[flagged]
It takes 10 different offices at the Department of Health and Human Services to run programs addressing AIDS in minority communities. Autism research is spread out over 11 different agencies. Eight agencies at the Defense Department are looking for prisoners of war and missing in action. And Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado has eight different satellite control centers to control 10 satellite programs.
The report, by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, identifies 26 new areas where federal government programs are fragmented, duplicative, overlapping or just inefficient. Add that to the 162 areas identified in past reports, and Congress has a road map for saving tens of billions of dollars a year.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/08/bill...
In Russia, it's "fascists" the administration is fighting. In the US, it's "antifa" the administration is fighting.
Do they want healthcare? Because I want Medicare for All (affordable, accessible, universal healthcare), and large swaths of conservative and rural America are going to lose their ~700 hospitals and Medicaid coverage (50% of rural births are paid for by Medicaid, a June 2025 KFF poll found that more than one in four (27%) adult Medicaid beneficiaries under age 65 are Republicans or lean Republican). Do they want to be able to export their ag to China? I was fine with farmers having their export market with federal subsidies, they voted against it (China has zeroed out US ag imports due to the tariff war, 75-80% of farmers voted for this admin). Do businesses want immigrant labor? I voted for it, they voted against it, and now they face crushing labor shortages in ag, construction, food services, hospitality, etc. Do they want their social security and veterans benefits and support systems? I voted for it, but they voted against it and now these social systems are going to rapidly degrade at scale. Do they want good paying jobs? I voted for it (pro worker, pro union, pro labor policies), they voted for the chainsaw (federal renewables subsidies cuts, federal gov workforce reductions, staunchly anti union positions, etc). Do they want universal daycare/childcare and school lunches? I want this for them, but they vote against this.
I want better for these people (accessible and affordable healthcare, childcare, social security, economic success broadly speaking to live healthy, fulfilled, meaningful lives), but they keep voting to hurt people like me, minorities, and vulnerability populations while shooting themselves in the feet. It's unfortunate. Having empathy is a terrible curse on this timeline. I can only ask them to vote better or I can stand back while they get the chainsaw. The choice lies with them.
"Too strong a belief in the rationality of people in general, or of the world, will lead us to seek purposive explanations where none exists."
I want your average Democrat to grow up with the privileges I had: a household with two married parents, an upbringing that emphasized hard work and resilience and discouraged ethnic identity or solidarity, a school where everyone speaks English and nobody belongs to a gang, a society with a safety net but without long term dependence on the government, etc. I think these things will make the country better for you, not just for me. Look at Mormons: they’re happy, healthy (the longest lived people in the country besides asians), and upwardly mobile. I want that for Baltimore!
I have empathy too! I lived in downtown Baltimore and saw that extensive social programs mostly go to funding middle class lifestyles for government workers and NGO employees. I think the people in Baltimore would be better off if they had the rigid social infrastructure they have in Utah rather than spending more money on programs that never seem to work.
https://hbr.org/2018/05/layoffs-that-dont-break-your-company
> For instance, a study of one Fortune 500 tech firm done by Teresa Amabile at Harvard Business School discovered that after the firm cut its staff by 15%, the number of new inventions it produced fell 24%. In addition, layoffs can rupture ties between salespeople and customers. Researchers Paul Williams, M. Sajid Khan, and Earl Naumann have found that customers are more likely to defect after a company conducts layoffs. Then there’s the effect on a company’s reputation: E. Geoffrey Love and Matthew S. Kraatz of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign found that companies that did layoffs saw a decline in their ranking on Fortune’s list of most admired companies.
> A 2002 study by Magnus Sverke and Johnny Hellgren of Stockholm University and Katharina Näswall of University of Canterbury found that after a layoff, survivors experienced a 41% decline in job satisfaction, a 36% decline in organizational commitment, and a 20% decline in job performance.
> In a 2012 review of 20 studies of companies that had gone through layoffs, Deepak Datta at the University of Texas at Arlington found that layoffs had a neutral to negative effect on stock prices in the days following their announcement. Datta also discovered that after layoffs a majority of companies suffered declines in profitability, and a related study showed that the drop in profits persisted for three years. And a team of researchers from Auburn University, Baylor University, and the University of Tennessee found that companies that have layoffs are twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as companies that don’t have them.
It also just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Also, there's no reason to cast aspersions. Feel free to actually engage anytime you want.