29
Cuts to US national parks and forests spark outrage
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
News
34464 readers
799 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The idea of what they consider to be wasteful and what I consider to be wasteful are very different things. And I don't want to feed into that narrative. They weren't worried about government waste till they wanted to give themselves bigger tax cuts. If they cared about actual waste, they wouldn't remove people in charge of oversight. NIH research isn't wasteful, CFPB isn't wasteful. USAID isn't wasteful. These things pay huge dividends to society. Removing contracts already lined up for other companies and giving it to yourself is the definition of wasteful. Removing the organizations that were investigating your labor practices is cronyism.
So no I don't agree. So if you wanna talk about helping the average person, maybe point to some changes that have happened that'll in some way actually help people and not just make the obscenely wealthly a little richer. But you're unlikely to find any.
Conservatives generally believe in monetarism or Austrian economics, you're not exactly unveiling a secret conspiracy, they believe tax cuts help the poor and lower the cost of goods. This is what people voted for.
You really can't find anything in the current DOGE documents outlining waste, something that should be going to actually help the poor instead? I think my point stands that we need to simplify the spending if we want to avoid conservative governance, we all know its not being run efficiently and is rife with corruption.
So let's get this straight, social services are wasteful and don't help the poor. So let's cut them AND raise taxes on the poor while we cut taxes for the rich? Even in that framework it doesn't make any sense.
I don't know for a fact that any of the US spending is all that corrupt at the federal level, don't presume that we agree there. The straws they grasp at as "wasteful" are pennies.
Notice how they don't touch military, social security or medicare. The latter two paper over social issues that could be addressed but conservatives can't cut them because it would be massively unpopular. No amount of "simplified spending" can fix the fundamental flaws in these programs. So in the structure of government spending we're allowed to have, it's not wasteful. It's literally all PR and conservative talking points.
It makes sense in the eyes of Milton Friedman and Austrian economist, who believe that it raises the price of goods. Taxing the rich is usually taxing corporations, since the rich aren't exactly liquidating their holdings every year.
This is the welfare queen argument applied to all of governance and it was a lie then. None of the fraud is adding up and none of this will absolutely help the poor. It's all gonna go to making billionaires a slightly higher billionaire.
What economic theory do you tend to gravitate towards that says the US should be running outlandish deficits every year, and that it benefits the citizens?
I'd be curious to read more into it.
The economic theory that "cutting" critical services (ie: privatizing or starving the beast) is more expensive than just paying for what's needed. The only cheap form of government is no government at all, and I don't think many people would like that in practice.
Well that's silly, America is still running emergency Covid level deficits. Powell himself said its not sustainable.