Why did Bill Clinton execute the largest Federal cuts in the 90s and everyone said they were needed?

asveikau 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because Bill Clinton pushed Democrats rightwards with his electoral policy of "triangulation". That was the start of establishment Dems embracing Reaganomics.

	▲	markhahn 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it wouldn't be a triangle if it meant embracing one of the poles.

▲

lesuorac 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clinton benefited from an era where if a voter was going to hear how bad your idea was then he got a chance to defend it.

▲

yoyohello13 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

His cuts were actually considered and targeted. He didn’t just hire a billionaire to take a chainsaw to ‘woke’ gov programs.

▲

gruez 17 hours ago | parent [-]

But the original claim was

>There isn't really much waste in federal spending. Most programs are important to somebody for good reasons. From this perspective, DOGE was always an obvious con.

It sounds like you're arguing for the more narrow claim that Musk did a bad job, which implies that there actually is waste is government spending.

▲

bryanrasmussen 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>But the original claim was

>>There isn't really much waste in federal spending.

And your response to the claim "there isn't really much waste in federal spending" is to say "what about 30 years ago, someone you probably liked got rid of a lot of things they said were wasteful"?

in short, if 30 years ago someone got rid of a lot of waste in federal spending it might very well follow that there is not a lot of waste in federal spending.

▲

gruez 17 hours ago | parent [-]

>it might very well follow that there is not a lot of waste in federal spending.

Was Clinton particularly thorough in eliminating waste? Is there reason to believe that no new waste materialized in 3 decades?

	▲	bryanrasmussen 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn't know in one way or the other, I'm just following the age-old HN tradition of pointing out that the conclusion from observation does not necessarily follow. That is to say the person who said >There isn't really much waste in federal spending. does not have to be actually making the more narrow claim that Musk did a bad job.
	▲	watwut 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Considering Clinton balanced budged and actually did worked on removing waste, yes he was as thorough as it gets. Those are juat facts. No one on the right wont admit it, but that does not make it not right.

▲

yoyohello13 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I don't agree with OP really. Cuts can be warranted, necessary and popular. It takes actual work to determine the best places to make cuts though. The DOGE cuts were completely vibes based and did basically nothing, especially since the big beautiful bill increased spending right after. Frankly, the main reason I hate the Trump admin is because they make policy 100% based on vibes, always choosing the most intellectually lazy way possible to implement their goals to 'fix' whatever problems they 'think' exist.