StitchInTime@piefed.social 3 days ago
That, in and of itself, is not something that can bridge this kind of a gap, but it’s an indication of the ways in which money has been spent while refusing to account for the actual costs of what these programs are.
This is what I see as the important bit, and indicates both a level head and clear communication. We need more politicians across the board who can answer directly like this, and not try to inflate or exaggerate.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
Yeah, this really was an excellent answer. I’m impressed by how he used this example to illustrate the wider strategy without it feeling like a weird kind of “we will cut programs like this and then everything will be fine”. It gives the sense that this is being used as an example because it’s simple enough to be at the top of a large pile of potential savings, which will take time and work to dig through.
To put it a different way, his answer abstracts away the right stuff. He doesn’t pretend that everything will be as simple and easy as cutting this one program was.