5 ms·

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/ https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-adm... Though

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/ https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-adm... Though I'm counting that as future potential costs and deaths. Ignoring the obvious opinion of the author, anybody who has ever worked on any sort of medium to large scale migration, refactoring or rewriting of a computer system knows that's a comically ridiculous timescale and when it inevitably fails there will be consequences, counted in both money and lives. But that's a (very near) future fuck-up that he will almost certainly spin or move the goalposts for. That you can draw a direct line to right now, not much other than all the cuts to critical infrastructure. To be clear, I'm not arguing against cuts and efficiency initiatives, i'm saying he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, so his implementation will be shoddy and dangerous. See: The Cybertruck, The Boring Company, The Decline of X. As you are implying though, nothing major so far, aside from USAID i suppose (or the VA), does removing systems actively (and provably) preventing deaths count? These are systematic problems that will take a while to shake out into their inevitable consequences. He'll probably still fail upwards though, unless he gets luigi'd or just drops dead of a ket induced heart attack or something.

anonym29 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mexicocitinluez 2y ago
  > was taken from others without their consent Wait, what? Since when our tax dollars taken from us without consent? What are you talking about?
  - bakugo 2y ago
    > Since when our tax dollars taken from us without consent? Since forever? You can't just opt out of paying taxes.
    - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
      Wait, is the government forcing you to work? Did I miss that somewhere? Is there a provision in the constitution that forces an American citizen to get a job and pay taxes? That's not even pointing out that you 100% have control of who makes tax policy through this little tiny mechanism called voting.
      - bakugo 2y ago
        > Wait, is the government forcing you to work? No, my own body forces me to work, because fulfilling the basic needs required for my survival costs money.
      - anonym29 2y ago
        I'd like to address two points here: the first being the idea that taxes are voluntary, and the second being implicit claims about the nature of the democratic process itself. I will raise some labelled and ordered questions if you care to respond, I understand that this is a subject that can lend easily to hostility, but I want to remind everyone that I am not necessarily refuting what you are saying here, I am just asking follow-up questions to achieve a better understanding of your point of view. I hope we can continue this dialogue respectfully, and if at any point any points I am raising strike you as disrespectful or unkind, please let me know. First: If paying taxes hypothetically became completely optional, and there were no legal penalties for not paying them (coercion, threat of force, state-sanctioned violence), 1a. Do you think tax revenues would stay almost the same, or be dramatically reduced by this change? 1b. Do you suppose most people would still voluntarily choose to pay taxes of their own free will if there were no individual consequences for not paying them? 1c. If answering in the negative to 1b, how do you characterize taxes being any more "voluntary" than the act of handing my wallet to an armed robber can be considered "voluntary"? i.e. if the motivating force that compels me to pay is a threat of force (either implicitly and roundaboutly, through the legal system, which eventually ends with one staring down the barrel of a gun, or explicitly and expediently, just skipping the other steps and going straight to staring down the barrel of a gun), isn't that ultimately the same act of extortion being justified with / "backed up by" the same threat of force from the same mechanism (firearm) regardless of whether it is by one man calling himself a robber or a million men calling themselves a government? Second: As individuals, we do not exercise "control" through the democratic process, we express preferences. 2a. From my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), the DNC has made it clear in both 2016 and in 2024, that the voters do not get to pick the nominee, the DNC's superdelegates do, and they retain the right to nominate candidates that do not have the majority or plurality of popular support even from within their own party, right? 2b. Expanding out to a broader level, does your comment intend to suggest or imply that all results of democratic processes are inherently and automatically voluntarily consented to by the populace on the basis that we were all allowed to vote on it? 2c. If the proposition made in 2b were true, wouldn't that necessarily imply that we both voluntarily consented to the election of Donald Trump, or the invasion of Iraq in search of WMD's that didn't exist? I can't speak for you, but I certainly did not consent to either of those. 2d. If, on the other hand, the proposition made in 2b were false, why is it we can choose not to consent some democratic process outcomes, like a president that we disapprove of, but not others, like the specific details of tax policy?
  - kreetx 2y ago
    It's how they are used, not the taken part - they are taken according to law, thus consent. Though, money printing (i.e, inflation or borrowing money from the FED) basically seems to happen without consent.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > It's how they are used, not the taken part - they are taken according to law, thus consent They're also used according to law. That's why there's sometimes talk of a "government shutdown" in the US: it happens when Congress is close to their deadline to write/pass the budget law.
- NilMostChill 2y ago
  So given you didn't address any other part of the reply am i to assume you agree ? Future consequences and poor outcomes based on current day incompetence and mismanagement ? To address your reply: If you don't know the phrase "there is no ethical consumption" then looking it up might be interesting reading for you, it's a large part of the plot from the last half of "the good place", if that helps at all. Anyway ,it's the same idea but taken to it's logical conclusion, everything everyone does is causing harm in some way somewhere down the chain and therefore it's impossible to do anything without some harm being caused. If that's your point then i agree, but specifically here i was pointing out the direct point to point link between removing monetary aid and the deaths of people relying upon that aid. You asked for costs on money and lives, and while i think billions and millions were hyperbole there are still directly attributable deaths, even now. The key part here is the "directly" The difference between "physically taking away someones food until they starve to death" vs "participating in a societal structure that routinely lets people starve to death" one is direct taking an action to achieve an outcome, the other is not. I think those numbers will grow significantly larger in relatively short order, i think it's naive to think DOGE is running on any platform of competence but it's entirely possible i'm wrong. However, there's not a lot of evidence i am wrong,
  - anonym29 2y ago
    There are two points I'd like to address here. >So given you didn't address any other part of the reply am i to assume you agree ? Future consequences and poor outcomes based on current day incompetence and mismanagement ? With your post I was replying to? I do agree with large parts of it. I think Elon Musk brought a "move fast and break things" approach to the Federal government, which has traditionally not been a place where that approach is welcome, and the "break things" part certainly carries a different level of impact when the thing being broken is the single income source of many people who either neglected to adequately financially prepare themselves for retirement, were unable to avoid unexpected financial difficulties in life, or otherwise wound up in a situation where they were left otherwise destitute in old age (e.g. romance scammers stole their entire private retirement balance). That said, to answer the core question being asked: "does removing systems actively (and provably) preventing deaths count [as killing people]?", I don't necessary think so as a rule of thumb. I see a fundamental difference between initiating an act of violence designed to deprive someone else of their life or safety, and overly hasty bureaucratic maneuvering to attempt to streamline efficiency, however reckless the latter may be carried out. This doesn't necessarily mean I condone the approach DOGE is taking, either. >To address your reply: You asked for costs on money and lives, and while i think billions and millions were hyperbole there are still directly attributable deaths, even now. I am sorry if I phrased my question poorly, I was not attempting to ask whether this could or would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and/or millions of lives, but rather whether it has cost billions of dollars and/or millions of lives, as the original post made by ZeroGravitas seemed to imply, from the way I read it.

anonym29 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mexicocitinluez 2y ago
> was taken from others without their consent Wait, what? Since when our tax dollars taken from us without consent? What are you talking about?
- bakugo 2y ago
  > Since when our tax dollars taken from us without consent? Since forever? You can't just opt out of paying taxes.
  - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
    Wait, is the government forcing you to work? Did I miss that somewhere? Is there a provision in the constitution that forces an American citizen to get a job and pay taxes? That's not even pointing out that you 100% have control of who makes tax policy through this little tiny mechanism called voting.
    - bakugo 2y ago
      > Wait, is the government forcing you to work? No, my own body forces me to work, because fulfilling the basic needs required for my survival costs money.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      I'd like to address two points here: the first being the idea that taxes are voluntary, and the second being implicit claims about the nature of the democratic process itself. I will raise some labelled and ordered questions if you care to respond, I understand that this is a subject that can lend easily to hostility, but I want to remind everyone that I am not necessarily refuting what you are saying here, I am just asking follow-up questions to achieve a better understanding of your point of view. I hope we can continue this dialogue respectfully, and if at any point any points I am raising strike you as disrespectful or unkind, please let me know. First: If paying taxes hypothetically became completely optional, and there were no legal penalties for not paying them (coercion, threat of force, state-sanctioned violence), 1a. Do you think tax revenues would stay almost the same, or be dramatically reduced by this change? 1b. Do you suppose most people would still voluntarily choose to pay taxes of their own free will if there were no individual consequences for not paying them? 1c. If answering in the negative to 1b, how do you characterize taxes being any more "voluntary" than the act of handing my wallet to an armed robber can be considered "voluntary"? i.e. if the motivating force that compels me to pay is a threat of force (either implicitly and roundaboutly, through the legal system, which eventually ends with one staring down the barrel of a gun, or explicitly and expediently, just skipping the other steps and going straight to staring down the barrel of a gun), isn't that ultimately the same act of extortion being justified with / "backed up by" the same threat of force from the same mechanism (firearm) regardless of whether it is by one man calling himself a robber or a million men calling themselves a government? Second: As individuals, we do not exercise "control" through the democratic process, we express preferences. 2a. From my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), the DNC has made it clear in both 2016 and in 2024, that the voters do not get to pick the nominee, the DNC's superdelegates do, and they retain the right to nominate candidates that do not have the majority or plurality of popular support even from within their own party, right? 2b. Expanding out to a broader level, does your comment intend to suggest or imply that all results of democratic processes are inherently and automatically voluntarily consented to by the populace on the basis that we were all allowed to vote on it? 2c. If the proposition made in 2b were true, wouldn't that necessarily imply that we both voluntarily consented to the election of Donald Trump, or the invasion of Iraq in search of WMD's that didn't exist? I can't speak for you, but I certainly did not consent to either of those. 2d. If, on the other hand, the proposition made in 2b were false, why is it we can choose not to consent some democratic process outcomes, like a president that we disapprove of, but not others, like the specific details of tax policy?
- kreetx 2y ago
  It's how they are used, not the taken part - they are taken according to law, thus consent. Though, money printing (i.e, inflation or borrowing money from the FED) basically seems to happen without consent.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > It's how they are used, not the taken part - they are taken according to law, thus consent They're also used according to law. That's why there's sometimes talk of a "government shutdown" in the US: it happens when Congress is close to their deadline to write/pass the budget law.
NilMostChill 2y ago
So given you didn't address any other part of the reply am i to assume you agree ? Future consequences and poor outcomes based on current day incompetence and mismanagement ? To address your reply: If you don't know the phrase "there is no ethical consumption" then looking it up might be interesting reading for you, it's a large part of the plot from the last half of "the good place", if that helps at all. Anyway ,it's the same idea but taken to it's logical conclusion, everything everyone does is causing harm in some way somewhere down the chain and therefore it's impossible to do anything without some harm being caused. If that's your point then i agree, but specifically here i was pointing out the direct point to point link between removing monetary aid and the deaths of people relying upon that aid. You asked for costs on money and lives, and while i think billions and millions were hyperbole there are still directly attributable deaths, even now. The key part here is the "directly" The difference between "physically taking away someones food until they starve to death" vs "participating in a societal structure that routinely lets people starve to death" one is direct taking an action to achieve an outcome, the other is not. I think those numbers will grow significantly larger in relatively short order, i think it's naive to think DOGE is running on any platform of competence but it's entirely possible i'm wrong. However, there's not a lot of evidence i am wrong,
- anonym29 2y ago
  There are two points I'd like to address here. >So given you didn't address any other part of the reply am i to assume you agree ? Future consequences and poor outcomes based on current day incompetence and mismanagement ? With your post I was replying to? I do agree with large parts of it. I think Elon Musk brought a "move fast and break things" approach to the Federal government, which has traditionally not been a place where that approach is welcome, and the "break things" part certainly carries a different level of impact when the thing being broken is the single income source of many people who either neglected to adequately financially prepare themselves for retirement, were unable to avoid unexpected financial difficulties in life, or otherwise wound up in a situation where they were left otherwise destitute in old age (e.g. romance scammers stole their entire private retirement balance). That said, to answer the core question being asked: "does removing systems actively (and provably) preventing deaths count [as killing people]?", I don't necessary think so as a rule of thumb. I see a fundamental difference between initiating an act of violence designed to deprive someone else of their life or safety, and overly hasty bureaucratic maneuvering to attempt to streamline efficiency, however reckless the latter may be carried out. This doesn't necessarily mean I condone the approach DOGE is taking, either. >To address your reply: You asked for costs on money and lives, and while i think billions and millions were hyperbole there are still directly attributable deaths, even now. I am sorry if I phrased my question poorly, I was not attempting to ask whether this could or would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and/or millions of lives, but rather whether it has cost billions of dollars and/or millions of lives, as the original post made by ZeroGravitas seemed to imply, from the way I read it.