this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
169 points (99.4% liked)

politics

23948 readers
2732 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
 

Archive

“They wanted to show they were gutting the government, but there was no thought about what parts might be worth keeping,” said one FDA staffer who was fired and rehired. “Now it feels like it was all just a game to them.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Who knows, maybe you have more decades of federal service than me which incentivized you to learn more about past events affecting the federal workforce...

But I'm often right about this stuff.

Quick edit:

In case youre out righting doubting the Clinton reduction and made the comment instead of googling:

According to testimony from Elaine Karmarck, the director of Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-trump-federal-workers/

trump won't match those numbers, because Feds trusted the programs under Clinton. No one left in the Fed trusts trump to hold up his end of any programs.

[–] techwithjake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There's a shit ton of nuance that you're leaving out. According to the article you posted, it took 6 months just for the review process to see what could be done. Then years later for that number to be reached. Even states in the article that both aren't similar.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're presenting it poorly.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

According to the article you posted, it took 6 months just for the review process to see what could be done. Then years later for that number to be reached. Even states in the article that both aren’t similar.

The purpose isn't just similar, it's exactly the same: reduce the federal workforce.

Your "argument" is that Clinton did it better, which is literally what I just said:

trump won’t match those numbers, because Feds trusted the programs under Clinton. No one left in the Fed trusts trump to hold up his end of any programs.

Under trump it's been an absolute shit show with no one having any idea what is going on. Under Clinton it was expansion of existing programs after investigating the situation.

Like, you're saying I'm wrong but you're agreeing with me and claiming I'm explaining it poorly?

I don't think that's what happening here. So I'm going to take steps from it happening again later.