>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.