4 ms·

It's not worth making this point anymore. Bannon et al have been explicit for decades now they want to destroy the federal government. It's ideological, that's

It's not worth making this point anymore. Bannon et al have been explicit for decades now they want to destroy the federal government. It's ideological, that's it quite simply. All these discussions about efficiency, even more so the debt given they just blew up the debt to never before seen levels just shows that sincerity is not deserved when talking to Rs.

jzb 1y ago
It is worth making the point: a lot of people simply don’t see it (yet?) for what it is and still support the people doing it.
- pimlottc 1y ago
  I think GP's point is that it's achingly difficult to believe anyone at this point still buys into the "efficiency" bullshit. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 20 times...
  - pixelpoet 1y ago
    > fool me 20 times... ... I'll vote for you again! Seems to be how that saying goes these days; and here I thought Bush had the dumbest possible ending for it.
- treis 1y ago
  Because this is more like dialing it back to pre-covid: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 Unfortunately the two choices are expansion and haphazard reduction
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    I don’t know why the number of employees is a problem when the reduction is offset by instead contracting out that work and just needing to also pay middlemen for that work. It’s the worst of both worlds.
  - stogot 1y ago
    As a proponent of a “smaller fed”, I wish it was not haphazard but that we some actual thought went into it rather than shooting from the hip
- fennecbutt 1y ago
  Well there's also just the "own the libs durrrrr!" crowd. Politics has become a sports game. I lack confidence in a good chunk of the population to vote in their best interests, perhaps democracy isn't the right way. Or voting on something should require an exam on the subject.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > I lack confidence in a good chunk of the population to vote in their best interests That's because for a long time the political system in the US insulated people from the consequences of their decisions. A dum-dum state government from Idaho could vote to slash education and healthcare spending, but the Federal government had always been there to provide a backstop. Whatever the local idiots decide, Social Security, SNAP, Medicare were always there to provide at least _some_ safety net. (and the easy migration within the US helped a lot to alleviate local issues, which is now also gone) The political system in the US has also always been biased towards conservatism, making any changes difficult. For better or worse. That's how the extremely toxic meme that "both parties are the same" was born. That's also how political orientation became a part of the identity for many people: "My family has always been voting for Republicans/Democrats". Now it's all gone. Dum-dum Republicans are destroying the safety net at the Federal level, and they are doing it in a way that will start hurting people within years. Not decades down the line. For once, people will get to experience direct consequences of their vote. And this is the silver lining in this whole mess.
    - leptons 1y ago
      >For once, people will get to experience direct consequences of their vote. And this is the silver lining in this whole mess. They may experience consequences, but they sure won't care about any consequences so long as they still believe that "demonrats" are systematically raping babies. They'll endure any consequence as long as they think their team is punishing the libs.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    the second someone like Trump gets hold of a voter exam setting process, they're either going to abuse it to their advantage, or abolish it entirely, after having used it as a wedge issue to set the working classes against "elites" also, in the US, taking exams in order to vote is a massively sensitive issue as it was one of the ways that blacks were restricted from voting even when they legally had the right more technically, where do you draw the line? if it's too easy, you're going to insult people without even getting the desired effect. if it's too hard, then the demographic will skew towards people who work in the industries affected by the policy. for a second that sounds good, and when it comes to something like culture or maybe health, then sure, but there are many industries that would burn the world to the ground if it ensured them 20% annual growth. can you imagine if the only people able to vote on financial regulations were people who know a lot about finance? there'd be famines within the year
QuantumGood 1y ago
The "ecosystem" of polticial knowledge is balkanized in the U.S. (and elsewhere). "Making points" to those who are subscribed to a narrative fed from propaganda will not learn what they are told is not true. But noting causative "they say it's 'X', but it's actually 'Y'" feels more like simply properly labeling the information.
DSingularity 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > I won’t cry if it is dismantled. You will if the private replacement is much worse.
  - unnamed76ri 1y ago
    The federal government is 36 trillion in debt. How do you run things worse than that? No private company or citizen would survive blowing up their finances as bad as what the federal government has been doing for decades.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Most folks with a mortgage are in a similar spot - long term debt at low rates in excess of annual income - and we can’t print money. Government isn’t a business. It can’t declare bankruptcy and it can’t price half the country out of the market. If you’re really a deficit hawk, this admin should be appalling to you.
      - unnamed76ri 1y ago
        It does
    - Pfhortune 1y ago
      The government is not a company. It is ludicrous to expect it to operate like one.
      - unnamed76ri 1y ago
        I’d say it is ludicrous to be okay with them continually eroding our buying power with inflationary spending. You’re right it isn’t a company. Its actions directly impact all of us whether we want to do business with them or not.
unnamed76ri 1y ago
Every day the debt rises to never before seen levels. That’s not new or something exclusive to one party or the other.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  It absolutely is worse for one party more than the other. Clinton was the last President to balance the budget. Bush II and Trump made it far worse than any Democrat
  - unnamed76ri 1y ago
    That’s just factually not true. Obama and Biden both added more than Bush II. Trump on the other hand is a big spender…
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      This is not hard to look up.. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united...
      - unnamed76ri 1y ago
        Yes, thank you for providing a source that supports what I wrote. Big of you to highlight your prior mistake.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        Are you really saying that Clinton didn’t balance the budget that Bush II undid and that Trump’s latest “Big Beautiful Bill” is projected to add 3 trillion to the budget on top of what he did in 2017?
        unnamed76ri 1y ago

jzb 1y ago

It is worth making the point: a lot of people simply don’t see it (yet?) for what it is and still support the people doing it.

pimlottc 1y ago
I think GP's point is that it's achingly difficult to believe anyone at this point still buys into the "efficiency" bullshit. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 20 times...
- pixelpoet 1y ago
  > fool me 20 times... ... I'll vote for you again! Seems to be how that saying goes these days; and here I thought Bush had the dumbest possible ending for it.
treis 1y ago
Because this is more like dialing it back to pre-covid: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 Unfortunately the two choices are expansion and haphazard reduction
- vlovich123 1y ago
  I don’t know why the number of employees is a problem when the reduction is offset by instead contracting out that work and just needing to also pay middlemen for that work. It’s the worst of both worlds.
- stogot 1y ago
  As a proponent of a “smaller fed”, I wish it was not haphazard but that we some actual thought went into it rather than shooting from the hip
fennecbutt 1y ago
Well there's also just the "own the libs durrrrr!" crowd. Politics has become a sports game. I lack confidence in a good chunk of the population to vote in their best interests, perhaps democracy isn't the right way. Or voting on something should require an exam on the subject.
- cyberax 1y ago
  > I lack confidence in a good chunk of the population to vote in their best interests That's because for a long time the political system in the US insulated people from the consequences of their decisions. A dum-dum state government from Idaho could vote to slash education and healthcare spending, but the Federal government had always been there to provide a backstop. Whatever the local idiots decide, Social Security, SNAP, Medicare were always there to provide at least _some_ safety net. (and the easy migration within the US helped a lot to alleviate local issues, which is now also gone) The political system in the US has also always been biased towards conservatism, making any changes difficult. For better or worse. That's how the extremely toxic meme that "both parties are the same" was born. That's also how political orientation became a part of the identity for many people: "My family has always been voting for Republicans/Democrats". Now it's all gone. Dum-dum Republicans are destroying the safety net at the Federal level, and they are doing it in a way that will start hurting people within years. Not decades down the line. For once, people will get to experience direct consequences of their vote. And this is the silver lining in this whole mess.
  - leptons 1y ago
    >For once, people will get to experience direct consequences of their vote. And this is the silver lining in this whole mess. They may experience consequences, but they sure won't care about any consequences so long as they still believe that "demonrats" are systematically raping babies. They'll endure any consequence as long as they think their team is punishing the libs.
- permo-w 1y ago
  the second someone like Trump gets hold of a voter exam setting process, they're either going to abuse it to their advantage, or abolish it entirely, after having used it as a wedge issue to set the working classes against "elites" also, in the US, taking exams in order to vote is a massively sensitive issue as it was one of the ways that blacks were restricted from voting even when they legally had the right more technically, where do you draw the line? if it's too easy, you're going to insult people without even getting the desired effect. if it's too hard, then the demographic will skew towards people who work in the industries affected by the policy. for a second that sounds good, and when it comes to something like culture or maybe health, then sure, but there are many industries that would burn the world to the ground if it ensured them 20% annual growth. can you imagine if the only people able to vote on financial regulations were people who know a lot about finance? there'd be famines within the year

QuantumGood 1y ago

The "ecosystem" of polticial knowledge is balkanized in the U.S. (and elsewhere). "Making points" to those who are subscribed to a narrative fed from propaganda will not learn what they are told is not true. But noting causative "they say it's 'X', but it's actually 'Y'" feels more like simply properly labeling the information.

DSingularity 1y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 1y ago
> I won’t cry if it is dismantled. You will if the private replacement is much worse.
- unnamed76ri 1y ago
  The federal government is 36 trillion in debt. How do you run things worse than that? No private company or citizen would survive blowing up their finances as bad as what the federal government has been doing for decades.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Most folks with a mortgage are in a similar spot - long term debt at low rates in excess of annual income - and we can’t print money. Government isn’t a business. It can’t declare bankruptcy and it can’t price half the country out of the market. If you’re really a deficit hawk, this admin should be appalling to you.
    - unnamed76ri 1y ago
      It does
  - Pfhortune 1y ago
    The government is not a company. It is ludicrous to expect it to operate like one.
    - unnamed76ri 1y ago
      I’d say it is ludicrous to be okay with them continually eroding our buying power with inflationary spending. You’re right it isn’t a company. Its actions directly impact all of us whether we want to do business with them or not.

unnamed76ri 1y ago

Every day the debt rises to never before seen levels. That’s not new or something exclusive to one party or the other.

scarface_74 1y ago
It absolutely is worse for one party more than the other. Clinton was the last President to balance the budget. Bush II and Trump made it far worse than any Democrat
- unnamed76ri 1y ago
  That’s just factually not true. Obama and Biden both added more than Bush II. Trump on the other hand is a big spender…
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    This is not hard to look up.. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united...
    - unnamed76ri 1y ago
      Yes, thank you for providing a source that supports what I wrote. Big of you to highlight your prior mistake.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        Are you really saying that Clinton didn’t balance the budget that Bush II undid and that Trump’s latest “Big Beautiful Bill” is projected to add 3 trillion to the budget on top of what he did in 2017?
        unnamed76ri 1y ago