What does this mean, practically?

We can never reduce the size of the federal workforce because it means people will lose jobs?

We can never cut any federal benefit or subsidy regardless of the cost, importance, or overall value to society because someone, somewhere is benefiting from it?

▲

mhalle 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Here is a reference to the "Reinventing Government" effort that was implemented during the Clinton administration and considered highly successful (and legal):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Rei...

	▲	bpt3 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I am questioning whether the parent poster would have supported those cuts or uttered the same cry, as some individuals and communities were absolutely worse off after those cuts.

▲

paulryanrogers 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Democrats significantly cut the government and Al Gore led the effort. It had some issues though is widely considered a success in hindsight. That was a scapel, DOGE appears to be a drunken flamethrower.

	▲	cjbgkagh 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Democrats cut the government because they were unable to resist Republican cuts, so if we’re drawing a causal link I think it would be fairer to say Republicans made the cuts during a time when a Democrat was president. Also the public blamed the Republicans for the shutdowns which reelected Clinton and is probably the reason the Republicans stoped caring so much about the deficit.
	▲	bpt3 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, I understand that Democrats have cut government in the past. I was young, but I remember cries of "you can't do this to people!" then as well, just like we hear from a select group of people every time any cut is contemplated, which is why I asked the parent poster what exactly they mean by their comment.