The question no one asking is why Elon is sending a team of teenage programmers and not a team of financial auditors if he really wanted to cut government spending?
Reporting on this is terrible. There are also senior (in age and experience) people, but much of the focus is on the youngins for obvious reasons.
Musk also believes (either arrogance, or true belief) that much of this stuff can be figured out from first principals without much need of traditional experts.
As a side note: that is very similar to how a consulting team would operate. Very young (inexperienced) team on the ground + senior people flying in from time to time.
Not going to defend the cult of the consulting MBA, but when I was running strategy work, my consultant-level kids had been recruited from a small number of MBA programs, undergone six-month intensives, and then spent 2-3 years as entry-level spreadsheet jockeys and task trackers before they were given any actual responsibilities, and we would have had a partner or up-for-partner management overseeing every identifiable tranche of work (plus federal work usually requires additional oversight layers and sometimes totally separate resource silos). Worlds different than parachuting in a handful of teenage or barely post-undergrad interns and letting them run riot through the most sensitive areas of the federal government without so much as an MSA or SOW, let alone security clearance investigations.
> letting them run riot through the most sensitive areas of the federal government
This is an overstatement. These are not the most sensitive areas of gov't. Surely, that would be anything with national secrets: military planning, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
You could say it's the most sensitive area that affects the day-to-day life of everyday people. Especially medicaid and co. for the older voterbase (AKA the one that actually votes). Those Intelligence agency data wouldn't have made as big a public outcry in comparison.
dunno, I've seen some of the McKinsey, Deloitte, PwC, and Bane work... I'm skeptical anyone senior ever looks an anything. McKinsey specifically feels like the Jim Cramer of consulting with every blog post they write. Maybe your experience is different, but it feels like the consultants do the same as DOGE is doing.
most of the NASA engineers that took us to the moon were very young. Young people accomplished major feats of achievement, and continue to do so.
considering that knowledge decays (often rapidly) as a function of time since the last instruction, "experience" seems like it might be of far less value than temporal proximity to a previous college education.
Consulting is a sales job where senior partners need to hit numbers which affect their compensation, so they will sell anything and everything in terms of the projects that they leverage their (balkanised, aggressively dysfunctional internal politics) firm’s weight to achieve credibility to perform a massive turnaround or implementation or some other such project, and then sic a bunch of people ranging from fuck all experience to just learning to play the game onto delivery.
The partner will appear at key points to ensure that the executives who approved the contract are happy and hopefully sell the next round of work.
If they shit the bed, which they do frequently, no worries, they’ve already sold the next deal elsewhere and now their firm may be out from that organisation for a year or two and one of the others will come in and screw up for a few years and then they’ll be back.
Incidentally and because this should be a basic competency of government, the Australian government, owing to a huge number of significant scandals including one in which PwC used the information in crafting taxation law and then sold it to international corporations to fucking obliterate any sense of Chinese walls (in which no one has gone to jail and most careers have emerged semi intact, if with a bunch of egg that any self respecting person would go and take a long hard look in the mirror at themselves for having been involved in) - the last 3 years has seen a modest relocation of these basic functions of government internally.
Which one of our political party leaders is now campaigning on removing, in order to bring back the gravy train to the incompetent consulting fucks. (Both our primary party leadership need to have a stern talking to because one side is actively trying to channel MAGA energy, and the other seems unwilling to do anything useful.
So turns out I had a bit to get off my chest, I hope no one found that too boring
I think that's generous. He is chopping entire departments after scooping up all their data. He doesn't seem to be doing any analysis at all. And a lot of his public statements have been patently false.
A larger list of DOGE employees is on Wikipedia. While there are a variety of members, most of them don't have the experience you'd expect someone to have in the respective roles. The average age is definitely higher than 25 though.
> Brad Smith:
Allegedly pushed during the COVID-19 pandemic to adjust a government model in order to produce fake estimates showing lower death rates; friend of Jared Kushner
> Christopher Stanley:
Assisted with the pardons of January 6 rioters
> Gavin Kliger:
Reposted Nick Fuentes mocking interracial families
> Edward Coristine:
Fired from internship at Path in 2022 for leaking internal information
> Marko Elez:
Fired from DOGE for past racist posts; later re-hired
I would love to know what Trump supporters think of all of this, but the usual places where Trump supporters hang out online (e.g., r/Conservative) don’t seem to talk about anything of the current administration’s controversies at all. I guess I was hoping they would at least talk about why they think they’re good or not that bad, but the mere mention of them seems to be suppressed. :sigh:
I don't even mean this as an insult, but these people are quite literally in a cult. MAGA has all the hallmarks of a cult, and accordingly, you will not find the contrition or self-doubt you're looking for penetrating deeply into the movement whatsoever.
They chose long ago to block out negative thoughts and information, today is no different.
This is the part quite a lot of people seem to not grasp. While there is certainly a portion of them that are regretful and feel misled, a lot of them actively wanted this. The cruelty is the point, the end is the cherry on top.
There's probably still a bunch of libertarian leaning Ron Paul supporters here.
I'm all for limited government and shutting down all foreign aid, but this is why I hate Trump and Maga. They ruin everything by playing checkers and not chess. How did Musk not see that sending unvetted kids into the US Treasury was going to blow up in his face.
Now Musk is saying he is going to get Ron Paul to audit the Fed, finally. Does he not see that sending a 90 year old to audit the fed is going to be even more of a clown show?
Similar to how we are shutting down the whole topic of what these programs were actually funding? The excessive spending? It's easy to project one side as bad but the same exact behaviors and attitude have been prevalent on the left.
Do you feel all of these programs should have been funded, or make sense when we are blowing through money and crushing people with inflation? Do you find the concept of auditing these organizations as bad, or is it bad because it's someone else doing it? If so can you explain why these actions weren't taken with the prior administration?
The point being, step out of a partisan hat, or an emotional state of X person is Y. Look at the federal governments spend, fraud, waste, and abuse is prevalent. Someone has to do the hard part and clearly leaving everyone to manage themselves doesn't work. More so when they can't pass their own audits.
> Do you feel all of these programs should have been funded, or make sense when we are blowing through money and crushing people with inflation? Do you find the concept of auditing these organizations as bad, or is it bad because it's someone else doing it? If so can you explain why these actions weren't taken with the prior administration?
I don't take issue with auditing. I take issue with the possible illegal firing of officials that are meant to provide oversight, skipping over security clearances to provide sensitive data access to unvetted indivduals, and attempting to illegally cut spending when only Congress has that authority.
> The point being, step out of a partisan hat, or an emotional state of X person is Y. Look at the federal governments spend, fraud, waste, and abuse is prevalent. Someone has to do the hard part and clearly leaving everyone to manage themselves doesn't work. More so when they can't pass their own audits.
Let's be clear here because I see a lot of MAGA repeating this incorrectly. You are referring to a few agencies like the Pentagon when you say they can't pass their own audits. Most federal agencies have no problem passing their audits and all of those audits are available through GAO. https://www.gao.gov/federal-financial-accountability. The majority of agencies pass GAO audits. In fact if Elon was only targeting agencies that failed GAO audits I would have much less of a problem.
I think you are the one that needs to take off the partisan hat.
Can you prove that the appropriate clearance hasn't been granted? It actually appears to be the opposite.
Passing an audit of " you spent x at y" isn't the same as "why are we spending X at y". He's doing the later, surely you can agree with that.
As for you partisan hat dig, i'm in fact not. I don't lean or vote how you're implying. In this particular instance, I've seen the excess of fraud, waste, and abuse through multiple agencies and organizations first hand. I've seen the pallets of USAID cash that were handed out without regard. I've also seen the increased prices, the national debt rising, and the general glut of how our government operates. So yes, while I may disagree with the process, the fact is no one else has taken a legitimate attempt at solving this problem. So in that manner I support the cleanse.
Can you prove the opposite has happened because every journalist says otherwise? The very article you are commenting on suggest the FBI did not do background checks because if so this particular person wouldn't have been approved. I'm all for having a committee that scrutinizes line items but the ends don't justify the means. Especially because there is no oversight here.
What evidence do the journalists have? Elon is cleared, many of his employees are by nature of the work they do. Many of the listed personnel for each of the DOGE teams in the orgs are comprised of Cleared lawyers and invdividuals from within the orgs as well. The burden isn't on proving they aren't, it's on the journalist to prove the sensationalist claims. There is clearly evidence of oversight, the president is authorizing actions. He was elected, we don't have to like it but it's how things are structured. Want change, back the candidates that will fix the issues you want, convince everyone else to agree.
One good example of sensationalism from journalists is the claim this is a "Data breach". That's neither true, nor helpful.
That is not how oversight works. Oversight is an unrelated non-partisan committee and transparency. Unfortunately Elon is jumping through hoops to avoid transparency like moving off any communication that would be subject to FOIA. What you describing is a crony doing his masters bidding not oversight and transparency.
You clearly have your perspective and the rest of the population has theirs. If he / they broke the law, I encourage you to engage your representatives and push for the appropriate actions. Take charge. Until then, it is what it is.
Are you seriously suggesting that usaid spending is responsible for inflation? Can you show any correlation with inflation and usaid spending? The only correlation I see, is corporation profits and wealth of the upper 0.001% going up at the same time as inflation. But instead of a conversation about this, we put the biggest of them all (whom btw has profited significantly from government hand-outs) in charge of finding efficiency.
No one should have to prove a negative. In fact, Musk should be the one being completely transparent about clearances, etc... Instead he's fighting transparency every step of the way. If Musk was really looking to save tax payers money, USAID would have been at the bottom of the list. The cynic in me says he went after them because they were investigating him and he didn't want any conclusions to get out.
Finally, if you want to talk about the 'why' money is being spent, that's congress's domain. If we throw the laws out now then what use are laws. If you want to talk about rising debts, then look at the tax cuts Trump wants to renew that we can't pay for.
The left lost. If they didn't want this to happen they would have put forth a better candidate and addressed the American peoples concerns. This is what we get. It's crude and abrupt, but its what we get. I think we needed to purge a lot of the glut, so in this instance i'm indifferent to whom is doing it.
Kamala Harris was not a leftist candidate nor is the DNC a leftist party. They are both center-right, with a center-left fringe that votes Democrat largely for historical reasons. In fact, it is specifically the fact that the DNC is not leftist that renders them incapable of addressing Americans' concerns. Because the center-right is the "everything's fine" wing of the DNC, which bet that they could make leftists blink and vote Harris, and lost.
You completely sidestepped their comments on the legality of this all as just "eh, as long as it gets done." The legality and unconstitutionality of it all should be concerning no matter what side you are on.
You clearly have your perspective and the rest of the population has theirs. If he / they broke the law, I encourage you to engage your representatives and push for the appropriate actions. Take charge. Until then, it is what it is.
> If Musk was really looking to save tax payers money, USAID would have been at the bottom of the list. The cynic in me says he went after them because they were investigating him and he didn't want any conclusions to get out.
Why would the USAID be investigating Musk? USAID primarily focuses on foreign aid, humanitarian assistance, and development programs rather than regulatory or investigative actions.
By the way, the reason the USAID is at the top of the list for DOGE to audit is because they were the most resistant and combative when the idea of them being audited came up. But they won’t be the only ones facing an audit - the administration said they are looking at all agencies. In fact, just today President Trump literally said in a pre-Super Bowl interview that they will be looking at the Department of Defense soon and expect to find billions or maybe even hundreds of billions in waste.
This seems like exactly the kind of broad audit the US government needs, not just at the national level but every level of government.
It's not an audit, it's bullshit. The resistance he has met from officials is due to them trying to follow the law.
Musk doesn't have the context or detail on what is wasteful or not. Those decisions are made in Congress. If you believe him you believe you can just look at who is being paid and a short description and identify waste. That notion is idiotic.
Musk and crew aren't informed or qualified enough to make decisions about any of this. They're just ignoring the law and made themselves judge jury and executioner.
> If you believe him you believe you can just look at who is being paid and a short description and identify waste. That notion is idiotic.
We have to be clear going into the future. Musk is not doing things this way because he's an idiot, he's doing it because he is waging an ideological war. If he says something is waste and fraud, it's waste and fraud by definition. They don't care about whether there is waste and fraud, they just care about implementing their vision, and "reducing waste/fraud" is apparently the magic phrase that everyone agrees allows them to seize unchecked powers.
This is not accurate. Most jobs in the federal government, including at the treasury, do not require security clearances. You’re confusing background checks, which are very basic, with the different types of security clearances, which aren’t required for something like a financial audit.
I find the concept of ad hoc audits of the executive branch, by the executive branch, terrifying. Especially when used to terminate congressionally-mandated programs.
I agree that we should lean into audits and responsibility. The good faith way to do that would be laws passed by congress and executed by the executive.
There is no possible spin that legitimizes current events. I would say we have a constitutional crisis, but it seems like the blitzkreig was successful and the constitution became irrelevant.
I don't follow this logic, I would in fact expect the executive branch to be auditing the executive branch. What congressionally mandated program was terminated?
No spin is required, the people voted for this. Unfortunately one side wasn't able to convince the people that they didn't need this. That's where we are. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You make adjustments and move on.
I wouldn’t be opposed to an executive branch that implemented audits and took the results to congress to advocate for policy changes and department refactoring.
I’m very opposed to an executive branch that audits programs they have political problems with, and use these no-oversight audits to kill agencies. That’s just authoritarianism.
> Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act on September 4, 1961, which reorganized U.S. foreign assistance programs and mandated the creation of an agency to administer economic aid.
> I don't follow this logic, I would in fact expect the executive branch to be auditing the executive branch.
This is nonsense. It's like the police investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing. You have a separate oversight organization do the audit because of conflict of interest and corruption.
It's nonsense in that is what was going on within the agencies. Our legal system is being leveraged. Don't like it, put forth a good claim and bring it to court. As it stands, it's all legal. That's on the voters if you don't like it.
I've seen MAGA supporters hyperventilating about "money laundering" and "fraud," but they almost never give any examples of said laundering and fraud. When they do give supposed examples, they're usually fake (e.g., birth control for Gaza, not that that would even be fraudulent in any way, if it had been true).
If you look at the federal budget, the vast majority of it is spent on a few big-ticket items (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the military). The programs Musk is attacking are a tiny part of the federal budget, and are already transparent, for the most part. You can go look up who is getting what grant from which agency. But it's all peanuts to start with.
> I've seen MAGA supporters hyperventilating about "money laundering" and "fraud," but they almost never give any examples of said laundering and fraud. When they do give supposed examples, they're usually fake (e.g., birth control for Gaza, not that that would even be fraudulent in any way, if it had been true).
This is the end stage of cable news like Fox and social media.
Wouldn't the otherside argue the same could be said for about the extreme viewpoints the left has held for the last decade+? Regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks, his approval ratings are only going up. If the people made a great mistake, that was their mistake to make.
You may find the left's ideas extreme, but they played by the rules of the game and respected the Constitution.
Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election, and now, he's operating as if the Constitution and the law simply didn't exist. Birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Executive order to eliminate it. Agencies established and funded by Congress? Eliminated by Elon Musk with no consultation. Musk hasn't even been confirmed by the Senate, as the Constitution requires. Trump just appointed him czar of everything, and now he goes around firing people and shutting down congressionally mandated agencies.
I'm sure he started with USAID because USAID helped end apartheid in South Africa, something he was a big fan of. Starting with USAID also helps reduce US's power overseas which certain countries would be very grateful for.
He can't touch things like national defense, because that means all his SpaceX and friends' Palantir contracts get exposed for what they are. Cash orders. Once all the smaller hurdles, see CFPB, are out of the way, then the rest of the a16z and Founders Fund clowns will come in with their solution-based ideas shelling their own stupid stocks on how to make America build, dynamic and great. USAID is the lowest-hanging fruit, with everything in plain sight, minimum effort was needed to create maximum distortion. All the peanuts are for him and his gang.
The peanuts don't add up, in this case. The discretionary federal budget is dominated by the military, and the nondiscretionary budget dominates the entire budget.
Good idea: having someone audit wasteful government spending
Bad idea: having someone hire a bunch of H1-Bs[0] to take root access onto a bunch of Treasury Department servers and leak everything they get their hands on by asking an LLM to do the work for them
[0] My politics considers migration as a human right. However, since we don't live in that world yet, we have to consider that H1-Bs are hired not for their merit as programmers but for their willingness to wear golden handcuffs in exchange for potential future immigration opportunities.
Is an independent audit in November of 2024 recent enough? Nothing material found. A few recommendations on reviewing leases and tightening expense reports.
You don’t find it at all concerning how quickly this is happening? How have they learned so much in such a little amount of time? It’s incredibly naive to just trust that they’re this efficient.
I mean at least make it look like this is what you’re accomplishing. They’re not even trying to convince anyone, we’re just supposed to trust.
I understand a perspective from someone on the outside that hasn't worked within these organazations. The reality is we're ripping a bandaid off and it will sting and we may need more treatment, but we have to see where the real wound is at.
It's also not a situation of where we are spending money, but why. I have yet to see any reporting that can defend the vast majority of spend in USAID let alone the other organizations. Further when you look at the disclosures of how much money is actually making it to the organizations vs overhead it's even worse.
This is painful and it will impact people, but as a country we have to fix the books. If it goes to far, come election time we elect the people we need to fix it. Ultimately this was something he campaigned on and it's something he's doing. Like it or not, it's been a pretty transparent process.
> Like it or not, it's been a pretty transparent process.
Not at all. Musk has cherry picked a few things to share. Other than that, we know nothing. And most of what he's cherry picked have been shown to be incorrectly understood. Transparency would be third party auditors who setup a process, executed the process, and documented as they went. We literally have no idea what's going on.
They've been at it for a couple weeks, Let's see what happens. If they don't provide it, we'll start to see the results of their failures. Then we can push back. There will be legit programs impacted, we can pivot and get them back. If America didn't want this, they shouldn't have voted the way they did, but that's where we're at. He was open in doing this, it was always the case.
I highly doubt the people who voted all voted for this and the ones that did didn't vote for seizing agencies and illegally barring personnel and senators from the building.
We can speculate all we want. He said what he would do, he's doing it. Here we are. I encourage you to reach out and get involved with your local and representative politicians if you want to be a voice for change.
> Let's see what happens. If they don't provide it, we'll start to see the results of their failures. Then we can push back. There will be legit programs impacted, we can pivot and get them back.
So what you're saying is they have no idea what they're doing. Just cut it and "see what happens" and if it's really bad, "we'll just bring it back." You realize that we won't see the true effects of lots of things for many months and possibly years? It's not binary.
> I have yet to see any reporting that can defend the vast majority of spend in USAID let alone the other organizations.
What is there to defend? Congress passed a law saying there must be an international aid agency. Congress appropriated money to that agency with general directives on how it should be spent, and exercises regular oversight over that spending. The grants given by the agency are transparent and publicly availabile.
You or I might not like every grant USAID gives, but that's for Congress to address. In fact, the USAID spending I have the biggest problem with - the arms funding to Ukraine - is specifically congressionally mandated. The largest program after that, I believe, is AIDS prevention and management in Africa, which is a great use of US tax dollars that only a truly evil person would object to.
If you don't like something that USAID is spending money on, the answer is for Congress to exercise its oversight, and possibly change the law to alter how USAID works. The president has no legal authority to shutter the agency. He's required to implement the foreign aid laws that Congress has passed, and those laws say that USAID must exist.
You didn't answer the question, which is all the answer I need. You just don't care until it hits you or a loved one.
How has it been transparent? They're not releasing any reports or giving any reasoning behind anything other than it's "corrupt". They're being the opposite of transparent, which is by design. And they're moving fast so there is no time to react to it all. It's very clear what's actually going on, you can choose to ignore it all you want, but it's going to hit you personally eventually.
If the debt and spending are so important, why focus on cutting random programs and throwing tens of thousands of people in chaos?
You really haven't seen reporting defending PEPFAR, for example, as a program of USAID? The same org that also track and help prevent Ebola outbreaks? That funded hospitals for innocent civilians in Gaza?
Why is the first priority of the GOP Congress to renew and expand the Trump tax cuts, which the government is estimating to cost at least $4 trillion dollars and will mostly accumulate to the top 0.1%? It's also estimated that it will explode the federal debt.
This is a government by and for oligarchs like Musk. He's attempting distraction while the plan is to grossly enrich themselves.
You were having a discussion about the merits of specific behaviors and when someone pushes back on the merits, you just keep defaulting to "well they won the election."
You've done it multiple times now.
Everyone knows they won the election. Everyone knows the way to win power back is to win the election next time. People are having a discussion with you about the merits of what they're doing with that power currently.
the repeated refrain “they won the election” isn’t a lazy deflection—it’s a recognition of how our political system actually works. Power isn’t a magical property that comes from shouting insults or perpetuating endless conspiracy theories. Rather, it comes from a process that all of us have a stake in: an election that confers legitimacy on those chosen to govern. Yes, the people in power are taking legal actions to challenge inefficiency or waste, and if you disagree with the policies or the conduct of those in office, the established rules and courts are the means to bring about change.
Critics on both sides—whether anti‑Trump or anti‑Elon—tend to focus on slogans or sensational accusations rather than on what really matters: the proper channels of accountability. If you object to how power is being wielded or believe that policies are harming the nation, then the proper remedy isn’t to simply rail against the outcome. It is to participate in the democratic process. Challenge those actions in court, push for legislative reforms, and, importantly, vote for candidates who will implement the changes you want. That is the only non‑ad hoc, non‑refutable solution available.
It may sound repetitive to say “win the election” over and over again, but that is the point. Every time someone dismisses an objection with “they won the election,” they are implicitly saying: “If you don’t like how the current system is working, use the power that the system itself provides.” The legal processes and checks and balances aren’t just theoretical ideals—they’re the only way to address grievances without devolving into personal attacks or populist demagoguery.
So yes. If you don't like CURRENT thing.. you'll have to vote and better convince others your candidates the right one. The team that won is the team with power. Just as with Biden the team that won had their actions, people didn't like it, and here we are.
EDIT: I'd also ad that it's confrontational for you to directly assume people are in a cult because they don't follow your views.
Okay got it. Near the top of ganoushoreilly's priority list are:
1. Stopping life-saving treatments for 560,000 children
2. Stopping life-saving treatments for another 20 million people
Ganoushoreilly thinks this might be actually the right course of action, because s/he believes the funding is not audited and "there might be fraud." S/he appears ignorant of the easily discoverable fact that this funding was last audited a jawdropping, wildly irresponsible four months ago. By actual independent auditors.
Oh look, generic claims projected as fact. Where did I say anything close to this? Maybe re-frame your allegations here with actual links to specifics and I'll respond. If your emotionally charged response is in regard to stopping the medical transition of minors, yes I support that stance. It also has 0 to do with cuts as USAID and is more a larger complaint you have against the President vs the actual topic this whole post in based on. That's on you. Democrats lost, their views aren't the views in power. The american population has voted for the powers that be. It sucks losing and it can be an extremely emotional thing realizing that a large part of the population doesn't in fact toe the line with you on what you feel are the most critical issues in america. That's just how it is. You can be mad, you can sling mud, but like a broken record, there is only one way you can fix that and it's convincing people to vote like you.
This conversation has delved into hyper emotional responses, i've tried to keep it to the point of topic at hand. I've made it clear we have different opinions and it's not going to change. I'm not engaging further after this.
Uhhh... I was referring to the number of people currently -- and now, no longer -- receiving life-saving HIV treatments via USAID/PEPFAR. These people will die.
It's frankly mind-boggling that we can be in the middle of conversation about USAID/PEPFAR, you say "yes I agree with this prioritization," I reply back with what that prioritization actually is, and then you... jump to thinking that I'm talking about half a million children transitioning genders?
> Yes, the people in power are taking legal actions to challenge inefficiency or waste, and if you disagree with the policies or the conduct of those in office, the established rules and courts are the means to bring about change.
They are likely not legal and have been told to stop by a judge. Vance has suggested ignoring the ruling and Elon is whining about impeaching judges now.
> the proper channels of accountability
Who is exactly is accountable to what is happening right now? Musk? Hahaha. There is zero accountability, transparency, or oversight in what is happening.
> people are in a cult
It's not an assumption. When people follow someone or a group to a religious extreme that is a cult. Everything Trump or now Musk does is somehow explained away in a very 'we were always at war with Eurasia' way. This list is really never-ending, but Trump was going to lower prices (the eggs!) and now he says they are going to go up. MAGA's are about backing the blue, unless Trump is pardoning people who beat police officers. What about Hilary's emails on a private server, but it's ok that Musk loading confidential government data to who knows where. Can you believe Hunter is on the board of a company and may be profiting off his families name? Forget about Trump coin, Kushner getting billions from the Saudis, the list goes on. And it highlights that MAGA doesn't really have any views other than 'our team good, their team bad'.
It's wild to me that people are that into someone like Trump or Musk. I'm not into anyone like that except maybe my family. When Trump said he could shoot someone in the street and people would still follow him, he was right. That also means it's a cult. What would they have to do for you to say throw them in jail?
You literally are personifying your own "our team good, their team bad" comment.
You're not providing any solution to the actual perceived problem. You're not providing any counters beyond your candidate that failed to get the support necessary to win. You don't have to like it, this is what it is, the left lost not only the election, but your "I know better than you" smarmy attitudes are resulting in those of use that are socially liberal, being pushed further right for a sense of sanity.
At this point the conversation isn't going anywhere and i'm satisfied that we are cleaning out all this graft, you (collectively) are not. We will not agree on this and i'm ok with that. I get it, it sucks losing control of narratives and funds, all I can say is what i've said before, if you don't like it vote for change.
USAID passed an independent audit literally 4 months ago. [1]
Please elucidate what graft 1) they missed, 2) you've found, and 3) justifies withdrawal of life-saving treatments for millions of people while inflicting enormous damage upon our country's international image?
You first justified the Trump administration's blatantly illegal actions by saying Americans voted for Trump. Now, you're saying it's all fine, because anyone can challenge Trump's illegal actions in court.
The fact that the president is taking one extreme, illegal action after the next in rapid succession is itself extremely alarming and unprecedented in American history. The fact that the Vice President has publicly declared that courts have no right to overrule the President's illegal actions is equally alarming.
He is the president, the population elected him. You have a process to rectify it if you feel so inclined. He won and now your views aren't the views of power and it must suck, I sympathize with that but progress is going to continue regardless if it's your vision. Plenty would say the same is true about the prior president and the excessive heavy handed actions taken towards DEI and other programs that have been found to be unconstitutional, you know, within the courts as the system requires. There is a process. If you don't want to play the game, using the process, any outcomes you don't like are on you for failing to change it. You as in the collective of opinion.
Go outside, take a walk, breath, it's going to be ok.
> He is the president, the population elected him.
That doesn't give him the right to shred the Constitution.
> You have a process to rectify it if you feel so inclined.
A process that the Vice President has said the President is free to ignore.
You're justifying an all-out assault on the Constitution of the US. The President isn't following "the process" - which seems not to concern you in the slightest.
Why not get mad at all the money appropriated to USAID to fund specific causes and find out most of that money went to pay for houses near Langley, VA and Politico accounts? That's a much larger scandal than this super transparent process happening.
The scandal is now super deep. They just caught FEMA funding another $60 M going to hotels in NYC! Prepare for this to get deeper. I hope they root out all corruption. My hat is off to them, I'm extremely overjoyed they're finally fixing our government. This is the best government the USA has ever had.
> Why not get mad at all the money appropriated to USAID to fund specific causes and find out most of that money went to pay for houses near Langley, VA and Politico accounts?
It didn't, and I'm disappointed to see that there are people on HN who fall for such absurd falsehoods.
Have you even read the article you linked to? It says that USAID only paid $44k to Politico, for subscriptions to a publication it runs.
$44k is nowhere near "most" of USAID's budget. It's less than 0.0001%. If you want USAID to stop subscribing to publications, that's a very minor change. You don't shut down an entire agency over that.
You still haven't addressed the fact that USAID only paid $44k to Politico (over two years, for subscriptions), which is less than 0.0001% of USAID's budget.
You said USAID spends most of its budget on Politico and apartments near Langley. Are you going to admit that that was nonsense, before switching to your next argument?
Even if entire agencies were bullshit, and that’s incredibly unlikely and unrealistic, it’d do absolutely nothing meaningful to our spending compared to our biggest expenses. This is a problem for a lot of people without backgrounds in economics or who are used to very, very, large numbers. A few billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it’s literally not even a tenth of a percent of our budget.
If they cared about reducing the budget, and finding inefficiencies they would nationalize the healthcare system since we as a nation pay nearly double that of any other country and have worse outcomes. It’s empirical they do not care about efficiency, based on their targets, they care about power. USAID was investigating NeuralLink that’s why it was targeted. Thats it.
He's going after every single agency. Surely you're aware he's tarting health card and the Military already right? Do you know why the started with USAID?
Let's see where we are in 6 - 12 months, then if he hasn't touched anyone else I'll accept your point of him not targeting anything of value.
In 6-12 months there will be nearly irreparable harm done. And I said exactly why he started with USAID but I’m guessing you didn’t actually read that part.
> Luke Farritor of DOGE was given access to computer systems of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the department responsible for the security and protection of American nuclear technologies and nuclear weapons, by United States Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright, against guidance of the DOE's general counsel and chief information offices.
on the face of it, this sounded absolutely terrifying reading it on wikipedia. But, on closer inspection of the CNN article used as a source
> Farritor was granted access to basic IT including email and Microsoft 365, one of the people said. The chief information office only does a small amount of IT and cybersecurity work for the National Nuclear Security Administration, they said, including providing connectivity and running basic internet services for NNSA’s headquarters. It does not run IT systems for the nuclear agency’s labs controlling the nation’s nuclear stockpile.
This is how media has been hacked. When everyone is exaggerating that the sky is falling, we all tune it out, and then it's really hard to convey when the sky truly is falling... resulting in authorities that can get away with pretty much anything.
audible sigh. no, this is not evidence of how "media has been hacked".
the wikipedia summary of the information could be clearer, as it leaves room for me to make an inference on the statements provided -- but those inferences are based on my own biases and my own fuzzy stupid human brain thing filling in the blanks.
which is exactly why there are links to the underlying source material. so I can go and dive in deeper to see that, actually, my brain filled in the blanks wrong. it's my brain filling in the blanks. no-one else's brain is doing it for me. no-one is "hacking" my perspective. I screwed up by reading into something wrong and making assumptions out of fear. It is my personal responsibility to verify and challenge my own assumptions, especially those based on fears and worries.
basically, it's my own damn fault. please don't blame someone else for something that is my own damn fault.
there are plenty of badly poorly edited wikipedia articles out there -- i was reading one last night which literally had an entire paragraph that consisted of "The BBC released a timeline of events on their website". That was the whole paragraph. No reference for that statement either! This is part of the nature of community based, a.k.a. amateur, created notes. Oh look, an argument for professional fact checking and copy editing appears out of nowhere.
I don't mean "hacked" as in some malicious individual planned to mislead you. I mean we've screwed up our brain's information processing with the constant flow of urgency (for eyeballs). We're basically unable to pay attention to anything that isn't immediate. The bias you mention in compounded by others biases as the information is shared with each individual's bias. I also suspect that there can be bad actors in the chain, who intentionally mislead, often for pretty banal reasons (protecting their own perceptions).
I recently read about how Trump is "crashing" the stock market, and I was like oh crap, but when I checked it was only down a few points. Not only will I now ignore this source, but it's also probably nudged my overall distrust a little bit. Possibly the person writing the article figured it was important enough to warrant notice (it is) but realized no one would pay attention if it didn't sound urgent, so they gussied it up a lot... Imagine how much more dire it was after it got shared a few more times. If I got my news from Facebook then I might have thought democracy had collapsed and roving bands of gun toting anarchists had taken over.
> "Trump is "crashing" the stock market, and I was like oh crap, but when I checked it was only down a few points"
Forbes has a page "realtime billionaires list"[1] where they track the day to day wealth changes. Musk lost $12.5 billion today, Larry Ellison lost $2.8 billion today, Mark Zuckerberg gained $820M today.
When a few points means billions to the people who fund and own media outlets, who are also famously competitive and willing to do anything to make the numbers go up, it becomes more clear why we hear of the market "crashing" but it doesn't seem much different to us. (and that's outside the usual political complaining about everything the 'other' party does, whatever it is).
You're very intelligently jumping through hoops to justify and defend the media and how the system as a whole operated here. On aggregate, this kind of "something" that happened, whether relying on readers filling in blanks, omissions, downright lying, even the choice of photo on a wiki page, etc, they all have a net-effect which steers the conversation and effort in a very specific direction.
Let's not pretend like this stuff doesn't have some sort of effect on the conversation, or our ability to have the conversation, or to debate it rationally and from first-principles. At the very least, we are here arguing pedantic minor points whilst the real issues are left un-debated. The purpose of the media should be to distill, enlighten, inform, and definitely not mislead with a very specific agenda which it very clearly does. You point me to any news article from any news outlet, including Reuters and I will show you how they twist literal facts into bias. At this point, I see them as no different than politicians.
Unfortunately for the left-wing intelligentsia, the media, and their allies - the average day to day people are waking up and the general opinion floating around more and more is having the effect of exposing the MO of how the media pushes an agenda (whether purposefully or not).
I know a number of them but they’re rightfully not looking to be especially public about it now on the internet — life is hard enough just doing the job they’re trying to do. Which is frankly a lot of banal accounting and auditing type work. They’re in their 30’s and 40’s with prolific backgrounds in PE, as entrepreneurs managing nine figure budgets and thousands of employees, etc.
I'm having trouble reconciling the backgrounds of the people that you're describing with the effects of the work they're doing. When they suddenly closed USAID, vulnerable people around the world instantly lost access to food and medicine with no recourse. There were people enrolled in clinical trials who had devices implanted in their bodies and then suddenly all support was cut off. Even if you believe that America shouldn't fund these things, how can you possibly justify shutting it down in such a way that food for hungry people rots in warehouses and clinicians have to decide if they're going to defy orders to vaccinate a pregnant mother? I can understand how a 23-year-old can get so enamored by all this sudden access to power that he completely loses sight of the effects of what he's doing. I don't understand how someone with decades of experience in positions of responsibility doesn't ask the most basic questions about the consequences of taking drastic action.
The policy people like Stephen Miller who are the brains here question the humanity of others.
The expression of power by inflicting suffering is seen as a flex. USAID and its mission are in opposition to their aims — you are to be cowed by power, not be look kindly upon the kindness and mercy of the US.
My friends aren’t working on USAid they’re in departments doing work that has no political storytelling like cutting a bunch of redundant $2-10M contracts here and there every day. Remember that it’s been like 2-3 weeks — what has your established company done in these 2 weeks?
I worked for a company that had the mentality of "what can we ship today", "how can we get 80% of the output with 20% of the work", "how do we move as quickly as possible" and "how do we keep the team as lean as possible". What they lost sight of in all of that hustle, they were piling on risks that would eventually cause real harm to customers. I'm talking about an expensive hardware product with a very high failure rate and limited warranty, and absolutely terrible security and privacy practices. These led to real harms to people. Moving quickly is fine in certain contexts, particularly when you're at an early stage and your work is effecting few people or only people who are willing to accept risk. But what works for an early stage startup doesn't work in other situations! Sometimes there are real human costs. When you're moving that fast, you completely lose sight of the consequences of your actions.
And if you think USAID is the only place where there are horrible first, second, and third order effects to what DOGE is doing, you're being completely naive. There are huge numbers of people in the federal government who deal with life-or-death matters every day. Air traffic controllers. VA clinicians. What are the consequences of sending these people daily emails telling them they're unproductive and they should quit or get laid off? Telling them that you want them to be "traumatized"?
Google up "hostage puppy". I could give you a link, but I'm not trying to claim that any particular person who said it is an authority.
The idea is that your organization may be doing inefficient or horrible things, but it also has one cute puppy who depends on it. Any time someone wants to shut your organization down, you just point to the cute puppy and say "you wouldn't want this puppy to die, would you?".
Which is the hostage puppy? Half the HIV treatment in the developing world? The people clearing landmines? The malaria treatment? Or is it tuberculosis? Or security and economic aid to our allies, particularly allies that are fighting wars? Or funding the groups that are standing up to our authoritarian adversaries? Feeding people facing famines? Economic assistance to bolster employment in countries to reduce the demand for people to migrate to the US?
Yeah I can’t believe what I’m reading on this site. The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.
This is truly the post truth world. I wouldn’t be surprised if many here who are making counter arguments either hate the US and what it stands for or are outright malicious actors
Touting “first principals” is a way of revealing “I’m too dumb to understand other people’s work.” Like if you can’t understand higher level concepts and have to start on your own from Euclid, it just means you aren’t very smart but think you can be another Maxwell just by thinkin’ real hard. It’s a joke.
I'm echo chambering on this and one other comment[1], and starting to wonder if those guys are actually neurodivergent, autistic, whatever implies combination of entry-superhuman intelligence and unfortunate psycho-emotional development, or it's complete opposite and they're faking intelligence with vastly superior EQ, put aside pointlessness of taking IQ/EQ seriously.
Because, I don't think Musk had ever shown issues understanding or even precisely manipulating people's sentiments with bare hands which some of us struggle even with tools, while also there being countless examples him showing lack of understanding of laws, order, code, all such brittle dehumanized systems in general.
All his successes owes to his mastery of orchestrating humans as animals, not machines or humans as intelligent constructs. Why are we nearly dead set that it's opposite of that?
I think it's more to do with long eroded goodwill. I remember the early 10's when he was an internet darling and there was optimism on what he would deliver. Then some of that is simply artificially inflated hype by investors on Wall Street that need him to keep that persona so they can keep their money going up.
He's long turned about face with that, but that goodwill can die really, really hard (only took until now for Wall Street to very slowly start pulling out). As we see with Donald Trump somehow being relevant some 4 decades after his celebrity fame for a national election.
>Why are we nearly dead set that it's opposite of that?
My impression is that Musk knew to surround himself with good people. Be it coincidence, a Charisma check, or simply throwing cash at them, those people clearly did amazing things and he was the face of it all.
This is more or less the opposite, and his crude behavior navigating government IMO could not have gone worse. He had at least 2 years to sow the seeds and he's instead taking "Drill Baby, Drill" a bit too seriously. I could be very wrong and underestimating him. But he feels more like someone who demands the spotlight, not a mastermind with a precise vision. Those good people are not around him anymore; Trump sure as hell doesn't have a vision past tax cuts for billionaires.
Another way of looking at it might be that the crowd who liked Musk in the 2010s is a tough audience. I was among them too - I liked what Musk (appeared) to stand for. Expanding mankind's reach, unafraid to take a task that previously was deemed "impossible" and pretending that with enough determination it can be achieved. All the while maintaining a bit of childish cheek and humor about things. I really liked both the vibe and the approach. It was the quintessential "young and starry eyed rich genius who is prepared to throw lots of money at moonshot ideas - if only to see what happens".
But this audience is more diverse in it's views and is perhaps more willing to challenge it's idols and leaders. Keeping this audience on your side is a constant dialogue where you are constantly challenged and it's a symbiotic-adversarial relationship that results in a stronger whole. Only by getting challenged in a constructive discussion can truly great ideas be born.
But this is hard work and in some sense annoying. Inevitably he gets surrounded by sycophants and yes-men, because these people butter his ego, and comes to realize that there's an audience around who will unquestionably eat up anything their leader says irrespective of it's truthfulness. An audience who doesn't care whether their leaders are good, just that the leader is on their side.
And thus we find ourselves in the current situation, with an entire establishment in the US who will happily broadcast broad faced lies, but these lies are only for their own audience who believes them without question. Or they just don't care at all, because it's not about the truth, it's only about tribalism.
Its about assuming most people operate on dogma and heuristics. This is extremely true in my opinion.
By making this assumption, you dispel bad practices and behaviors that might have built up within an organization. Even more importantly you can reveal why certain chesterton’s fences exist.
Interestingly that is the exact opposite of the Chesterton's fence concept - it illustrates that it is much better to grasp the system as it exists before attempting to change it, as then you can learn why a Chesterton's fence exists without tearing it down.
Which works in fields removed from non-human reality or consequences. For example, when creating financial derivatives or other forms of social engineering, where the substrate changes and nothing seems fixed.
It falls to pieces when people with this mindset attempt to work up against the constraints of physics, or other unchanging limits. Those limits can be constructed on, and relied upon. Going back to first principles in these cases inevitably results in massive losses in the repetition of the uncountable quiet failure-corners of history.
Not necessarily. Other peoples' work can assume what "everyone knows"; starting from first principles can (sometimes) show up where that's the case. That doesn't mean you're not very smart; it means you're aware enough to know that some limitations that aren't real creep in to the body of knowledge of a field.
Or it can be just arrogance. (In fact, even when it's reasonable, it probably also contains some arrogance...)
I am in agreement with you. The OP is overstated. I have heard Musk interviewed a few times. When asked to explain more about his phase "first principles", he usually talks about (paraphrase) "delete as many things as possible". It is an interesting way to think about project planning. At a bare minimum, he has created several incredibly successful businesses in his lifetime, so he must be doing something right.
> At a bare minimum, he has created several incredibly successful businesses in his lifetime, so he must be doing something right.
No, this is a common fallacy.
The main reason to get crazy rich and successful is statistics: be lucky. I.e., accidentally do the successful things. And usually starting rich helps, so you have the opportunities.
Crazy success is not a measure for capability. There is no correlation. Yes, it is sad, so despite this, the fallacy is a great motivation for many.
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Physics has to work, organisational processes don't - Maxwell himself wouldn't have been able to understand the travel expense rules at some organisations I've seen, and the right response isn't always to try to reverse engineer what people were thinking when they came up with this crap, sometimes you really are better off throwing it away and coming up with something reasonable from scratch.
Do you think it more likely that people are "incapable of understanding" or that people are intensely suspicious of what Musk's idea of a "reasonable tax code created from scratch" would be and how it would benefit Musk a lot more than everyone else?
The former. My own personal view on taxes: (especially income and property tax) neither the rich nor the poor should ever pay them. So in my view it does not matter to whom it benefits the most - most likely it is going to benefit everybody musk included, I suspect though It will also mostly benefit the less well off people in society. Perhaps the most important question to ask is not who will gain - rather who stands to lose? My answer would be the career bureaucrats.
Without paying property tax, the rich can buy up lots of property (and land) and leave it idle, with the express purpose of squeezing everyone else into the remaining land, forcing the rent prices up, which they benefit from. Since there is a finite amount of land in a nation, that ends up being unfair. Assuming the ordinary people pay a tax of some kind, the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation. Standing back and doing nothing while the rich exploit everyone else isn't living up to that side of the tax contract. Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner.
Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way?
> "My answer would be the career bureaucrats"
Why is this used as a slur? There's such a thing as a career diplomat, and we'd hope they would learn more about the country they were diplomat-ing in over that career - who can make things happen in the government, how the consulate can get things done, build relationships with people in power. Similar with a career bureaucrat in principle, having a head full of details about which supply chains are reliable and resilient, which people are experts in border issues or international currency issues or state laws vs. federal laws, building relationships with them.
>the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation
It's not how it pans out.
>Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner.
All that will disproportionately affect the poor not the rich who can actually afford the taxes.
>Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way?
I do. Property in one thing that I think should be equally divided among individuals, with individuals being able to use/rent in whatever manner they please within certain confines (lots of assumptions here and lots of if and buts, but it's huge discussion).
>> "My answer would be the career bureaucrats"
>Why is this used as a slur?
It is intended to be a slur, infact the word bureaucrat itself is a slur. Being a bureaucrat is a negative skill or a parasite etc. unlike a lot of other specializations. Ofcourse exceptions may exist. Personal questions: have you done your taxes beyond simple salaried income tax? Have you bough/sold property? have you run a small/big business? have you run a payroll? Alternatively are you familiar with the amount of complexity introduced by the govt in the questions I asked you?
> "I do. Property in one thing that I think should be equally divided among individuals, with individuals being able to use/rent in whatever manner they please within certain confines (lots of assumptions here and lots of if and buts, but it's huge discussion)."
That's interesting, and rather goes up against the free markety ideas that the people with the most valuable use for land/property should be able to buy as much of it as they want from people with less valuable uses (who can sell it at market rates). I am interested and do wonder how that might work, and if it would work. Although I note that thing_you_like is allowed to be nuanced and complex, and thing_you_dislike must be bad because it's complex.
> All that will disproportionately affect the poor not the rich who can actually afford the taxes.
That happens when a speeding ticket is a fixed $100. Norway can give speeding fines up to 10% of the driver's annual salary. A bad property tax disproportionately hurts the poor, not all property taxes.
Your parent comment "Perhaps the most important question to ask is not who will gain - rather who stands to lose?" is the entire reason taxes get complicated - because every change is a change that someone gains and someone else loses. Any thing which is paid for by taxes has an argument over who should pay the tax, and how much of it; do parents pay tax for schools? Society benefits from more educated people, so does everyone pay? Is it an income tax because people who benefitted more from education can earn more? Is it part of property tax because family homes need schools built nearby? Solve for something all councillors/senators agree on - after they negotiate, for every thing and every slider.
> Personal questions: ...
They would be relevant if I had said the tax code was in any way optimal, good, efficient, should not be changed, or should not/could not be improved. My position is not that. It is if we give the greedy fat kid free reign to rewrite the rationing system the only expected result is all the food ends up on their plate and none on anybody else's.
We've seen Musk taking union busting actions, we've seen Musk's daughter accuse him of abuse, we've seen Tesla and SpaceX benefit from billions of taxpayer funding while Tesla arranged to pay no income tax on its billions of income, Musk has demonstrated lack of caring for the interests of other humans, the expected outcome of him rewriting the tax code is that he and his companies pay no tax and therefore others pay all of it. We've also seen years of Musk dashing off an unworkable ill-thought-out idea off the top of his head, so after "I pay no tax" the remainder is probably some pre-planned maximally self-interested tax code written by Peter Thiel et al, or some dashed-out-in-ten-minutes wildly unbalanced hopelessly unworkable napkin tweet.
I would like to see laws implemented with test conditions for how we will know if they are working, with a mandatory sunset period for reviewing them and if they aren't meeting the test conditions they automatically expire. I would like to see the tax code be mandatory computer-implementable with low tax filing complexity as a priority consideration.
> "It is intended to be a slur, infact the word bureaucrat itself is a slur. Being a bureaucrat is a negative skill or a parasite etc."
One person's bureacratic parasite is another person's necessary management. I enjoy Yes Minister[1] and am annoyed by the waste it parodies and mocks, but also acknowledge that a necessary and significantly sized part of any large system is the organization and management and implementation of the system itself; the UK's NHS is often criticised for having too many administrators, and at the same time for not having enough administrators to be able to do the work of organizing and making it more efficent on top of the work of keeping it running.
The second system effect[2], "scrap it and we'll start again and do it better", is a well known anti-pattern[3]; the cost of scrapping and rewriting the tax code, all the people through the Inland Revenue, all the accountants and lawyers who need updating, all the forms and paperwork and computer systems and reports and analysis which need refactoring, recreating, translating, documenting, explaining, staff training - staff hiring - the effort and cost is non-trivial, all on the unsupported dream "we will do it better next time".
Your original comment: ">sometimes you really are better off throwing it away and coming up with something reasonable from scratch." why not simply switch that around? First come up with a 'reasonable' tax code from scratch, put it into a bill, and because it's reasonable senators will all support it, then afterwards the old one can be thrown away? Obviously that hasn't happened, and surely the reason is that there is no reasonable alternative that everyone agrees on, and the only way to throw it away and come up with an alternative is to have a single authority force one through and expect it to be one which helps them and their friends and hurts others. Guarding against that is why we have Democracy not Dictatorship in the first place(!) even though Democracy is often inefficient and ineffective.
[1] https://archive.org/details/yes-minister-1980-1984 - a British satire / comedy from the 1980s set where a newly elected government minister finds he's been made head of the Department of Administrative Affairs, a department of 23,000 administrators. Example scene/situation is the new hospital with 500 'seriously overworked' administrative staff and no medical staff or patients: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAk448volww
>That's interesting, and rather goes up against the free markety ideas.
While the general impression of free market that is commonly touted does imply what you say, even in its current form people don't carry free market ideas to it's extreme: for example someone could argue that in a true free market you could kill your competitor to gain an edge.
>Although I note that thing_you_like is allowed to be nuanced and complex, and thing_you_dislike must be bad because it's complex.
There are areas where complexity may be needed and not avoidable. (for example a rocket ) . Something similar goes for the land division that I talked about. What I can assure you is that if a land division is not considered, the complexity ( and associated atrocities) are magnified in other areas like the tax code.
>I would like to see laws implemented with test conditions for how we will know if they are working, with a mandatory sunset period for reviewing them and if they aren't meeting the test conditions they automatically expire.
As much as I agree with you on this I don't think it'll happen in practice, simply because most humans are completely incapable of even conceiving those kind of ideas. If you are a developer like me, you are well about the average IQ - so what may seem trivial to you and me is not for the common man or the common elected representative that he elects.
> tax code was in any way optimal
The tax code especially for income tax and property tax, can never be optimal, or if it's optimal it's only for a short time. Because by it's very nature it's predatory. (it's another huge topic as to what can be taxed)
>One person's bureacratic parasite is another person's necessary management.
This mostly true of private companies, less so for a government that writes check to itself.
>I enjoy Yes Minister[1] and am annoyed by the waste it parodies and mocks,
While you did not answer my questions which were directed to you as a person( I assume that most of your answers would be 'no'). I'm glad that you're familiar with "Yes Minister". (I had seen it a few decades back.). Anyway I'm arguing for minimal government and for minimizing any scope creep of the powers that the government may have. Easier said than done. (the mostly legalized and easy to obtain gun ownership in US is one example, which if I interpret correctly was intended to keep the government in check)
considering the massive amount of (still often true) information at our fingertips, appealing to authorities that have proved themselves unreliable many times in recent memories is not the benefit one might initially think it is.
"first principles" doesn't mean "go back to 2 + 2 and reinvent the rest of math".
Curiously both Tesla and SpaceX benefit enormously from government spending[1] to the tune of almost $5Bn of taxpayer money. And then Tesla paid zero income tax last year[2] and none in 2021 either[3]. And now Musk is taking the position that the government spends too much taxpayer's money and needs to be torn down.
Musk also did very well by plainly lying (which I would call market manipulation) about Tesla products; the Cybertruck video where Musk claimed it was faster than a Porsche while towing a Porsche was a lie[4]. A 2016 video demonstrating self-driving was faked[5]. Musk's statements about what the Tesla Semi can do were not just generous marketing, they are impossible[6], claiming 500 miles range and PepsiCo reports they can't even carry a load of Lay's potato chips for 500 miles and on heavier loads they can only travel 100 miles. Faked self parking videos, faked SolarCity videos, faked Optimus humanoid robot videos, faked CyberTruck towing an F150 video[7]. The Optimus robots at the October 2024 event were remote controled and remote-voiced by humans[8]. They walk like Honda Asimo robots walked 25 years ago but they're being spun like they are Boston Dynamics killers. Musk's talk of tentacle arms to recharge Teslas never turned into anything (though BYD in China has had public automated electric-car battery-swap stations for years now). Musk's talk of full self driving first promised, what, 2017? turned out to be misleading with cars not even having the hardware to do a good job of it. Musk's early plans for completely automated Model 3 factory faded very quickly with them reverting to humans in marquees.
Yes Musk has done pretty well with investors letting him get away with a lot of broken promises and taxpayers letting him get away with a lot of subsidies and customers letting him get away with a lot of shoddy products. Lucky for him the Tesla engineers were competent true believers(tm) and delivered decent Model 3 and Model Y but that should only give them a similar valuation to other car companies, shouldn't it?
All of this, and yet the rockets land on the ground, the cars sell and drive themselves, and the world is fighting for Starlink terminals as soon as there is some event going on. I wish more would manage to consistently fail upwards in such a way.
SpaceX makes money in four ways[0], billion dollar contracts with NASA for rocket design and manufacture, cargo and supply services for NASA, contracts with the US Department of Defense, and the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Most of its income is taxpayer money. And StarLink, though we might wonder if StarLink would be around without the taxpayer, and what SpaceX valuation would be if it was just Starlink.
Fidelity estimates X (Twitter) is worth 80% less than when Musk bought it[1].
The Boring Company has raised ~$795M of investment valuing it at $5.6Bn and in 7 years it has delivered a 2.4 mile tunnel under Las Vegas which cost $48M and $4.5M/year. It was going to use self driving Teslas but actually they pay drivers to drive the cars, to move 1-3 people at ~40 miles per hour, and The Boring Company subsidises it by another couple of million per year. This money could have bought a lot of buses which would move more people more cheaply. Bus Rapid Transit, but worse.
Almost as if he didn’t actually cause that to happen. I can imagine a world where thousands of competent professionals, working in areas they were already passionate about did the work. They did it by working according to their training, not according to “first principles.”
Their jobs and approaches were protected by middle/upper management constructing stories for Musk about how it was revolutionary, and all he heard was agreement.
I wrote three paragraphs with 8 links showing multiple lies, manipulation, differences between how Musk presents himself and what he says he supports (Randian superman), vs. what actually happened (taxpayer funding) and they post a one-line dismissive "who cares, he's rich, the ends justify the means".
That's not a good comment, especially in the light of dang's callout at the top of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42992992 "don't post low-information / high-indignation comments that could just as easily appear in any related thread. Such generic comments make discussion less interesting and more activating.".
Auditors take time and are boring. Auditors measure performance against rules and goals — this is about discarding the rules and goals. The point of this is chaos and power.
Elon has contempt for rules and laws. Blame the fuckups on the deep state or whatever. He will run wild until the president cuts off his head.
USAID was the most resistant to an audit which is why they’re getting scrutinized early. Trump literally said today on an interview aired before the superbowl that a department of defense audit is coming up and he expects it to turn up billions to hundreds of billions in waste.
It appears that they passed audit just a few months ago:
> Opinion: Williams Adley concluded that USADF’s financial statements as of September 30, 2024, and September 30, 2023, are presented fairly, in all material respects, and in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
> The audit firm also found no reportable noncompliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements.
> The audit firm found no material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting but found deficiencies in the internal controls over the Funds Held Outside of Treasury process. We collectively identified these deficiencies as a reportable significant deficiency.
Why would the DoD be resistant to an audit? They've had un-auditable black budgets for decades and every time someone questions them they pull a new stealth aircraft out of their back pocket
I don't quite understand how they are gaining the access credentials required? Where I work, it takes days to onboard people, through standard processes. Whats happening in this case.
Given the highly volatile, and legally gray, situation; I'd expect the front line people who usually grant access are at least flagging these requests to their boss, who flags to their boss etc. Is everyone up the chain just giving a shrug and saying "seems legit, give them the access".
Of course people don't want to loose their jobs, but I would have expected someone in a senior leadership position to take a stand in preventing this (unless their all on board?)
People mentioned Elon's DOGE team is about 200 people including lawyers and accountants. I am guessing the focus on the 6 youngsters is mainly because here's a bunch of former Deloitte lawyers/accountants is not a newsworthy thing to focus on especially if your angle is to discredit the effort.
You're telling me 200 ALLEGED adult professionals are involved in a scheme where some 19 year old cybercriminal has access to classified nuclear weapons systems as if that's any indication of a better situation than critics allege and you think you've got sober and thoughtful take to offer on this situation, do you?
I didn't know FED data that was accessed at the Treasury department contained data on classified nuclear weapons systems. I've also never seen this level of freakout over real breaches like say SolarWind done by APT-29(Cozy Bear) actual Russian foreign intelligence group. That breach included Treasury, DoD, DoJ, State Department, DHS, Energy Department and so on.
> Farritor was granted access to basic IT including email and Microsoft 365, one of the people said. The chief information office only does a small amount of IT and cybersecurity work for the National Nuclear Security Administration, they said, including providing connectivity and running basic internet services for NNSA’s headquarters. It does not run IT systems for the nuclear agency’s labs controlling the nation’s nuclear stockpile.
As to this part of your comment:
> and you think you've got sober and thoughtful take to offer on this situation, do you?
Please take note of Dang's comment at the top of the page, hyperbole and hysteria are not interesting.
Just look in this thread for how many posters here are 100% certain that irreparable damage is being done - because they want to feel mad.
There is no proof of anything bad. Regardless how many people want that to be false, oddly.
So I guess tough to not think that the worldwide media that has been receiving government money would be mad and willing to focus on ”a handful of 20 year olds” as a means to discredit.
What I find strange is that it’s working so well. So many people here KNOW so much that hasn’t been reported or happened.
In what sense is it a security violation a person authorized by the Treasury secretary accessed data in Treasury department. The granting of security clearances is in the authority of the President which President can exercise directly or by delegating.
It was not but regardless how is this a bigger security violation? Also is the claim here that Secretary of Treasury lacks authority to grant access to treasury data or that President lacks authority to grant security clearances? Keep in mind Scott Bessent was confirmed by a huge margin. This was a rare bipartisan vote as he is an extremely qualified individual for the role (unlike many other Trump nominees).
Hiring someone who was part of the Com and who was already terminated once for leaking secrets seems like a pretty big security violation, whether or not it was signed off by someone.
I advise you never look in into backgrounds of most top cyber sec people cause prob about half used to be on the black hat side in their youth days some even served time.
I would agree with you were it not for the fact that Musk, Trump, Vance, and several of the DOGE boy squad have links to Curtis Yarvin and believe that his idea of Dark Enlightenment is the way forward. He was even invited to the Coronation Ball for Trump's inauguration. If you aren't familiar, you should read up. It's truly demented and twisted. The minds of people who would follow such a philosophy have been utterly compromised and corrupted beyond help. These people are not to be trusted.
Cause these can get access to things Elon wants access to and will do what Elon wants. Musk does not want audit, he wants someone who will find exactly what Musk wants him to find and wont worry about legality or rules.
Musk is not concerned with producing false accusation for example. Obviously he could find corrupt auditors and probably did, but those are slower. They take more time to produce what was asked from them.
There is a claim that many federal payments do not have information necessary for traditional financial audits. Maybe a team of forensic auditors would be more apt?
Given how transparent government spending is and how frequently it’s audited, I think that’s begging the question of how scientific that claim is. The DoD is the only federal agency which hasn’t been able to have a clean audit[1] so it would be reasonable to question them – taking into consideration their unusual size and distribution, of course – but that doesn’t say anything about the rest of the government, or even distinguish between issues with payments vs. things like physical inventory when you have thousands of facilities around the world.
The question no one is asking is why does the federal government have so much "sensitive data" on it's citizens in the first place?
When you build a machine like this you should ask, "would I be comfortable if my political opposites had control of this?" If the answer is no, then you DON'T BUILD IT.
Meanwhile someone goes in there to try to break up this 30 year pile of technical debt and it's all lawsuits and handwaving theatrics to try to stop it.
The NIH and CDC have incredibly detailed medical event data for infectious diseases, cancer diagnoses, and death certificates (which have a ton of data beyond "John Doe of New York City died of such and such on such and such date." It's how we have incredibly effective epidemiologists. Hospitals and non-profits use the data published by the government to make large decisions about equipment purchases, types of staff to hire, and community health programs to run.
All the government professionals I've met who work with that data are very careful with it. The guiding star is "Never let anyone use our data to find out something about any individual. Then, if you still can, publish someone useful."
>Meanwhile someone goes in there to try to break up this 30 year pile of technical debt and it's all lawsuits and handwaving theatrics to try to stop it.
They only had to get security clearances and follow the Constitution. Clearances are routine, so shouldn't be a problem (unless the person being cleared is a problem). The Republicans control all branches of government, and cost-cutting is very popular among all voters, so writing a better budget is possible. Things won't collapse if they work on it until before the midterm elections. It just seems like Trump is testing how far he can walk along the path to tyranny.
Tax data is not particularly sensitive and several nations just publish it. Even in the US many forms of non-individual tax filings are public by default. The results of audits /are/ highly sensitive but there's no reason to hold those on computer systems for longer than 5 years after the audit.
I think the medical industry can easily be regulated without the government having access to my actual medical file. They regulate cars without having any idea how I drive mine. They regulate planes without sitting on the flight deck themselves.
It's like we know how to build good businesses, good databases, have solid user control practices, but then we give the government a pass because it's imagined to be "really hard." It's laughable.
Can you point to a country that publicly releases everybody's tax returns, as a policy? I know some countries that release elected officials' returns, but not those of common people.
> Individual income tax information for 2023 was released on 7 November 2024. Public information can be browsed on tax office workstations and requested by telephone: How to search the public information on income taxes and real estate taxes
> The following data is included in the public information on individual income taxes:
> name, year of birth, county
earned income subject to state taxation
> capital income subject to state taxation, income subject to municipal taxation, income tax, municipal tax
> imposed taxes and charges in total, amount of back taxes or tax refunds
Sensitive data includes things like home addresses, personal income, personal debt, personal wealth, dates of birth, medical status, etc. I don't know if it's true that some nations publish that (I don't personally know of any) but whether that's the case or not doesn't make any difference to whether it's sensitive.
I'm not trying to be flip. You should try to look up your own data sometime. In many states, with just your plate number, I can request your info. The DMV will give it to me unless you've requested and presented a reason for them not to. Some will notify you and possibly give you a few days advance notice but with action on your part I will get your information. The cost here is less than $100 typically.
Or a PI. The cost there is less than $2000 typically.
In Sweden that's public information except medical status.
So I can call the IRS - get the date of birth and tax declaration, i.e. income from work and income from capital of anybody (except those with protected identity).
Address and date of birth etc. you can just check any map-site lite hitta.se.
Consumption taxes are highly regressive. Pure consumption taxes would plunge USA into an even higher degree of inequality. The most progressive way to tax a populous is taxing incomes and wealth progressively.
You could give everyone an exemption. That would require some minimal tracking of identity and whether or not the exemption had been paid, but no details on income, wealth, family status, etc.
I fundamentally disagree that earning money or saving it should be taxable in and of itself. We should encourage that as much as possible. But others differ.
Maybe it's a question of wording, but I would agree if the word were "inexperienced" instead of teenage (in reality, they are young adults).
I have no horse in this DOGE race and all the discussions, but I find this "reverse ageism" (for lack of a better term) quite sad, 'cause it does not sound condescending but infantilizes youth and hides one of the biggest elephants in the room in the modern world, which is the real lack of representation of youth in politics (and maybe in the public service?) [1][2].
I was a 19-year-old holding an assault weapon in my daily work in the military with the power to terminate the lives of almost 99.99% civilians, friends with 23 starting piloting USD 5 million machines, and it's just sad to see that we as a society do not see young adults as capable as their older counterparts.
I speculate that at least in Europe, due to this credibility bias in favor of older politicians, we are facing one of the biggest violations of the intergenerational pact, which is the fact that this same youth will end up without retirement [3].
You’re not wrong, but there is also wisdom in age. I’m 37 now, and got in plenty of similar trouble when I was 16-22, simply because my brain literally was not fully developed yet. My impulse control was worse, my consideration of consequences was much less existent, and so on.
I think the reaction is more about wanting some older adults in the room as well, not about having no younger adults in the room.
Younger people always want to knock down Chesterton’s fences whenever they see them; I know, because I was recently young.
But asking the elders why those fences exist is always a good idea; then, knock them down if the issue is resolved. Humility and curiosity are required for that.
I do find that knocking them down to find out why they were necessary is often a lot more efficient. Even at 37 that hasn’t really changed. But that’s a lot easier to justify when the impact of that decision is a bunch of process interruption at worst.
And being that efficient is fine, if you're a startup or a technology company. If you're the government, sometimes people die waiting on their treatment to be funded because of your efficient bulldozing.
I would trust 19 years old soldier with an assault weapon more then trusting him with what DOGE is supposed to do. Soldiers passed training literally designed to make them obey orders and not randomly shoot that gun. And there is whole hierarchy designed to keep their use of assault guns in check.
I would not trust a random 19 years old with assault gun, I would not trust that guy if we were alone in the room where his superiors do not see. But, I would be afraid of him raping me more then him using that gun without order.
> I was a 19-year-old holding an assault weapon in my daily work in the military with the power to terminate the lives of almost 99.99% civilians, friends with 23 starting piloting USD 5 million machines, and it's just sad to see that we as a society do not see young adults as capable as their older counterparts.
Who would you trust more, a teenager with active military training and awareness on how to handle a gun or a teenager picking up a gun off the floor for the first time?
If these teens all had followed proper protocol, went through a full security clearance process and training on how to handle sensitive data there would be no issue. They did not. And they are definitely not old enough to have had experience dealing with highly sensitive systems. So you've got people that are not qualified to handle data, working on systems they are not experienced enough to work in, kicking over load-bearing pillars that they can't see.
Financial data that seems to be subject to those running massive fraud or allowing it through negligence, but somehow attempting to tackle that is more dangerous than a 19 year old holding an incredibly efficient weapon.
The foxes were already in the hen-house before DOGE turned up, either, as many seem to think here, there are now competing foxes in there, or a clean up is happening. I've yet to see any evidence of actual damage done by DOGE, so why is everyone ignoring the evidence of actual damage that they've found? Can we work that one out?
I’m guessing they don’t post that on Xitter, do they? Do they even post what exactly they did there?
The problem is that same admin who ran up second largest national debt increase is now doing some inconsequential fraud hunting before running up likely the largest debt ever.
> I’m guessing they don’t post that on Xitter, do they? Do they even post what exactly they did there?
I don't know about exactly but I found this tweet[0] informative, this is just a part:
> To be clear, what the @DOGE team and @USTreasury have jointly agreed makes sense is the following:
> - Require that all outgoing government payments have a payment categorization code, which is necessary in order to pass financial audits. This is frequently left blank, making audits almost impossible.
> - All payments must also include a rationale for the payment in the comment field, which is currently left blank. Importantly, we are not yet applying ANY judgment to this rationale, but simply requiring that SOME attempt be made to explain the payment more than NOTHING!
That does sound like sound financial management, and pretty basic, which does make me question the whole system.
> The problem is that same admin who ran up second largest national debt increase is now doing some inconsequential fraud hunting before running up likely the largest debt ever.
That is almost fair criticism, let down by the doom-mongering, and ignoring that a) they're actively cutting things, and b) no pandemic (yet).
Ok, that’s what I saw elsewhere. The conflicting part is where some individual agencies pass their audits (https://oig.usaid.gov/node/7291) and yet this claim of lacking audit basics. What gives? Is this highlighting bits where say DoD is a known black hole and then crafting a narrative?
As for “doom-mongering”, you don’t have to take my word, just listen to what republicans are saying: $3T in tax breaks extension, possibly offset by $1T in cuts. Not even accounting idea of cutting income taxes. You do the math.
Yeah, there is a trend towards an absurd infantilization that would call 26 year olds children. It seems to me to have grown first out of a desire to acquit themselves of responsibilities combined with the junk pop-science about brain age fully forming and a desire to acquit themselves of poor decision making and their own bad outcomes, and then later used as they grew older use to dismiss others.
you're probably being dowvoted because there are thousand of regulations and a multi year program exclusively made to educate young soldiers, besides giving them guns.
your argument starts well, but then compares the top well behaved military machine with a war lord arming children and throwing them on the front.
The answer to that question is that Elon Musk does not seem to believe that the government departments can answer data questions. Rather than wait for them to inevitably say it will take weeks to gather the data, he has his war boys extract it from the system.
One might as well ask "if you want to stop HIV/AIDS in Africa why pay a bunch of young kids with international relations degrees instead of AIDS researchers". Grunt work takes grunt effort.
Because the media machine is spinning it all about the "teenagers", rather than doing actual investigative journalism and asking the right questions and assuming good-faith. So now instead of going to a DOGE rep and asking sane questions that illuminate the conversation and bring more info to light, they ask spin and hype-inducing ones like "There have been some criticisms from government senators about your alleged hiring of young individuals without security clearance, care to comment on that? What do you say to the concerns 'many' are having over granting such privileged access to un-accountable and non-departmental employees?"
it all mirrors the Twitter takeover (fetishizing "hardcore coders", micromanagement, randomly breaking or cancelling things), so this might just be how Elon Musk approaches things.
I have no idea what proportion of Twitter's jobs were necessary or not, but it is DEFINITELY not fine.
From images routinely failing to load, to the current mess of logins that is the dualistic nature of x.com vs twitter.com (where which accts appear logged in fluctuates constantly), to my favorite bug, where it's always stuck in dark mode in mobile browsers...
And that's just technologically. Firing moderators, letting neonazis run rampant, and driving away advertisers and non-nazis...
Honestly, they might as well have brought back the Fail Whale.
I’ve not really noticed any significant increase in problems with the mobile app, and there are some new features like the view counter.
Overall though I’d expect much worse problems to occur from firing the majority of a workforce. If that had happened at my workplace there’d be lots of data loss, downtime and show stopping bugs. Because the work people do is essential to the product and although we have some level of redundancy to reduce key man risk, that wouldn’t work if 80% of people left.
> The question no one asking is why Elon is sending a team of teenage programmers and not a team of financial auditors if he really wanted to cut government spending?
If it's working, why would it matter? The most curious thing in all these discussions is that the elephant in the room is never addressed: they already found on hundreds of billions of pure fraud and funding for extremely dubious endeavors.
But nobody talks about that: everybody attacks the messenger. Everywhere.
Are people not happy that the fraud team already uncovered the following:
USAID fund diverted to the Clinton family, part of which funded a $3m for Chelsea Clinton's wedding and $10m for Chelsea Clinton's mansion.
$41m to study transgender mice
$3m to BBC (seriously, what? BBC in the UK? With US taxpayers dollars? Why? To push what kind of narrative?)
$8m to the supposedly independent "Politico"
$40m+ to EcoHealthAlliance to fund gain-of-function on modified bat viruses (moreover now official report to Congress says the most likely source for the Covid-19 outbreak is a lab-leak: so we have USAID partially responsible for the *death of tens of millions of people*
$20m for a "Sesame Street" show in Iraq
$110m to find water in Afghanistan
funding of a movie in Portugal glorifying incest
countless NGOs worldwide who got funded by USAID and who constantly pushed for tens of millions of illegal migrants to make their way both to the US and the EU (now you may believe it's a good thing that countless NGOs do actively work towards migrating tens of millions of people to the US and the EU but *why* is this done with US taxpayers' money?)
The examples are endless and yet everybody shoots the messenger. If out of hundreds of dubious endeavour (money to publish trans book for children in Guatemala: I mean, come on guys), if one happens to be justified spending or a wrongly attributed spending, then people will focus on that to attack DOGE.
But the elephant in the room is constantly dodged: why? The elephant in the room is there. And it's a gigantic elephant.
Why is it that to some, like me, it looks like USAID (and certainly more with more revelations to come) is basically a gigantic money laundering operation combined with the push of a worldwide leftist agenda?
And the curious thing: people keep crying "attack on democracy" although DOGE keeps exposing, day after day, actual attacks on democracy, where US taxpayers dollar were used to fund a leftist agenda.
To me DOGE is doing something right. Instead of shooting the messenger, discuss the actual findings they already did.
Explain to me how you defend $40m+ going to fund gain-of-function bat viruses and how you defend Biden pardoning Fauci who lied about it in Congress? Because that's what DOGE is exposing.
Your list of "already uncovered" fraud seems more like a list of RW hot-buttons: Clintons - check. Transgender - check. Various lame-stream media - check. Covid bats - check. Muslims - check. Incest movies - check. I'm just surprised they haven't turned up the payments for the NASA movie studio where they faked the moon landings.
But not a single administrator skimming off their department's budgets, which I would imagine is 90% of government fraud.
Also no-one is shooting the messenger. Mainly they are complaining that completely unauthorised people are rooting through all government data with no oversight. No matter what your politics, the president should have got these people vetted and followed the carefully designed processes to keep this data safe. If you're not seriously concerned that one day your tax info is going to turn up in an unsecured AWS bucket, then I can offer you a unique video of out-takes of Neil Armstrong falling off the LEM ladder for just $5,000.
Googling the firs claim leads to a website absolutely teeming with ads, one of many being this gem:
> TRENDING! Trump’s Power Brew: The Coffee That Fuels His Peak Energy and Keeps Him Unstoppable! If You Want to Lose Weight and Have Maximum Energy 24/7, You Need to Try This Coffee!
The second result is the comment above. I cannot find any more information on this otherwise.
You appear to believe those things are true, but consider what evidence you actually have beyond social media claims. For example, the very first one has been circulating in right-wing social media but we don’t have any evidence that it’s actually true:
The second similarly wasn’t a DOGE find and is vaguely sourced because it was from Nancy Mace’s political fundraising and there’s a direct financial incentive to misrepresent what was actually funded. If you read the actual grants, they’re studying things like gender-based differences in how wounds heal or whether transgender people have different responses to things like HIV vaccination or other medical treatments - and unless your position is that transgender people shouldn’t exist, it’s hard to argue that a tiny fraction of a percent of government spending going to medical research is fraud.
Similarly, there is still no evidence that COVID was caused by gain of function research even if it would be really useful politically.
Finally, not understanding why the United States invests money building influence internationally is not fraud. We spent trillions invading Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s profoundly unsurprising that we spent money trying to improve our reputation in those countries.
Have the people telling you these things put any effort into making them independently verifiable? That would be an important early step in any kind of transparency effort.
People are not shooting the messenger. The messenger has no credibility, and no demonstrated interest in earning it as long as they can hold power otherwise.
Seems like your first point is "fake news" as they say?
So it seems like its not working, what info we do get is false or slanted to support a narrative. Social media posts are making people hysterical. It's not clear why your other 7 bullet points are things to be concerned about. As you pointed out a few times, we don't have context into these deals. Your jumping to conclusions assuming the worst for some reason.
> DOGE keeps exposing, day after day, actual attacks on democracy, where US taxpayers dollar were used to fund a leftist agenda
That’s… normal? Just because you don’t like a leftist agenda doesn’t mean it’s an attack on democracy. You might be surprised to hear that those leftist presidents were actually democratically elected. Much like, as much as it pains me to say it, Trump.
> To me DOGE is doing something right. Instead of shooting the messenger, discuss the actual findings they already did.
> $110m to find water in Afghanistan
I assume that's the same as the whitehouse.gov [1] talking point:
> Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban
The source they link for that is a Breitbart article [2] from 2018 and it talks about 20 year old project that ran for 3 years.
> Between 2005 and 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) devoted at least $330 million in funding to failed ADP projects intended to deter farmers and traffickers from cultivating and trafficking opium.
During the $2+ trillion war in Afghanistan, the US government tried to spend $330 million to damage the Taliban's primary source of revenue. It didn't work and the funding stopped in 2008.
The DOGE "proof" of waste is a 7 year old news article talking about a 20 year old program that only ran for 3 years while George W Bush was the president.
That's the only big number in their official statement regarding the waste. They're going 20 years into the past and once you throw out the dubious claim above, the "waste" they're saying exists is a few million dollars. They didn't even put the $8 million Politico thing on whitehouse.gov because it's been debunked too.
A couple million dollars in waste for an organization that distributes about $44 billion [3] in foreign aid every year is a giant nothing burger and American's are eating it up like it's kobe beef.
> everybody attacks the messenger
He's not the messenger. He's the source of the misinformation.
Yeah the opium one is a particularly interesting example of "waste." Most of the complaints are about "woke shit" and usual reactionary talking points or whatever but this one is just a generally widely agreed to be a good idea that didn't work. If "we tried something and it didn't work" is sufficient to justify destroying an entire organization, then oh boy does the entirety of silicon valley need to be shut down. "No project may ever fail" is the polar opposite of "move fast and break things" or Musk's "eliminate all process, re-establish the necessary ones once things break."
You're just regurgitating conspiracy theories and political nonsense from the right.
For example: '$8m to the supposedly independent "Politico"' is for subscriptions. So what? The rest is the same sort of nonsense: innuendo, smears and outright lies.
Please stop repeating misinformation. For your own sake, and for the sake of those around you, please also consider where you're getting information from.
> He cofounded paypal which is payment system. Presumably he knows about things like payment systems, fraud, etc...
No, he didn't. He founded x.com as a payment system which was substantially less popular then paypal. Due to a bunch of mergers of parent companies, x.com and paypal had to merge. Musk became CEO and the whole thing was later sold to ebay, he left and cashed out big. That whole timeline unfolded in just a couple of years.
So his actual experience is not that long. And besides that all unfolded in 1999. I have no idea what your age is but that was a different time and payment system knowledge from that time isn't worth that much nowadays.
You’re leaving out that he was ousted by Thiel and the board because they thought he was about to fuck up the whole thing. By the time they sold to eBay, he was the largest shareholder, but no longer involved with the operation of the company.
Isn't there a tell-all book or three about the founding of PayPal? I think many people here have read those books, and some readers here were involved? Please, enough breathless conjecture, the content is serious enough..
this just exposes the double standard and agism in tech industries. in tech, a lot of companies won't hire you in technical roles or as programmer because you're over 40.
a lot of doge/elon's team is from the various tech companies he owns, so of course, they're going to be teenagers and senior people are pretty much laid off.
think about the next tech layoff you hear in the news (facebook/meta, etc) and think about what portion of the layoff is younger than 20 and what portion are older than 40.
When we think about what tasks bright young people can become good at, I think auditing flows of money is one of them. It's a technical task with objective results, and a tight feedback cycle. The places where you need age and experience are like resolving interpersonal conflict, balancing interests from many stakeholders, setting up objectives for others to follow, etc.
So to me this argument sounds the same as "how can young kids think they can program like experienced engineers".
Another answer is that financial auditors don't have ALL the technical skill for this scope of project. Light SQL skills tend to be the upper end of technical accounting (many workers on a project is good for corporate billing). Reports indicate Doge is employing graph analysis, LLMs, etc.
Getting the data looks like a SW problem perfect for young people. I have no evidence that this how the organization functions, but I can imagine them as technical analysts, who simply pass information to higher ups who do have organizational experience.
