51 ms·

I think you missed the point of DOGE. This isn't a problem about navigating and optimizing a complex bureaucracy, it's to call out that massive bureaucracy exac

I think you missed the point of DOGE. This isn't a problem about navigating and optimizing a complex bureaucracy, it's to call out that massive bureaucracy exactly where it comes at a high cost and little, perhaps even negative, value. This is a managerial problem and a political problem at its core. We should all be rooting for them to succeed and table their findings, in plain speak for all the public to see. Then it will be up to the elected officials to act on it.

bdangubic 2y ago
[flagged]
giraffe_lady 2y ago
That is transparently not the point of it at all. Musk in particular is a proven self-interested liar and there's no reason to believe his stated intentions here. It's another right wing campaign to dismantle the parts of the state that benefit anyone other than investors.
rgmerk 2y ago
DOGE is BS. Civilian bureaucrats - in fact pretty much all discretionary spending - are line noise in the federal budget. By far the largest components of spending are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defence. Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. By American standards, Medicaid and Medicare are pretty efficient. So any cuts are going to mean that either doctors get paid less or fewer health services are provided. Yes, politically, Republicans can get away with cutting Medicaid, but it’s the much smaller piece of the pie compared to Medicare. Good luck with either one of the options above with Medicare. As for defence, procurement is a giant money tree for defence contractors, but a large part of the reason why it remains a giant money tree for contractors is that they build plants in every single congressional district there is, so trying to apply some sanity to the defence procurement process is politically untenable. Beyond that, are you going to be the one to tell the Marines they don’t need their own aircraft carriers? Of course, tanking the American economy by removing a significant chunk of its labor force (undocumented immigrants) and increasing costs (by putting tariffs on things) is just going to make the problem harder by crunching revenue. The right of politics has forever claimed that they can painlessly cut taxes, and it’s always nonsense.
- lovecg 2y ago
  > Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. But surely that’s the only way out? Figure out some sane taper scheme by age or something. Social security was created when the old people population was a tiny fraction of what it is now, no way it would have ever passed it with today’s numbers. We’ll have to rip off the bandaid or face the consequences.
  - akamaka 2y ago
    Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another isn’t “government waste”, though. It’s essentially zero-sum (unless you get way down into the details of the economic effects of how that money gets spent or saved.)
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      If you had told people when SS was passed that "granny doesn't die of hunger" is "zero sum", you might have needed martial arts skills to avoid the pitchforks coming your way. And that's not "way down into the details of the economic effects" - it's the raison d'etre of SS.
      - akamaka 2y ago
        I’m replying to the parent commenter and giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he’s talking only about social security payments which are beyond the essential, and which could “safely” be cut back. I recommend to you to also interpret comments generously before replying.
- chillingeffect 2y ago
  >Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. Some ppl collecting SSI have other income over $400k. They won't miss $30k of SSI. The dem's plan was to tax that overage - not even remove it altogether - to maintain SSI, but "they're eating the dogs and cats" won and now the unelected guy who made his fortune on government contracts is in charge of choosing who to cut off from that government money supply.
aidenn0 2y ago
Cutting funding to the IRS will increase waste; nobody outside of DOGE seems to think that spending more on enforcement will fail to pay for itself by finding more tax fraud. It's not a large leap to infer that at least some of those behind DOGE are doing this to enrich themselves.

bdangubic 2y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 2y ago

That is transparently not the point of it at all. Musk in particular is a proven self-interested liar and there's no reason to believe his stated intentions here. It's another right wing campaign to dismantle the parts of the state that benefit anyone other than investors.

rgmerk 2y ago

DOGE is BS. Civilian bureaucrats - in fact pretty much all discretionary spending - are line noise in the federal budget. By far the largest components of spending are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defence. Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. By American standards, Medicaid and Medicare are pretty efficient. So any cuts are going to mean that either doctors get paid less or fewer health services are provided. Yes, politically, Republicans can get away with cutting Medicaid, but it’s the much smaller piece of the pie compared to Medicare. Good luck with either one of the options above with Medicare. As for defence, procurement is a giant money tree for defence contractors, but a large part of the reason why it remains a giant money tree for contractors is that they build plants in every single congressional district there is, so trying to apply some sanity to the defence procurement process is politically untenable. Beyond that, are you going to be the one to tell the Marines they don’t need their own aircraft carriers? Of course, tanking the American economy by removing a significant chunk of its labor force (undocumented immigrants) and increasing costs (by putting tariffs on things) is just going to make the problem harder by crunching revenue. The right of politics has forever claimed that they can painlessly cut taxes, and it’s always nonsense.

lovecg 2y ago
> Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. But surely that’s the only way out? Figure out some sane taper scheme by age or something. Social security was created when the old people population was a tiny fraction of what it is now, no way it would have ever passed it with today’s numbers. We’ll have to rip off the bandaid or face the consequences.
- akamaka 2y ago
  Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another isn’t “government waste”, though. It’s essentially zero-sum (unless you get way down into the details of the economic effects of how that money gets spent or saved.)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    If you had told people when SS was passed that "granny doesn't die of hunger" is "zero sum", you might have needed martial arts skills to avoid the pitchforks coming your way. And that's not "way down into the details of the economic effects" - it's the raison d'etre of SS.
    - akamaka 2y ago
      I’m replying to the parent commenter and giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he’s talking only about social security payments which are beyond the essential, and which could “safely” be cut back. I recommend to you to also interpret comments generously before replying.
chillingeffect 2y ago
>Cutting social security means that old people get less money in their retirement, no ifs, ands or buts. Good luck with that one. Some ppl collecting SSI have other income over $400k. They won't miss $30k of SSI. The dem's plan was to tax that overage - not even remove it altogether - to maintain SSI, but "they're eating the dogs and cats" won and now the unelected guy who made his fortune on government contracts is in charge of choosing who to cut off from that government money supply.

aidenn0 2y ago

Cutting funding to the IRS will increase waste; nobody outside of DOGE seems to think that spending more on enforcement will fail to pay for itself by finding more tax fraud. It's not a large leap to infer that at least some of those behind DOGE are doing this to enrich themselves.