4 ms·

Why wouldn't the USDA pay to eliminate pests in another country if it meant preventing those pests from reaching US farmers?

creato 1y ago
They did exactly that for decades.
dessimus 1y ago
> Why wouldn't the USDA pay... Maybe because there is an executive body hell-bent on the slashing expenditures regardless of any perceived benefit?
- tomrod 1y ago
  Perhaps their supporters should reconsider the burn-the-world-despite-who-it-hurts philosophy.
  - zamalek 1y ago
    Hatred is a more powerful emotion than desperacy. Votes will continue to flow towards the man, even in the face of their very own livestock being decimated.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  It's not like the alternative worked very well.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    It clearly did, evidence: the exact situation we are discussing. Other evidence includes the worst measles outbreak of the last 30 years and the second largest three-month economic contraction since WWII only topped by the last iteration of this administration.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      I mean, it's not like the alternative got out of control spending under control. We wouldn't be having Trump had that happened.
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        What were some specific problems caused by this spending? Seemed to work quite well. Up until our international image was destroyed two months ago, we were in a privileged position allowing deficit spending while the rest of the world absorbed the negatives. Trump certainly doesn't have a solution, but I'm also not convinced he has correctly identified a problem. Nation-state debt from the country whose currency is the de-facto international standard for the world, is categorically different than your mortgage or your credit card debt.
        pfdietz 1y ago
        It's clearly unsustainable. Eventually it leads to a run on the dollar and inability to refinance the debt. At that point, the debt gets inflated away. I ask you: do you imagine it can continue forever, with debt reaching arbitrarily high multiples of GDP?
        margalabargala 1y ago
        I agree that the system can become unstable. Clearly; it's being made unstable currently. I disagree that it must become unstable, especially on a time frame relevant to anyone currently alive. Perhaps certain resources could be sheparded more sustainably than they have been but I do not think we were previously heading towards a consequence worse than we are currently experiencing. That argument applied to current administrative actions is like saying "we all die someday, therefore we should all commit suicide right now".
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        What on earth? Trump and other republicans are famous for increasing government spending while decreasing revenue, that's, like, their whole thing, isn't that why people vote for them?
ikiris 1y ago
Doge probably saw it as anti male propoganda. THEYRE STERALIZIN OUR FLIES
giardini 1y ago
Better if all parties who benefit also pay.

creato 1y ago

They did exactly that for decades.

dessimus 1y ago

> Why wouldn't the USDA pay... Maybe because there is an executive body hell-bent on the slashing expenditures regardless of any perceived benefit?

tomrod 1y ago
Perhaps their supporters should reconsider the burn-the-world-despite-who-it-hurts philosophy.
- zamalek 1y ago
  Hatred is a more powerful emotion than desperacy. Votes will continue to flow towards the man, even in the face of their very own livestock being decimated.
pfdietz 1y ago
It's not like the alternative worked very well.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  It clearly did, evidence: the exact situation we are discussing. Other evidence includes the worst measles outbreak of the last 30 years and the second largest three-month economic contraction since WWII only topped by the last iteration of this administration.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    I mean, it's not like the alternative got out of control spending under control. We wouldn't be having Trump had that happened.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      What were some specific problems caused by this spending? Seemed to work quite well. Up until our international image was destroyed two months ago, we were in a privileged position allowing deficit spending while the rest of the world absorbed the negatives. Trump certainly doesn't have a solution, but I'm also not convinced he has correctly identified a problem. Nation-state debt from the country whose currency is the de-facto international standard for the world, is categorically different than your mortgage or your credit card debt.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        It's clearly unsustainable. Eventually it leads to a run on the dollar and inability to refinance the debt. At that point, the debt gets inflated away. I ask you: do you imagine it can continue forever, with debt reaching arbitrarily high multiples of GDP?
        margalabargala 1y ago
        I agree that the system can become unstable. Clearly; it's being made unstable currently. I disagree that it must become unstable, especially on a time frame relevant to anyone currently alive. Perhaps certain resources could be sheparded more sustainably than they have been but I do not think we were previously heading towards a consequence worse than we are currently experiencing. That argument applied to current administrative actions is like saying "we all die someday, therefore we should all commit suicide right now".
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      What on earth? Trump and other republicans are famous for increasing government spending while decreasing revenue, that's, like, their whole thing, isn't that why people vote for them?

ikiris 1y ago

Doge probably saw it as anti male propoganda. THEYRE STERALIZIN OUR FLIES

giardini 1y ago

Better if all parties who benefit also pay.