Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#579
#579
hog88 said:
Big if since most cannot.
Click to expand...
Based on the article it sounds like 6% are in-person full time, ~33% are remote full time and the remaining 60% are some mix of the two (or part-time, which is likely a huge chunk). That’s not inherently alarming to me, but it’s a bosses vs. employees issue so it makes sense that Elon is acting like it’s an emergency.

It gets a little weird to me when employees start taking the Elon side and arguing that employees (themselves) should have less flexibility/fewer options
 
#580
#580
NashVol11 said:
Based on the article it sounds like 6% are in-person full time, ~33% are remote full time and the remaining 60% are some mix of the two (or part-time, which is likely a huge chunk). That’s not inherently alarming to me, but it’s a bosses vs. employees issue so it makes sense that Elon is acting like it’s an emergency.

It gets a little weird to me when employees start taking the Elon side and arguing that employees (themselves) should have less flexibility/fewer options
Click to expand...

Many employees recognize that most of their coworkers are much less productive when working from home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Vol since 77
#582
#582
hog88 said:
Many employees recognize that most of their coworkers are much less productive when working from home.
Click to expand...
Mine aren’t, and if they were, I still wouldn’t be trying to ax my own ability to work from home because the company argues it’s better for their bottom line
 
#583
#583
whodeycin85 said:
You wrap this around feeding the kids.
But ultimately it's about controlling people lives.
Click to expand...
No, it's about food for kids.
No one is controlled by an optional lunch. And many of the people whining about taxes pay little to none. I'm happy for my money to go to this...much more so than it going to a bloated military.
 
#584
#584
Vol8188 said:
So putting money into the hands of “already struggling families” is bad?

The bulk buying power doesn’t make up for the excessive waste in the system. You can’t pay feds to send money to paid local officials, who then pay people to buy food with that money, and then pay people to cook that food, serve that food, and clean up. You can’t do all that cheaper than you can simply send money directly to the end user.

Not sure why you think nutritional value will be 15-20% of what it previously was

3.75 seems to be a number you made up. School lunches are cheap to the end user because the rest of us pay for it. So no, they’re not actually supplying meals that cheap.

I don’t even know what you mean by a higher tier of food. But no, sending money to a federal agency to then send it to a local agency that will then hire numerous people to cook/clean/serve these kids is in no way more efficient than directly giving the money to the families.

One of your biggest things you seem to be missing too in your argument that you seem to see as more caring and virtuous than our counter argument, is that if what you’re saying is true….and these children are truly being neglected…then putting a bandaid on the problem (giving them one to two meals a day some days) is obviously not the optimal approach. And is only exposing these children to further harm. If your parents are too sorry to feed you, there’s going to be a giant overlap between that group of children and children who are being sexually abused, physically abused, etc.

So why hide the problem and allow further harm to the child?
Click to expand...
I googled it. It's literally available information. It costs about that per lunch. Fed pays like $3.35 or something towards each lunch.

And honestly, it's not even about only the neglected kids. We can afford to just feed kids at a place we're forcing them to be every day.
 
#585
#585
Vol8188 said:
So putting money into the hands of “already struggling families” is bad?

The bulk buying power doesn’t make up for the excessive waste in the system. You can’t pay feds to send money to paid local officials, who then pay people to buy food with that money, and then pay people to cook that food, serve that food, and clean up. You can’t do all that cheaper than you can simply send money directly to the end user.

Not sure why you think nutritional value will be 15-20% of what it previously was

3.75 seems to be a number you made up. School lunches are cheap to the end user because the rest of us pay for it. So no, they’re not actually supplying meals that cheap.

I don’t even know what you mean by a higher tier of food. But no, sending money to a federal agency to then send it to a local agency that will then hire numerous people to cook/clean/serve these kids is in no way more efficient than directly giving the money to the families.

One of your biggest things you seem to be missing too in your argument that you seem to see as more caring and virtuous than our counter argument, is that if what you’re saying is true….and these children are truly being neglected…then putting a bandaid on the problem (giving them one to two meals a day some days) is obviously not the optimal approach. And is only exposing these children to further harm. If your parents are too sorry to feed you, there’s going to be a giant overlap between that group of children and children who are being sexually abused, physically abused, etc.

So why hide the problem and allow further harm to the child?
Click to expand...
Oh, forgot to add...putting 25% into the hands of families, with that not even being enough to feed their kids a meal a week, is bad.

You said "Take 50% and split it." So 25%. So the kid gets like $4-5 a week for each student's lunch. That's dumb.
 
#586
#586
jwells said:
No, it's about food for kids.
No one is controlled by an optional lunch. And many of the people whining about taxes pay little to none. I'm happy for my money to go to this...much more so than it going to a bloated military.
Click to expand...

Makes me think of this:

 
Last edited:
#587
#587
jwells said:
I googled it. It's literally available information. It costs about that per lunch. Fed pays like $3.35 or something towards each lunch.

And honestly, it's not even about only the neglected kids. We can afford to just feed kids at a place we're forcing them to be every day.
Click to expand...

If you googled it, please provide your source.

So you just think because we tell you be somewhere, you’re entitled to food? That’s an odd view. There’s a lot of things when looked at individually we could hypothetically afford, but given our government has a nearly 2 trillion annual budget deficit it’s hard to claim we can.

Do you see my point about masking neglect and possibly causing further harm to neglected children?
 
#588
#588
jwells said:
Oh, forgot to add...putting 25% into the hands of families, with that not even being enough to feed their kids a meal a week, is bad.

You said "Take 50% and split it." So 25%. So the kid gets like $4-5 a week for each student's lunch. That's dumb.
Click to expand...

They already have food stamps to feed their kid and we are offering them more. The idea that they’re getting shafted seems absurd
 
#591
#591
They plan to cut wasteful regulations and spending by specifically targeting the number of federal government employees.

Top Republican Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is leading DOGE's aggressive plans on a new 'DOGE Caucus' being set up in the Senate.

On the House side, Marjorie Taylor Greene was tapped for a powerful job assisting DOGE by chairing a new congressional subcommittee.

Ernst's first DOGE-related bill exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com, the REMOTE Act, will use software to monitor bureaucrats' computer use and require agency reports on the adverse impacts of telework.

Musk, along with toddler X, and Ramaswamy are on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with the lawmakers and get a plan in place heading into the next administration.

DailyMail.com learned that Ernst will be pushing her new 60-page report outlining the most efficient ways for DOGE to root out abuse during their meeting.

She found that only 6 percent of federal workers report in-person on a full-time basis.


1733419540941.png

www.dailymail.co.uk

First major DOGE directive to Musk and Vivek revealed

A Republican unveiled a new bill that will give Donald Trump's DOGE agency the tools and clear direction to hit the ground running on day one of the next administration.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
#596
#596
Vol8188 said:
They already have food stamps to feed their kid and we are offering them more. The idea that they’re getting shafted seems absurd
Click to expand...
You're really overestimating those food stamps. They're not calculated to provide for food for kids at school, thus the free and reduced lunch program.

The idea that you think people on food stamps are living high on the hog while working people are wasting away their lives working to fund their easy-street lifestyle is wild.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#597
#597
CagleMtnVol said:
If you have a government job where you can do it remotely is it really necessary?
Click to expand...
Lol.
Y'all arguing for the corporate land lords. Many jobs can be done at a computer at home just as well. Martin Luther proved this with religion and folks are proving it now working. In person often only helps the people who own the buildings fill their coffers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#598
#598
jwells said:
Lol.
Y'all arguing for the corporate land lords. Many jobs can be done at a computer at home just as well. Martin Luther proved this with religion and folks are proving it now working. In person often only helps the people who own the buildings fill their coffers.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
#599
#599
jwells said:
You're really overestimating those food stamps. They're not calculated to provide for food for kids at school, thus the free and reduced lunch program.

The idea that you think people on food stamps are living high on the hog while working people are wasting away their lives working to fund their easy-street lifestyle is wild.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are calculated to provide food at school. That’s why food stamps doesn’t increase over the summer.

No one said high on the hog. But you can feed your child. If not, you should be investigated. For example, numerous people sell their food stamps.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top