26 ms·

For some reason quite a number of people seem to believe the purpoted goals of DOGE, removing waste and increasing efficiency of the government. I can't really

For some reason quite a number of people seem to believe the purpoted goals of DOGE, removing waste and increasing efficiency of the government. I can't really understand that as it seems obvious to me that they're just destroying parts of the government they don't like. And while there is certainly room for improvement in many areas, whatever they're doing is not going to improve anything, it's only destruction.

nxobject 2y ago
And, currently, firing everyone without just-cause protections (probationary workers, as well the contractor workforce - nearly equal in size to federal employees.)
Arn_Thor 2y ago
It befuddles me too. My understanding is that government spending is approved by congress and that all organizations except the Pentagon have passed their audits. This is not to say that there isn't _some_ waste, fraud and abuse in between the cracks, but any large expense is approved by Congress and the executive can't unilaterally override those spending choices.
- PaywallBuster 2y ago
  Congress approves the annual budget for each department, it's not micromanaging how it's spent
  - varjag 2y ago
    It had approved the budget for USAID which was slashed wholesale.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    What exactly do you think a budget is? There's a reason the federal budget is several inches of very thin paper. The budget spells out how much money gets spent for various purposes, programs, projects, etc. Of course they don't specify the kind of paperclips the FAA buys. But they will approve or modify the FAA's budget plan which includes $X for office supplies, $Y for an upgrade to the FAA's network equipment in a branch office, $Z for upgrading some nav beacons, and so on. The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. It certainly can't stop issuing payments for existing obligations, and it especially can't take money back, which M did a day or two ago to NYC because he read a tweet that said NYC was spending money housing migrants in "luxury hotels", which shockingly turned out to be nonsense... That's why all of this DOGE crap is such theatrical nonsense. Congress, representing their state's interests and the interests of those who live in their district, via two separate branches, approves all the budgets. No matter what T and M say, no federal agency can just willy-nilly decide to spend money it's allocated by congress on other stuff.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      > The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. That's all great in theory: in actual reality those laws are just words on paper, Congress has no interest in asserting its authority, and enforcement rests with the executive.
      - UncleMeat 2y ago
        Sure. But then the continuous narrative must be that Trump is violating the law. Every single person who supports Trump should have to confront the fact that Trump is doing this in a way that declares the end of our constitutional order and his position as an autocrat.
        johann8384 2y ago
        I don't think they see a problem with this. My grandfather used to say we needed to get a couple leaders from GE or whatever company was huge and successful then, and let them have free reign for a year.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        I, for one, am glad I'm not living through the legacy of Jack Welch's government management. Companies can declare bankruptcy and fold their hand: governments, notsomuch.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        insane_dreamer 2y ago
        You end up driving up the share price in the short term and destroying the company in the long term but by then you’re gone as CEO with your golden parachute. Not unlike presidents who will be gone in 4 years time (if second term) and let someone else deal with the consequences of their actions.
  - oldandboring 2y ago
    That's not true. At all.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  FYI, the Marines have passed two audits so far: https://www.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Display/Article/4052117/marine-corps-passes-fy24-financial-audit/ https://www.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Di... They were even able to account for all their crayons! PT belts on the other hand...
  - average_r_user 2y ago
    Crayons were accounted as food supplies? /s
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - giantrobot 2y ago
      It was a line item under "consumables".
  - Arn_Thor 2y ago
    Color me surprised. But good on them!
- refurb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - andybak 2y ago
    I mainly see a ton of likely Chesterton's Fences. Or unintended 2nd order effects. Who knows if the final outcome will be an improvement but it resembles fixing a TV by dropping it from a height and hoping.
    - refurb 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - nxobject 2y ago
        > Your main complaint is your team didn’t win and the other side gets to do things you don’t like. Where did you get this from in their comment?
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Your main complaint is your team didn’t win Where did this come up?
  - fabian2k 2y ago
    This is a good example of what I mean. There is no evidence that DOGE is acting on actual fraud and abuse, that is immediately obvious if you consider how broad most of their actions are. And unless you think that the federal government should essentially not exist at all I don't think you can declare all this just "waste".
    - refurb 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - troupo 2y ago
        No. It's on DOGE (and you, since you also claim this) to show that what they cut was waste and abuse, and not the function of the agency they cut.
- njharman 2y ago
  [flagged]
akoboldfrying 2y ago
[flagged]
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  If you kill everyone on earth, you technically stopped humans dying from climate change events, but I doubt it's the right way
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    While obviously true, I don't see what that has to do with anything. The intent of my comment was not to claim that what Musk and co. are doing is good, or that it's bad. It was to point out precisely why the claims in the post I replied to will not convince anyone who is not already convinced. If the poster I replied to just wanted to vent, fine. But if they wanted to persuade someone on the fence, they have provided nothing towards that. Nothing, that is, besides the standard appeal to emotion that infests almost all such arguments (on both sides) and is effective on human brains for all the wrong reasons.
timeon 2y ago
They are they are shrinking the government to find ~4T$ for for corporate tax cuts. You can call it legitimate policy but calling it "efficiency" is bit misleading.
- nxobject 2y ago
  That's a good read on the budget proposals the House Republicans are bringing to the table – the aggravating part, though, is that the loss of $4.5T of revenue won't help with the deficit or debt, since the current target for cuts in annual spending are only $1.5T. (Give or take increased defense and national security spending over the next few years.) https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprint-trump-tax-cuts-ff2bddf31f4e7cb0928139072392a091 https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprin...
- titzer 2y ago
  > You can call it legitimate policy Nothing is legitimate about this. Literally everything they are doing is both illegal and completely unconstitutional. They have thrown out the entire rule of law and it is a pure flex of power, a shock-and-awe meltdown that they hope to execute faster than the normal processes can react. They absolutely intend to abolish resistance and they know they can suffer no consequences for it. Dark times ahead. We're aren't arguing government efficiency or saving money, they are smashing it all.
James_K 2y ago
Most people consider anything they don't like to be a waste of public funds. After all, they pay for the government through taxes, so it should serve only their needs. People in America do not view the government as a source for public good, but merely a piggy bank from which they should be able to extract funds. Just look at the student loan forgiveness crowd. I'm perfectly happy paying my dues, but a lot of people have decided that they want the government to give them a load of free money instead of using it for something productive.
- soco 2y ago
  Many countries don't have this boat anchor named "student loan" at all, so maybe the lesson here is that indenturing your people who actually want to study shouldn't be a must?
  - steadfastbeef 2y ago
    It's not a must.
  - oldandboring 2y ago
    Whether you're right or not is beside the argument he/she made, which I think is pretty strong: that many Americans think anything government does that doesn't directly benefit them is a waste. Personally I find this to be somewhat more true among folks who identify as conservatives but I also hear plenty of self-identified moderates and liberals complaining about the expenditure of tax dollars when it comes to the military and foreign influence or tax policy as it pertains to corporations and high earners.
  - James_K 2y ago
    Why not? Student loans are a good protection against brain drain. If you offer free university, there's a likelihood that people will take you up on it then move out of the country, thus wasting the money invested in educating that person. A student loan guarantees a good return on investment for people you educate. Admittedly, America solves this problem by charging income tax for citizens living abroad, but a loan is better in my view since you can't rescind it like you could a citizenship. I actually think the concept of student loans should be extended down to primary education. I also think it would be good to institute a similar system for medical debt.
clumsysmurf 2y ago
From Reuters: "But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Republican director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), said the agencies Musk and Trump have targeted to date account for a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget ... They are not going to go into agencies that are doing things they like. They are going into agencies they disagree with," Holtz-Eakin, who has participated in past tax and spending negotiations in Congress, told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-based-more-political-ideology-than-real-cost-savings-so-far-2025-02-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-based-more-politi...
- refurb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nxobject 2y ago
    They don't like the NIH, the CDC, or the Human Services part of HHS, that's for sure. Hell, they don't like the NIH so much that they're willing to overlook the fact that the basic biomedical research infrastructure in this country is essentially reliant on it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/upshot/nih-trump-funding-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/upshot/nih-tr...
  - fabian2k 2y ago
    They're trying pretty hard to kill a large part of the scientific research happening in the US right now. They're messing with NIH and NSF grants, the cap on indirect costs is likely going to decimate research at universities. And even if some or most of these drastic changes are reversed, the enormous uncertainty they're introducing will likely reduce future investments in scientific fields.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > I’m pretty sure Musk and Trump like science and they reviewed HHS. Trump and Musk are poised to destroy science research in America. Actual scientists are all scrambling to save their jobs and research.
  - 2y ago
helge9210 2y ago
[flagged]
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  This assumes every government is as intransigent as the one you have experience with.
mnky9800n 2y ago
The great american problem is that American bureaucracy is broken. Whether it's lottery systems for hiking in national parks, fixing roads, healthcare, or hiring across federal employers, all of these require a functioning bureaucracy and there is not one. And so what do Americans do? The left complains the bureaucracy is broken and the right complains the bureaucracy exists. There is little room left for ever fixing the bureaucracy in this situation. It leaves lots of room for people to grab power and change things unilaterally to their own benefit.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  American bureaucracy is not broken (but is in the process of being destroyed). Claiming that it is broken is easy rhetoric for charlatans and backed up by a few cherry picked examples.
- cowfriend 2y ago
  yeah, the claim that the bureaucracy is the thing that is broken-- can we look at a few things? Every time the administration changes, the heads of all the departments change, and the incoming people are typically pretty ignorant of what the department does. How would a corporation work if every 4 years you rotated the C-suite and 2 levels down, with people from a completely different business sector? Meanwhile, funding is shifted even more often. Or is just outright cut once every few years. Meanwhile, every action they take is an official government action. Which means it is LEGALLY REQUIRED to happen in certain ways based on laws written by people who don't think about consequences or how they are enacted. And it is 2.2 Million people. There are economies of scale here. So I wonder how this compares to current Google, current Facebook. I've heard people here talking about how messed up those companies are, projects started/stopped at whim, massive investments that get abandoned 2 years later, etc. Or to banks. Banks don't modernize their software because they can't, not because they don't want to. No wonder the US government has similar issues.
  - mnky9800n 2y ago
    This all sounds like examples of how the bureaucracy is broken. I suppose a better way to say it is the bureaucracy is unable to respond in any sort of effective way to the problems it is meant to solve because there are far too many people who have the option to change the rules whether it's the president, congressional committee, judges, etc.
safety1st 2y ago
[flagged]
- fabian2k 2y ago
  Cutting DEI is blatantly and explicitly political. They can do that, within the laws and regulation that apply (this part is arguably something they don't follow). But it's not fraud or abuse, this is just "stuff they don't like". They're cutting a lot more than that, this has been all over the media. One example would be biomedical research via NIH/NSF. This is not just DEI (in whatever overly broad and vague definition they use), but a lot more.
  - safety1st 2y ago
    So maybe they're cutting a lot of other things and just highlighting the DEI stuff in order to draw attention away from the non-DEI stuff? I could believe that though I doubt anyone has done an analysis of the proportions yet. What about this argument people are making in this thread that they're not actually doing any real cutting because they're not Congress? That seems like a stretch.
- thxhn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - safety1st 2y ago
    No, if I was deaf my views on this would still be the same. I would still think that "DEI" as an idea is not something the federal government should spend money on. I would also still support the ADA and its enforcement. These two ideas are not in conflict. No one is trying to strip the legal rights of deaf people, nor will it happen. That is a straw man/hyperbole.
    - drewbug01 2y ago
      Well, about that: “ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.” So… not exactly a strawman. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...
Swoerd 2y ago
[flagged]
- grafmax 2y ago
  I’m no Trump supporter by any means but I think this kind of comment must alienate Trump supporters and contribute to polarization around the topic rather than reasoned exchange. If you really want to oppose Trump I think your purpose is better served with respectful speech. I realize the anger many people feel must make respectful speech a challenge. But I also think that the rise of polarization on social media is one of the reasons we have gotten to the place we are today.
  - pupppet 2y ago
    Go watch five minutes of Fox News and then ask yourself if treating the other side civilly is going to help.
  - andrewjf 2y ago
    Reasoned speech only works with people who are acting in good faith, and they aren’t.
    - tastyfreeze 2y ago
      Hahaha. The right says the same thing about the left. Being obstinate just increases polarization. What you are seeing happen right now is precisely because of the position you are taking. People have been pleading for decades to cut government spending. Trying to do it "the right way" hasn't worked. So now we are to "fuck it" if they won't work with us just tear it down and ask for forgiveness later.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      This is not a reason to think that impassioned speech will have the impact you want. It may still be counter-productive. At any rate, those who are acting in good faith will recognize the well-reasoned arguments as such and perhaps start to wonder about the reasoning for their beliefs.
datavirtue 2y ago
Efficiency-wise it is impossible for DOGE to move the needle. That line of reasoning is a smokescreen for destroying government agencies. Maybe they need to be folded, so petition the people. They have the Congress and Senate.
johann8384 2y ago
Because the parts they don't like align with the parts DOGE doesn't like. They agree with dear leader and so all that woke BS is wasteful. This way they will pay lower taxes now because we got rid of all this "waste".
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Yeah that's not going to happen. Lower government spending wont lower taxes. That's not what taxes are for.
WickyNilliams 2y ago
I have seen some people who are undeniably very smart get drawn into this line of thinking. If saving money was the goal surely there's be discussion akin to "let's cut the military budget". That's how you'd know they're serious. But as it stands it is clearly just an ideological axe grinder. (I should note I'm not American, just watching bemused from the sidelines)
- ModernMech 2y ago
  The way we know they're not serious is they're already planning to cut taxes taxes on the rich and corporations. There's no savings to be had, they plan to spend everything they cut on themselves, and another $3T beyond that.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  Or cutting the budget for cgi roadsters in orbit.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The current GOP plans for the budget and tax cut will increase the deficit by 4T. No one is serious about “saving money”. It’s just to justify the corporate tax cut.
  - dashundchen 2y ago
    On top of the $8 trillion in debt needed for the last round of billionaire tax cuts and unaccountable PPP helicopter money Trump spent last time around.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ethbr1 2y ago
> whatever they're doing is not going to improve anything, it's only destruction This is why DOGE is staffed with young people. It's easy to convince inexperienced people there's a 2-step plan: Step 1. Destroy the old. Step 2. Build the new. Yet people with experience know that Step 2 requires orders of magnitude more effort and time than Step 1. So, you have ignorant people breaking things, congratulating themselves on how quickly they're making progress... and then hit Step 2. And realize it's hard. And get bored. And so just, not. Thus in the end, you're left with a broken pile of what came before, and nothing new to replace it.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  This is the classic 3 step plan. Step 1. Destroy the old Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit! "Build the new" doesn't even seem to be on the table at this point. There's no proposals to replace any of this. At least not public anyway, we know they are replacing all of this with for-profit scams.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    Step 1. Destroy the government Step 2. See? The government doesn't work! Just like we said! Step 3. "Fix" the problems created from Step 1 Step 4. MAGA eventually realizes the swamp was enlarged and made worse, not drained
    - SpaceNoodled 2y ago
      What makes you think that step 4 will ever occur?
    - floren 2y ago
      Step 4. MAGA sees more government inefficiency and corruption than ever, but is reassured that it's just those terrible liberals sabotaging DOGE's good work and the NEXT round will really purge them
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  This meshes well with the established policies of the Republican party, which is to campaign on how badly the Government runs, promise to fix it, get into office, then break the Government more, then run back to your constituency and say "I can't believe how bad the Government is, get me back in there so I can keep working on it."
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Yeah even on HN where I would expect above average observational and critical thinking skills, there are plenty of people who don’t see or refuse to see what’s going on. Pretty shocking really.
xnx 2y ago
There's no reason to believe anything they say. Believe only what they do.

nxobject 2y ago

And, currently, firing everyone without just-cause protections (probationary workers, as well the contractor workforce - nearly equal in size to federal employees.)

Arn_Thor 2y ago

It befuddles me too. My understanding is that government spending is approved by congress and that all organizations except the Pentagon have passed their audits. This is not to say that there isn't _some_ waste, fraud and abuse in between the cracks, but any large expense is approved by Congress and the executive can't unilaterally override those spending choices.

PaywallBuster 2y ago
Congress approves the annual budget for each department, it's not micromanaging how it's spent
- varjag 2y ago
  It had approved the budget for USAID which was slashed wholesale.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  What exactly do you think a budget is? There's a reason the federal budget is several inches of very thin paper. The budget spells out how much money gets spent for various purposes, programs, projects, etc. Of course they don't specify the kind of paperclips the FAA buys. But they will approve or modify the FAA's budget plan which includes $X for office supplies, $Y for an upgrade to the FAA's network equipment in a branch office, $Z for upgrading some nav beacons, and so on. The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. It certainly can't stop issuing payments for existing obligations, and it especially can't take money back, which M did a day or two ago to NYC because he read a tweet that said NYC was spending money housing migrants in "luxury hotels", which shockingly turned out to be nonsense... That's why all of this DOGE crap is such theatrical nonsense. Congress, representing their state's interests and the interests of those who live in their district, via two separate branches, approves all the budgets. No matter what T and M say, no federal agency can just willy-nilly decide to spend money it's allocated by congress on other stuff.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    > The executive branch can't defund or "stop spending money on" anything. Nixon decided he just wouldn't spend money on programs he didn't like, and congress very rapidly passed a law that said that the president couldn't do it, because the "power of the purse" rests solely with congress. That's all great in theory: in actual reality those laws are just words on paper, Congress has no interest in asserting its authority, and enforcement rests with the executive.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      Sure. But then the continuous narrative must be that Trump is violating the law. Every single person who supports Trump should have to confront the fact that Trump is doing this in a way that declares the end of our constitutional order and his position as an autocrat.
      - johann8384 2y ago
        I don't think they see a problem with this. My grandfather used to say we needed to get a couple leaders from GE or whatever company was huge and successful then, and let them have free reign for a year.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        I, for one, am glad I'm not living through the legacy of Jack Welch's government management. Companies can declare bankruptcy and fold their hand: governments, notsomuch.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        insane_dreamer 2y ago
        You end up driving up the share price in the short term and destroying the company in the long term but by then you’re gone as CEO with your golden parachute. Not unlike presidents who will be gone in 4 years time (if second term) and let someone else deal with the consequences of their actions.
- oldandboring 2y ago
  That's not true. At all.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
KennyBlanken 2y ago
FYI, the Marines have passed two audits so far: https://www.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Display/Article/4052117/marine-corps-passes-fy24-financial-audit/ https://www.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Di... They were even able to account for all their crayons! PT belts on the other hand...
- average_r_user 2y ago
  Crayons were accounted as food supplies? /s
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    It was a line item under "consumables".
- Arn_Thor 2y ago
  Color me surprised. But good on them!
refurb 2y ago
[flagged]
- andybak 2y ago
  I mainly see a ton of likely Chesterton's Fences. Or unintended 2nd order effects. Who knows if the final outcome will be an improvement but it resembles fixing a TV by dropping it from a height and hoping.
  - refurb 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nxobject 2y ago
      > Your main complaint is your team didn’t win and the other side gets to do things you don’t like. Where did you get this from in their comment?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Your main complaint is your team didn’t win Where did this come up?
- fabian2k 2y ago
  This is a good example of what I mean. There is no evidence that DOGE is acting on actual fraud and abuse, that is immediately obvious if you consider how broad most of their actions are. And unless you think that the federal government should essentially not exist at all I don't think you can declare all this just "waste".
  - refurb 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - troupo 2y ago
      No. It's on DOGE (and you, since you also claim this) to show that what they cut was waste and abuse, and not the function of the agency they cut.
njharman 2y ago
[flagged]

akoboldfrying 2y ago

[flagged]

amarcheschi 2y ago
If you kill everyone on earth, you technically stopped humans dying from climate change events, but I doubt it's the right way
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  While obviously true, I don't see what that has to do with anything. The intent of my comment was not to claim that what Musk and co. are doing is good, or that it's bad. It was to point out precisely why the claims in the post I replied to will not convince anyone who is not already convinced. If the poster I replied to just wanted to vent, fine. But if they wanted to persuade someone on the fence, they have provided nothing towards that. Nothing, that is, besides the standard appeal to emotion that infests almost all such arguments (on both sides) and is effective on human brains for all the wrong reasons.

timeon 2y ago

They are they are shrinking the government to find ~4T$ for for corporate tax cuts. You can call it legitimate policy but calling it "efficiency" is bit misleading.

nxobject 2y ago
That's a good read on the budget proposals the House Republicans are bringing to the table – the aggravating part, though, is that the loss of $4.5T of revenue won't help with the deficit or debt, since the current target for cuts in annual spending are only $1.5T. (Give or take increased defense and national security spending over the next few years.) https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprint-trump-tax-cuts-ff2bddf31f4e7cb0928139072392a091 https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprin...
titzer 2y ago
> You can call it legitimate policy Nothing is legitimate about this. Literally everything they are doing is both illegal and completely unconstitutional. They have thrown out the entire rule of law and it is a pure flex of power, a shock-and-awe meltdown that they hope to execute faster than the normal processes can react. They absolutely intend to abolish resistance and they know they can suffer no consequences for it. Dark times ahead. We're aren't arguing government efficiency or saving money, they are smashing it all.

James_K 2y ago

Most people consider anything they don't like to be a waste of public funds. After all, they pay for the government through taxes, so it should serve only their needs. People in America do not view the government as a source for public good, but merely a piggy bank from which they should be able to extract funds. Just look at the student loan forgiveness crowd. I'm perfectly happy paying my dues, but a lot of people have decided that they want the government to give them a load of free money instead of using it for something productive.

soco 2y ago
Many countries don't have this boat anchor named "student loan" at all, so maybe the lesson here is that indenturing your people who actually want to study shouldn't be a must?
- steadfastbeef 2y ago
  It's not a must.
- oldandboring 2y ago
  Whether you're right or not is beside the argument he/she made, which I think is pretty strong: that many Americans think anything government does that doesn't directly benefit them is a waste. Personally I find this to be somewhat more true among folks who identify as conservatives but I also hear plenty of self-identified moderates and liberals complaining about the expenditure of tax dollars when it comes to the military and foreign influence or tax policy as it pertains to corporations and high earners.
- James_K 2y ago
  Why not? Student loans are a good protection against brain drain. If you offer free university, there's a likelihood that people will take you up on it then move out of the country, thus wasting the money invested in educating that person. A student loan guarantees a good return on investment for people you educate. Admittedly, America solves this problem by charging income tax for citizens living abroad, but a loan is better in my view since you can't rescind it like you could a citizenship. I actually think the concept of student loans should be extended down to primary education. I also think it would be good to institute a similar system for medical debt.

clumsysmurf 2y ago

From Reuters: "But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Republican director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), said the agencies Musk and Trump have targeted to date account for a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget ... They are not going to go into agencies that are doing things they like. They are going into agencies they disagree with," Holtz-Eakin, who has participated in past tax and spending negotiations in Congress, told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-based-more-political-ideology-than-real-cost-savings-so-far-2025-02-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-based-more-politi...

refurb 2y ago
[flagged]
- nxobject 2y ago
  They don't like the NIH, the CDC, or the Human Services part of HHS, that's for sure. Hell, they don't like the NIH so much that they're willing to overlook the fact that the basic biomedical research infrastructure in this country is essentially reliant on it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/upshot/nih-trump-funding-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/upshot/nih-tr...
- fabian2k 2y ago
  They're trying pretty hard to kill a large part of the scientific research happening in the US right now. They're messing with NIH and NSF grants, the cap on indirect costs is likely going to decimate research at universities. And even if some or most of these drastic changes are reversed, the enormous uncertainty they're introducing will likely reduce future investments in scientific fields.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > I’m pretty sure Musk and Trump like science and they reviewed HHS. Trump and Musk are poised to destroy science research in America. Actual scientists are all scrambling to save their jobs and research.
- 2y ago

helge9210 2y ago

[flagged]

paulryanrogers 2y ago
This assumes every government is as intransigent as the one you have experience with.

mnky9800n 2y ago

The great american problem is that American bureaucracy is broken. Whether it's lottery systems for hiking in national parks, fixing roads, healthcare, or hiring across federal employers, all of these require a functioning bureaucracy and there is not one. And so what do Americans do? The left complains the bureaucracy is broken and the right complains the bureaucracy exists. There is little room left for ever fixing the bureaucracy in this situation. It leaves lots of room for people to grab power and change things unilaterally to their own benefit.

beedeebeedee 2y ago
American bureaucracy is not broken (but is in the process of being destroyed). Claiming that it is broken is easy rhetoric for charlatans and backed up by a few cherry picked examples.
cowfriend 2y ago
yeah, the claim that the bureaucracy is the thing that is broken-- can we look at a few things? Every time the administration changes, the heads of all the departments change, and the incoming people are typically pretty ignorant of what the department does. How would a corporation work if every 4 years you rotated the C-suite and 2 levels down, with people from a completely different business sector? Meanwhile, funding is shifted even more often. Or is just outright cut once every few years. Meanwhile, every action they take is an official government action. Which means it is LEGALLY REQUIRED to happen in certain ways based on laws written by people who don't think about consequences or how they are enacted. And it is 2.2 Million people. There are economies of scale here. So I wonder how this compares to current Google, current Facebook. I've heard people here talking about how messed up those companies are, projects started/stopped at whim, massive investments that get abandoned 2 years later, etc. Or to banks. Banks don't modernize their software because they can't, not because they don't want to. No wonder the US government has similar issues.
- mnky9800n 2y ago
  This all sounds like examples of how the bureaucracy is broken. I suppose a better way to say it is the bureaucracy is unable to respond in any sort of effective way to the problems it is meant to solve because there are far too many people who have the option to change the rules whether it's the president, congressional committee, judges, etc.

safety1st 2y ago

[flagged]

fabian2k 2y ago
Cutting DEI is blatantly and explicitly political. They can do that, within the laws and regulation that apply (this part is arguably something they don't follow). But it's not fraud or abuse, this is just "stuff they don't like". They're cutting a lot more than that, this has been all over the media. One example would be biomedical research via NIH/NSF. This is not just DEI (in whatever overly broad and vague definition they use), but a lot more.
- safety1st 2y ago
  So maybe they're cutting a lot of other things and just highlighting the DEI stuff in order to draw attention away from the non-DEI stuff? I could believe that though I doubt anyone has done an analysis of the proportions yet. What about this argument people are making in this thread that they're not actually doing any real cutting because they're not Congress? That seems like a stretch.
thxhn 2y ago
[flagged]
- safety1st 2y ago
  No, if I was deaf my views on this would still be the same. I would still think that "DEI" as an idea is not something the federal government should spend money on. I would also still support the ADA and its enforcement. These two ideas are not in conflict. No one is trying to strip the legal rights of deaf people, nor will it happen. That is a straw man/hyperbole.
  - drewbug01 2y ago
    Well, about that: “ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.” So… not exactly a strawman. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...

Swoerd 2y ago

[flagged]

grafmax 2y ago
I’m no Trump supporter by any means but I think this kind of comment must alienate Trump supporters and contribute to polarization around the topic rather than reasoned exchange. If you really want to oppose Trump I think your purpose is better served with respectful speech. I realize the anger many people feel must make respectful speech a challenge. But I also think that the rise of polarization on social media is one of the reasons we have gotten to the place we are today.
- pupppet 2y ago
  Go watch five minutes of Fox News and then ask yourself if treating the other side civilly is going to help.
- andrewjf 2y ago
  Reasoned speech only works with people who are acting in good faith, and they aren’t.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    Hahaha. The right says the same thing about the left. Being obstinate just increases polarization. What you are seeing happen right now is precisely because of the position you are taking. People have been pleading for decades to cut government spending. Trying to do it "the right way" hasn't worked. So now we are to "fuck it" if they won't work with us just tear it down and ask for forgiveness later.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    This is not a reason to think that impassioned speech will have the impact you want. It may still be counter-productive. At any rate, those who are acting in good faith will recognize the well-reasoned arguments as such and perhaps start to wonder about the reasoning for their beliefs.

datavirtue 2y ago

Efficiency-wise it is impossible for DOGE to move the needle. That line of reasoning is a smokescreen for destroying government agencies. Maybe they need to be folded, so petition the people. They have the Congress and Senate.

johann8384 2y ago

Because the parts they don't like align with the parts DOGE doesn't like. They agree with dear leader and so all that woke BS is wasteful. This way they will pay lower taxes now because we got rid of all this "waste".

from-nibly 2y ago
Yeah that's not going to happen. Lower government spending wont lower taxes. That's not what taxes are for.

WickyNilliams 2y ago

I have seen some people who are undeniably very smart get drawn into this line of thinking. If saving money was the goal surely there's be discussion akin to "let's cut the military budget". That's how you'd know they're serious. But as it stands it is clearly just an ideological axe grinder. (I should note I'm not American, just watching bemused from the sidelines)

ModernMech 2y ago
The way we know they're not serious is they're already planning to cut taxes taxes on the rich and corporations. There's no savings to be had, they plan to spend everything they cut on themselves, and another $3T beyond that.
onetokeoverthe 2y ago
Or cutting the budget for cgi roadsters in orbit.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The current GOP plans for the budget and tax cut will increase the deficit by 4T. No one is serious about “saving money”. It’s just to justify the corporate tax cut.
- dashundchen 2y ago
  On top of the $8 trillion in debt needed for the last round of billionaire tax cuts and unaccountable PPP helicopter money Trump spent last time around.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ethbr1 2y ago

> whatever they're doing is not going to improve anything, it's only destruction This is why DOGE is staffed with young people. It's easy to convince inexperienced people there's a 2-step plan: Step 1. Destroy the old. Step 2. Build the new. Yet people with experience know that Step 2 requires orders of magnitude more effort and time than Step 1. So, you have ignorant people breaking things, congratulating themselves on how quickly they're making progress... and then hit Step 2. And realize it's hard. And get bored. And so just, not. Thus in the end, you're left with a broken pile of what came before, and nothing new to replace it.

ModernMech 2y ago
This is the classic 3 step plan. Step 1. Destroy the old Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit! "Build the new" doesn't even seem to be on the table at this point. There's no proposals to replace any of this. At least not public anyway, we know they are replacing all of this with for-profit scams.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Step 1. Destroy the government Step 2. See? The government doesn't work! Just like we said! Step 3. "Fix" the problems created from Step 1 Step 4. MAGA eventually realizes the swamp was enlarged and made worse, not drained
  - SpaceNoodled 2y ago
    What makes you think that step 4 will ever occur?
  - floren 2y ago
    Step 4. MAGA sees more government inefficiency and corruption than ever, but is reassured that it's just those terrible liberals sabotaging DOGE's good work and the NEXT round will really purge them
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
This meshes well with the established policies of the Republican party, which is to campaign on how badly the Government runs, promise to fix it, get into office, then break the Government more, then run back to your constituency and say "I can't believe how bad the Government is, get me back in there so I can keep working on it."

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Yeah even on HN where I would expect above average observational and critical thinking skills, there are plenty of people who don’t see or refuse to see what’s going on. Pretty shocking really.

xnx 2y ago

There's no reason to believe anything they say. Believe only what they do.