pennies. For fuck’s sake, as a high-earning, wealthy taxpayer: tax me more. And anyone who’s in the upper echelons of our economy that isn’t saying this while seeing the conditions the rest of our country and world live in is unbelievably narrow-minded, ignorant, selfish, straight up evil, or more likely a combination of all the above.

tdeck 2y ago

> It’s about fulfilling their long-stated wet dream of finally drowning the government in a bathtub. Except for the parts for the government that can shoot you or kick down your door. Those parts are sticking around for sure.

aikinai 2y ago
Yeah, those parts are the primary reason to have a government.
- 8bitsrule 2y ago
  As I recall, the reasons are to: "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" Whether all that was sincere or not is not the question: that was the promise I learned. 'Common defense' is well taken care of ... unlike 'general welfare' and/or liberty, particularly for 'our posterity'
  - aikinai 2y ago
    Good point! I’m not a constitutional scholar but I think basically all of those except “general welfare” are related to defense and peacekeeping. I’d forgotten about “general welfare” and now I wonder how that got in there considering it didn’t really make it anywhere else in the founding vision. Maybe they didn’t intend it like our modern reading at all?
    - stouset 2y ago
      Sure, let’s just discard the evidence that doesn’t fit our preconceived beliefs!

caminante 2y ago

> The interesting and important question which GP poijted out—and which you completely dodged—is where and what should be cut. This is false on a substantive level. The parent challenged (1) the premise that federal spend should scale and with GDP and (2) whether current healthcare cost levels are justified. It's also notable that you redacted a key part of the parent's quote. Here's the full quote: > Given the complexity in the details, I don't think a 'serious discussion' about this is even possible in this forum. But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.'

stouset 2y ago
All sorts of complex discussions are had here on a daily basis. This topic is no different. Using that as an excuse to ignore the actual question which was asked so you can throw yourself the softest of softballs is what is unbelievably lazy.
- caminante 2y ago
  Even on a cynical level, looking at the current state of the thread, I think he called it. Others made the same point in top comments.
  - stouset 2y ago
    If this type of opinion is getting eviscerated in the comments, maybe the problem is with the opinion itself and not the forum on which it's being expressed.
    - cwalv 2y ago
      If your goal is to 'eviscerate' an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't engage. If the objective of a debater is to get the other side to simply shut up, they're missing the real value of debate. They might think they've 'won the debate' by getting others to stop talking, but in reality they'll keep thinking the way they do, and just exclude you from the conversation. You'll only learn how they really think when you see election outcomes, or which side they're standing on when it's 'ok' to dissent, and by then it's too late.

ethagknight 2y ago

“Cut all of it” is a serious response. Yes, cut a significant percentage of government spend across the board. Reduce my taxes. Let me decide how and where to reinvest my capital and how and where to give my charity. The fact that DOGE is only focused on the items it has access to is not a logical critique of DOGE’s effort.

achierius 2y ago
But you know what effect that would have, yes? You (or rather the aggregate "you", i.e. the average American tax-payer) wouldn't give nearly as much to charity as you currently pay in taxes -- and that's even taking into account the fact that Americans are some of the most charitable people on the planet (in financial terms). So people who are currently struggling, and rely on government assistance to get by? They will struggle more. People who fall on hard times, and need a bit of help to get back on their feet? Much less likely to get it. We live in an era of unprecedented abundance. That we are unwilling, that our system is unable, to provide even a basic standard of living for all of our citizens -- that on its own is already a deep, deep, condemnation of how we do things. To go even further, to destroy the bits of aid we do give out, without even trying to replace or rebuild them?
- ethagknight 2y ago
  Meh. It’s provable over and over that excess government creates a charity trap for the vulnerable. it is my direct and repeated experience working with various charities, an unwillingness to leave government programs is what holds so many people in poverty. I am more than happy to discuss a re-written Social Security net for American citizens who are truly struggling, but not those looking for lifelong paycheck for nothing. Today we have a grossly abused, wildly expensive, and unbudgetable aid program. And it’s all by design. We can by all means cut fraud written systems today with plans to add back the necessary functions later. Rewrite and consolidate for the modern era.
stouset 2y ago
“Cut all of it” is a lazy and exceptionally dangerous response. There are an enormous number of government services for which the benefit to society is straight multiples of the cost. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is an phenomenally efficient way to make sure we all suddenly start paying more. For a blindingly obvious example, see universal healthcare (or more specifically, our country’s lack of it). As the one developed economy without it, we pay multiples of what other people do for worse results. Consider me not particularly enthusiastic about finding out what else we can start paying more for to receive worse results. > The fact that DOGE is only focused on the items it has access to is not a logical critique of DOGE’s effort. Of course it fucking is. Just like it is, was, and continues to be a valid critique that California asking residents to cut back on water use when the aggregate of all urban use counts for about 8% of the water is a pointless waste of time, resources, and political energy. Instead of actually tackling deficits and government spending, they’re putting on a show while cutting to the bone extremely valuable services we rely on. NOAA and FAA are critical for air travel. NASA, the NSF, and scientific research funding in general are critical for our continued technological dominance and for attracting the best and brightest to our country. The CFPB has done incredible work in protecting individual consumers from the worst of banking practices. The parks service, USFS, and everything else under the department of the interior protect our remaining natural spaces which can never be reclaimed once lost. This is just a microscopic fraction of what’s being dismantled in front of our eyes, and all for the “benefit” of pointlessly saving relative pennies. For fuck’s sake, as a high-earning, wealthy taxpayer: tax me more. And anyone who’s in the upper echelons of our economy that isn’t saying this while seeing the conditions the rest of our country and world live in is unbelievably narrow-minded, ignorant, selfish, straight up evil, or more likely a combination of all the above.