[tmnvix]

> Tax cuts are good. Stop saying they’re bad.

Except that tax cuts basically mean the government has less money to pay for things. I suppose if you don't rely on government for anything (like infrastructure to run your business) then that's good. Otherwise it is bad.

[tooltalk]

well, most of the federal spending goes to maintaining our welfare and warfare state. Contrary to common myth, infrastructure cost is a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

[brightball]

I've always been more concerned with how effectively it's spent.

[okreallywtf]

If you are concerned that your engine doesn't run efficiently, simply cutting the fuel to it doesn't actually fix any problems.

The government is a huge entity that does some very important things and wastes a lot of money (some of which being pork that it seems every party indulges in), simply assuming that cutting off the cash flow is going to improve anything is wishful thinking I think.

You know certain things will be funded (like the military) but a lot of basic services to the needy always seem to be on the chopping block despite costing a fraction of the budget (food stamps, nutritional assistance to pregnant mothers, etc).

[djrogers]

> If you are concerned that your engine doesn't run efficiently, simply cutting the fuel to it doesn't actually fix any problems.

Since you're using a ridiculous analogy here, one can easily point to CAFE standards that have dramatically increased the efficiency of cars over the past 20 years by doing exactly what you're describing - cutting the fuel...

[s73ver_]

No, their analogy was pretty spot on. Yours is ignoring a huge amount.

[brightball]

Well, as the cost of fuel goes up people are incentivized to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. When the supply isn't unlimited you have to be more careful about how it's used.

In my lifetime I've never seen a government program cut costs or gain efficiency. At the point something like that happens I'll be much more open to government programs. In the current environment both in terms of bloat and political hostility, it's really hard to see any benefit.

Rather than worry about throwing more tax money at the problem, why not focus on how much better things would be if the department was 10% more efficient?

[okreallywtf]

I'm not disagreeing about efficiencies, I'm saying the way to do it is actually do the work rather than simply slash the funding and assume that the correct efficiencies will be implemented. I think that is what is irresponsible.

Can you point to any specifics about what is inefficient? I'm not doubting that it is the case, but when you say you've never seen it is that because its never happened right in front of you or you've looked hard for it and it just isn't there? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I think we all have a tendency to criticize things we don't understand as well as we would like to think and I try to resist that urge unless I actually know a lot of details. After being a developer for a few years, I'm a lot less likely to criticize some piece of software or code someone else has written until I actually analyze it myself and try to improve it, often times I find there are reasons for a lot of the corners that were cut or hacks that were implemented. Not always, but as often as not I can't actually improve something as much as I would have initially assumed.

[rbritton]

The sibling analogy doesn't really hold -- comparing the government to an engine has the inherent assumption that you're in control of it. I don't believe that's been the case in the United States for some number of decades. A better analogy might be to compare it to a runaway train on a downgrade.