It a part of draining the swamp. For example Corporation for public broadcasting, have you heard the absolute crap NPR puts out. Total hit jobs against Trump almost exclusively.

That's not draining the swamp. He's eliminating programs that speak against him, which weren't part of this magical 'swamp' until he came along.

I also forgot how much meals on wheels were totally swampy

Why do we have a government funded program that primarily focuses on targeting our President? Where is the government news program that supports U.S. President Trump? Idk about meals on wheels effectiveness but there are other social and public programs still available that can share the burden of losing meals on wheels till another more effective program can be put in place.

Serious question: how do you measure the effectiveness of meals on wheels? Bonus points if you can name any other social program like meals on wheels.

As for the government news program that supports Trump: Breitbart seems to be making huge strides in that department

NPR is left leaning, don't get me wrong. But I can't remember the last time The Muppets put out a hit piece on Trump; feel free to link it

Cost vs results is a pretty effective way to measure how well the program is run. The government doesn't fund 100% of meals on wheels, Ca gets only about 2% of its funding from government, the rest is from donations. Granted some other states rely on up to 49% of their funds comming from the government. If people are that upset then they can donate and suppliment the amount meals on wheels lost. Question if Susan G Komens cure for cancer was government funded but only a small fraction of the money went to finding the cure would you be angry if the government cut the funding?

But what are the results though? How many people don't end up with food and starve? It just seems like such a small program to cut when there are more massive costs in the government. As for Susan G. Komen; because so little of the money donated to them goes towards cancer research, I already dislike the organization. I would be surprised if received some kind of grant from the government.

The results are irrelevant. Most if not all of these departments/programs should not be part of the federal government according to the constitution.

I believe he cut $68 billion dollars so far. It's not like he's only specifically targeted these places. I bet he didn't even hand pick these places. They were probably put on a list in front of him and he said ok or told someone to take charge and they put out the list. These cuts are small in the overall "fat" hes been cutting.

Idk why they cut funding but I do know they have a lot more information than i do regarding the matter.

You mean state run media? Like a dictator?

Are you literally asking for state funded propaganda? A government funded media that can speak against the government is the best example of government funded media. My God I can't believe this needs to be said.

If we can have an program that criticize the government why dont we have a pro government media. I want to hear good things trump is doing, not only bad things, which is what I've heard

Because the government has the power and needs to be criticised? The government is pro-government and will release statements that tell you the 'good' things they are doing and how 'good' they are doing it.

Just because I'm for hearing pro government propaganda doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be criticized. I love wikileaks but when is our government going to start working together and stop funding something that is going to just trash on it.

Why do we have a government funded program that primarily focuses on targeting our President?

We don't. You are straight up lying about what NPR does

Where is the government news program that supports U.S. President Trump?

America has the 1st amendment that protects the freedom of the press.

Americans do not want state-sponsored news outlets like they do in China, Russia, etc.

Say goodbye to that government cheese Elmo

Concerning as this may be, conspiracy?

Maybe channeling tax payer money to the military (MIC)? He did raise the military budget by $50 billion, while cutting funds for everything else, so...

This was all part of his campaign promises (reduce regulations and rebuild the military). This only looks odd if you weren't paying attention.

So because he gave us a warning beforhand, it makes it reasonable to pump even more money into an already overblown budget? Maybe you weren't paying attention to this sub, the power of the military-industrial complex was always a major concern.

Russia!!!!!

I am going to pick my fights on this one.

I know that the pentagon is at odds with the CIA at the moment, and I like the idea of divide an conquer since it tends to work pretty well.

Those agencies don't build infrastructure.

I don't mind privatization. It actually saved my school district 150k this year.

I get really bored how people have been posting general news in this sub lately. I mean, I get it when they are going to tie it to a greater conspiracy, but I don't understand why people want to use this sub as a political battleground.

I really just want to read crazy shit about history and Antarctica when I come here, I go elsewhere for the more run of the mill political crap.

I get really bored how people have been posting general news in this sub lately. I mean, I get it when they are going to tie it to a greater conspiracy, but I don't understand why people want to use this sub as a political battleground.

I really just want to read crazy shit about history and Antarctica when I come here, I go elsewhere for the more run of the mill political crap.

Personally I'm all for this. Our federal government is bloated and wasteful. Most of these powers need to be vested with the STATES, not the FED.

I agree with you, fwiw. The less budget the feds have, the less that can be lost to corruption.

African Development Foundation, Overseas Private Investment Corporation? These are domestic programs?

Well if you had done research into these programs, then you'd learn that both of these organizations, especially OPIC, work internationally to help US businesses to gain footholds in developing and emerging markets. The ADF works to help US businesses and NGOs to forge relationships with African governments, companies, and communities.

But maybe in a free market those businesses could do that for themselves? Otherwise, should they be there?

No sarcasm - ligit asking.

There isn't a free market in international trade. The us traditionally pursues an agenda of free trade, but much of the world, particularly the developing world, is protectionist.

So, should they even be there?

If they want to make money and ship more us made/designed products overseas, then yes.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer that question. The US doesn't have as many business connections in Africa, and other countries with similar organizations are already there, most likely. True free markets don't truly exist in global trade. If businesses are going to compete with other businesses that are helped by their governments, we need one that is designed to help US businesses.

This is an excellent answer as to what is. Thank you.

My question is perhaps more based in ethics. And maybe there's not a cut & dry answer. However, if we are to become a protectionist or isolationist state, we maybe shouldn't usurp the resources of other countries?

It seems if that were the case, a free market could exist in global trade (at a glance.)

I will be interested to see how this goes.

Not vital at all.

You would save more by dismantling the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

But endowment for the arts has no death squads...

The fuck is this? I see pure political bullshit, where's the fucking conspiracy, and how much did CTR pay you?

Removed. Rule 10.

Only 19? Oh well, there's always next year.