7 ms·

> recent (regrettable) turn It's only regrettable through the lens of partisan politics. DOGE is undeniably a good concept. You will notice governments around

> recent (regrettable) turn It's only regrettable through the lens of partisan politics. DOGE is undeniably a good concept. You will notice governments around the world copying the method. That is, launching initiatives to audit everything, cut wasteful spending, expose corrupt spending, and trim bureaucratic inefficiency via external oversight. It would be regrettable not to undertake the task.

yibg 2y ago
Audit -> glance at program names to decide if they are worthy or not? Cut wasteful spending -> things Musk doesn’t like? Or people responsible for safely handling nuclear waste? Expose corrupt spending -> would be nice to get a report of this Trim bureaucratic inefficiency -> like firing people and then having to hire them back? I can get behind the concept of DOGE. But that’s not what DOGE is actually doing.
chris_va 2y ago
Maybe Audit committees have been around forever, because people think they are a good concept. A large fraction of the (time) cost in government (or dealing with the government) is dealing with initiatives to audit everything, and cut wasteful spending. Not to say that eliminating waste isn't a good concept, but do not conflate the _idea_ of eliminating waste with any one particular implementation.
gwill 2y ago
There are no audits, there are no reports, there is little to no transparency with DOGE. They're gutting first, thinking later and it's costing us a ton. How can you trust an administration to expose corrupt spending when they freeze the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
tverbeure 2y ago
Adding “undeniably” to a sentence doesn’t magically make it so.
imglorp 2y ago
DOGE saving effectiveness has been questioned. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates-savings-federal-contracts https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates... Of the $6.8T budget, $55B (or whatever is the truth) would amount to less than 0.9% of spending. https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everything-you-want-to-know-about-government-spending https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everythin... Anyway, we have a Government Accounting Office already which is highly critical of waste. If anyone was earnest, they'd send them more resources. On the other hand, if someone wanted to cripple every infrastructure, institution, and agency across the board in order to cause chaos, without transparency, accountability, and compliance, then DOGE is super effective!
- TimTheTinker 2y ago
  The types of waste, fraud, and abuse matter as much as the scale. Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. As it is, that "small" corruption is funding an extensive network of NGOs, nonprofits run by the families of people in government, media, etc. -- all to (a) keep a ton of money flowing to people in Washington DC and (b) protect that status quo. Politics aside, widespread corruption in the US capitol should be taken very seriously. Presidential administrations have been repeatedly trying to deal with the sheer behemoth bureaucracy, the growing power of unelected officials, and all the associated corruption since the early 1960s and so far have been defeated every time (see JFK's comments on the CIA for one example; there are also videos of Obama and Biden trying to address it during Obama's presidency). Each time it wins again, it grows stronger and more entrenched. Our partisan attitude is understandable: our tribal wiring seems to make us gravitate towards "us/them" thinking and to cheer when "their" side loses. But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    > Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. Timeless: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... How about let's solve problems practically instead of having trillion dollar decisions made in the name of virtue signaling about "moral purity." > But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy? Uh, no. USAID etc. have money because our elected representatives gave it money, as prescribed by the Constitution which governs our country.
slater 2y ago
> DOGE is undeniably a good concept. On paper.
- caycep 2y ago
  it's barely on paper and likely unconstitutional
  - slater 2y ago
    no disagreement from me!
MattGrommes 2y ago
Yes, of course it's a good concept. The problem is then giving the execution of the concept to arrogant people who are completely ignorant of what they're cutting. Then when they ignore the law, to double-down and keep pushing. The partisan politics come in when people cheer for wanton destruction because it's their side doing it.
- caycep 2y ago
  it's as good of a concept as giving your checkbook to the Nigerian prince to be balanced, instead of to your local accredited accountant.
swsieber 2y ago
It's a wonderful concept, but the implementation plan, the execution and the results are all terrible. I'm all for audits, reducing waste, transparency, etc., not wanton firing and publicity stunts.
jcranmer 2y ago
If your goal is cutting waste in the government, DOGE is absolutely the worst possible way to do it. The idea of bringing in a bunch of "whiz kids" who know absolutely nothing about the departments they're auditing [1], axing people arbitrarily (i.e., firing seemingly everybody who is "probationary"), and cutting programs seemingly purely by Ctrl-F'ing for keywords without even bothering to figure out if the keyword even means what you're looking for in context is absolute clown shoes for good governance. The fact that they're breaking all sorts of laws in the process makes it even worse; and to top it off, they can't even bring themselves to be honest to the courts about who is responsible for their actions. No, DOGE is undeniably a rotten concept from inception to practice. [1] Seemingly flummoxed by the existence of things like sentinel values in databases for "we don't know," based on some of the "fraud" they've very loudly proclaimed.
- dionian 2y ago
  Congress doesnt seem to be exposing the waste that DOGE is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet
  - majormajor 2y ago
    > Congress doesnt seem to be exposing the waste that DOGE is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet So you aren't actually opposed to waste or corruption? Since corruption in the purpose of getting rid of things you personally find wasteful is fine with you? You just want the big bad scary government to employ less people? But the ones the executive does employ should be able to do whatever they want, laws be damned? Where do you REALLY think that ends?
tzs 2y ago
> You will notice governments around the world copying the method. That is, launching initiatives to audit everything, Which is it? Are they copying DOGE or are they auditing things, because what DOGE is doing is not auditing. Auditing involves bringing in people who understand what they are looking at.
indoordin0saur 2y ago
> It's only regrettable through the lens of partisan politics. DOGE is undeniably a good concept. I'm actually a fan of that too. His issue is that he causes controversy where none is needed.

yibg 2y ago

Audit -> glance at program names to decide if they are worthy or not? Cut wasteful spending -> things Musk doesn’t like? Or people responsible for safely handling nuclear waste? Expose corrupt spending -> would be nice to get a report of this Trim bureaucratic inefficiency -> like firing people and then having to hire them back? I can get behind the concept of DOGE. But that’s not what DOGE is actually doing.

chris_va 2y ago

Maybe Audit committees have been around forever, because people think they are a good concept. A large fraction of the (time) cost in government (or dealing with the government) is dealing with initiatives to audit everything, and cut wasteful spending. Not to say that eliminating waste isn't a good concept, but do not conflate the _idea_ of eliminating waste with any one particular implementation.

gwill 2y ago

There are no audits, there are no reports, there is little to no transparency with DOGE. They're gutting first, thinking later and it's costing us a ton. How can you trust an administration to expose corrupt spending when they freeze the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

tverbeure 2y ago

Adding “undeniably” to a sentence doesn’t magically make it so.

imglorp 2y ago

DOGE saving effectiveness has been questioned. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates-savings-federal-contracts https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates... Of the $6.8T budget, $55B (or whatever is the truth) would amount to less than 0.9% of spending. https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everything-you-want-to-know-about-government-spending https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everythin... Anyway, we have a Government Accounting Office already which is highly critical of waste. If anyone was earnest, they'd send them more resources. On the other hand, if someone wanted to cripple every infrastructure, institution, and agency across the board in order to cause chaos, without transparency, accountability, and compliance, then DOGE is super effective!

TimTheTinker 2y ago
The types of waste, fraud, and abuse matter as much as the scale. Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. As it is, that "small" corruption is funding an extensive network of NGOs, nonprofits run by the families of people in government, media, etc. -- all to (a) keep a ton of money flowing to people in Washington DC and (b) protect that status quo. Politics aside, widespread corruption in the US capitol should be taken very seriously. Presidential administrations have been repeatedly trying to deal with the sheer behemoth bureaucracy, the growing power of unelected officials, and all the associated corruption since the early 1960s and so far have been defeated every time (see JFK's comments on the CIA for one example; there are also videos of Obama and Biden trying to address it during Obama's presidency). Each time it wins again, it grows stronger and more entrenched. Our partisan attitude is understandable: our tribal wiring seems to make us gravitate towards "us/them" thinking and to cheer when "their" side loses. But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. Timeless: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... How about let's solve problems practically instead of having trillion dollar decisions made in the name of virtue signaling about "moral purity." > But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy? Uh, no. USAID etc. have money because our elected representatives gave it money, as prescribed by the Constitution which governs our country.

slater 2y ago

> DOGE is undeniably a good concept. On paper.

caycep 2y ago
it's barely on paper and likely unconstitutional
- slater 2y ago
  no disagreement from me!

MattGrommes 2y ago

Yes, of course it's a good concept. The problem is then giving the execution of the concept to arrogant people who are completely ignorant of what they're cutting. Then when they ignore the law, to double-down and keep pushing. The partisan politics come in when people cheer for wanton destruction because it's their side doing it.

caycep 2y ago
it's as good of a concept as giving your checkbook to the Nigerian prince to be balanced, instead of to your local accredited accountant.

swsieber 2y ago

It's a wonderful concept, but the implementation plan, the execution and the results are all terrible. I'm all for audits, reducing waste, transparency, etc., not wanton firing and publicity stunts.

jcranmer 2y ago

If your goal is cutting waste in the government, DOGE is absolutely the worst possible way to do it. The idea of bringing in a bunch of "whiz kids" who know absolutely nothing about the departments they're auditing [1], axing people arbitrarily (i.e., firing seemingly everybody who is "probationary"), and cutting programs seemingly purely by Ctrl-F'ing for keywords without even bothering to figure out if the keyword even means what you're looking for in context is absolute clown shoes for good governance. The fact that they're breaking all sorts of laws in the process makes it even worse; and to top it off, they can't even bring themselves to be honest to the courts about who is responsible for their actions. No, DOGE is undeniably a rotten concept from inception to practice. [1] Seemingly flummoxed by the existence of things like sentinel values in databases for "we don't know," based on some of the "fraud" they've very loudly proclaimed.

dionian 2y ago
Congress doesnt seem to be exposing the waste that DOGE is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet
- majormajor 2y ago
  > Congress doesnt seem to be exposing the waste that DOGE is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet So you aren't actually opposed to waste or corruption? Since corruption in the purpose of getting rid of things you personally find wasteful is fine with you? You just want the big bad scary government to employ less people? But the ones the executive does employ should be able to do whatever they want, laws be damned? Where do you REALLY think that ends?

tzs 2y ago

> You will notice governments around the world copying the method. That is, launching initiatives to audit everything, Which is it? Are they copying DOGE or are they auditing things, because what DOGE is doing is not auditing. Auditing involves bringing in people who understand what they are looking at.

indoordin0saur 2y ago

> It's only regrettable through the lens of partisan politics. DOGE is undeniably a good concept. I'm actually a fan of that too. His issue is that he causes controversy where none is needed.