4 ms·

You can't effect efficient change with zero knowledge. But I don't think that's the point anyway, the point is to trash everything that operates interdependent

by duxup 2y ago

You can't effect efficient change with zero knowledge. But I don't think that's the point anyway, the point is to trash everything that operates interdependently in government, and enable the administration to become the one gateway to solve anything and then capture that income via corruption and etc. You want cancer research? You want weather data? You gotta pay the toll... otherwise they don't care. Everything they trash is potential income.

throwanem 2y ago
"Disruption."
lowercased 2y ago
From the article... “They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” said Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.” To your point, people have taken musk/doge at face value, with 'efficiency' being the goal. That's not been the goal. But... pointing that out seems to make you some sort of conspiracy theorist. "Just give them time! It takes time!" We did have some meaningful government cutbacks in the 90s. It took months of bipartisan collaboration and dealmaking, and we ended up with a balanced budget and a bit of a surplus. The process was a lot more open, experts were consulted, hearings and studies were done, and we did make some short-lived progress there. None of that process was even entertained. We had a charlatan foisted on us in the role of "chief slasher of anything woke", and a third of our country cheered it on, until they got cut. Those not cut/affected still seem to support this circus.
- rco8786 2y ago
  > "Just give them time! It takes time!" Except it's exactly Doge and the admin at large who keeps saying how fast they're going to go and how easy it all is to fix, etc.
- cubefox 2y ago
  Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized. Nowadays, perhaps due to the WWW, polarization is so strong that a bipartisan collaboration on this matter is highly unlikely. I don't even know if the Democrats are in principle interested in shrinking the government.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - LiquidSky 2y ago
    >Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized. The 90s were the era of Gingrich and the "Contract With America" and the rise of figures like Rush Limbaugh. If you weren't around it was pretty bad back then too. Witness the enduring "the Clintons are LITERALLY an evil crime family" meme from then that persists to this day.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ewgoforth 2y ago
    I think about the quote that "Only Nixon could go to China" and maybe there's a corollary that "Only Clinton could balance the budget". Similar to how Nixon had the anti-commie credentials to be able visit Mao's China, Clinton had the liberal credentials to be able to cut social spending. I don't think that the budget surplus that Clinton left us was all due to social spending cuts, but he did make significant cuts.
tmshapland 2y ago
Exactly.
jsrober 2y ago
I thought the same thing until I listened to this podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQNe7nSgcrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQNe7nSgcrw I can see how in some organizations/bureaucracies that you have to destroy it before you can have any hope of fixing it. When there are a significant number of people in an organization trying to stop progress, it's impossible for change to happen.
- nicbou 2y ago
  Just like rewriting a code base is sometimes the best approach. However there is a significant risk off learning the hard way why things were done a certain way. There is a lot of experience embedded in old, running systems. If you don't understand it well enough to change it in place, you can do a lot of damage trying to replace it.

by duxup 2y ago

throwanem 2y ago

"Disruption."

lowercased 2y ago

From the article... “They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” said Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.” To your point, people have taken musk/doge at face value, with 'efficiency' being the goal. That's not been the goal. But... pointing that out seems to make you some sort of conspiracy theorist. "Just give them time! It takes time!" We did have some meaningful government cutbacks in the 90s. It took months of bipartisan collaboration and dealmaking, and we ended up with a balanced budget and a bit of a surplus. The process was a lot more open, experts were consulted, hearings and studies were done, and we did make some short-lived progress there. None of that process was even entertained. We had a charlatan foisted on us in the role of "chief slasher of anything woke", and a third of our country cheered it on, until they got cut. Those not cut/affected still seem to support this circus.

rco8786 2y ago
> "Just give them time! It takes time!" Except it's exactly Doge and the admin at large who keeps saying how fast they're going to go and how easy it all is to fix, etc.
cubefox 2y ago
Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized. Nowadays, perhaps due to the WWW, polarization is so strong that a bipartisan collaboration on this matter is highly unlikely. I don't even know if the Democrats are in principle interested in shrinking the government.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- LiquidSky 2y ago
  >Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized. The 90s were the era of Gingrich and the "Contract With America" and the rise of figures like Rush Limbaugh. If you weren't around it was pretty bad back then too. Witness the enduring "the Clintons are LITERALLY an evil crime family" meme from then that persists to this day.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ewgoforth 2y ago
  I think about the quote that "Only Nixon could go to China" and maybe there's a corollary that "Only Clinton could balance the budget". Similar to how Nixon had the anti-commie credentials to be able visit Mao's China, Clinton had the liberal credentials to be able to cut social spending. I don't think that the budget surplus that Clinton left us was all due to social spending cuts, but he did make significant cuts.

tmshapland 2y ago

Exactly.

jsrober 2y ago

I thought the same thing until I listened to this podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQNe7nSgcrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQNe7nSgcrw I can see how in some organizations/bureaucracies that you have to destroy it before you can have any hope of fixing it. When there are a significant number of people in an organization trying to stop progress, it's impossible for change to happen.

nicbou 2y ago
Just like rewriting a code base is sometimes the best approach. However there is a significant risk off learning the hard way why things were done a certain way. There is a lot of experience embedded in old, running systems. If you don't understand it well enough to change it in place, you can do a lot of damage trying to replace it.