Will DOGE Be Effective In Cutting Wasteful Spending?

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think cutting spending and improving efficiency is a good idea or not? 

 

Do you think the federal government should be funding organizations that work to promote illegal activities? 

Unrelated to my comment.

[Hawaiian]

14 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

There is no actual Department of Government Efficiency and Musk has not been confirmed as a department head. This is all nonsense.

Is this the nonsense you are referring to?

https://federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02005/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency

[cjinchiangrai]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think cutting spending and improving efficiency is a good idea or not? 

 

Do you think the federal government should be funding organizations that work to promote illegal activities? 

I did not make a comment one way or the other, but DOGE is not an actual department, therefore it has no authority.

[cjinchiangrai]

8 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Is this the nonsense you are referring to?

https://federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02005/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency

And where is the Congressional authorization and budget authorization? 

[Hawaiian]

6 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

And where is the Congressional authorization and budget authorization? 

As you said DOGE is not an official department authorized by Congress, but an advisory board established by EO.  I do do not know how it is funded and would be interested to know.  Not having "department" status, Musk's office is not in the White House.

[cjinchiangrai]

7 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

As you said DOGE is not an official department authorized by Congress, but an advisory board established by EO.  I do do not know how it is funded and would be interested to know.  Not having "department" status, Musk's office is not in the White House.

Private advisory boards have no authority and should not have any access to government information or processes. There are ways to do this legally but this isn't it.

[Hawaiian]

26 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Private advisory boards have no authority and should not have any access to government information or processes. There are ways to do this legally but this isn't it.

The decision made by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury to give "read only" access is being challenged.  Guess we will have to wait for a legal opinion to see whether this is legal or not.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

No.  That would be poison and not medicine.  You have a habit of demonizing successful capitalists.  

Why is it their fault that the U.S. government has an addiction to uncontrolled, wasteful spending.  If the feds followed their game plan we wouldn't be so deep in hole.  They are successful because they haven't spent more than they make.  Is that too complicated for you to understand?

You make no sense when you question whether Musk will make it worse.  Make what worse?

Would Musk have a lesser lifestyle if he would have only 10% or his wealth? Or 1%? No.

There are millions and millions of poor Americans out there who can't afford healthcare. Some can't afford food.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos don't like unions which could make the playing field a little better.

And Trump and others talk about reducing tax for the rich.

If you think that is all fine, then I can't help you.

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Cutting Social Security to legitimate retirees is just scare mongering.  What they may do (and I'd be in favor) is to cut programs that allow able bodied people to live an entire lifetime without ever working a day.

 

Is that common?  I don't know.  Let's find out.  Finally.

 

Most governments aim for about 4% unemployment. It's part of fiscal and monetary tools to control inflation and prevent wages growth getting out of hand.

 

Too much unemployment, recession or depression. Too little, inflationary.

 

Inevitably, the least skilled people go into the 4% figure.

 

The problems really start when bureaucracies dealing with unemployment create hoops for the unemployed to jump through. It's war on the poor in disguise.

 

If you want to cut expenditure, start by checking how much of that bureaucracy is really needed.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Would Musk have a lesser lifestyle if he would have only 10% or his wealth? Or 1%? No.

There are millions and millions of poor Americans out there who can't afford healthcare. Some can't afford food.

Can't afford food but everyone is fat. You seem to know nothing of the US or the many "benefit" programs available to the poor, and not so poor. 

 

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos don't like unions which could make the playing field a little better.

How would it make the playing field a little better? 

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And Trump and others talk about reducing tax for the rich.

No, the left talks about Trump reducing taxes on the rich. You clearly know nothing of what the "Trump Tax Cuts" and how they benefited the middle class. 

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If you think that is all fine, then I can't help you.

You want to regurgitate false leftist talking points and pretend like you've made some kind of factual point. You have not. 

 

I am still waiting for you to answer my question: "Why would you be surprised if he is interested in improving the lives of all US citizens."

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you want to cut expenditure, start by checking how much of that bureaucracy is really needed.

Which is what the Trump administration is trying to do. 

 

Do you support that effort? 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Unrelated to my comment.

Because they are just questions related to the topic you commented on and are only asking your opinion. Again, the questions are: 

• Do you think cutting spending and improving efficiency is a good idea or not? 
• Do you think the federal government should be funding organizations that work to promote illegal activities? 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, cjinchiangrai said:

I did not make a comment one way or the other, but DOGE is not an actual department, therefore it has no authority.

Be that as it may, they are just questions related to the topic you commented on, and I am only asking your opinion. Again, the questions are: 

• Do you think cutting spending and improving efficiency is a good idea or not? 
• Do you think the federal government should be funding organizations that work to promote illegal activities? 

Why not answer? 

[Hawaiian]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Would Musk have a lesser lifestyle if he would have only 10% or his wealth? Or 1%? No.

There are millions and millions of poor Americans out there who can't afford healthcare. Some can't afford food.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos don't like unions which could make the playing field a little better.

And Trump and others talk about reducing tax for the rich.

If you think that is all fine, then I can't help you.

Where did I say income inequality is fine?  America is a democratic republic and not a communist dictatorship.  Our government has no authority to seize the assets of these mega rich and distribute it to the less fortunate.  We also have laws regarding the organization of labor unions.  Again, they cannot be imposed on any entity by force.  What do you suggest that doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution? 

While some fall through the cracks, there are myriad of state and federal programs that provide help to poor Americans.  By the bleeding heart way, how much do you contribute to NGOs that also help the less fortunate?  Talk is cheap!

[Hawaiian]

23 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Would Musk have a lesser lifestyle if he would have only 10% or his wealth? Or 1%? No.

There are millions and millions of poor Americans out there who can't afford healthcare. Some can't afford food.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos don't like unions which could make the playing field a little better.

And Trump and others talk about reducing tax for the rich.

If you think that is all fine, then I can't help you.

Personally, I don't admire the three you mention with their obscene wealth.  However, America doesn't have a complete monopoly of mega rich.  Some other countries come to mind like India, France, Thailand, Mexico and China.  What about the poor in those countries?

[Hawaiian]

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which is what the Trump administration is trying to do. 

 

Do you support that effort? 

I do.  There's a lot of fat to be trimmed. 

[cjinchiangrai]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think cutting spending and improving efficiency is a good idea or not? 

 

Do you think the federal government should be funding organizations that work to promote illegal activities? 

Sure, let's start by cutting Defense.

 

Illegal activities like emoluments? How about tax fraud by real estate developers and oil drilling leases?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Sure, let's start by cutting Defense.

So no aid to Ukraine, got it. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Illegal activities like emoluments? How about tax fraud by real estate developers and oil drilling leases?

Emoluments are not illegal, but yes, I am against tax fraud by anyone and think it should be prosecuted, as does the Trump administration. That's why Biden had to blanket pardon his entire family. 

[cjinchiangrai]

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So no aid to Ukraine, got it. 

 

 

Emoluments are not illegal, but yes, I am against tax fraud by anyone and think it should be prosecuted, as does the Trump administration. That's why Biden had to blanket pardon his entire family. 

So you want to give Ukraine to Putin. Got it.

 

Emoluments ARE illegal. Joe Biden was never charged with fraud of any kind, unlike 47 who has been convicted many times over.