Heritage Foundation Poll on Which Agencies to Cut Further

[Anonymous]

Pay $10 for soft power now or $20 for defense later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I suggest asking Feds which offices they’d like to cut in their own agencies? I know of several purely administrative, policy offices that are hated by thousands. They solely exist to give us busy work and to fight with our amazing senior managers. Administrative functions need to be cut before you cut the peons doing the actual work.

White House Faith Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I suggest asking Feds which offices they’d like to cut in their own agencies? I know of several purely administrative, policy offices that are hated by thousands. They solely exist to give us busy work and to fight with our amazing senior managers. Administrative functions need to be cut before you cut the peons doing the actual work.

If we wanna save money, why doesn’t the government mandate very very very very very low prices for Microsoft, Cisco, AWS, Oracle, etc

Cut all IT costs by 70% price fixing everything IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I suggest asking Feds which offices they’d like to cut in their own agencies? I know of several purely administrative, policy offices that are hated by thousands. They solely exist to give us busy work and to fight with our amazing senior managers. Administrative functions need to be cut before you cut the peons doing the actual work.

If we wanna save money, why doesn’t the government mandate very very very very very low prices for Microsoft, Cisco, AWS, Oracle, etc

Cut all IT costs by 70% price fixing everything IT.

Because IT costs are a drop in the bucket and lots of important government functions run on noncommercial software ... but it's concerning that you think government should "mandate" the prices of commercial products.

[Anonymous]

I’d love it if everything were cut. Leave Trump with no one to do any of the work he wants to get done.

[Anonymous]

Let’s cut all the air traffic controllers just to see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I suggest asking Feds which offices they’d like to cut in their own agencies? I know of several purely administrative, policy offices that are hated by thousands. They solely exist to give us busy work and to fight with our amazing senior managers. Administrative functions need to be cut before you cut the peons doing the actual work.

If we wanna save money, why doesn’t the government mandate very very very very very low prices for Microsoft, Cisco, AWS, Oracle, etc

Cut all IT costs by 70% price fixing everything IT.

Because IT costs are a drop in the bucket and lots of important government functions run on noncommercial software ... but it's concerning that you think government should "mandate" the prices of commercial products.

It's also concerning that DOGE is willy nilly canceling basic software contracts we use on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

This whole thing looks like a setup just to get a somewhat decent number to report from the last question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am outraged that the Heritage Foundation is superseding the role of Congress by asking which agencies should be cut.

whiner - someone has to do it; and let's not forget free speech or wanting public engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTH - "$3 million for “girl-centered climate action” in Brazil."

A simple Google would tell you it's entrepreneurship and leadership training for young women so they can be economically successful. Don't be misled by the inflammatory wording.

Example: https://hivos.org/program/global-girls-creating-change-g2c2/

And it’s incredibly unpopular by low-information voters footing the bill.

Fixed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTH - "$3 million for “girl-centered climate action” in Brazil."

As a taxpayer, I don’t have a problem with this even without knowing the details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTH - "$3 million for “girl-centered climate action” in Brazil."

As a taxpayer, I don’t have a problem with this even without knowing the details.

+1. What I do have a problem with is this poorly designed survey. I don’t want to cut EPA, the FBI, HUD, Dept of State-why isn’t that an option? Why use misleading descriptions of govt funded projects? Why not ask people if they agree with the funding of 30bn$ in govt grants for SpaceX rather than 3 mn$ for climate action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I suggest asking Feds which offices they’d like to cut in their own agencies? I know of several purely administrative, policy offices that are hated by thousands. They solely exist to give us busy work and to fight with our amazing senior managers. Administrative functions need to be cut before you cut the peons doing the actual work.

If we wanna save money, why doesn’t the government mandate very very very very very low prices for Microsoft, Cisco, AWS, Oracle, etc

Cut all IT costs by 70% price fixing everything IT.

Because IT costs are a drop in the bucket and lots of important government functions run on noncommercial software ... but it's concerning that you think government should "mandate" the prices of commercial products.

You know it’s a drop in the bucket is federal salaries.

What’s concerning is that you think most federal functions run on non-commercial software?

Noncommercial cloud? Noncommercial operating systems.?

Who doesn’t want to lose their huge outrageous and wasteful commission.

Most waste is in DOD and they’re not even cutting there.

Y’all have been bamboozled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sad that Federal employees have to face flak for some of these outrageous spending decisions by the previous administration.

Reading some of these spending choices would make any American blood boil. What were they thinking approving these kinds of grants?

But this should not be a reflection on the Fed employees who are merely implementing these things rather than making policy decisions.

Where are you reading about it, because DOGE is pushing a lot of lies so don't believe them? If you read something that makes you think "that's outrageous!" assume it is a lie until you verify with someone who actually understands the department at issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTH - "$3 million for “girl-centered climate action” in Brazil."

As a taxpayer, I don’t have a problem with this even without knowing the details.

+1. What I do have a problem with is this poorly designed survey. I don’t want to cut EPA, the FBI, HUD, Dept of State-why isn’t that an option? Why use misleading descriptions of govt funded projects? Why not ask people if they agree with the funding of 30bn$ in govt grants for SpaceX rather than 3 mn$ for climate action.

+1 I'd choose "D. None of the above." Why isn't that an option? Where is the open option to fill in alternatives about what should be cut?