Would normally agree, but the waste fraud and abuse is so glaring and massive, much of it needs little investigation. Sat next to an FBI agent on a plane one time, for a long flight. He had been working 9/11 for years. He noted 9/11 happened because so few people could ever imagine anyone flying planes into buildings, no one ever gave an…
Would normally agree, but the waste fraud and abuse is so glaring and massive, much of it needs little investigation. Sat next to an FBI agent on a plane one time, for a long flight. He had been working 9/11 for years. He noted 9/11 happened because so few people could ever imagine anyone flying planes into buildings, no one ever gave any thought to preventing it.
That is how I feel about the last few weeks. Many of us have Poli Sci and law degrees, which should make us a bit better informed, then the public, at large. Still most cannot conceive of the waste revealed in the last 21 days. The programs themselves are nearly unimaginable, but the scope is the real problem. Dems will argue it is a tiny portion of the budget. That is insulting, in a nation where 1/2 of families live on $75K a year or less, and 40% of those, live on less than $45K.
Slow the reviews, and waste and fraud will be hidden, and we will physically, be unable to review everything. Programs that are wrongly ended, can be restarted. Parts of programs, that are worthwhile, can be rerouted. The main issue is not terminating federal employees or even the money saved. Americans must know, in detail, where and how their tax dollars are being spent.
I agree 100%. I just watched the DOGE hearings and the Democrats - every single one - could only talk about Musk. One witness stated that gov't fraud rate is as high as 20% - private business fraud rate is 2%. After listening to that the Democrats went right back to the Musk playbook, they have ZERO interest in ending this theft.
Were they Democrats or Progressives? Progressives often, when it is convenient, hide under the blanket of being Democrats, but they are as different from Democrats as Republicans are.
I've known lots of Democrats who would welcome a hard look at our government spending.
It is academically interesting the way that the term "Progressive" has mutated in American politics over the decades.
One of my favorite U.S. presidents is Theodore Roosevelt, who was so "progressive" relative to the status quo of the early 1900s that he was abhorred by the dominant conservative wing of the Republican Party. After supporting his friend, William H. Taft to succeed him in 1908, Roosevelt became so disenchanted with Taft's conservatism that Roosevelt ran as a third party Progressive in 1912. That split the Republican/Republican leaning voters and resulted in the election of the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
The "progressive" policies advocated by Roosevelt are now so widely accepted as to be "conservative" relative to the policies advocated by present-day Democrat/Socialist "progressives."
My "moderate" philosophical take is that "progressivism" should involve modest improvements to existing laws, regulations, policies, etc., based on an ongoing data-driven analysis of their costs versus benefits. But certainly not radical government- mandated transformations of society, especially based on isolated events such as the alleged "murder" of George Floyd. That "murder" was the determination of a trial conducted in a lynch mob atmosphere supported by high level "progressive" Democrats, and irrationally served as the "proof" of widespread racism throughout America that "justified" the DEI policies of the Biden/Harris administration to supposedly eradicate it. I regard that as a much more serious perversion of justice than the charges brought against Trump for his legal and moral transgressions.
We disagree on some points. There is no doubt waste. But a wise approach is to be careful in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
And a lot of this current culling of federal programs to be more sane is coming with accusations and immature name calling. I can't trust someone who is doing this with juvenile name calling........like they are being immature with their words but not with their actions?
Why would waste and fraud be hidden with being careful? Don't we expect care with all professionals we deal with?
I agree that with your degrees you are better informed than I am on many issues. But I have have a Ph.D. in psychology and taught psychology for 30 years. I know how people function, and when they function in their long term best interests, and
in the interests of others.
Much of this cutting is spite driven, not driven with good motives to save taxpayers money (although those are the words used to cover up the spite and payback).
And it's not smart. One of the reasons we switched from voting for Democrats to voting for Trump is that Progressives had pushed all of their envelopes too far. That kind of thing inevitably leads to backlash.
Push the cutting envelope too far and human nature being what it is, there will be backlash that sets the cause of government efficiency back.
Nice talking with you. It's a real talk instead of what we see a lot on comment boards which is trading insults.
I pretty much agree with your approach of "going slow" so as to not "throw out the baby with the bathwater." But that has been tried repeatedly, most recently and prominently by the Simpson-Bowles Commission in 2010, whose bipartisan recommendations (which I supported) were rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Commission, with the apparent concurrence of President Obama.
Having the good fortune to be a resident of Colorado, I refused to vote for either Trump or Harris. With the full knowledge that Harris would win Colorado's 10 electoral votes, I voted for the candidate of the "Approval Voting Party" in support of their goal of expanding the ability of voters to support credible candidates other than the extremists now being nominated by the two dominant parties. I regarded that as a matter of "showing the flag" for intelligent, patriotic moderation, as I do with my comments on this website. I appreciate that you do likewise (despite having been ardent Democrats while I was once an ardent Republican).
Would normally agree, but the waste fraud and abuse is so glaring and massive, much of it needs little investigation. Sat next to an FBI agent on a plane one time, for a long flight. He had been working 9/11 for years. He noted 9/11 happened because so few people could ever imagine anyone flying planes into buildings, no one ever gave any thought to preventing it.
That is how I feel about the last few weeks. Many of us have Poli Sci and law degrees, which should make us a bit better informed, then the public, at large. Still most cannot conceive of the waste revealed in the last 21 days. The programs themselves are nearly unimaginable, but the scope is the real problem. Dems will argue it is a tiny portion of the budget. That is insulting, in a nation where 1/2 of families live on $75K a year or less, and 40% of those, live on less than $45K.
Slow the reviews, and waste and fraud will be hidden, and we will physically, be unable to review everything. Programs that are wrongly ended, can be restarted. Parts of programs, that are worthwhile, can be rerouted. The main issue is not terminating federal employees or even the money saved. Americans must know, in detail, where and how their tax dollars are being spent.
I agree 100%. I just watched the DOGE hearings and the Democrats - every single one - could only talk about Musk. One witness stated that gov't fraud rate is as high as 20% - private business fraud rate is 2%. After listening to that the Democrats went right back to the Musk playbook, they have ZERO interest in ending this theft.
Were they Democrats or Progressives? Progressives often, when it is convenient, hide under the blanket of being Democrats, but they are as different from Democrats as Republicans are.
I've known lots of Democrats who would welcome a hard look at our government spending.
Tell it to the Democratic elected officials. This stack has warned about a defense of the status quo bureaucracy which is what is going on on.
It is academically interesting the way that the term "Progressive" has mutated in American politics over the decades.
One of my favorite U.S. presidents is Theodore Roosevelt, who was so "progressive" relative to the status quo of the early 1900s that he was abhorred by the dominant conservative wing of the Republican Party. After supporting his friend, William H. Taft to succeed him in 1908, Roosevelt became so disenchanted with Taft's conservatism that Roosevelt ran as a third party Progressive in 1912. That split the Republican/Republican leaning voters and resulted in the election of the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
The "progressive" policies advocated by Roosevelt are now so widely accepted as to be "conservative" relative to the policies advocated by present-day Democrat/Socialist "progressives."
My "moderate" philosophical take is that "progressivism" should involve modest improvements to existing laws, regulations, policies, etc., based on an ongoing data-driven analysis of their costs versus benefits. But certainly not radical government- mandated transformations of society, especially based on isolated events such as the alleged "murder" of George Floyd. That "murder" was the determination of a trial conducted in a lynch mob atmosphere supported by high level "progressive" Democrats, and irrationally served as the "proof" of widespread racism throughout America that "justified" the DEI policies of the Biden/Harris administration to supposedly eradicate it. I regard that as a much more serious perversion of justice than the charges brought against Trump for his legal and moral transgressions.
Thanks Ronda:
We disagree on some points. There is no doubt waste. But a wise approach is to be careful in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
And a lot of this current culling of federal programs to be more sane is coming with accusations and immature name calling. I can't trust someone who is doing this with juvenile name calling........like they are being immature with their words but not with their actions?
Why would waste and fraud be hidden with being careful? Don't we expect care with all professionals we deal with?
I agree that with your degrees you are better informed than I am on many issues. But I have have a Ph.D. in psychology and taught psychology for 30 years. I know how people function, and when they function in their long term best interests, and
in the interests of others.
Much of this cutting is spite driven, not driven with good motives to save taxpayers money (although those are the words used to cover up the spite and payback).
And it's not smart. One of the reasons we switched from voting for Democrats to voting for Trump is that Progressives had pushed all of their envelopes too far. That kind of thing inevitably leads to backlash.
Push the cutting envelope too far and human nature being what it is, there will be backlash that sets the cause of government efficiency back.
Nice talking with you. It's a real talk instead of what we see a lot on comment boards which is trading insults.
My point was not that I was better informed, but absolutely stunned despite my background. The list reads like an actual , Babylon Bee budget.
I pretty much agree with your approach of "going slow" so as to not "throw out the baby with the bathwater." But that has been tried repeatedly, most recently and prominently by the Simpson-Bowles Commission in 2010, whose bipartisan recommendations (which I supported) were rejected by a bipartisan majority of the Commission, with the apparent concurrence of President Obama.
Having the good fortune to be a resident of Colorado, I refused to vote for either Trump or Harris. With the full knowledge that Harris would win Colorado's 10 electoral votes, I voted for the candidate of the "Approval Voting Party" in support of their goal of expanding the ability of voters to support credible candidates other than the extremists now being nominated by the two dominant parties. I regarded that as a matter of "showing the flag" for intelligent, patriotic moderation, as I do with my comments on this website. I appreciate that you do likewise (despite having been ardent Democrats while I was once an ardent Republican).
We would enjoy having a beer together. We could actually have a conversation.
p.s. my adolescence was spent in Fort Collins.
p.p.s. my wife and I agree with you about not having non-extremist candidates.