I don't totally trust this DOGE crew and think we should keep a hawks eye on them but the whole "they are cutting waste so they can funnel the money to themselves!" conspiracy theories making the rounds are pretty bizarre... And to what end, aren't many of these people already extremely wealthy? I sure hope I'm wrong.
> $5.3 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts (the combination of $3.8 trillion of tax cuts assumed to be “costless” under a current policy baseline plus $1.5 trillion in additional deficits permitted), deficit increases of $521 billion on defense and immigration spending, a minimum of $4 billion in spending cuts, and an increase in the debt limit of up to $5 trillion.
So savings plus new borrowing will be funded to tax cuts, which will likely prioritize those already on higher incomes, and corporations.
If you have to explain your conspiracy theory with "the majority of these people suffers from the same special kind of neuroticism", I suggest you get back to your whiteboard.
Or you can keep living in a Disney reality where uncle Scrooges are the norm and not the exception.
I think you might be misunderstanding op's comment. "Because the amoral drive for extreme wealth doesn't stop at a certain level of wealth" is a statement that I read on its face. One does not need to reach for "conspiracy" as a way to explain the behavior of people faced with an opportunity to acquire more money: just look at the 5-6 posts making the same point in this very sub-thread. Did you miss those or did you mean to post this reply somewhere else? Money is a huge motivator for many people.
Nothing misunderstood here. Only someone seriously naïve or disingenuous would arrive at the conclusion that money is the main drive of such people who have already so much that they don't know what to do with it. Especially without proofs, as a "this can only be it!" position.
I'd rather believe wanting power for power's sake than this cartoon idea of an old duck diving into a pool of well-polished coins.
Truth is that beyond a few truly neurotic exceptions, the obscenely rich do use their money. Just not all in supercars and yachts, but also to influence what they can.
> And to what end, aren't many of these people already extremely wealthy?
When's the last time you heard a billionaire say, "I've got enough money I don't need to get any more" before they're very old and looking to burnish their image with charity work?! If they were the kind of person to be ok with more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes they wouldn't be billionaires in the first place, at least not multibillionaires.
> And to what end, aren't many of these people already extremely wealthy?
I don't know, I really don't know. To this day I can't imagine the day I become a president of a big country I tell my citizens "BUY MY COINS AND THOSE OF MY WIFE!". It's difficult to imagine on so many levels. But yet this guy is doing it. So no conspiracy theory is too weird to at this point.
This is a lame excuse, look at the Moscow Metro, it's old yet clean, maintained, safe and constantly expanding. As are many European metros - while dated, they are fine (despite the grumblings of Londoners and Parisians). This is a political will issue, not an infrastructure one.
Does Russia have a comparably large automotive manufacturing industry & related industry in comparison to the U.S.?
I fail to see how public transit to shopping center in Russia is counter to my point that America likes to consume cars and that better public transit in the U.S. would hurt the selling (i.e consumption) of cars.
Also, again:
> Additionally there is a lack of infrastructure and culture to keep public transit clean.
Ah, you specifically meant consuming cars. I totally misread that as general consumption. Yeah, I'm with you on that. American car culture is very strange, the brodozers as status symbol and mentality behind them is a pox. The culture of "you ain't no real mayun if you ain't got da big truck" is something that I think only $10+ a gallon gas can solve...
It's the build-environment (how cities are designed). Everything is America is segregated, especially by income, age and race to an extent. Culture (fitness and food) also play a role. There's a reason more walkable places like Denver and NYC have healthier people.
I’ve observed in Australia, the closer you are to the CBD (the main city postcode), the healthier the people are, once you get to the outer suburbs is like an entirely different country. The streets look different, the people are all obese, the cars are bigger, etc.
I honestly think that we don’t put enough emphasis on how bad cars are for your health.
At first glance it looks sprawly but then visiting there you realize most of those tract housing developments open up in the back to some walk and bike trail network, which remain sunny dry and mild much of winter (the real snow is in the mountains denver is frequently bone dry), and a good portion of the population is getting 50 days out of their epic or ikon pass plus engaging in some summer outdoor hobby.
Fifty years ago, one heard that Colfax Avenue was the longest street in the US, or maybe the world. I got a lot of exercise in my Denver days, some of it running or hiking, but I also spent a lot of time in cars.
I read something recently that said the rise of American suburbia can be traced to increased rates of crime in the cities due to immigrant populations (this was over the last 50 years or so).
Now that Europe has seen such a huge increase in immigrant populations (and the corresponding crime increases), perhaps suburban-type environments will become more desirable there in the near future.
What you are referring to is called "white flight" and the causes were more complex than crime or immigration.
The casual link between immigration and crime is generally agreed to be false. So whatever you read that claimed immigration caused crime to go up seems incorrect.
The issue is not the fluoride in the water, it's all the sugar that poor people eat and drink (especially sodas). And we actively fund the corn syrup industry at both ends via the farm bill (production and consumption via SNAP).
There's def a lot of gatekeeping going on by the real coders™. The rest of us are just learning and adapting. Personally, I'm glad that it's now easy to build decent looking UIs and quickly tune SQL.
I can tell you that your response is at least relevant for me because I happen to be working with Remix right now, not because of any influencers but just because I happen to be working on a Shopify project. I've seen lots of frameworks come and go and evolve, so I'm not surprised that this one changes a lot, but I always enjoy getting opinions from people with experience. Whether or not I'll end up resenting it in the future, I don't know, but at least I'll have been warned.
We already have laws on the books to deal with physical violence. As for verbal abuse, welcome to America - aka sticks and stones country (as guaranteed by our constitution). Anyways, why should a particular faith get special privileges?
When people physically block your access to classes you paid for, on a campus you have an equal right to be at, and they're blocking you on the basis of your faith or ethnicity, that's not "sticks and stones".
There's laws on the books to deal with blocking access and movement. You mentioned verbal abuse, that's different. If campus safety nor law is not getting enforced, there's avenues for addressing it.
reply