4 ms·

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows, and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows, and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration says the cut was due to wasteful spending and fraud, not DEI. How do the cuts in DEI initiatives compare to the massive cuts to indirect grant monies? If the Republicans believe spending should be more controlled by the states, they have a majority and can, you know, change the law. We have a representative democracy to help balance national interests, rather than the interests of a king. I don't think we can regard threats to annex Greenland, Canada, or the Panama Canal as part of an isolationist policy. Such threats are more closely aligned with expansionism. An isolationist government would not be involved in international negotiations involving Ukraine, or providing support to Israel, to start. FWIW, DEI is no more steeped in Marxist philosophy than the Freedman's Bureau, public libraries, or the FDIC. As far as I can tell, "Marxism" when used this way is a boogieman term used to scare off any critique of capitalism or its effects, little different than how Republicans sneered that Dukakis was an "L word", castigating the word "liberal." Both terms are used as rhetorical propaganda. Given the influence Marx had on studying "class relations, social conflict, and social transformation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), it's all too easy to say that any study of those topics must be Marxism, and therefore fomenting a communist revolution.

atonse 2y ago
Just to answer your question (not lend any legitimacy), https://doge.gov https://doge.gov has been publishing all the details. I've looked through it a few times to answer the same curiosity you have (I want more specifics, not just the stuff that fits in a tweet). But it still leaves me with questions because I don't know how much of these claims is actually accurate.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Yes, that's the bullshit I was talking about. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus... > The Department of Government Efficiency, the federal cost-cutting initiative championed by Elon Musk, published on Monday a list of government contracts it has canceled, together amounting to about $16 billion in savings itemized on a new “wall of receipts” on its website. > Almost half of those line-item savings could be attributed to a single $8 billion contract for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. But the DOGE list vastly overstated the actual value of that contract. A closer scrutiny of a federal database shows that a recent version of the contract was for $8 million, not $8 billion. A larger total savings number published on the site, $55 billion, lacked specific documentation. or from https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-saved-65b-federal-funds-impossible-verify/story?id=119174949 https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-saved-65b-federal-funds-i... > DOGE says it's now saved $65B in federal funds, but that's still impossible to verify > It only provides records for $9.6 billion in savings from contract terminations as well as: > The official also said they're using a conservative methodology of calculating savings because they're subtracting the contracts' obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. However, for many contracts the ceiling dollars are much higher than what is actually expected to be spent. You'll note that there's no information about how much was specifically DEI, while saying the total amount was due to a "combination of fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings."
  - Wololooo 2y ago
    The hard truth is that they have no clue about what they are cutting and they mainly do not care because the initiative is not to make things better it is to break a currently working system in favour of God knows what. Every step taken by the current administration has undermined the safety and current position of the US both domestically and on the international stage. The only people that I see profiting from the current situation are Russia and then China. Regardless of opinions on Diversity Equity and Inclusion, one has to look at the current situation with pragmatism: Firing all probatory employees is just insane. Firing the people responsible of your nuclear Arsenal is insane Firing competent workers because of their skin colour or they do not have the genitalia you prefer is insane. Sending an emai, on the weekend, requesting 5 accomplishment or risk getting fired is insane. Let's see it from a different perspective, let's say you have a large company operating on international scale with many stakeholders, you get a consultant tasked with streamlining and optimising operation. Within less than a month, they start arbitrarily firing people based on aggregated numbers from random collection of papers lying around in the office. Would you trust the fact that they would streamline and make things run better or would you assume they just started slashing left and right to justify "optimising". You can tell by my phrasing what my opinion is on the matter but there is no way that you can optimise, let alone understand, those agencies inner working and essential moving parts within less than a month... Now I will refrain from making any political/legality statements, but from a pure practical standpoint it is, to put it mildly, nuts.
afpx 2y ago
To be clear, I'm not a republican or a conservative. If it matters, I'm a modern liberal (i.e. what existed before progressivism but after classical liberalism). I'm just trying to distill what I believe the right says and what I observe. Also, this is my take on modern American conservatism, in general - individual cases vary. First, if you look up progressive academic theorists [1] you will see that they are largely inspired by Marxist philosophy either directly or indirectly. The right are diametrically opposed to Marxism because it relies on an assumption that Man can rise above his Animal instincts. But, man can't, even with best intentions (i.e. ethics professors do not behave more ethically than non-ethicists) [2][3]. There is a belief by the right that the great majority of people working in government and government related industries (e.g. NGOs) have come out of liberal arts programs that were inspired by the academics listed. They also believe that progressive ideology has steeped into the sciences. I believe the right's goal is total dismantling of the executive branch. The point is really to destroy any power that the executive has down to the bare minimum so that the risk of a king is eliminated. It's interesting that they put a group of potential tyrants in charge of all of this - it's almost as if they want to show everyone how bad of an idea it is for the president to have so much control. They generally believe that differing cultures are a good thing but because of Human nature integration cannot work. Therefore, in a state system, they believe one should be allowed to move to the state of their choice and enjoy whatever culture they want given the constraints of the constitution. Furthermore, they believe the constitution is the only way for lasting peace. It sets the bare minimum for a social contract that works across cultures and people. It gives a framework where people can be culturally different but equal. And, they hope to expand the US to other countries voluntarily (we hope) so that those countries may also share in its glory. [1] Achille Mbembe, Angela Davis, bell hooks, Cheryl Harris, Cornel West, David Graeber, Derrick Bell, Edward Said, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Gayatri Spivak, Gayle Rubin, Herbert Marcuse, Homi Bhabha, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Mariame Kaba, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Naomi Klein, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Patricia Hill Collins, Peggy McIntosh, Richard Delgado, Robin DiAngelo, Robin D.G. Kelley, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Simone de Beauvoir, Thomas Piketty, Frantz Fanon, Pierre Clastres, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Sherry Ortner, Ferdinand de Saussure, Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, David Harvey, Murray Bookchin, Cedric Robinson, C.L.R. James, Paulo Freire [2] Schwitzgebel & Rust (2014), etc. [3] This is also why many Christians align with conservative thinking because in Christianity Jesus is the only Good thing of this world, and every person is equally sinful.

atonse 2y ago

Just to answer your question (not lend any legitimacy), https://doge.gov https://doge.gov has been publishing all the details. I've looked through it a few times to answer the same curiosity you have (I want more specifics, not just the stuff that fits in a tweet). But it still leaves me with questions because I don't know how much of these claims is actually accurate.

eesmith 2y ago
Yes, that's the bullshit I was talking about. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus... > The Department of Government Efficiency, the federal cost-cutting initiative championed by Elon Musk, published on Monday a list of government contracts it has canceled, together amounting to about $16 billion in savings itemized on a new “wall of receipts” on its website. > Almost half of those line-item savings could be attributed to a single $8 billion contract for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. But the DOGE list vastly overstated the actual value of that contract. A closer scrutiny of a federal database shows that a recent version of the contract was for $8 million, not $8 billion. A larger total savings number published on the site, $55 billion, lacked specific documentation. or from https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-saved-65b-federal-funds-impossible-verify/story?id=119174949 https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-saved-65b-federal-funds-i... > DOGE says it's now saved $65B in federal funds, but that's still impossible to verify > It only provides records for $9.6 billion in savings from contract terminations as well as: > The official also said they're using a conservative methodology of calculating savings because they're subtracting the contracts' obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. However, for many contracts the ceiling dollars are much higher than what is actually expected to be spent. You'll note that there's no information about how much was specifically DEI, while saying the total amount was due to a "combination of fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings."
- Wololooo 2y ago
  The hard truth is that they have no clue about what they are cutting and they mainly do not care because the initiative is not to make things better it is to break a currently working system in favour of God knows what. Every step taken by the current administration has undermined the safety and current position of the US both domestically and on the international stage. The only people that I see profiting from the current situation are Russia and then China. Regardless of opinions on Diversity Equity and Inclusion, one has to look at the current situation with pragmatism: Firing all probatory employees is just insane. Firing the people responsible of your nuclear Arsenal is insane Firing competent workers because of their skin colour or they do not have the genitalia you prefer is insane. Sending an emai, on the weekend, requesting 5 accomplishment or risk getting fired is insane. Let's see it from a different perspective, let's say you have a large company operating on international scale with many stakeholders, you get a consultant tasked with streamlining and optimising operation. Within less than a month, they start arbitrarily firing people based on aggregated numbers from random collection of papers lying around in the office. Would you trust the fact that they would streamline and make things run better or would you assume they just started slashing left and right to justify "optimising". You can tell by my phrasing what my opinion is on the matter but there is no way that you can optimise, let alone understand, those agencies inner working and essential moving parts within less than a month... Now I will refrain from making any political/legality statements, but from a pure practical standpoint it is, to put it mildly, nuts.

afpx 2y ago

To be clear, I'm not a republican or a conservative. If it matters, I'm a modern liberal (i.e. what existed before progressivism but after classical liberalism). I'm just trying to distill what I believe the right says and what I observe. Also, this is my take on modern American conservatism, in general - individual cases vary. First, if you look up progressive academic theorists [1] you will see that they are largely inspired by Marxist philosophy either directly or indirectly. The right are diametrically opposed to Marxism because it relies on an assumption that Man can rise above his Animal instincts. But, man can't, even with best intentions (i.e. ethics professors do not behave more ethically than non-ethicists) [2][3]. There is a belief by the right that the great majority of people working in government and government related industries (e.g. NGOs) have come out of liberal arts programs that were inspired by the academics listed. They also believe that progressive ideology has steeped into the sciences. I believe the right's goal is total dismantling of the executive branch. The point is really to destroy any power that the executive has down to the bare minimum so that the risk of a king is eliminated. It's interesting that they put a group of potential tyrants in charge of all of this - it's almost as if they want to show everyone how bad of an idea it is for the president to have so much control. They generally believe that differing cultures are a good thing but because of Human nature integration cannot work. Therefore, in a state system, they believe one should be allowed to move to the state of their choice and enjoy whatever culture they want given the constraints of the constitution. Furthermore, they believe the constitution is the only way for lasting peace. It sets the bare minimum for a social contract that works across cultures and people. It gives a framework where people can be culturally different but equal. And, they hope to expand the US to other countries voluntarily (we hope) so that those countries may also share in its glory. [1] Achille Mbembe, Angela Davis, bell hooks, Cheryl Harris, Cornel West, David Graeber, Derrick Bell, Edward Said, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Gayatri Spivak, Gayle Rubin, Herbert Marcuse, Homi Bhabha, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Mariame Kaba, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Naomi Klein, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Patricia Hill Collins, Peggy McIntosh, Richard Delgado, Robin DiAngelo, Robin D.G. Kelley, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Simone de Beauvoir, Thomas Piketty, Frantz Fanon, Pierre Clastres, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Sherry Ortner, Ferdinand de Saussure, Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, David Harvey, Murray Bookchin, Cedric Robinson, C.L.R. James, Paulo Freire [2] Schwitzgebel & Rust (2014), etc. [3] This is also why many Christians align with conservative thinking because in Christianity Jesus is the only Good thing of this world, and every person is equally sinful.