Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#901
#901
amazon-edv6-1667833879.jpg
 
#902
#902
DOGE is getting rid of this job, right?

www.facebook.com

FOX 10 Phoenix

ICYMI: President-elect Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Kari Lake will serve as the next Voice of America Director....
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
#903
#903
LouderVol said:
my work always provided health insurance. They provided a flat amount to everyone that covered the lowest option they provided, if you wanted any upgrades you paid for that. I went from paying like 50 bucks out of pocket, to almost 300 bucks out of pocket a month thanks to Obamacare. and that was after my work increased their payments by like 200 bucks or more a month as well. but their contribution no longer covered even the lowest option.

I think when it first hit I was making about 40k, so an extra 3000 dollars a year gone was a LOT of money.

funny how swampfox won't even acknowledge these issues, or let us know if they are valid complaints or not.
Click to expand...

But what about the poor illegal invaders living in the polluted river? Jesus wanted those that contribute to society to suffer equally with those that just mooch off of everyone.
 
#905
#905
hog88 said:
Hopefully but on the list of departments/agencies that need to be closed VoA is way on down the list.
Click to expand...

If political expediency is a ranking factor, then I disagree. It's a very easy cut. There are many more important cuts that will never, ever be made.
 
#913
#913
n_huffhines said:
If political expediency is a ranking factor, then I disagree. It's a very easy cut. There are many more important cuts that will never, ever be made.
Click to expand...
It is not.
DOGE seems to be initially looking for government spending in the Executive branch not approved by Congress. We all know this is not a light switch event and will take time to unravel the decades of deficit spending by both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Orangeburst
#914
#914
CobbVol said:
It is not.
DOGE seems to be initially looking for government spending in the Executive branch not approved by Congress. We all know this is not a light switch event and will take time to unravel the decades of deficit spending by both parties.
Click to expand...
Cynicism I get, but I think some hope they fail to validate their beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, 85SugarVol, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#918
#918
CobbVol said:
It is not.
DOGE seems to be initially looking for government spending in the Executive branch not approved by Congress. We all know this is not a light switch event and will take time to unravel the decades of deficit spending by both parties.
Click to expand...

If they can cut something without congress and without SCOTUS stopping them, then that makes it politically expedient. <---- @hog88

Y'all need a dictionary. It doesn't mean it's for show. It doesn't mean it's something that can't be done. It's the opposite. It means that it's practical, convenient, and immediate. It means that they can sidestep opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#919
#919
Would anyone like to make a bet about total federal spending over the next four years?

My position is there will not be one dollar of decreased federal spending relative to the year before in any of DJT's four years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, 85SugarVol and volfanhill
#921
#921
McDad said:
Would anyone like to make a bet about total federal spending over the next four years?

My position is there will not be one dollar of decreased federal spending relative to the year before in any of DJT's four years.
Click to expand...

I think we may be below projected values and they’ll call it a cut.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and McDad
#923
#923
McDad said:
I agree. A cut in rate of growth or some other projection will be touted as a cut.

But I do not expect to see any decrease in actual federal spending.
Click to expand...
So with the E in DOGE meaning "efficiency" what if there actually isn't any meaningful decrease in spending but there's a demonstrable decrease in "wasteful" expense? By this I mean instead of huge amounts of money flowing in with little apparent result we start seeing tangible results? Is that good enough or merely a better form of bad?
 
#924
#924
hndog609 said:
So with the E in DOGE meaning "efficiency" what if there actually isn't any meaningful decrease in spending but there's a demonstrable decrease in "wasteful" expense? By this I mean instead of huge amounts of money flowing in with little apparent result we start seeing tangible results? Is that good enough or merely a better form of bad?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's a better form of bad. We need a MUCH smaller government, and government will never be as efficient as private sector businesses.
 
#925
#925
hndog609 said:
So with the E in DOGE meaning "efficiency" what if there actually isn't any meaningful decrease in spending but there's a demonstrable decrease in "wasteful" expense? By this I mean instead of huge amounts of money flowing in with little apparent result we start seeing tangible results? Is that good enough or merely a better form of bad?
Click to expand...
Efficiency is worth pursuing. I'm greedy though. I want a smaller AND more efficient government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, SpaceCoastVol and hndog609
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top