DOGE

[HALL85]

Cutting through all of the nonsense on the news. There’s two concerns I would have.
1) Have Musk’s people going into the federal agency signed NDA’s? This is standard procedure for any consultant. The fact that somebody might be 25 years old is just downright silly.
2) Is Musk’s organization being paid for this work? That would give me some heartburn, because the work should be bid out Although, I doubt this happens with every government contract.

Bottom line is Trump is actually doing the things that he ran on. Musk is the new bogeyman because they have run out of Orange Man Bad lines.

Looking back, when Musk bought Twitter a lot of talk about what a foolish decision it was. Not sure if he’s getting the return financially, but his ownership has changed the dialogue on free speech, and the platform is now giving him an opportunity to amplify the savings opportunities they will uncover under DOGE, totally sidestepping the MSM.

 

[HALL85]

Footnote: When the opposition is Chuck Shumer, Maxine Waters and Cori Bush protesting, that’s not a winning strategy.

 

[Rockaway]

Another dem losing strategy being against government being made efficient like private firms absolutely heresy to do this in their minds.

 

[Shaheton]

Another dem losing strategy being against government being made efficient like private firms absolutely heresy to do this in their minds.

I’d like the multiple agencies at issue to comply with requests for info so democrats can focus on the issues and show the greater good that is being served, for all to see…that’s how democrats will shove it where the sun don’t shine. I don’t think they have anything to hide.

 

[Robot_Man]

Let's leave aside the many conflicts of interest and potential ways for Musk and his acolytes to abuse this access. Would everyone be okay with a Democratic president giving George Soros this sort of access to the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service?

Or if you think the Soros comparison is irrelevant, how about a fellow PayPal Mafia alumnus and frequent donor to Democrats, like Reid Hoffman?

 

[HALL85]

Let's leave aside the many conflicts of interest and potential ways for Musk and his acolytes to abuse this access. Would everyone be okay with a Democratic president giving George Soros this sort of access to the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service?

Or if you think the Soros comparison is irrelevant, how about a fellow PayPal Mafia alumnus and frequent donor to Democrats, like Reid Hoffman?

Has either Soros or Hoffman created a business like SpaceX that has enabled NASA to outsource a huge part of the space program because it is faster and less costly? (A contract that Obama initiated BTW). Has either created a technology like Starlink that has helped a country communicate during a war or US citizens do the same after a natural disaster?

If they did, it might be a more reasonable comparison.

 

[Robot_Man]

Has either Soros or Hoffman created a business like SpaceX that has enabled NASA to outsource a huge part of the space program because it is faster and less costly? (A contract that Obama initiated BTW). Has either created a technology like Starlink that has helped a country communicate during a war or US citizens do the same after a natural disaster?

If they did, it might be a more reasonable comparison.

We're talking about payments here. It's specifically why I mentioned another guy who was involved with PayPal.

 

[HALL85]

We're talking about payments here. It's specifically why I mentioned another guy who was involved with PayPal.

Well if Biden awoke from his slumber during his term and asked Hoffman to go into the US Treasury and streamline it, it wouldn’t bother me at all.

Once again, though, Trump ran in this policy (touting Musk to do what he is doing), and he won…this is not a bait and switch…it’s what the public wanted.

 

[Robot_Man]

Once again, though, Trump ran in this policy (touting Musk to do what he is doing), and he won…this is not a bait and switch…it’s what the public wanted.

This poll suggests it's not what they wanted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5129353-gop-support-for-musk-influence-with-trump-falls-dramatically-poll/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2AKBmu-r9EncyHnEVv_t1PKMDvVeS-2GZOoGM7Kp4yBHXUQIft6o1pa_U_aem_7uh-pIhIejdwZY84NOZgCg

 

[HALL85]

This poll suggests it's not what they wanted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5129353-gop-support-for-musk-influence-with-trump-falls-dramatically-poll/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2AKBmu-r9EncyHnEVv_t1PKMDvVeS-2GZOoGM7Kp4yBHXUQIft6o1pa_U_aem_7uh-pIhIejdwZY84NOZgCg

One poll three weeks into the term does not make a trend. Time will tell. As Musk gets more data on the waste and keeps publishing it on X, it will be interesting to see how the polls read that.

 

[Merge]

Footnote: When the opposition is Chuck Shumer, Maxine Waters and Cori Bush protesting, that’s not a winning strategy.

The democrats are completely lost and have no idea what the party stands for anymore. Right now it's coming across as them being the pro waste party.

The messaging here should be easy. They need to embrace the idea of cutting waste, while being skeptical about the effort and impacts and anytime they are talking about cuts that will hurt the working class - Explain how and attack that.

 

[Merge]

Has either Soros or Hoffman created a business like SpaceX that has enabled NASA to outsource a huge part of the space program because it is faster and less costly? (A contract that Obama initiated BTW). Has either created a technology like Starlink that has helped a country communicate during a war or US citizens do the same after a natural disaster?

If they did, it might be a more reasonable comparison.

The better comparison in my opinion would be Zuckerberg in 2021 after spending $400 million on getting people out to vote, which helped Biden. People would have lost their minds if he was given the level of access that Musk is getting. Though to be fair to your other point, Trump did campaign on the idea so it's not really a surprise.

 

[STLPirate12]

Cutting waste isn't the issue, that's a good thing and almost certainly is necessary. The issues are the recklessness with which Musk is doing it and the appearance that he has unilateral authority to decide what is and isn't waste. There's so many risks here:

- Data security - Is there any reason to think security protocols are being followed when he's giving the impression of kicking down the door and demanding access to everything?

- Conflicts of interest (spend with Musk's businesses surely won't be found wasteful, but his competitors...?)

- Freezing money that people rely on to live - already happened almost immediately.

- Potential for over cutting / cutting necessary programs that he finds wasteful because he doesn't like it or understand it.

I'm sure there's more. Again, I think cutting waste is a good thing, but there's a way to do it responsibly to limit risk/mistakes and this isn't it.

 

[HALL85]

The better comparison in my opinion would be Zuckerberg in 2021 after spending $400 million on getting people out to vote, which helped Biden. People would have lost their minds if he was given the level of access that Musk is getting. Though to be fair to your other point, Trump did campaign on the idea so it's not really a surprise.

Merge, the difference to me is that Zuckerberg basically created a social media platform and doesn’t have the same background as Musk in streamlining organizations. Musk has also proven to build companies that have materially helped the country (environmental, security, outsourcing of government programs).

 

[Merge]

Cutting waste isn't the issue, that's a good thing and almost certainly is necessary. The issues are the recklessness with which Musk is doing it and the appearance that he has unilateral authority to decide what is and isn't waste. There's so many risks here:

They've address the idea of it being unilateral by saying it is read only access with Trump approving any changes. If we should believe that is certainly a valid point though. Agree with you on the risks though. I just don't like the approach by dems so far. If they just stated exactly what you just said, that messaging would be far better than what they have been focusing on.

 

[Merge]

Merge, the difference to me is that Zuckerberg basically created a social media platform and doesn’t have the same background as Musk in streamlining organizations. Musk has also proven to build companies that have materially helped the country (environmental, security, outsourcing of government programs).

Neither have experience in public policy though, and I wouldn't suggest Zuckerberg who heads one of the most valuable companies in the world as being less qualified for streamlining. He would have been fairly equal to Musk with a record of increasing the size of the company through rounds of large layoffs and acquiring other companies making them bigger and better (Instagram / Oculus)

 

[HALL85]

Cutting waste isn't the issue, that's a good thing and almost certainly is necessary. The issues are the recklessness with which Musk is doing it and the appearance that he has unilateral authority to decide what is and isn't waste. There's so many risks here:

- Data security - Is there any reason to think security protocols are being followed when he's giving the impression of kicking down the door and demanding access to everything?

I mentioned this earlier. I would hope/expect that necessary NDA's and Scope of Work documents are in place. The optics of disruption are one thing, but you need the guardrails in place.

- Conflicts of interest (spend with Musk's businesses surely won't be found wasteful, but his competitors...?)

Outside of Starlink and SpaceX are contracts in place that provide material value from a national security standpoint. I'm not sure who the competition is that the Federal government has also contracted, but their should be a ring fence around contracts/pricing, etc.

- Freezing money that people rely on to live - already happened almost immediately.

Agree if this has happened to people that legitimately needed the money to live on.

- Potential for over cutting / cutting necessary programs that he finds wasteful because he doesn't like it or understand it.

I would share the same concern if Musk was able to make decisions without any oversight from the administration. It's actually part of the Musk Algorithm. "If you don't have to add things back in you didn't cut enough."

I'm sure there's more. Again, I think cutting waste is a good thing, but there's a way to do it responsibly to limit risk/mistakes and this isn't it.

Unfortunately, there have been several commissions that have identified legitimate waste in the past (Grace report, etc.), but unfortunately, politics got in the way and nothing ever happened. Probably why the public is so disgusted with government and is willing to live with the mistakes along the way. Politicians need to look in the mirror. We wouldn't be here if they acted responsibly.

 

[STLPirate12]

They've address the idea of it being unilateral by saying it is read only access with Trump approving any changes. If we should believe that is certainly a valid point though. Agree with you on the risks though. I just don't like the approach by dems so far. If they just stated exactly what you just said, that messaging would be far better than what they have been focusing on.

Just Trump's approval isn't enough, IMO. That's still just 2 men making massive spending decisions on projects and organizations that they're not directly involved in and as a result they don't know the full impact of these decisions. Get Musk and his team proper security clearance (I hope they did, but putting it out here anyway) and then let them audit and present their findings to Congress to approve cuts. Republicans control congress so they'll be able to push all their cuts through anyway, but at least there would be some real transparency and proper debate over the merits of these programs rather than the current perception of things being whimsically cut because Elon Musk says so.

 

[STLPirate12]

I would share the same concern if Musk was able to make decisions without any oversight from the administration. It's actually part of the Musk Algorithm. "If you don't have to add things back in you didn't cut enough."

That approach is one thing with a business that he owns, but very dangerous with the federal government. It's not always easy to just undo things with no ramifications.

 

[itsacurse]

That approach is one thing with a business that he owns, but very dangerous with the federal government. It's not always easy to just undo things with no ramifications.

after a couple planes crash you can just add back in your old air traffic control systems

 

[HALL85]

That approach is one thing with a business that he owns, but very dangerous with the federal government. It's not always easy to just undo things with no ramifications.

It will be pretty easy to see how the oversight plays out. Right now, Musk is just churning out waste examples and numbers, posting on X to get everyone’s attention.

USAID is an easy target because it’s been criticized, the examples get a rise out of those really upset about waste, and likely not putting anyone in danger. And by the looks of things, it’s going to folded into the State Department. Done.

Dismantling the Department of Education looks like it’s going to happen as well.

When you get to Department of Treasury or IRS, integrating of technology/AI can improve efficiencies and cut headcount. Have to believe that some of these departments that process billions of transactions each year are prime targets for upgrading technology. The issue is how long will that take. System conversions take time.

 

[NYShoreGuy]

Musk is openly violating Hatch Act at most extreme levels