The government information crisis is bigger than you think it is

This is such a right wing talking point, come up with an original talking point or something substantive.

The ultimate in smaller government structure is a single despot: "Do what I say or I'll kill you."

The ultimate in removed regulation is an apparatchik unhelpfully advising: "Just don't screw up."

The ultimate in simple taxes is serfdom.

Those are the end-states of looking only at quantities while ignoring the changes in the character and mechanics of a government.

> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism.

There is plenty of precedent for both spending cuts and shrinking (in some areas, usually while expanding others) government from US Presidents. Simply refusing to spend appropriated funds as directed by law where even the excuse given isn't either of those but imposing ideological constraints not contained or authorized at the discretion of the executive in the governing law is, on the other hand, not. Openly ideological and patronage oriented purges of the federal workforce (at least, since the adoption of civil service laws expressly to to stop that) again is not, and is neither about shrinking the scope of government or cutting spending.

So you don't even have a cursory understanding of the law or why it exists? As long as it fits your agenda, literally anything goes. Legality, lawfulness, fairness, the wellbeing of tens millions of people? All be damned.

So this seems to be the current strategy, as soon as someone opposes the actions of the Trump (and by extension the Republican party which has by now almost completely purged of dissent) everyone argues they are partisan (the whole if you are not supporting us you must be against us). This by the way is a very common strategy of authoritarian regimes.

Regarding spending cuts being antithetical to authoritarian regimes, note that the cuts don't affect the military or law enforcement (except for people who were involved in prosecuting Trump) that's very much in line with many authoritarian regimes.

> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism.

It is easy to construe blatantly illegal and facially unconstitutional acts as authoritarian, actually.

Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up

Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up

I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is

I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake

yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes

its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries

I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too

is it hyperbole? seems pretty literal

LOL. You must not read papers.

[flagged]

> Billionaire ransacking the Treasury

Your article summaries already reek of bias. The article link was truncated but I found and read it. It claims conflicts of interest and makes the assumption that it poses national security risks without knowing how DOGE is accessing the data or how much access Elon himself has.

It's not an accident. The whole point is to destroy these institutions, they've made no secret of that.

I get that there's plenty to not like about the Federal Government (and by plenty I mean a lot), but the answer to addressing that is to fix the problems rather than burn everything to the ground.

The US Federal government is 36 trillion in debt and trending deeper; with ratios to GDP reminiscent of WWII where the US established the global not-an-Empire that it currently enjoys. I'm not sure "this could be expensive" rises to the level of anyone caring. The situation is already well beyond the limits of what anyone who cares about cost could cope with.

"failing spectacularly" to me looks more like collapses of the international monetary system or generalised large scale riots. Which could easily happen, the US government is responsible for about half the US economy; look at the USSR for what can happen when that sort of system gets dismantled too quickly. Mere large monetary amounts are not a factor these days.

Axing research grants and datasets has a lot to do with faith-based medicine. Why would one value cancer research, for example, if they believe illness is punishment for sin?

They were moved to being contractors to keep them off the books.

OK, now do spending?

God, if it's a purge, I hope someone has a "corrupt government contractor" index fund out there I can throw whatever severance I'll get in so I can at least hope to have a retirement.

If they really wanted to save money, Israel would be the first foreign aid recipient to cut, not one of the few left untouched.

[flagged]

The 'brand' of the FBI is worthless. For half of the country it was investigating the criminal. For the other half of the country it is the result of the purge.

No-one will trust the FBI from here on out.

Need to delete it and re-create the function with a different name.

Aristotle explained (in Politics) why running government like a business is a bad idea. Sometimes it feels that we are forgetting what we have learned and have to re-learn it the hard way again and again.

Most of my interactions with government take place with state and local governments and they are definitely not allowed to print profit as far as I recall.

Public schools, police departments, parks, streets - I interact with these more than any other government service and no of them can print their own money and most of them work really hard to be run like businesses that care deeply about budgets and managing costs.

And they've clearly never worked for a large business. Any organization comprising large numbers of people are going to be inefficient and unwieldy.

The same people who think it should be run like a business are wholly opposed to running it as a planned economy, even though each company in the US is a little totalitarian state with a completely planned economy.

No doubt people have already died here

Does it matter?

Hypothetical question: imagine the president ordered troops to evacuate the library and then burn it down. Who exactly would be held accountable, and how?

I think that the answer is yes, but, it seems like the current administration is trying to push against the boundaries of what they are and aren’t allowed to do, and it’s not clear where they will and won’t find pushback.

All three branches of the Federal Government are now owned by one man.

You're right – we'll see what the Republican majorities in Congress decide to do. You'd hope they wouldn't trample over the Congressional Research Service (of the LoC), but given the level of political debate I think it was getting short shrift already.

The power of the purse is explicitly under the pervue of the Legislative per the constitution. The executive does not have the discretion to not spend or redirect funds assigned by Congress (there's some interesting history with Nixon on that if one is interested), yet this administration doesn't seem to see that as a barrier.

You mean like the law that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress banning TikTok that Trump told businesses to ignore or do yoh mean like unilaterally trying to block all spending when that is suppose to be controlled by Congress?

Congress is letting the President take their power. Even Republicans in 2016-2020 wouldn’t have done that.

The library's functions are overseen by the librarian of Congress, and its buildings are maintained by the architect of the Capitol. The librarian of Congress is the head of the Library of Congress, appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, for a term of ten years.

So yeah, Trump could fire the librarian.

Interestingly, the head of the Architect of the Capitol is appointed by a vote of a congressional commission for a ten-year term. Prior to 2024, the president of the United States appointed the Architect upon confirmation vote by the United States Senate, and was accountable to the president.

I don't understand the underlying presumption that data and statistics are how you deradicalize people. People become radical when they really want something they feel they can't get, and the most effective way to fight that is to offer some of what they want. There's no argument that can prove your father isn't allowed to want less immigration, even if you and I might prefer more.

It's a genuinely hard problem, of course, because there are lots of people in the Democratic coalition who are radicalized the other direction. They feel - equally genuinely, and equally strongly - that excluding or deporting an immigrant is a grievous moral wrong which we can't tolerate for mere political expediency. That's what it means to say that there's not a consensus on immigration.

Your parents remind me of a former colleague who completely changed his political views after frequently listening to AM talk radio every time he drove between Goldstone and LA. Many of us (me included) are like a "sponge", we take on characteristics of those we surround ourselves with (virtually or in real life). I try (and I don’t always succeed) to associate myself with individuals that I admire and possess characteristics worthy of emulation. I have to be careful and have the discipline to avoid those with characteristics that I don’t want to unconsciously assume.

> There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen.

I heavily agree on this, people have nothing to look forward to, and nothing to be proud of. In fact, the state of the US is more embarrassing than anything. Every other country has free healthcare, high speed rail, free education etc... On top of that, there is no upwards social mobility. I know a lot of people my age are literally gambling everything on crypto and hustle culture because they have no future prospects or hope.

> This is why we can’t have single payer healthcare, because our populations are too busy fighting for their radicalized ideas.

but I have to say that this is beyond naive. A single payer healthcare system is broadly popular, it has had the majority of support for decades at this point. We can't have it because it goes against the profit motive of the people running that industry. We already pay more than we would in taxpayer money than we would if healthcare was free across the board. Its as simple as that. Blatant corruption.

And this circles back to the last point, people see this, they realize this... and they don't believe that they can change this. This is exactly why, across the world, Luigi Mangione is hailed as a Saint. Thats exactly why the response was, "I get it." and people should try to examine that more. Its honestly not very complicated.

Fox News and such, are the only ones providing answers and giving people a place to channel this anger. But it is at the expense of marginalized groups, and truthfully, everyone. The Neo-Liberal order has failed everyone, and the Democrats have nothing to offer. I mean, we have corruption and oligarchs controlling the government. People feel hopeless, and powerless.

What we have to do is offer a hopeful vision of the future that rings true to a majority of people. This starts with breaking away from the current party lines that deny what most people know to be true. For example, almost everyone can agree that health care is too expensive, corporations have too much power, housing is unaffordable, Trump is too extreme, Biden was too old etc. yet neither party is willing to state the obvious. If we can get a major party to do this, or to at least support candidates that do, we can get out of this hole.

Edited first response since it was too reactionary on my part.

> They are too deep, what do we do? Wait until they die?

Yeah, you tried. Any more is probably energy wasted.

> What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them?

Explain to them how oligarchs are burning the younger generation's security and quality of life to amass ever more wealth and power for themselves.

Help them see how this is happening to both them and the people of their generation on the opposite side of the surface political divide.

>what do we do? Wait until they die?

To be frank, yes. Arguing with most single individuals is pointless anyway. If we were able to focus these conversations on congress we'd be in much better shape.

>What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them?

You have time to stop them. It's just scientific fact that younger brains are more malleable and open to information. It won't always work, but there is some hope there.

>There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen.

Maybe we shouldn't have let a few hundred rich guys beat us in an argument about Healthcare. Which is a bipartisan issue but they divide us with politics.

It’s hard for a number of reasons. Many people are struggling, and people’s tendency to bike shed means they look for and grasp onto the explanation(s) they think they understand. Propaganda takes advantage of this fact. Whatever the problem, it’s Biden/immigrants/DEIs fault.

>>It’s pure radicalization and anything that can be labeled as a negative is rationalized to avoid regret.

This from the party that spent 4 years claiming Biden didn't have severe mental decline but "a stutter".