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.”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      On a long enough timeline this is just a speed bump

      No matter what trump tries, he won’t match the number of separations under Clinton, and we won’t end up with a lower number after

      They’re both pretty much the same, coincidentally enough we had just gotten back up to pre-Clinton number of feds, so the comparison is easy.

      But because a Republican did it instead of a Dem, we’re likely to bounce back much faster this time.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day 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.