3 ms·

I am deep blue, but if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government

I am deep blue, but if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. Firing the policemen so you can commit crime is what's happening, but your argument isn't a convincing one, neither is the age one. We can do better than that, and by focusing on those as the problem, we disempower ourselves and our message. "There will be a revolution, and it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." We are going through a revolution. DOGE is the revolutionary force purging the old government, just like every other revolution. Just like Stalin, just like the bolsheviks, just like Mao. The only reason it's not violent like those yet is because power was peacefully transferred to them, and FBI agents, generals, US marshals, and other agents of enforcing the law aren't completely replaced with loyalists yet. There's a reason historians are freaking out.

watwut 2y ago
> if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. No it does not stand to a reason. Inspector general is not even supposed to deal with efficiency, he is supposed to deal with fraud. Those are two different things. Second, no, there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops. Or cops boss. There would never be any stable enforcement body if you applied that standard. Third, random decision making creates inefficiency.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  > Those are two different things. They are not orthogonal. Even if they were, you are wrong. Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a generic term for the oversight division of a federal or state agency aimed at preventing inefficient or unlawful operations within their parent agency. > there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops I think you misunderstood. DOGE is a purge of all the "cops" in the government (such as inspector generals) so that crimes can be more easily committed. I was stating that it's rational for someone who is in favor of DOGE to want inspector generals fired which makes the argument that was being made a very weak argument.
  - watwut 2y ago
    > . I was stating that it's rational for someone who is in favor of DOGE to want inspector generals fired which makes the argument that was being made a very weak argument. Not really. People who are in favor of DOGE seek destruction of goverment and democracy. People who care about efficiency or fraud are not in favor of doge, because doge itself is braking laws and something designed to make the government less efficient.
ModernMech 2y ago
> government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. That doesn't follow. First, the existence of inefficiency doesn't mean the IGs are doing a poor job. It's rational to expect the optimal amount of inefficiency and fraud to be nonzero, so it could be the case they are performing as good as they possibly can be expected. Second, government agencies do routinely pass audits. You highlighted the one that doesn't routinely pass audits, but that doesn't mean others don't. Incidentally DoD is the one with the most bloat, and the one DOGE isn't really going after. In fact, they went after USAID first, which just passed an audit.

watwut 2y ago

> if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. No it does not stand to a reason. Inspector general is not even supposed to deal with efficiency, he is supposed to deal with fraud. Those are two different things. Second, no, there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops. Or cops boss. There would never be any stable enforcement body if you applied that standard. Third, random decision making creates inefficiency.

hayst4ck 2y ago
> Those are two different things. They are not orthogonal. Even if they were, you are wrong. Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a generic term for the oversight division of a federal or state agency aimed at preventing inefficient or unlawful operations within their parent agency. > there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops I think you misunderstood. DOGE is a purge of all the "cops" in the government (such as inspector generals) so that crimes can be more easily committed. I was stating that it's rational for someone who is in favor of DOGE to want inspector generals fired which makes the argument that was being made a very weak argument.
- watwut 2y ago
  > . I was stating that it's rational for someone who is in favor of DOGE to want inspector generals fired which makes the argument that was being made a very weak argument. Not really. People who are in favor of DOGE seek destruction of goverment and democracy. People who care about efficiency or fraud are not in favor of doge, because doge itself is braking laws and something designed to make the government less efficient.

ModernMech 2y ago

> government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. That doesn't follow. First, the existence of inefficiency doesn't mean the IGs are doing a poor job. It's rational to expect the optimal amount of inefficiency and fraud to be nonzero, so it could be the case they are performing as good as they possibly can be expected. Second, government agencies do routinely pass audits. You highlighted the one that doesn't routinely pass audits, but that doesn't mean others don't. Incidentally DoD is the one with the most bloat, and the one DOGE isn't really going after. In fact, they went after USAID first, which just passed an audit.