Or maybe...it's because America is in a FAAAAAR worse state than many of you realize.
There is this insinuation that because agencies that help people are "solid allies of tghe democratic party", then the REASON why democrats keep bloating them up is because it buys them votes.
Actually, no, I don't think they're keeping them bloated and stocked with allies to buy them votes. (some may think that, but that's not my take on it)
I think they're there as a way to usurp and hamstring administrations of the opposing team in the instances that they don't win.
They don't even hide the ball on that. Here's excerpts from 3 non-conservative sources.
There’s another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with implementing any new president’s agenda.
Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.
Similarly, a Twitter account protesting Trump’s policies has popped up in the Defense Department. Using the handle @Rogue_DoD, a service member has tweeted everything from Defense Department documents warning about the effects of climate change to an opinion piece accusing Trump of insufficient consultation with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
Career staff members in at least five departments said they are staying in close contact with Obama administration officials to get advice on how to handle Trump initiatives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/wor...rump-calls-to-australia-mexico-idUSKBN15J00W/
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/federal-workers-signal-app-234510
That's right from WaPo, Reuters, and Politico.
You never really consider the possibility that the need is ACTUALLY there, do you? Like the bloviating and bluster complaints around these agencies; There is NO possibility that others in America are suffering that deeply. The problem is Democrats and their willingness to create big government.
I acknowledged that there are needs.
For instance, we have a need for the EPA.
What we don't need, is for the EPA be used as a slush fund to shovel $2 billion dollars out the door to NGOs like "Inclusiv" (primarily a social justice organization focused on promoted equity in lending practices) to distribute over the next 3 years.
Ties in with what I mentioned before, the bloated bureaucracy isn't there to "buy votes", they're there as a hedge to make sure democrats still get their way even when they lose.
Imagine the roles were reversed on that. Pretend the Bureaucracy was 75% republican instead of democrat.
A democratic candidate who ran on the promise reigning in the US's gun problem by reducing the numbers of guns on the streets just won. The outgoing administration instructs the SBA to hurry up and get $2 billion out the door before they leave in the form of giving it to a pro-gun NGO who's been instructed to give that money out to people who want to open new gun stores over the subsequent 3 years after the current republican administration leaves office.
What would be your analysis of that? Because that's a perfect apples to apples comparison to what goes on today in the other direction.
To me? That would seem like republicans rigging the game so that even if they lost, they still got their way on the gun issue, wouldn't you agree?
I have NEVER Seen a democrat on here saying "a scalpel could be used to trim these departments". Yet I have seen centrists and supporters say "they need to be gone".
It's not surprising that you've never seen a democrat suggest that, because often times, even the scalpel is considered "too much", the slightest little proposed cuts are often met with what's known as "Washington Monument Syndrome".
And all I can think is that you guys want them gone so that your tax bill goes down. I don't believe for a second you ACTUALLY want people to suffer. Sure, starving children in Africa don't deserve American support. Fine. But I do think you would agree that AMERICAN children don't deserve to be food insecure; You're only the richest country to have ever existed.
And the ONLY possible benefit that a Trump supporter would get from that is a smaller tax bill. That would be the ONLY benefit. Like, I can't imagine they'd feel schaudenfreude over something so serious as that; is there some other possible benefit that I can't see?
I actually don't care that much about my personal tax rate.
As a person in a DINK situation (Dual Income No Kids), I've made peace with the fact that no matter who's in office, I get bent over the barrel at tax time.
I care more about not having a phony 4th branch of government that's influential enough, that they can act as a "check" on the 3 actual branches. (and who up until now, have been virtually fire-proof)
Pretend me and my IT buddies were government employees, and a president had an initiative that would involve effort from our department, and we don't philosophically agree with it.
"Aw, gee whiz, y'know what, I just can't figure this problem out" and "whoops, would you look at that, I messed up the code on that, so it didn't work" and "I can try making a change to fix it, but that'll take me another 4 weeks, and would you look at that, we're busy with other stuff, so I'll put a meeting on the calendar to talk about it in mid-August"
"what's that, you want to fire me because you think a competent developer could have that done in 2 weeks?...well, my union rep who's also on our side says otherwise, so talk to them"
You'd undoubtedly see that as a problem, right?
