Even if this problem you identify really does exist, and isn't just a boogeyman in your imagination, this is not fixing the problem. DOGE is literally creating more graft, and eroding processes put in place to ensure transparency. It will make the problem worse, not fix it.
I promise that I hate the US gov more than you, hoss.
I just don't really want to be in the house when they burn it down, and I am not under any illusion that all those civil liberties and other elements (that were weak before) are going to somehow get better when a bunch of nihilistic brats start yelling YOLO while burning down a bunch of Chesterton's fences.
Funny how people are taking massive doses of copium and not wanting to see how 2 big conmen are now in charge of the country, and they (as in, the people like grandparent commenter) are not willing to see that it's all in service of the grift.
Well, maybe not funny, but understandable, "con" is short for "confidence" anyway, and just like the Nigerian scam victims refusing to believe all evidence to show them they're being scammed, so are many Trump voters digging in...
Musk literally owns Twitter! The constitution gives Congress and ONLY Congress the right to control spending. Musk is intentionally breaking this law and you are cheering him on. Watching rubes such as you cheer on Musk while he destroys things makes me understand how Hitler could have gotten so much power.
The issue is the 10th amendment limits the scope of the federal government and Congress. Spending on many of the institutions that unconstitutionally regulate stuff like intrastate trade was illegal to begin with so defunding makes it more rather than less constitutional.
DOGE isn't providing accountability or transparency. It provides destruction of government agencies and services. And given the enormous amount of grift and corruption done by Trump and the people he associates with, I would expect more corruption after this not less.
And some of the cracked eggs you mentioned are real human lives.
I'm extremely puzzled why you're bringing transgender people into this. You could've said "an opera in Columbia" and have had an equally valid argument about fiscal responsibilty and America's meddling in other countries. You, however, felt that it was morally necessary to mention that this was to benefit transgender people trying to live their lives as if that's a unique negative to be avoided.
I brought it up because if you took a poll of the Americans, the vast majority would be against spending money on it. And comparing it to just “an opera in Columbia”, I’d wager even less would support a transgender opera.
