Thoughts on DOGE?

[lawpoke87]

Assume most of us believe an audit of our over $6T spending is long overdue. I also assume my friends on the left hate the fact that it’s being undertaken by President Musk.

Seems like one of the more consequential things to occur in federal government in years…for better or worse.

Thoughts?

 

[TUMU]

Certainly need a hard look at unnecessary government spending. Seems to be a lot of wasted money spent yearly by every administration for decades.
Not sure it's off to a planned process. Seems to be more politically driven than anything.
I'm all for eliminating unnecessary spending with some due diligence for find better ways of spending money.
We do need debt reduction and eliminating unnecessary spending is a good start.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Musk and Trump have too many of their own interests in the way, for it to be a beneficial audit that is good for the public.

 

[lawpoke87]

Musk and Trump have too many of their own interests in the way, for it to be a beneficial audit that is good for the public.

Possibly. However our elected officials were never going to clean up spending as a lot of them are being financially benefitted by the federal bureaucracy. I’m a bit amazed we’ve never had an audit by a non governmental entity of federal government spending. This is much needed imo. Guess the proof of whether it’s beneficial or not will be the results of what is uncovered

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Possibly. However our elected officials were never going to clean up spending as a lot of them are being financially benefitted by the federal bureaucracy. I’m a bit amazed we’ve never had an audit by a non governmental entity of federal government spending. This is much needed imo. Guess the proof of whether it’s beneficial or not will be the results of what is uncovered

Edited

What is uncovered and beneficial, but disliked by Trump & Musk or is against their interests will mark the bad & will be eliminated if at all possible. What's uncovered which is beneficial for the country's interests and in Trump & Musks interests will mark the good. What waste is covered up because it is in the interests of Trump & Musk will be quite prevalent. You have to realize they will have their foot on this audit in so many ways. When it's all said & done, I don't think the good will outweigh the bad. That's not the way it works when the two people on top of Doge match as poorly with the country's interests. They are both not good men in any sense of the word IMO.

This confidential release of Musks interests will not be helpful.

 

[lawpoke87]

Edited

What is uncovered and beneficial, but disliked by Trump & Musk or is against their interests will mark the bad & will be eliminated if at all possible. What's uncovered which is beneficial for the country's interests and in Trump & Musks interests will mark the good. What waste is covered up because it is in the interests of Trump & Musk will be quite prevalent. You have to realize they will have their foot on this audit in so many ways. When it's all said & done, I don't think the good will outweigh the bad. That's not the way it works when the two people on top of Doge match as poorly with the country's interests. They are both not good men in any sense of the word IMO.

This confidential release of Musks interests will not be helpful.

Will you still feel the same way if hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud are discovered ?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Will you still feel the same way if hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud are discovered ?

Not if they are offset by hundreds of billions of dollars of good expenditures that are eliminated as well. You are not considering the other side of the coin. And I don't think they will find that much waste that they can eliminate without bad consequences that they ignore or are not aware of.

 

[lawpoke87]

Not if they are offset by hundreds of billions of dollars of good expenditures that are eliminated as well. You are not considering the other side of the coin. And I don't think they will find that much waste that they can eliminate without bad consequences that they ignore or are not aware of.

I’ve been against new spending initiatives for the better part of the last 20 years. That doesn’t change based on whose in the White House

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I’ve been against new spending initiatives for the better part of the last 20 years. That doesn’t change based on whose in the White House

What? We are not talking bout new spending initiatives, we are talking about expenditures that have been there for years, decades, etc., and are being eliminated. Some should be, and some should not. What does that have to do with new expenditures? I am referring to them eliminating an expenditure that has other consequences than what they think there are. Or those that they are against because it is against their interests or their belief system, or their constituents belief system.(Maga) Many expenses are good expense no matter what they think or what their interests are. That doesn't stop them from eliminating them.

For instance they just eliminated the Consumer Protection Bureau completely. There was some beneficial programs in that bureau. It should not have been eliminated completely. Now some watch dogs don't exist any longer. It allows Musk to operate more freely, and it's bad for the general public. They should have eliminated some programs and functions of the bureau, but not eliminated it altogether. To get hundreds of billions of dollars of savings they would have to eliminate at least 250 agencies like this agency. It's total budget was approx. 800M.

Or are you defining new spending initiatives as the annual discretionary spending for programs that have been in existence sometimes for many decades. If so, are you completely against discretionary spending altogether and think all discretionary spending should be eliminated completely? I have to think that isn't what you were saying.

Just because you are against some discretionary spending, doesn't mean you go after any and all or even most discretionary spending simply because it is discretionary. That really should have very little to do with whether it is viable to waste. There is just as much waste in the military, and many other sectors of non discretionary spending.

 

[lawpoke87]

What? We are not talking bout new spending initiatives, we are talking about expenditures that have been there for years, decades, etc., and are being eliminated. Some should be, and some should not. What does that have to do with new expenditures? I am referring to them eliminating an expenditure that has other consequences than what they think there are. Or those that they are against because it is against their interests or their belief system, or their constituents belief system.(Maga) Many expenses good expense no matter what they think or what their interests are. That doesn't stop them from eliminating them.

For instance they just eliminated the Consumer Protection Bureau completely. There was some beneficial programs in that bureau. It should not have been eliminated completely. Now some watch dogs don't exist any longer. It allows Musk to operate more freely, and it's bad for the general public. They should have eliminated some programs and functions of the bureau, but not eliminated it altogether. To get hundreds of billions of dollars of savings they would have to eliminate at least 250 agencies like this agency. It's total budget was approx. 800M.

Or are you defining new spending initiatives as the annual discretionary spending for programs that have been in existence sometimes for many decades. If so, are you completely against discretionary spending altogether and think all discretionary spending should be eliminated completely? I have to think that isn't what you were saying.

Just because you are against some discretionary spending, doesn't mean you go after any and all or even most discretionary spending simply because it is discretionary. That really should have very little to do with whether it is viable to waste. There is just as much waste in the military, and many other sectors of non discretionary spending.

Ahhh Misread your post. My apologies.

I work with the CFPB extensively. It’s the reason seller and buyers can no longer close real estate transactions where the buyer is borrowing funds for the purchase. It’s silly. I’m not against all of their policies but the creation of a new bureaucratic agency wasn’t necessary imo. I wouldn’t be sad to see it go. Consolidate and roll the function into another agency.

I’ll wait and see what spending is eliminated. We’re $37T in debt. We need spending cut and this is likely the only way any significant cuts can be made. Will some beneficial programs be eliminated….maybe. If we want to keep them we need to find revenue sources to fund the same. Our current deficits are not sustainable

The fact we are giving $150M a year to Norway to care for their immigrants should be proof enough that drastic changes needed to be made to our expenditures

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Ahhh Misread your post. My apologies.

I work with the CFPB extensively. It’s the reason seller and buyers can no longer close real estate transactions where the buyer is borrowing funds for the purchase. It’s silly. I’m not against all of their policies but the creation of a new bureaucratic agency wasn’t necessary imo. I wouldn’t be sad to see it go. Consolidate and roll the function into another agency.

I’ll wait and see what spending is eliminated. We’re $37T in debt. We need spending cut and this is likely the only way any significant cuts can be made. Will some beneficial programs be eliminated….maybe. If we want to keep them we need to find revenue sources to fund the same. Our current deficits are not sustainable

The fact we are giving $150M a year to Norway to care for their immigrants should be proof enough that drastic changes needed to be made to our expenditures

You can eliminate a lot of Norway type of spending and it will be minute. If you eliminate the entire foreign aid spending budget you only eliminate .013% of our budget. I would say you are only going to find 20% at the very most that should be eliminated. So you are concerning your self with .0026% of our budget. You/Trump/Musk are nickel and diming us to death with things that will have consequences. The big items are the ones we can't, don't want to, and will not touch.(Military, SS, Medicare, etc.) They should be more careful and not going at this like a bull in a china closet. This has worked for Musk in business, but it doesn't work that way on a macro scale for government. The US govt is macro to Musks micro business interests.

 

[lawpoke87]

You can eliminate a lot of Norway type of spending and it will be minute. If you eliminate the entire foreign aid spending budget you only eliminate .013% of our budget. I would say you are only going to find 20% at the very most that should be eliminated. So you are concerning your self with .0026% of our budget. You/Trump/Musk are nickel and diming us to death with things that will have consequences. The big items are the ones we can't, don't want to, and will not touch.(Military, SS, Medicare, etc.) They should be more careful and not going at this like a bull in a china closet. This has worked for Musk in business, but it doesn't work that way on a macro scale for government. The US govt is macro to Musks micro business interests.

The pattern on unaccountability is what is troublesome. Why are we giving a rich country with a surplus $150M a year? It’s not the amount it’s the pattern. Who is responsible ? Who is accountable ?

Why is FEMA still paying millions for hotel rooms in NYC….we know why btw. It’s just reckless spending with no oversight from appearances. Even if the total savings in the end only amount to a tens of billions of dollars it is clear changes need to be made.

Let’s circle back when the total cuts are finished and discuss how effective the audits were by numbers. They are certainly pointing out some serious accountability issues thus far.