this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
296 points (98.7% liked)

politics

22105 readers
4147 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Harriet Hageman faced loud boos at a Wyoming town hall after endorsing funding for Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting initiative.

The crowd, mostly opposed to her stance, jeered as she laughed and clapped, labeling the audience’s reaction "embarrassing."

Hageman defended Social Security funding despite concerns that Musk’s efficiency drive might cut it, calling it a “Ponzi scheme.”

The only bipartisan applause came when Hageman opposed closing rural mail distribution centers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I dislike doge just as much as the next person, but we all know this is not a good counterpoint and if used against dems we would ridicule it. You can't just willy nilly move government funds around (legally, don't get me started on all the illegal bs happening), so if doge is hiring people that are getting paid, the money needs to come from somewhere. That allocation would need to happen even if they WERE cutting billions in spending (they're not). That is a good rule for governments to have. There are sooooo many reasons to dislike doge, but the fact that a government agency needs funds to run is not a problem. People have been complaining about the post office using similar rhetoric. Just because it costs money, doesn't mean it's not saving/making money.

For the record: DOGE AND TRUMP AND ELON ARE BAD

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

USPS doesn't make money, it's not designed to do so. This standard of profitability is never applied, for instance, to the military.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

This is what people don't understand about government. I was a Ross Perot supporter back in the 90s, and bought into his concept of running the government like a business. I've learned a lot since then, and even though I still respect Perot the man, I have come to disagree with nlmost of his political concepts.

The government shouldn't be run like a business because it isn't a business; a government is a completely different kind of entity. Think of the enormous size of a super corporation like GM, or Disney, or Apple. Then realize that the US government is bigger than EVERY corporation in America - COMBINED. The government is so big, it tells corporations how to behave, ALL corporations.

Any American corporation has one single over-riding objective - to maximize profits. The government has no such profit motive, it's objective is to leverage our tax revenues and our credit in the world economy to our nation's highest benefit. That requires entirely different skillsets than many businesspeople. Successful businesspeople often believe that their success in the business world will translate to the government world, only to find out that government is much more complex in many different ways.

I no longer agree with Perot's concept of Kitchen Table Economics, but I still agree with his concept for Election Reform. He wanted presidential campaigns to be 90 days long, and funded by the government. That would keep them short enough that there wouldnt be enough time for much propagamda nonsense. Since they couldn't take any money from public or corporate donors, there would be no quid pro quo deals between candidates and big money donors. That means the ONLY currency of value in any election would be the citizen's single vote, and candidates would have to sell themselves to the citizens for those votes, instead of to corporations and the wealthy.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're incorrect mostly because the postal service (pretty famously at least in leftist spaces) DID make money (not every year admittedly). In fact, by law (aka cuz capitalists got mad) the post office is expected to ensure pricing covers the cost of fulfillment so the market stays competitive. Arguably, the main reason it is facing difficulties is because the government tried to force some bs payments onto it that were reversed by Biden in 2022. Regardless, you're kind of making my point? It really feels like people are not reading what I wrote. The argument that a government agency needs funding and therefore can't be a source of cost cutting or revenue is a bad argument. Governments require money to function. If the agency costs money, saves money, or makes money, it doesn't matter. At some point, money will need to be allocated to it, even if it's just to start it up. Saying "it costs money so that a problem" doesn't make sense as an argument, even if it's used against doge.

For clarity: I AM PRO POST OFFICE AND ANTI DOGE.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't the USPS required to fund employee benefits/pension 75 years ahead of time, meaning they're funding employees who haven't been born yet?

Looked it up. Yes, but no, but still also yes.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yea, that's the bs payments I was referring to. I was deviating from my point already, so I didn't wanna get into it, but yea.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago

Cool, just checking

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And when did Congress allocate that funding?

I never said they did (or didn't)? Clearly they are attempting to now, but my comment was not really about doge in specific. I said that needing funding is not inherently antithetical to a cost cutting department, and that it's not really a valid reason to take issue with a department. I also said more than once that I don't like/support doge.

Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue, or people are on edge because literal fascist are coming out from the woodwork, but not every comment against Doge/Trump/Elon is valid (most are) and not every comment pointing that out is inherently fascist.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My bad, I forgot the /s. Didn't mean to make you type all that out.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, you're all good. You never know how to read things online. I'll leave it up just in case it saves someone else the time lol.