3 ms·

Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo are precisely the result of "people that had

Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo are precisely the result of "people that had access to this data got that access after passing background checks, had years in the treasury, supervision from higher-ups, and other processes in place". Until now it was old boys club that did not dare to shake things up a little. My point is that there is plenty to dislike here, but if your argument against him is: he is a nazi, you have already lost, because you do not understand the sentiment out there.

throw0101d 2y ago
> Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo […] Is one of the issues that an audit log of actions was created? Because it seems to me some of the levels of access given to the DOGE folks mean that auditing and traceability has now gone out the window like a Russian oligarch. I'm a sysadmin who 'just' runs a bunch of HPC stuff—nothing 'important' like HIPAA or SOX—and even my systems have some level of auditing and logging.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  See? This is already a much better argument than what parent posted. If you tone down Russian hysteria angle ( not wrong, just pointing out how it is coming across ) the other side may be able to hear you. This is basically my point and that point is the same point I make for Zuck, Thiel and others. There is already plenty of real things to complain about. How about we focus on those?
  - donmcronald 2y ago
    I think what the posts above you are trying to say, and not doing a great job because of the emphasis on rhetoric, is the actions being taken are hypocritical. The argument from the DOGE side is that entrenched interests are operating opaque systems and gating access to the information needed to identify inefficiencies. It's not a bad argument because it's no secret that you end up with waste in big companies or government programs and everyone should want to improve efficiency. However, it's a bad faith argument because the public's being told they're being disenfranchised by a lack of transparency at the same time they're being told to accept a solution that has no transparency or oversight. When you have tech billionaires with a lifelong goal of controlling payments since starting PayPal in the 90s, is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      I have zero issue with the arguments you presented, because I know you are being factually accurate ( to the best of my knowledge anyway; I wonder if there is a person out there that has a full unrestricted view of everything ). << is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows? I don't want to argue for DOGE, because their fanbase is doing it on various fora already ( including this one ). But to answer your question, it is not unreasonable at all. Those questions should be asked and, ideally, answered. It is vital that the government officials are watched, their performance evaluated and our political will enforced by means we deem necessary. From where I sit, what is good for goose, is good for gander. If I hesitate, it is around the level of emotion this generates. Some of it is warranted ( I would lie if I said I am not concerned ), but it does not help with making an appropriate response. In fact, that level of emotion actively inhibits making good choices. You have to give it to him. It does look like Trump actually had a plan this time around.
    - dani__german 2y ago
      I don't think the constant news cycles covering each and every dime that USAID misused is indicative of a lack of transparency. I think given just a little more time, DOGE could uncover (and reveal to the American people) a lot more than 50 billion of waste and corruption. As for the oversight requirement, it is fully and completely satisfied by: 1.) A guy who has the technical acumen, drive, and attention to detail to catch a rocket out of mid air with chopsticks. 2.) A man who won a presidential election twice (and could possibly have been 3 times if the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't corruptly and improperly squashed). The largest proportion of the complaints from media outlets come from defunded operations. Its in everyone's fiscal best interest for these audits to continue, and for them to be completed by people completely outside of the government's patronage (grant and funding) networks.
      - throw0101d 2y ago
        > I don't think the constant news cycles covering each and every dime that USAID misused is indicative of a lack of transparency. Every dime that the USAID spent was allocated via Congress through the budgeting process. And many (11/12) of the published stories about supposed wasteful spending were not true: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/usaid-trump-fact-checker/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/usaid-tru... More importantly, even if sending money to USAid is wasteful, that is Congress's prerogative. The President's job is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed": if Congress wants to spend money on Foo then that's what he is supposed to do.
Aeolun 2y ago
[flagged]
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  The sentiment is "words like nazi are not helping the conversation". In fact, they may be actively hurting the point you are trying to get across.

throw0101d 2y ago

> Hmm. I am hesitant to engage this post, but it may be well worth to point out, that some of issues with status quo […] Is one of the issues that an audit log of actions was created? Because it seems to me some of the levels of access given to the DOGE folks mean that auditing and traceability has now gone out the window like a Russian oligarch. I'm a sysadmin who 'just' runs a bunch of HPC stuff—nothing 'important' like HIPAA or SOX—and even my systems have some level of auditing and logging.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
See? This is already a much better argument than what parent posted. If you tone down Russian hysteria angle ( not wrong, just pointing out how it is coming across ) the other side may be able to hear you. This is basically my point and that point is the same point I make for Zuck, Thiel and others. There is already plenty of real things to complain about. How about we focus on those?
- donmcronald 2y ago
  I think what the posts above you are trying to say, and not doing a great job because of the emphasis on rhetoric, is the actions being taken are hypocritical. The argument from the DOGE side is that entrenched interests are operating opaque systems and gating access to the information needed to identify inefficiencies. It's not a bad argument because it's no secret that you end up with waste in big companies or government programs and everyone should want to improve efficiency. However, it's a bad faith argument because the public's being told they're being disenfranchised by a lack of transparency at the same time they're being told to accept a solution that has no transparency or oversight. When you have tech billionaires with a lifelong goal of controlling payments since starting PayPal in the 90s, is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    I have zero issue with the arguments you presented, because I know you are being factually accurate ( to the best of my knowledge anyway; I wonder if there is a person out there that has a full unrestricted view of everything ). << is it unreasonable to be skeptical of their motivations when they've managed to gain access to the government's payment system? Aren't these the same people sucking up our private information and telling us if we've got nothing to hide we've got nothing to fear? Why do they need to operate in the shadows? I don't want to argue for DOGE, because their fanbase is doing it on various fora already ( including this one ). But to answer your question, it is not unreasonable at all. Those questions should be asked and, ideally, answered. It is vital that the government officials are watched, their performance evaluated and our political will enforced by means we deem necessary. From where I sit, what is good for goose, is good for gander. If I hesitate, it is around the level of emotion this generates. Some of it is warranted ( I would lie if I said I am not concerned ), but it does not help with making an appropriate response. In fact, that level of emotion actively inhibits making good choices. You have to give it to him. It does look like Trump actually had a plan this time around.
  - dani__german 2y ago
    I don't think the constant news cycles covering each and every dime that USAID misused is indicative of a lack of transparency. I think given just a little more time, DOGE could uncover (and reveal to the American people) a lot more than 50 billion of waste and corruption. As for the oversight requirement, it is fully and completely satisfied by: 1.) A guy who has the technical acumen, drive, and attention to detail to catch a rocket out of mid air with chopsticks. 2.) A man who won a presidential election twice (and could possibly have been 3 times if the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't corruptly and improperly squashed). The largest proportion of the complaints from media outlets come from defunded operations. Its in everyone's fiscal best interest for these audits to continue, and for them to be completed by people completely outside of the government's patronage (grant and funding) networks.
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > I don't think the constant news cycles covering each and every dime that USAID misused is indicative of a lack of transparency. Every dime that the USAID spent was allocated via Congress through the budgeting process. And many (11/12) of the published stories about supposed wasteful spending were not true: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/usaid-trump-fact-checker/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/usaid-tru... More importantly, even if sending money to USAid is wasteful, that is Congress's prerogative. The President's job is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed": if Congress wants to spend money on Foo then that's what he is supposed to do.

Aeolun 2y ago

[flagged]

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
The sentiment is "words like nazi are not helping the conversation". In fact, they may be actively hurting the point you are trying to get across.