Democrats: What Do You Love About Unelected Bureaucrats?

[SweetSue92]

This is a serious question.

If your opposition is that people are losing jobs, yes, that is sad. But the downside of them keeping their jobs is that we can't fund very important programs. We are already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt as it is.

Are you afraid some good programs may be cut with the fat?

Do you actually support all the foreign "aid"?

What? I do not understand this position at all, as an American. Enlighten me.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not a Democrat but I have to say, I am no fan of Musk.

 

[1srelluc]

They sure liked them before.....Now, not so much.

 

[Oddball]

This is a serious question.

If your opposition is that people are losing jobs, yes, that is sad. But the downside of them keeping their jobs is that we can't fund very important programs. We are already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt as it is.

Are you afraid some good programs may be cut with the fat?

Do you actually support all the foreign "aid"?

What? I do not understand this position at all, as an American. Enlighten me.

The permanent bureaucratic machine - stocked to the gunwales with leftists- obviates elections....They all remain in place and continue metastasizing no matter who gets elected....Scum like the Vindman brothers, Victoria Nuland, and Samantha Power are the poster parasites for this template.

Occam's razor.

 

[Crepitus]

This is a serious question.

If your opposition is that people are losing jobs, yes, that is sad. But the downside of them keeping their jobs is that we can't fund very important programs. We are already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt as it is.

Are you afraid some good programs may be cut with the fat?

Do you actually support all the foreign "aid"?

What? I do not understand this position at all, as an American. Enlighten me.

They are necessary to the functioning of the government. Nobody loves them just like nobody loves their alternator belt, but there is a real reason it's on your car.

 

[pknopp]

They are necessary to the functioning of the government. Nobody loves them just like nobody loves their alternator belt, but there is a real reason it's on your car.

Then pay for it.

 

[Moonglow]

This is a serious question.

If your opposition is that people are losing jobs, yes, that is sad. But the downside of them keeping their jobs is that we can't fund very important programs. We are already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt as it is.

Are you afraid some good programs may be cut with the fat?

Do you actually support all the foreign "aid"?

What? I do not understand this position at all, as an American. Enlighten me.

Yeah, gotta have a slush fund to buy TicTok funded by firing people

 

[Crepitus]

Then pay for it.

We are.

WTF does that even mean?

 

[pknopp]

We are.

WTF does that even mean?

37 trillion in debt says we are not and you know what it means.

 

[SweetSue92]

They are necessary to the functioning of the government. Nobody loves them just like nobody loves their alternator belt, but there is a real reason it's on your car.

Do we have an alternator belt on the "car", or is it decked out top to bottom on our dime?

 

[Crepitus]

Do we have an alternator belt on the "car", or is it decked out top to bottom on our dime?

Take it off and see how well it runs.

 

[SweetSue92]

Take it off and see how well it runs.

You can't take the alternator belt off, but you CAN take all the bling off and save money.

Unless you just LOVE funding Sesame Street in Iran, tourism in Egypt and transgender mice.

 

[Crepitus]

You can't take the alternator belt off, but you CAN take all the bling off and save money.

Unless you just LOVE funding Sesame Street in Iran, tourism in Egypt and transgender mice.

Made up nonsense.

Neat how you deflected from government personnel to spending though.

Obviously having second thoughts aren't you.

 

[SweetSue92]

Made up nonsense.

Neat how you deflected from government personnel to spending though.

Obviously having second thoughts aren't you.

The only way you can win this argument is by misrepresenting ours, as always. No one is saying there should be ZERO govt agencies and ZERO people working there. I'm not making that argument.

But you seem to making the argument that there can never be TOO MANY govt agencies employing TOO MANY people to do TOO MANY projects.

Right? If half the nation is employed bossing everyone around with regulations that's great for you?

 

[Crepitus]

The only way you can win this argument is by misrepresenting ours,

You're the one who tried to change the subject.

 

[Moonglow]

This is a serious question.

If your opposition is that people are losing jobs, yes, that is sad. But the downside of them keeping their jobs is that we can't fund very important programs. We are already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt as it is.

Are you afraid some good programs may be cut with the fat?

Do you actually support all the foreign "aid"?

What? I do not understand this position at all, as an American. Enlighten me.

Foreign aid is 1% of the budget. Why not cut the benefits of Congress, the president, the vice president, the Supreme Court Justices? Why always pick on the little guy? That is what you are advocating.
Shouldn't everyone feel the pain of the restaining of the debt?

 

[1srelluc]

Yet they just love the unelected dem appointed federal judges that do their bidding.....Let them square that for us.

 

[Moonglow]

Yet they just love the unelected dem appointed federal judges that do their bidding.....Let them square that for us.

I can complete the cube also.