5 ms·
Even if you’re 100% correct, these aren’t the right people and these aren’t the right methods. Completely the opposite actually.
by uses 2y ago
Even if you’re 100% correct, these aren’t the right people and these aren’t the right methods. Completely the opposite actually.
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- aSanchezStern 2y agoActually exit polls say that most people who voted for Trump did so because they thought he would lower grocery prices, not because they thought he would make the government more efficient. So far grocery prices have risen significantly under his administration. As far as I know there is no evidence that there was a program to destabilize bangladesh that doge cut, that appears to be another case of doge not really understanding what it was cutting. But if you have a credible reference on that which isn't just saying "Elon said so", I'd love to see it.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoI wouldn’t be surprised if Trump started mailing checks to people just before the midterms. I remember a documentary before election day where many gladly people remembered receiving stimulus checks just because Trump demanded they were sent in his name. They’ll forget about the wounds he’ll cause, as long as they receive a bandaid with his face on it.
- bamboozled 2y agoThey already have spoke about passing on the savings by sending out $5000 cheques. A small price to pay for gutting your healthcare benefits and social security :)
- actionfromafar 2y agoLike bribing children with candy. Well, a quarter of the population can barely read, so makes sense. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States )
- rayiner 2y agoCoalitions are built by uniting various factions and their interests. Cutting the administrative state is #9 on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. Just because it wasn’t the top reason doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the platform that people voted for. For example, I don’t personally care for RFK. I’m the opposite of an anti-vaxxer, I think the government should vaccinate you in your sleep. But he was part of the pitch and MAHA was part of the coalition and I voted for the platform and was happy to see him confirmed. That’s how political coalitions work.
- pcwalton 2y agoSo wait, I'm supposed to wish success for everything, say, Gavin Newsom does because I voted for him? Is that how it works?
- rayiner 2y agoIf Newsom explicitly runs on X, Y, and Z, and you vote for him for X and Y, I think it’s fair to say that you’re at least acquiescing to Z in return for forming a majority coalition.
- littlestymaar 2y agoWhy? That's a very weird line of reasoning! Then who are you supposed to vote for if you want X and Y but are against Z (but think X or Y is more important than Z)?
- spiderfarmer 2y agoIt would of course be better if you stuck to known facts instead of rumors from anonymous people on X. But even if misuse of USAID money comes to light, which I’m sure there is, wouldn’t it be better to understand al the facts, and change course if need be? The tactic right now seems to be to cause as much chaos as possible, to find and point to one silver lining and then to move on as quickly as possible. Ignoring all the irreparable harm caused along the way.
- rayiner 2y agoThere will never be another opportunity to fix this stuff in my lifetime. It’s the sort of thing we read about in history books in the 1990s about what the CIA/State Department did decades before, and we assumed they weren’t still doing the same things. The Bangladesh thing happens to be what irks me for obvious reasons. But the civil service is full of ideologues who push various unpopular policies (e.g. racial preferences, foreign intervention, increased immigration) regardless of who wins the election. It was a miracle that Musk got into the position he’s in now and he needs to gut these agencies now because they’re won’t be another chance. Social security and Medicare payments will continue to be made. That’s the essential stuff. Everything else can tolerate some disruption.
- jajko 2y agoMaybe they will fix some of the stuff. Hard disagree here, chaos doesn't mean change for the better but there is at least some chance. Did you ever consider what you and everybody else will lose by allowing all this to happen in such ways? One random example from the sea of examples - US within a month lost all the international respect it ever built after WWI lets say. I mean all of it, and its not coming back anytime soon. Now its a fat bully who kicks kids randomly including former friends, chokes them from all lunch money and some more. Literally China looks like our new best buddy from European perspective. Once we move to their ways of working and their financial flows, petrodollar will never ever be the same power projection it once was. And you know what China has to do to achieve all this soft power win? Absolutely nothing, just sit back and enjoy the view of an orange man have his mental fits and petty vengeful fights on all sides (apart from russia obviously, they were always great friends to US and its democracy).
- archagon 2y agoHere's what the "adults" in Congress are doing now: "The newly released House GOP resolution proposes a $4 trillion debt ceiling increase while allocating $4.5 trillion in new deficits for the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee." Even if DOGE finds $29 billion in waste, it would essentially be a rounding error compared to those numbers.
- rayiner 2y agoI’d rather have the money going back to taxpayers than being used to fund these programs.
- archagon 2y agoBy what calculus is that money "going back" to taxpayers? It looks like we're going even further into debt to issue massive tax cuts to corporations along with some scraps to throw at the base. Most of those millions will be skimmed by the elites while we the people get a far less functional federal government in exchange.
- rayiner 2y agoGetting this stuff out of government will make it more functional.
- Hikikomori 2y agoYes, let the old people die in the streets.
- rayiner 2y agoGood thing Musk is going after DEI and foreign election interference funds and not Social Security.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
- vharuck 2y ago>Who are the “right people” who would’ve flagged and stopped $29 million in usaid funds going to destabilized the government in Bangladesh, or DEI projects in Serbia? Congressional representatives. You can share what you know with your representative and ask they investigate. Congress regularly calls in bureaucrats to talk about budgets. If your case bears out, ask your members of Congress to propose amendments to the next budget cutting or fixing bad programs. And representatives very often add amendments targeting specific programs, or even sponsor such bills. We don't often hear about them because they're not sexy enough for news. The goals toward which we spend tax dollars must be debated by representatives of the people. The executive branch will then be told the goals, the structure, the controls, and the budget. If the executive agrees, they sign the bill. Afterwards, the executive's power is in deciding who will carry out the goals and how to adapt to the situation on the ground while staying within the boundaries of the law. If the law is too restrictive, the executive can talk to Congress. What must not happen is an executive deciding to ignore a law voted on by the majority of Congress and signed by a president. That's not an executive power, that's just an unconstitutional power grab. If we allow that, there's basically no point to Congress.
- rayiner 2y agoBut Congress never voted on funding dissidents in Bangladesh or DEI in Serbia. The process you’re describing isn’t how these grants were made in the first pace. Congress passed broad appropriations bills, such as allocating $3 billion for implementing the foreign assistance act of 1961. Additionally, USAID got $5.7 billion in “untied” money last year: https://www.devex.com/news/money-matters-how-usaid-got-billions-from-congress-and-what-happens-next-107402 https://www.devex.com/news/money-matters-how-usaid-got-billi... The specific grants Trump is freezing were determined by the executive itself. They can be cancelled by the executive too. At some point, of course, Trump will need to seek recession under the impoundment act if USAID isn’t going to use its full appropriation. But in the meantime it’s totally within his authority to cancel specific grants that were decided by the executive in the first place. Like, here's an example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617... (search USAID) > UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT > Funds Appropriated to the President > operating expenses > For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,743,350,000
- elliotto 2y agohttps://youtu.be/O4xHdUOI7ag?si=RPBNdpAiYHuYe7rf https://youtu.be/O4xHdUOI7ag?si=RPBNdpAiYHuYe7rf I would strongly recommend listening to Rory Stewart's commentary in the first half of this podcast about the function and role of USAID as an expression of soft power.
- rayiner 2y agoI have never heard of Rory Stewart. My family came to this country because of USAID and my dad worked for USAID contractors his whole career. Probably 2/3 of the people at my family's Thanksgivings work for USAID and/or World Bank. Whatever "soft power" is projected by USAID is because of stuff like PEPFAR. But Samantha Powers--who my dad hates--shredded that good will by getting USAID involved in "democracy." Why would countries like India and Bangladesh ever trust USAID again after finding out USAID was funding political movements in their countries? It confirms what half the world already thinks about America: busybodies that meddle in other countries' internal affairs.
- elliotto 2y agoI'm from Australia lol the US constantly interferes in our country directly and indirectly. 'Busybody that meddles' is a pretty soft term for it, I would call it aggressively destablises its allies. If you take away the premise that the US is doing something good, like for PEPFAR, then what is left? A gun wielding maniacal imperial power that you have no reason to deal or treat with. This is bad for the US and bad for the world
- spiderfarmer 2y agoExactly. They exploit people like the one you’re responding to as mouthpieces for their broader campaign against the institutions that regulate their businesses. As long as they can claim they’ve stopped some money from being “wasted,” these people will look the other way and let them operate unchecked. Trump and Musk are both petty, vindictive, greedy, and narcissistic billionaires, known for grifting, deception, abuse, and ruthless behavior. How can anyone trust them?
- cuuupid 2y agoNone of the existing cuts target deregulating SpaceX/Tesla, and the proposed regulatory cuts affect everything across the board and not just Musk's companies. When it comes to deregulation, we can pretend like this is new, or we can have an honest discussion and acknowledge deregulation in various forms has been a key component of the Conservative, Libertarian, and Liberal platforms for decades. Recently even the Socialist platform has adopted deregulation for key industries like housing and infrastructure. You can both hate Musk and Trump (as both are demonstrably all of the things you said above) and acknowledge that ultimately what they are doing is the best progress we have had on this front in 20+ years. Regardless of how many bureaucrats parade on media claiming otherwise, we must not forget that the government is and has historically been incredibly inefficient, reckless with spending, and filled with endless waste. This was a universal and bipartisan opinion up until 3 months ago! We have a chance for the first time in decades to actually reform our bureaucracy; instead of passing on it because of character flaws, we should seize and celebrate this as _progress_. It is not perfect, nor is it optimal, but it is far better than the last 5 attempts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- spiderfarmer 2y agoThe only thing that seems to bind you and Musk is your disgust for bureaucracy. How you can conclude the many conflicts of interests Musk has will not benefit him or his companies is beyond me. He did nothing to gain our trust. Most people wouldn’t even let him watch their kids, and you trust him with your whole country.
- leandrod 2y agoSo who and which would be? Given SpaceX, Trump could have chosen worse.
- hnthrow90348765 2y agoAlmost all of it would be related to military contracts and spending As large as social security is, I'm sure there's some efficiencies to be gained too, but the military industrial complex is THE defacto leader in greed and wastefulness But these idiots tried to fire people related to the nuclear arsenal and had to go rehire them. You can't tell me they're competent after that big of a screw up.
- cuuupid 2y agoIf you look seriously you will find military contracts and spending usually achieves something and is in many cases very difficult to decrease. It has become somewhat of a pattern for politicians to yell about defense spending, get elected, look under the covers and do an immediate 180 in favor of defense spending. On the other hand you can cut around 70% of the civil government immediately with no impact on our country. Social Security would not be my first choice though! > But these idiots tried to fire people related to the nuclear arsenal and had to go rehire them They did not -- this is simple malicious compliance. This is a really well documented phenomenon and I am hoping this situation draws more public attention to it! Whenever faced with cuts, our govt bureaucracy reacts by cutting something visible to create a PR disaster and force back cuts -- the common saying is "firemen and teachers first" and this is often referred to as "Washington Monument Syndrome." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome
- rl3 2y agoBlame the victims much? Except in this case the victims happened to be essential to maintaining the security of the United States' nuclear weapons stockpile. Surely their evil, bureaucratic bosses just did it for show to score political points though, right? >Whenever faced with cuts, our govt bureaucracy reacts by cutting something visible to create a PR disaster and force back cuts Cite one credible source saying this is in fact what happened recently with NNSA and I might believe you. The preponderance of evidence recently does not support this, what with it being widely reported that ill-suited unqualified personnel have been presiding over these cuts across all agencies, at a scale and speed which is unprecedented.
- cuuupid 2y agoThere are 5 different existing agencies within the government that all exist for essentially the same purpose -- to track and audit government spending. None of them have been successful in any capacity over the last 20 years. It's easy to just go online and say "this is wrong these people are idiots" but what is your alternative solution? We have exhausted pretty much every other method at this point, all the big consulting firms have also come in and tried to assist, and the last person to make headway here was Bill Clinton -- who proposed an even more callous approach to cuts.
- brightball 2y agoDidn’t he fire something like 200,000 people?
- cuuupid 2y agoYes, DOGE is being raked over the coals but only 77k federal employees have taken their severance package. Clinton also famously proposed majority cuts to the federal workforce.
- acdha 2y agoTrump is getting flack for breaking the law. Clinton’s layoffs were done with Congress which avoided all of the concerns about impoundment or other unapproved changes to their directed spending, they spent months planning first to avoid doing the cycle we’re seeing now where they ask people to come back after telling them they were fired, and they worked with the unions. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/06/yes-bill-clinton-offered-mass-federal-employee-buy/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/06/yes-bill-clin...
- insane_dreamer 2y agoYes, however: - they weren't fired overnight and in the highly immature manner DOGE is doing - it was a measured, thought-out process, not randomly firing all employees on probationary status, or gutting programs that are actually useful to Americans like the CFPB, reducing NIH research, etc. - most importantly, 3/4 of those were from the Defense Dept, and the whole point was to reduce the defense budget overall, which had become unnecessarily large especially since the Cold War had by then ended. - he used the savings to balance the budget rather than give a tax cut to the rich - lastly, there were no conflicts of interests where Clinton was gutting agencies which oversee private companies which he owned So basically night and day compared to what is happening now.