Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

[Orangeburst]

I'm not disagreeing with the concept. I'm trying to find what is reasonable application.
As an example, let's say:
I want less military spending. You want more. A third person wants twice as much as you based on their perceived risk.

Should we always default to the worst case scenario no matter the cost?

You keep talking spending, I prefer to talk capability. As mentioned, if we can squeeze efficiency of existing budgets, I have no issue the spending staying the same.

Our military is as small as it has been since before WW2..it isnt unreasonable to efficiently spend 3-4% of your gdp on defense.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Maybe they bought Tesla 10 years back? Pot meet kettle with Musk pointing out crazy wealth growth.

You really aren't this naive are you?

 

[McDad]

I think every member of Congress should have to send their families to the infantry if they vote for military action outside of defending America from foreign invasion. If the cause is so noble, then our political leaders should lead the attack. Bet it would drastically change the war mongers position.

The other side of this coin could be very dangerous.

 

[McDad]

You keep talking spending, I prefer to talk capability. As mentioned, if we can squeeze efficiency of existing budgets, I have no issue the spending staying the same.

Our military is as small as it has been since before WW2..it isnt unreasonable to efficiently spend 3-4% of your gdp on defense.

I am failing to understand how capability is not a result of spending.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Yeah, I don't trust any politician saying "MASSIVE FRAUD BY THE RADICAL LEFT/RIGHT" with nothing to back it up. Difference is I don't flip flop and start kissing ass when Elon does it, this has become a football forum thread

And you are a Vandy fan when you're down by 30 with 2 minutes left

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Breaking the law.

Ok. When you find some laws he broke that are jail worthy please get back to us, mmmkay?

 

[Orangeburst]

I am failing to understand how capability is not a result of spending.

I already laid out two examples. More bang for your buck is all I am saying.

 

[walkenvol]

Here is govt spending in a nutshell

Obama spent like crazy.

Trump increased Obama level spending at a 4-5x the rate of inflation by 2019

Biden increased spending 60% over 2019 levels

Trump 2.0 wont cut discretionary spending from Biden levels

Then the R’s will loose Congress at midterm and Trump will loose all his newfound credibility and return to the twitter junkie of his first administration.

 

[walkenvol]

R voters are not united around decreased spending. They're actually for increased spending in certain segments of the budget.

I’d guess R’s overwhelmingly support a plan to advance towards a balanced budget. Won’t happen in one year but Congress needs to pass a 2025 budget that’s less than their 2024 spending by a meaningful amount.

 

[hog88]

It could.
Does anyone know the liklihood?

70% within the next 20 years

 

[Orange_Crush]

You keep talking spending, I prefer to talk capability. As mentioned, if we can squeeze efficiency of existing budgets, I have no issue the spending staying the same.

Our military is as small as it has been since before WW2..it isnt unreasonable to efficiently spend 3-4% of your gdp on defense.

Talking about capability without considering spending is a recipe for bankruptcy. A whole lot of welfare recipients want the capabilities of Iphones, cable television, big screens to watch it on, etc... The problem with the US is that there isn't a Big Brother Moneybags to come in make up the difference. The clock will eventually tick midnight, and the piper will demand what's due.

 

[Sea Ray]

the left can't handle the truth.....

Elon really does need to vet these things before he sends them out. And conservatives ought not believe everything at face value

�� Muntz ��
@TheMoneyMuntz
@elonmusk

this was awarded under Donald Trump and ended in 2022. Also this is not for conducting large scale deception but rather an R&D contract for SIMULATION TESTING & MEASUREMENT of large scale deception for NATIONAL DEFENSE. This is a contract awarded out of Wright-Patterson AFB (FA8620) in 2018 funded as part of Air Force Research Lab. This is for ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE (ASED), not for doing social engineering or large scale deception by Reuters. Furthermore this was a COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION in which there were 34 bidders, of which Reuters received award after following the appropriate competitive procedures required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The contract was awarded under Donald Trump and ended in 2022. This is either a totally bogus attempt at misleading the public into blaming acquisition professionals who did their job, or you actually have no clue what the data says that you’re using to make decisions

I understand Elon saying no one bats 1.000 but his credibility is slipping

 

[LouderVol]

I am failing to understand how capability is not a result of spending.

look at most R&D projects. They start out with a target of X, a budget of Y, and deadline of Z. They turn into a target of 3X, a budget 5Y, and a deadline of 4Z.

a lot of the extra spending just comes from 'drift'. as projects stretch out more bells and whistles get added to it, and they have to constantly retrofit the prototypes to meet an ever changing target.

 

[McDad]

70% within the next 20 years

You sound like Luther, now.

 

[hog88]

You sound like Luther, now.

So where am I at on the pull crap out of my azz continuum?

 

[Orangeburst]

I think 3-4% of gpd for defense is reasonable.

Now tell me what you think is reasonable and why?

 

[jmacvols1]

Elon really does need to vet these things before he sends them out. And conservatives ought not believe everything at face value



I understand Elon saying no one bats 1.000 but his credibility is slipping

are you sure your source "Muntz" is right?

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
1h
Reuters received far more money than this from US government organizations, but via various subsidiaries and intermediaries to hide how they were getting it.

This is just what @DOGE has found so far.

 

[n_huffhines]

America has a natural increase in tax revenues of about 100B - 200B per year due to increases in our economy.
At 100B increase in revenues per year and all that going to pay down debt with no deficit spending, it would take about 200 to 400 years to satisfy existing debt.

Who invited this guy to the party?

 

[Orangeburst]

Talking about capability without considering spending is a recipe for bankruptcy. A whole lot of welfare recipients want the capabilities of Iphones, cable television, big screens to watch it on, etc... The problem with the US is that there isn't a Big Brother Moneybags to come in make up the difference. The clock will eventually tick midnight, and the piper will demand what's due.

I just want to squeeze as much as we can out of 3-4% and that will be this admins goal.

 

[TheDeeble]

IMO is a decade plus project. Start with a balanced budget and as the economy improves so will collections which can be put towards the debt.

Unfortunately I don't think something like that is possible. Nothing about the federal govt is long term anymore. They can't even pass a budget. Everything is short term policy with the next administration trying to do the opposite. There's little common ground between parties.

Although I'm glad to see govt spending put out there for the world to see. It seems like people are finally ready to be mad at where tax dollars are being spent.

I'm still skeptical that Trump 2.0 will bring about significant change. Let's say they actually hit that 1Trillion dollar of spending cuts in the next 12 months. My question is the same as you and others have asked. What do they do with it. If they just roll the money into a diff govt department then it's a failure. If govt spending isn't reduced and we don't see significantly reduced annual deficits it's a failure. Me personally, I'd like to be the first president since like 1956 to reduce the debt from one fiscal year to the next.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

See, these are both things he just said with nothing to back them up, and he even said in the Oval Office that some things he posts will be incorrect (which is a hell of an understatement), and yet people still go "yeah I bet that's true"

Kinda like......


"Pee tapes"

"Russia Russia Russia"

"Hunter Biden laptop isn't real"

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Reposting tweets with blatant lies about people's net worth does more harm than good.....

 

[NashVol11]

are you sure your source "Muntz" is right?

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
1h
Reuters received far more money than this from US government organizations, but via various subsidiaries and intermediaries to hide how they were getting it.

This is just what @DOGE has found so far.

That doesn't even address what he said

 

[NashVol11]

Kinda like......


"Pee tapes"

"Russia Russia Russia"

"Hunter Biden laptop isn't real"

I didn't buy into those things either, and implying that you take Elon's words at face value as revenge for the pee tape thing is pretty embarrassing for you