Experimented in the “global south” tells it all. I don’t want global solutions such as universal income. Most global agendas teeter on socialism.
Picking out a program such as SNAP programs is a manipulative tactic because opponents to big government would probably still agree that social justice and assistance programs such as snap are a lifeline for many people in society. Your selection of example is like walking into a debate about vehicle safety then instead of choosing a debatable practice like seat belts, go for something already in agreement such as arguing over the existence of steering wheels.
At the risk of an ad hominem, I will offer my understanding that as a person whose career and livelihood has been a product of the system, it is hard to see a solution outside of your experience.
Government jobs are not the only way to keep the economy going. To suggest it is ludicrous. Just because that kind of system has been in place all this time is not a logical cause and effect argument for a robust economy. On the contrary, it argues the opposite- our economy is sick, filled with waste, and taxpayers on the hook for so much but getting so little in return.
We pay taxes on money we earn.
We pay taxes on that same money when we spend that money.
If we save it, we get taxed on that money we save as well.
When we die, whatever was left behind is taxed at 50%.
There is something wrong with this picture.
Think about it- the body cannibalizes itself for the sake of its own survival. Spend more, to make more? What kind of ponzi kool aid are you selling?
Spend less, interfere less. Let private enterprise at all levels grow and develop organically based on market needs and demand instead of wasting taxpayer money on artificially stimulating pointless industries (green new scam). The healthy economy begins with enterprise at all levels, not in dominating juggernauts like Microsoft, walmart, or Amazon. We’re talking small biz, cottage industries, TikTok shops, online retailers, shopping mall kiosks, gig economies. Smaller government would discourage lobbying because there would be fewer entry points into government machinery that could assert influence because there would be no influence.
Your effort to put on the hat to reconsider the possibility of fewer government jobs is present in your other writings. It’s healthy. Just don’t be fooled to look back at what was. I believe that it wasn’t better in a government that employed people for the sake of giving that person a job versus adding value for the American people. That’s bureaucratic waste.
It's relatable. Everyone has bought groceries and can relate to how Walmart workers could be negatively impacted IF (big if) a program like food stamps was to be cut.
If you shrink government OR make it more efficient, you effectively reduce the paper pushing. If you need fewer administrators to execute a program or you change the requirements of the program which then has second and third order effects.
Maybe SNAP wasn't the best example to use here. Maybe a defense contract with Boeing would have been better. If you cut the contract, you cut the labor. If you cut the labor, you eliminate local jobs. And if you eliminate local jobs you eliminate spending within the local economy. If you eliminate spending you eliminate tax revenues which impact municipal budgets.
The point wasn't to advocate for the elimination of food stamps, it was to illustrate how getting rid of government programs like SNAP will have a much broader impact than people realize.
On government jobs keeping the economy going:
I agree, it isn't the ONLY way to keep the economy going...HOWEVER, I think it's worth looking at the facts on the ground.
FACT: the government is one of only three sectors of the economy that has been consistently adding new jobs for the last few years
FACT: NGOs, media organizations, charities/nonprofits, and now universities are pulling back hiring and warning of budgetary distress because of DOGE cuts
This reveals that directly or indirectly, the government is fueling more of the economy than we realize. I'm not suggesting this is good or bad, I'm simply saying this is what is.
If we want to shrink government which is what is happening now, we need to understand this so we can prepare for the unintended consequences and the impacts they will have on local communities.
As an anecdote, I grew up outside of Ithaca, NY where Cornell is located. Cornell just announced hiring freezes because of DOGE. Cornell is the largest employer there. The entire town -- restaurants, retail, etc. -- caters to Cornell. If Cornell stops hiring because of DOGE, that's going to have a major impact on that community. Any college town that is set up like Cornell will also be affected.
It's important to recognize post-Great Depression, the economy was restructured around more government intervention, including in providing work OR offsetting the cost for private enterprises to provide work. IF government is cut too much, work opportunities will be affected. Become aware of the structure as it is -- not how we want it to be -- will help us navigate what's happening now and, hopefully, build a better system to replace it.
You raise an excellent point that the economy is sick. But to solve the problem we have to diagnose all the symptoms and mitigate the consequences. Now that DOGE is being implemented I think this is no longer a theoretical idea which is good, but I don't think we have thought through the downstream consequences. A lot of waste is going to get cut, AND a lot of good people -- not just useless bureaucrats -- are going to be put out of work.
How do you find balance between being efficient but keeping enough of the system in place so we can gradually build something better? Scorching the earth could shock the system too much and that could lead to more problems than we have now.
I love your well thought out comments. Thank you for responding.
I see your point about the tangled interactive web of the economy built on government spending, but the ends still does not justify the means. We shouldn’t have a foundation of an economy of supporting towns or local economies based on unlabeled budget line items. It’s sad, but it moves us forward in a direction of integrity.
As I see it, some of this waste just discovered is like the festering remnants of gangrene already set in. It’s so bad that people are angry. This does and does not bode well as the anger fuels additional inspection and scrutiny, but I agree it becomes a scorched earth policy that indeed would be a shock.
People feed off drama, and these narratives, government workers with two jobs, gender reassignment surgeries in Guatemala prisons, million dollar research grants for measuring shrimp on treadmills, etc are intended to poke a nerve because it fuels anger. In some ways it is good to be angry, in some ways some of this waste is justifiably enraging. But behind this are people attached to these payments disbursed, and amidst the furious hack and slash, it may bode well to pause and consider the collateral damage, the friendly fire that will ultimately take down in addition to the easy targets. Lots of people will be hurt.
I see your humanitarian approach in considering this pause.
I don’t think people know exactly what they’re buying when they ask for less government. They’re just angry. The pendulum swings.
Supply and demand should dictate the employment market. Jobs have never been a guarantee, but if you are dissatisfied with the choices, hire yourself. It is not going to look like our grandparents world: college (or even no college) degree, easy job with benefits, pension, social security. We don’t have that option, but that doesn’t mean a doom and gloom outcome.
Employment will look different. But government spending has to be different. It’s not sustainable.
Our current government taxation revenue exceeds the GDP of every nation on the planet, yet we are still in a deficit and digging deeper in debt. There is a problem here.
How is increasing spending to give people jobs fixing the problem?
There’s a lot of great talking points in your response. I see the issue is if and when we pull the band aid (or duct tape) off. Shock or no shock, something has to done differently.
Experimented in the “global south” tells it all. I don’t want global solutions such as universal income. Most global agendas teeter on socialism.
Picking out a program such as SNAP programs is a manipulative tactic because opponents to big government would probably still agree that social justice and assistance programs such as snap are a lifeline for many people in society. Your selection of example is like walking into a debate about vehicle safety then instead of choosing a debatable practice like seat belts, go for something already in agreement such as arguing over the existence of steering wheels.
At the risk of an ad hominem, I will offer my understanding that as a person whose career and livelihood has been a product of the system, it is hard to see a solution outside of your experience.
Government jobs are not the only way to keep the economy going. To suggest it is ludicrous. Just because that kind of system has been in place all this time is not a logical cause and effect argument for a robust economy. On the contrary, it argues the opposite- our economy is sick, filled with waste, and taxpayers on the hook for so much but getting so little in return.
We pay taxes on money we earn.
We pay taxes on that same money when we spend that money.
If we save it, we get taxed on that money we save as well.
When we die, whatever was left behind is taxed at 50%.
There is something wrong with this picture.
Think about it- the body cannibalizes itself for the sake of its own survival. Spend more, to make more? What kind of ponzi kool aid are you selling?
Spend less, interfere less. Let private enterprise at all levels grow and develop organically based on market needs and demand instead of wasting taxpayer money on artificially stimulating pointless industries (green new scam). The healthy economy begins with enterprise at all levels, not in dominating juggernauts like Microsoft, walmart, or Amazon. We’re talking small biz, cottage industries, TikTok shops, online retailers, shopping mall kiosks, gig economies. Smaller government would discourage lobbying because there would be fewer entry points into government machinery that could assert influence because there would be no influence.
Your effort to put on the hat to reconsider the possibility of fewer government jobs is present in your other writings. It’s healthy. Just don’t be fooled to look back at what was. I believe that it wasn’t better in a government that employed people for the sake of giving that person a job versus adding value for the American people. That’s bureaucratic waste.
Really appreciate your comment and feedback.
A few thoughts:
On SNAP:
The intent wasn't to be manipulative, it was to highlight how programs that require a burden of proof for administration trickle out into the economy. It's not a commentary on food stamps. I chose that one because Walmart is well known as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the purchasing power generate by food stamps: https://www.dbbnwa.com/articles/walmart-pulls-25-percent-of-snap-spending/#:~:text=Walmart%20has%20cemented%20itself%20as,SNAP%20users%20shopping%20at%20Walmart.
It's relatable. Everyone has bought groceries and can relate to how Walmart workers could be negatively impacted IF (big if) a program like food stamps was to be cut.
If you shrink government OR make it more efficient, you effectively reduce the paper pushing. If you need fewer administrators to execute a program or you change the requirements of the program which then has second and third order effects.
Maybe SNAP wasn't the best example to use here. Maybe a defense contract with Boeing would have been better. If you cut the contract, you cut the labor. If you cut the labor, you eliminate local jobs. And if you eliminate local jobs you eliminate spending within the local economy. If you eliminate spending you eliminate tax revenues which impact municipal budgets.
The point wasn't to advocate for the elimination of food stamps, it was to illustrate how getting rid of government programs like SNAP will have a much broader impact than people realize.
On government jobs keeping the economy going:
I agree, it isn't the ONLY way to keep the economy going...HOWEVER, I think it's worth looking at the facts on the ground.
FACT: the government is one of only three sectors of the economy that has been consistently adding new jobs for the last few years
FACT: NGOs, media organizations, charities/nonprofits, and now universities are pulling back hiring and warning of budgetary distress because of DOGE cuts
This reveals that directly or indirectly, the government is fueling more of the economy than we realize. I'm not suggesting this is good or bad, I'm simply saying this is what is.
If we want to shrink government which is what is happening now, we need to understand this so we can prepare for the unintended consequences and the impacts they will have on local communities.
As an anecdote, I grew up outside of Ithaca, NY where Cornell is located. Cornell just announced hiring freezes because of DOGE. Cornell is the largest employer there. The entire town -- restaurants, retail, etc. -- caters to Cornell. If Cornell stops hiring because of DOGE, that's going to have a major impact on that community. Any college town that is set up like Cornell will also be affected.
It's important to recognize post-Great Depression, the economy was restructured around more government intervention, including in providing work OR offsetting the cost for private enterprises to provide work. IF government is cut too much, work opportunities will be affected. Become aware of the structure as it is -- not how we want it to be -- will help us navigate what's happening now and, hopefully, build a better system to replace it.
You raise an excellent point that the economy is sick. But to solve the problem we have to diagnose all the symptoms and mitigate the consequences. Now that DOGE is being implemented I think this is no longer a theoretical idea which is good, but I don't think we have thought through the downstream consequences. A lot of waste is going to get cut, AND a lot of good people -- not just useless bureaucrats -- are going to be put out of work.
How do you find balance between being efficient but keeping enough of the system in place so we can gradually build something better? Scorching the earth could shock the system too much and that could lead to more problems than we have now.
I love your well thought out comments. Thank you for responding.
I see your point about the tangled interactive web of the economy built on government spending, but the ends still does not justify the means. We shouldn’t have a foundation of an economy of supporting towns or local economies based on unlabeled budget line items. It’s sad, but it moves us forward in a direction of integrity.
As I see it, some of this waste just discovered is like the festering remnants of gangrene already set in. It’s so bad that people are angry. This does and does not bode well as the anger fuels additional inspection and scrutiny, but I agree it becomes a scorched earth policy that indeed would be a shock.
People feed off drama, and these narratives, government workers with two jobs, gender reassignment surgeries in Guatemala prisons, million dollar research grants for measuring shrimp on treadmills, etc are intended to poke a nerve because it fuels anger. In some ways it is good to be angry, in some ways some of this waste is justifiably enraging. But behind this are people attached to these payments disbursed, and amidst the furious hack and slash, it may bode well to pause and consider the collateral damage, the friendly fire that will ultimately take down in addition to the easy targets. Lots of people will be hurt.
I see your humanitarian approach in considering this pause.
I don’t think people know exactly what they’re buying when they ask for less government. They’re just angry. The pendulum swings.
Supply and demand should dictate the employment market. Jobs have never been a guarantee, but if you are dissatisfied with the choices, hire yourself. It is not going to look like our grandparents world: college (or even no college) degree, easy job with benefits, pension, social security. We don’t have that option, but that doesn’t mean a doom and gloom outcome.
Employment will look different. But government spending has to be different. It’s not sustainable.
Our current government taxation revenue exceeds the GDP of every nation on the planet, yet we are still in a deficit and digging deeper in debt. There is a problem here.
How is increasing spending to give people jobs fixing the problem?
There’s a lot of great talking points in your response. I see the issue is if and when we pull the band aid (or duct tape) off. Shock or no shock, something has to done differently.