this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
-116 points (2.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2357 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 38 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Wow, that was an incredibly out of touch and frustrating thing to read. The author has no idea what they’re talking about.

in a highly polarised US political landscape, the anguish about his governmental role may be little more than a knee-jerk reaction from the millions of people whose side he did not choose.

No, it’s a reaction to genuinely absurd proposals for how to save money. For example, if they were able to successfully fire every single federal employee, it would save the government just over $100 billion. That money goes to pay the salaries of around 1.5 million federal employees. That’s nothing compared to the entire military budget, for example. So, even accomplishing their goal of firing as many civil servants as possible would save very little money in the scheme of things. All it would accomplish is ruining many basic services that people rely on every day to live a relatively safe and healthy life.

But what this article most glaringly ignores is that this Government Efficiency talk is disingenuous from the start. It’s not about efficiency, it’s about gutting as much of the government as possible so it breaks. That’s what they want, and they’ve been quite open about it.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 10 points 2 days ago

That's also now 1.5 million people out of work and not "contributing" to the economy, not spending money or generating tax revenue.

But any step past "step 1" is too far for Elmo to think about.