***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Beruseruku Desu]

This is dumb...

The government uses outsourcing because they don't want to maintain a workforce after the projects they are funding are completed. This is a consequence of following a policy in favor of minimizing the civil servant workforce; outsourcing isn't a consequence of inefficiency.

In addition, because private entities HAVE to follow government processes, inefficiencies linked to those processes are transferred from the government to private entities.

Are you being serious right now?

Do you think every contractor for the fed is on a limited-time project?

Do you not know there are staffing contracts where contractors have been part of the federal staff to maintain and upkeep the government’s responsibilities?

I know contractors that have been with an agency for over 15 years to the point they’re basically a federal staff.

Think broader.

 

[gry60]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/28/man-arrested-molotov-cocktail-trump-treasury-scott-bessent.html

 

[mplsdunk]

Buyout doesn’t apply to USPS. We’re technically not “federal” employees, which in this scenario is a good thing.

Damb I didn’t know that, I figured you’d be the first target.

Good

 

[Based Jesus]

Buyout doesn’t apply to USPS. We’re technically not “federal” employees, which in this scenario is a good thing.

It's definitely the gameplan for other departments. "Take the buyout now or be forced out with nothing later" is the implicit message for anyone not pro-Trump currently working for the federal government

 

[gry60]

Are you being serious right now?

Do you think every contractor for the fed is on a limited-time project?

Do you not know there are staffing contracts where contractors have been part of the federal staff to maintain and upkeep the government’s responsibilities?

I know contractors that have been with an agency for over 15 years to the point they’re basically a federal staff.

Think broader.

By contractor, I didn't mean "individual," but "private companies" that work on government projects. Those companies take care of the overhead associated with the workforce that the federal government doesn't have to pay for.

 

[keko jones]

Wow, I just saw the email sent to all federal employees. Basically, it boils down to this: if you’re loyal, you can stay; if you’re not, there’s the door. You have until February 6 to offer your resignation, and if you do, you won’t be required to go into the office—just work remotely until your last day, September 25, or earlier if you choose. For those who stay? No guarantees on job security because cuts are coming. Thanks for your service, good luck, and goodbye. Just… wow.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

How is he gonna spend money the government hasn’t allocated to said “buyouts”.

Also, what if like 50%+ of the workforce takes the buyout?

Dumbass orange man gonna dumbass. Can’t believe ppl voted for this goof.

 

[RustyShackleford]

First, using a headcount for government growth as the only way variable for determining growth is just plain wrong. I expect someone like you to know better. You’re taking something much more complex and simply saying there is only one variable of “proof” on whether the government has grown or not. Federal spending and regulatory growth also have to be considered when determining growth in the work force.

Federal spending has skyrocketed but you should already know that.

The federal register has grown by over 70k+ pages since 1960. This means the federal government is even bigger than it ever was.

https://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourcebook/fed-reg-pages.pdf

Using the population and per capita analysis is standard practice in most quantitative fields especially economics

I do know better, you don't.

We are literally discussing the size of the federal workforce. Just because there is more spending, laws and regulations over time means nothing. It doesn't change the number of workers.

The federal workforce is relatively smaller than it was decades ago.

Dude, This is an silly argument.

Only using headcount isn’t an accurate measure of federal growth. Spending, regulations, and inefficiency is.

We are literally talking about federal workforce

This lazy attempt to move the goal post isn't gonna work.

Second, outsourcing proves government inefficiency, not efficiency

No it doesn't

It shows lack of state capacity.

Not lack of state efficiency

. If the federal government wasn’t so inefficient, they wouldn’t have to pay contractors at a premium. This is further proof that the government is absolutely terrible at managing resources. When there’s people in the federal government working desk jobs and they don’t know how to open up internet explorer, that’s a problem.

How are just pulling right wing talking points out of Reddit post right now.

First you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You bemoan government spending. But when I tell you that majority of it goes to the private entities, you defend it as necessary.

You have not proven anything. You are just moving goal post.

You don't like the current system. And one of the main features of the current system, you want to do more of it.

You don't see how dumb that sounds?

You want a more efficient government and federal workforce? Cool. You want less government spending, cool.

But what you are suggesting makes no damn sense in practice.

When SpaceX can launch a rocket better and cheaper than NASA, that’s a problem.

When NASA relies on Boeing for everything, that’s a problem.

Third, hiring more feds doesn’t mean more efficiency.

SpaceX would have gone bankrupt if not for funding from NASA. SpaceX just like Tesla, became as large as they are because of money from the federal government.

You champion Musk while ****ting on government spending. But Musk would have probably two bankrupt companies if not for NASA and the Obama Administration.

SpaceX is able to do what it done partly because of government largesse, it is probably alive because of it. NASA has a history of great technology achievements when funding it was a priority.

Boeing is an horrible example.

Boeing is a **** show that just recently stranded people in space. The reason Boeing is a **** show is their management causing "efficiency" and cost saving for profits.

Boeing outchea building deathtraps but you got no problem with that.

However, having to deal with some frustrating coworkers should be some to tier proof that thousands of people should lose their jobs.

Thinking a bigger IRS is “more productive” ignores the real issue of complex tax laws, not workforce size. Having a simpler tax code would improve IRS efficiency without having to hire more workers. So using something as complex as taxes and saying every agency is just as complex is just wrong and you know it.

This is straight up nonsense

First the tax code is often made more complex on purpose by Republicans to hamper the IRS in collecting taxes.

Also Lobbyist like to enforce the status quo because it benefits then. Lobbyist forever tried to stop the IRS from rolling out stuff like e-filing through the IRS.

Hundreds of billions in taxes go uncollected every year because the IRS doesn't have the capacity and workers. Especially with the expertise to go large audit on large firms.

Since you care so much about work experience.

biggie62 is a corporate tax account and has voiced the same points. That a bigger IRS would be more effective and profitable for the government.

Go read Larry Summers work on this. It is clear we under collect taxes in America, especially on high earners.

More IRS workers would be a net benefit to the country.

Instead of arguing about actual government efficiency, you wanna use the political argument to try to argue your points, which further proves that your whole reasoning is just based off of politics rather than actual data. You don’t have to be a Trump or musk support to know that the federal government has been inefficient for way too long now.

Spare me this whining

You as just repeating weak points over and over and proclaiming yourself right.

I made a political argument in a political thread. So what.

I also know that you need to population when comparing and spending over time. My non political arguments are stronger than anything you have said here.

Unless you actually worked for the feds, you don’t really know what goes on in there so I don’t expect you to know what I know because you haven’t seen what I seen.

I interned for the Federal government when I lived in Maryland, multiple times.

Nearly half of my professors at UMD worked or did contract work for the government because they were economists and presented their work to the class often

I know dozens of people that work for different departments. My best friend's in the area are government workers.

My best friend in Vegas is a federal government worker too.

I have done contract work for the government as recently as 2023. Some of the work I have assisted done has been cited in policy papers.

Spare me this act of you having some special expertise in this area because you worked for the government.

And I didn’t vote for anyone fyi. My state swung blue.

So you are part of the problem

Shout out to the people in your state that knew better

 

[703 hwy]

Entice people to quit

Don't rehire

Let dysfunction settle in

Say "look we have to make it private now"

Rich friend takes it over for more than it originally cost to run.

 

[RustyShackleford]

If I were y'all I would do your taxes as soon as possible.

Because causing a ****show at the IRS seems to be something Trump wants

 

[keko jones]

Are you being serious right now?

Do you think every contractor for the fed is on a limited-time project?

Do you not know there are staffing contracts where contractors have been part of the federal staff to maintain and upkeep the government’s responsibilities?

I know contractors that have been with an agency for over 15 years to the point they’re basically a federal staff.

Think broader.

The irony ..

A contractor working with a federal agency for 15 years means the agency could have hired a full-time federal employee instead—cutting out the contracting firm that’s making a profit off the deal. So really, who’s helping who? Your scenarios are all based on “I know my coworker” or some other small-scale nonsense. It’s obvious you don’t have firsthand leadership insight into how these decisions actually play out.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[biggie62]

Using the population and per capita analysis is standard practice in most quantitative fields especially economics

I do know better, you don't.

We are literally discussing the size of the federal workforce. Just because there is more spending, laws and regulations over time means nothing. It doesn't change the number of workers.

The federal workforce is relatively smaller than it was decades ago.

Dude, This is an silly argument.


We are literally talking about federal workforce

This lazy attempt to move the goal post isn't gonna work.




No it doesn't

It shows lack of state capacity.

Not lack of state efficiency


How are just pulling right wing talking points out of Reddit post right now.

First you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You bemoan government spending. But when I tell you that majority of it goes to the private entities, you defend it as necessary.

You have not proven anything. You are just moving goal post.

You don't like the current system. And one of the main features of the current system, you want to do more of it.

You don't see how dumb that sounds?

You want a more efficient government and federal workforce? Cool. You want less government spending, cool.

But what you are suggesting makes no damn sense in practice.




SpaceX would have gone bankrupt if not for funding from NASA. SpaceX just like Tesla, became as large as they are because of money from the federal government.

You champion Musk while ****ting on government spending. But Musk would have probably two bankrupt companies if not for NASA and the Obama Administration.

SpaceX is able to do what it done partly because of government largesse, it is probably alive because of it. NASA has a history of great technology achievements when funding it was a priority.

Boeing is an horrible example.

Boeing is a **** show that just recently stranded people in space. The reason Boeing is a **** show is their management causing "efficiency" and cost saving for profits.

Boeing outchea building deathtraps but you got no problem with that.

However, having to deal with some frustrating coworkers should be some to tier proof that thousands of people should lose their jobs.


This is straight up nonsense

First the tax code is often made more complex on purpose by Republicans to hamper the IRS in collecting taxes.

Also Lobbyist like to enforce the status quo because it benefits then. Lobbyist forever tried to stop the IRS from rolling out stuff like e-filing through the IRS.

Hundreds of billions in taxes go uncollected every year because the IRS doesn't have the capacity and workers. Especially with the expertise to go large audit on large firms.

Since you care so much about work experience.

biggie62 is a corporate tax account and has voiced the same points. That a bigger IRS would be more effective and profitable for the government.

Go read Larry Summers work on this. It is clear we under collect taxes in America, especially on high earners.

More IRS workers would be a net benefit to the country.


Spare me this whining

You as just repeating weak points over and over and proclaiming yourself right.

I made a political argument in a political thread. So what.

I also know that you need to population when comparing and spending over time. My non political arguments are stronger than anything you have said here.



I interned for the Federal government when I lived in Maryland, multiple times.

Nearly half of my professors at UMD worked or did contract work for the government because they were economists and presented their work to the class often

I know dozens of people that work for different departments. My best friend's in the area are government workers.

My best friend in Vegas is a federal government worker too.

I have done contract work for the government as recently as 2023. Some of the work I have assisted done has been cited in policy papers.

Spare me this act of you having some special expertise in this area because you worked for the government.


So you are part of the problem

Shout out to the people in your state that knew better

Comfrim that a larger IRS composed of skilled revenue agents would result in higher income tax collection. You average revenue agent brings in 8-12x their individual salary and benefits per year.

Before I switched jobs I worked at a large accounting firm and my client base finally started getting audited again and boy did they find issues with our clients books and how they accounted for stuff. We don’t test that stuff we rely that the support is reasonable, it’s not our responsibility to really dig through it. Proposed adjustments seems high which means what revenue that should have been collected never was.

I was asked to join their national tax office specializing in banking back in the summer. I said no ultimately because I was afraid of what is happening now. But I was going to got here to help agents understanding banking and their adjustments what we should be looking for. Typically a lot of agents just look at M&E because it’s easy and there will be some sort of issues there. However if I was an agent and they don’t have certain elections I know exactly what I’d attack a bank on and there would be adjustments in the millions. This is called tax cheating in some degree because you don’t bother providing completely accurate info. Now whether it’s error of blatant fraud is another question. That’s something you can find arguments for both. Fraud means they can decide to go as back as they want to. Error they usually might look for last 3-5 years max.

Edit: also the IrS has only audited poorer people since 2008 because they don’t have the skilled agents to attack wealthier people and corporations. You beef it up you’ll start collecting additional billions yearly. And if you argue with me it’s inefficient. So you’re defending blatant tax cheats because that’s what you’re arguing.

 

[Based Jesus]

How is he gonna spend money the government hasn’t allocated to said “buyouts”.

Also, what if like 50%+ of the workforce takes the buyout?

Dumbass orange man gonna dumbass. Can’t believe ppl voted for this goof.

That's another thing, the people who accept probably aren't gonna see a dime. It's just a ploy to get them out with ease.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Listen I am all for government efficiency

If there was a committee of serious professional looking into how agencies can better handle roles, increase state capacity, and decease regulatory burden, I am all for it.

The Defense Spending is a black hole, the IRS is severely underfunded and resourced, health insurance plans can be consolidated and fully nationalize, be need more watchdogs to waste and fraud for stuff like Medicare.

There are a ton of smart reforms we can look into

However, this is not what is happening here.

This is not Trump's goal. Project 2025 literally lays out the plan.

There want to weaken the Administrative State so it will be in shambles even if the Dem is in office, they want loyalist, Elon is a weirdo libertarian, Trump is a petty vengeful weirdo, they want to transfer work to their private sector buddies.

B Beruseruku Desu just sounds silly to me taking issue with me making political arguments then Trump himself is saying his purge is political.

Only someone delusional, MAGA, or ignorant can not see what is going on here.

 

[rolaholic]

 

[Beruseruku Desu]

Using the population and per capita analysis is standard practice in most quantitative fields especially economics

I do know better, you don't.

We are literally discussing the size of the federal workforce. Just because there is more spending, laws and regulations over time means nothing. It doesn't change the number of workers.

The federal workforce is relatively smaller than it was decades ago.

Dude, This is an silly argument.


We are literally talking about federal workforce

This lazy attempt to move the goal post isn't gonna work.

Your hyper-fixation on "workforce" to try to rattle yourself out the hole you put yourself in isnt gonna work. Stop it. You and your over simplified arguments isnt gonna work with me. Stop it and do better.

If the DoD fired half its civilian workers but doubled its contractor spending, does that mean the government got “smaller”? No. The burden on taxpayers increased even though the workforce shrank.

No it doesn't

It shows lack of state capacity.

Not lack of state efficiency

trying to separate state capacity from efficiency is again, a ignorant and simplified "get out of the argument" excuse. but

the two are connected whether you want to admit it or not. A government that fails to perform basic functions in-house and has to overpay contractors is, by definition, inefficient.

How are just pulling right wing talking points out of Reddit post right now.

First you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You bemoan government spending. But when I tell you that majority of it goes to the private entities, you defend it as necessary.

You have not proven anything. You are just moving goal post.

You don't like the current system. And one of the main features of the current system, you want to do more of it.

You don't see how dumb that sounds?

You want a more efficient government and federal workforce? Cool. You want less government spending, cool.

But what you are suggesting makes no damn sense in practice.

you're not getting it.
The reliance on contractors isn’t ideal, it’s a patchwork fix for inefficiencies in the federal system. contractors are used because the federal government lacks flexibility, expertise, and efficiency to handle tasks internally. That’s not a defense of outsourcing, it’s an indictment of a government that’s failed to modernize and manage resources effectively.

when agencies outsource IT projects, it’s because they’re too slow to adapt internally, not because the private sector is inherently better, but because the government is inefficient.
The point isn’t to blindly defend outsourcing. it’s to acknowledge that inefficiencies force reliance on it, which further proves the government’s inability to reform itself.

SpaceX would have gone bankrupt if not for funding from NASA. SpaceX just like Tesla, became as large as they are because of money from the federal government.

You champion Musk while ****ting on government spending. But Musk would have probably two bankrupt companies if not for NASA and the Obama Administration.

SpaceX is able to do what it done partly because of government largesse, it is probably alive because of it. NASA has a history of great technology achievements when funding it was a priority.

Boeing is an horrible example.

Boeing is a **** show that just recently stranded people in space. The reason Boeing is a **** show is their management causing "efficiency" and cost saving for profits.

Boeing outchea building deathtraps but you got no problem with that.

However, having to deal with some frustrating coworkers should be some to tier proof that thousands of people should lose their jobs.

lol so you're admitting that SpaceX’s success is proof that government-run programs are inefficient, even when well-funded, right? lol thanks for proving my point.

government funding =/= government efficiency.

Yes, SpaceX benefited from NASA contracts, but the company radically reduced launch costs in a way NASA never did even with decades of funding.

Before SpaceX, NASA relied on much more expensive, outdated systems like the space shuttle program, which cost $450 million per launch. SpaceX lowered that to 67 million per launch.

How Much Does It Cost to Launch a Falcon 9 (and Other Rockets)?

How much does it cost to get to space? SpaceX's Falcon 9's reusable launch capability has reduced the cost of getting to orbit to roughly $67 million.

www.syfy.com

youre using past achievements of NASA as an argument but that was a much different time and when government funding was more result-driven.

ex: The Apollo program succeeded because it had a clear goal, strict deadlines, and intense competition with the Soviet for the space race.

im not saying NASA is nothing without contractors. they still do great research. but they just cant execute. NASA's inefficiency isnt because of funding. its because theyre inefficient.

If Boeing is a bad example, that’s precisely the point: It became bad when it focused on government subsidies instead of competition.

This is straight up nonsense

First the tax code is often made more complex on purpose by Republicans to hamper the IRS in collecting taxes.

Also Lobbyist like to enforce the status quo because it benefits then. Lobbyist forever tried to stop the IRS from rolling out stuff like e-filing through the IRS.

Hundreds of billions in taxes go uncollected every year because the IRS doesn't have the capacity and workers. Especially with the expertise to go large audit on large firms.

Since you care so much about work experience.

biggie62 is a corporate tax account and has voiced the same points. That a bigger IRS would be more effective and profitable for the government.

Go read Larry Summers work on this. It is clear we under collect taxes in America, especially on high earners.

More IRS workers would be a net benefit to the country.

you're right that republicans and lobbyist have purposely made the tax code more complicated. but that just furthers my point, does it not?

the root of the issue is the fact that the tax codes are complicated making the IRS's job harder. Which was my original argument.

Throwing more workers at a broken system doesn’t fix the system itself. You have to fix the root of the problem.

Spare me this whining

You as just repeating weak points over and over and proclaiming yourself right.

I made a political argument in a political thread. So what.

I also know that you need to population when comparing and spending over time. My non political arguments are stronger than anything you have said here.

So it tells me you're not a logical thinker and a lot of your argument comes from your emotions and your relationship with friends are who federal employees. Thats what.

 

[Beruseruku Desu]

The irony ..

A contractor working with a federal agency for 15 years means the agency could have hired a full-time federal employee instead—cutting out the contracting firm that’s making a profit off the deal. So really, who’s helping who? Your scenarios are all based on “I know my coworker” or some other small-scale nonsense. It’s obvious you don’t have firsthand leadership insight into how these decisions actually play out.

If you knew anything about the process of hiring at agencies, you would know that they would've hired a dumb nut who cant even do the job.

Theres a reason why some federal jobs now require you to take an "IQ" or "Cognitive" test when applying to a federal position.

 

[Beruseruku Desu]

Listen I am all for government efficiency

If there was a committee of serious professional looking into how agencies can better handle roles, increase state capacity, and decease regulatory burden, I am all for it.

The Defense Spending is a black hole, the IRS is severely underfunded and resourced, health insurance plans can be consolidated and fully nationalize, be need more watchdogs to waste and fraud for stuff like Medicare.

There are a ton of smart reforms we can look into

However, this is not what is happening here.

This is not Trump's goal. Project 2025 literally lays out the plan.

There want to weaken the Administrative State so it will be in shambles even if the Dem is in office, they want loyalist, Elon is a weirdo libertarian, Trump is a petty vengeful weirdo, they want to transfer work to their private sector buddies.

B Beruseruku Desu just sounds silly to me taking issue with me making political arguments then Trump himself is saying his purge is political.

Only someone delusional, MAGA, or ignorant can not see what is going on here.

You took issue with me saying the government is over bloated and inefficient. You quoted me first, not the other way around.

Listen I am all for government efficiency

If there was a committee of serious professional looking into how agencies can better handle roles, increase state capacity, and decease regulatory burden, I am all for it.

So you do agree with my point that the government workforce needs to be reformed due to its inefficiency.

Glad we see eye to eye on that.

 

[LD7]

Many Americans (and republicans) need to hear one message after 7 long days of Trump.

Trump didn’t lie to you. He told you what he was planning to do. You just didn’t think that he would do it to YOU, so you voted for him (eggs and groceries? Nah, most of this country will never admit it, but a woman ((black at that)) will never be president).

Now that he’s doing exactly what he said and it’s affecting you, your family, or your future/business, you feel, look, and realize how stupid you were for voting for him, the Heritage Foundation, and his billionaire crew that don’t care about you.

You voted for it, deal with it.

 

[keko jones]

The federal force is now a hostile work environment.

 

[Belgium]

I never really gave this much thought until now but as I've been having appointments with various psychiatrists/psychologists recently, they've been unanimous in classifying me under the colloquial term of severe "empathy deficit disorder."
It's not an officially recognized diagnosis, just a colloquial term for people who experience little to no emotional empathy but also don't quite meet the criteria for a diagnosis of ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder).

I'll spare the details of how that came to be but it makes me wonder how Trump stans' brains work. At least the ones with some degree of cognitive ability, not some stereotypical stan who might as well be lobotomized if it's that easy to fall for Trump's manipulation.

I may not feel any emotion even in personal scenarios like having to talk a friend out of killing herself but I also can't see a reality where I would come up with something like Project 2025, much less put it in practice or defend it.
Is it just a matter of having totally different morals, or lack thereof? Do these people feel remorse to some extent when they go home?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Your hyper-fixation on "workforce" to try to rattle yourself out the hole you put yourself in isnt gonna work. Stop it. You and your over simplified arguments isnt gonna work with me. Stop it and do better.

Because I focused on what is being discussed and what is happening means I don't know what I am talking about

You sound asinine

If you want to just dismiss my post outright, come up with something that makes a little more sense

If the DoD fired half its civilian workers but doubled its contractor spending, does that mean the government got “smaller”? No. The burden on taxpayers increased even though the workforce shrank.

Yes, it means the government workforce got smaller.

You can't just mix and match definitions when it suits you.

Again, Trump is going after federal workers so the topic is about federal workers

You made a claim that was wrong. Then didn't know the controlling for population was important

Now you want to move goal post and redefine what is being discussed.

Government is some nebulous term you want to change meaning when it suits your shallow arguments

Stop asking me to do better when you can't even do anything resembling a decent argument

Just r/conservative talking points from 2012

trying to separate state capacity from efficiency is again, a ignorant and simplified "get out of the argument" excuse. but

the two are connected whether you want to admit it or not. A government that fails to perform basic functions in-house and has to overpay contractors is, by definition, inefficient.

How do you know they are inefficient at doing the job if they are not doing it?

You want people to just accept arguments that you haven't even come close to making a solid case for.

you're not getting it.

I am not agreeing with you

Because your arguments are bad

And you are bad at making them

Simple

The reliance on contractors isn’t ideal, it’s a patchwork fix for inefficiencies in the federal system. contractors are used because the federal government lacks flexibility, expertise, and efficiency to handle tasks internally. That’s not a defense of outsourcing, it’s an indictment of a government that’s failed to modernize and manage resources effectively.

The federal government pulls from the same labor pool its contractors do

I have a bachelors, now two masters, a graduate cert, certs, and a ton of continuing education credits.

And I was recruit by the IRS to come work for them. The person recruiting me had more impressive resume

All the people I know working in the government are highly qualified

Government workers are in demand from private firms

when agencies outsource IT projects, it’s because they’re too slow to adapt internally, not because the private sector is inherently better, but because the government is inefficient.
The point isn’t to blindly defend outsourcing. it’s to acknowledge that inefficiencies force reliance on it, which further proves the government’s inability to reform itself.

Dude is this just was struggle libertarian talking points I have been hearing since the 90s

You repeating it doesn't make it true

If government workers were so unproductive, and the workforce is so big, them it would be dragging down the entire country.

It would show up in the data and labor economist would be yelling about it.

None of this is happening.

So you

lol so you're admitting that SpaceX’s success is proof that government-run programs are inefficient, even when well-funded, right? lol thanks for proving my point.

I did no such thing

You are just doing that dumb thing where you think your are right, and everything proves you right, even if it clearly doesn't.

government funding =/= government efficiency.

Yes, SpaceX benefited from NASA contracts, but the company radically reduced launch costs in a way NASA never did even with decades of funding.

Before SpaceX, NASA relied on much more expensive, outdated systems like the space shuttle program, which cost $450 million per launch. SpaceX lowered that to 67 million per launch.

How Much Does It Cost to Launch a Falcon 9 (and Other Rockets)?

How much does it cost to get to space? SpaceX's Falcon 9's reusable launch capability has reduced the cost of getting to orbit to roughly $67 million.

www.syfy.com

And crashing rocket after rocket and nearly going bankrupt is not inefficient?

NASA literally saved them, and eventually got access to cheaper tech

How is that not a positive for NASA?

If NASA were to operate the same way as Trump wants them to operate now, they would have let SpaceX go bankrupt

You are defending Trump, with an example that Trump wants to make sure doesn't happen again.

youre using past achievements of NASA as an argument but that was a much different time and when government funding was more result-driven.

ex: The Apollo program succeeded because it had a clear goal, strict deadlines, and intense competition with the Soviet for the space race.

im not saying NASA is nothing without contractors. they still do great research. but they just cant execute. NASA's inefficiency isnt because of funding. its because theyre inefficient.

You are basically admitting the government can be efficient

And instead of saying you want to fund and focus agencies back to efficiency, your plan is to just fire people and hope by the magic powers of the free market we still get the same results.

Yet you don't see the flaw in this thinking

If Boeing is a bad example, that’s precisely the point: It became bad when it focused on government subsidies instead of competition.

This again is dumb

Again, I said that Boeing started to go downhill because they started answering more to Wall St.

Boeing makes plains for private airlines. Those plains have been involved in crashes.

But somehow, they were a second ago proof how inefficient NASA is. But when I point out their shortcomings it is because they are just like NASA.

Again, both sides of your mouth

you're right that republicans and lobbyist have purposely made the tax code more complicated. but that just furthers my point, does it not?

the root of the issue is the fact that the tax codes are complicated making the IRS's job harder. Which was my original argument.

Throwing more workers at a broken system doesn’t fix the system itself. You have to fix the root of the problem.

-We still would need more workers for audits and tax processing

People like Larry Summers, a leader in researching this, wants a simpler tax code and more IRS agents for enforcement.

Without the workforce, the evasion and avoidance will still take place.

America's economy is too complicated for that even if reforms

-I am fine with an Elizabeth Warren system of corporation paying a minimum tax, with no tax breaks beyond that

But in that system you will still need people to process the deductions. Pure flat taxes are idiotic and regressive.

Your idea of getting rid of tax enforcement agents is silly.

If will just be an even bigger tax break for large earners

So it tells me you're not a logical thinker and a lot of your argument comes from your emotions and your relationship with friends are who federal employees. Thats what.

Dude please, miss me with this nonsense

I sincerely don't give a **** what you think about me

You are just about TikTok addicted "independent thinker" that talks, says a whole lot of nothing, and thinks their personal experience is gospel

You were the one that wanted to use personal experience as proof. Not me

I brought up personal experience because you keep pushing it.

Now all of a sudden, it is being used to dismiss my argument out right

Like I said, talking out of mouth sides of your mouth because you can't put a cogent argument together to save you life.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I know he is frustrating to deal with sometimes

But nights like these is why y'all should have a little extra patience for osh kosh bosh

At least he is a well read progressive person that actually follows politics and public policy debates

B Beruseruku Desu talking like your everyday 19-year old libertarian that just watched their first Milton Freidman doc

Mans wants to fire large swaths of people because he had to deal with some frustrating people at work

 

[biggie62]

The government agency sizes havent changed much since the 70s and the population of the nation grew by about 70% since then. So you tell me if it should be shrunk or grow to be able to effectively serve the people it’s supposed to serve? Sure computers make some things efficient but at the end the primary way to communicate is via phone and in person and to serve that we need more employees.