What did Democrats do wrong?

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. Which is why when I need my house cleaned, I hire a bunch of inexperienced and unqualified kids to burn it down.

And when you need your house rebuilt because of termite infestation, you leave everything in place and just dust and vacuum, right?

 

[Thermal]

And when you need your house rebuilt because of termite infestation, you leave everything in place and just dust and vacuum, right?

Well you don't knock it down without a plan for how to get it back together, with a family standing on the sidewalk.

The problem with Muskrat is not that government needed a major overhaul. It's that he went about it like a brain damaged poodle.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well you don't knock it down without a plan for how to get it back together, with a family standing on the sidewalk.

The problem with Muskrat is not that government needed a major overhaul. It's that he went about it like a brain damaged poodle.

I'd rather have it done imperfectly than not done at all. And frankly, nobody else was going to do it. Nobody else was trying to do it. Nobody else was even saying they would.

 

[theprestige]

Exactly. Which is why when I need my house cleaned, I hire a bunch of inexperienced and unqualified kids to burn it down.

Where's the Canadians when you really need them?

 

[Thermal]

I'd rather have it done imperfectly than not done at all. And frankly, nobody else was going to do it. Nobody else was trying to do it. Nobody else was even saying they would.

The problem with being done 'imperfectly' with no plan whatsoever is that when it's all back together, there's no saying the fix will be either a savings or even a break even. It might be worse. Planning is kind of super duper important, unless things like raping and pillaging are the endgame. Then you can do like Musk.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem with being done 'imperfectly' with no plan whatsoever is that when it's all back together, there's no saying the fix will be either a savings or even a break even. It might be worse. Planning is kind of super duper important, unless things like raping and pillaging are the endgame. Then you can do like Musk.

You seem to think that what's needed is to rebuild government programs better. But that's not really the case. What's primarily needed is the elimination of government programs. You don't need to rebuild what you don't need to have in the first place.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You seem to think that what's needed is to rebuild government programs better. But that's not really the case. What's primarily needed is the elimination of government programs. You don't need to rebuild what you don't need to have in the first place.

Yeah! ◊◊◊◊ that National Park Service! To hell with "Veterans Administration", what do they need hospitals for?! And who wants an FAA, an FDIC, and NOAA?! Nobody! EGG PRICES! EGG PRICES!! Let the planes crash and veterans die of cancer, it's worth it for eggses, gollum! gollum! EGGSES!!!

 

[Thermal]

You seem to think that what's needed is to rebuild government programs better. But that's not really the case. What's primarily needed is the elimination of government programs. You don't need to rebuild what you don't need to have in the first place.

Which is why a DOGE director that had normal intelligence would have put a group together to financially evaluate what was needed and what wasn't first. Within some months, they would have a surgical plan to correct any waste prudently. That's a smart approach.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah! ◊◊◊◊ that National Park Service! To hell with "Veterans Administration", what do they need hospitals for?! And who wants an FAA, an FDIC, and NOAA?! Nobody! EGG PRICES! EGG PRICES!! Let the planes crash and veterans die of cancer, it's worth it for eggses, gollum! gollum! EGGSES!!!

"Shut up about the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ eggs, commie."

-Trump, pretty literally

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah! ◊◊◊◊ that National Park Service! To hell with "Veterans Administration", what do they need hospitals for?! And who wants an FAA, an FDIC, and NOAA?! Nobody! EGG PRICES! EGG PRICES!! Let the planes crash and veterans die of cancer, it's worth it for eggses, gollum! gollum! EGGSES!!!

I see that I've touched a nerve. I think I'll bow out for now, there's nothing I can say to really address your feelings.

 

[Donal]

Which is why a DOGE director that had normal intelligence would have put a group together to financially evaluate what was needed and what wasn't first. Within some months, they would have a surgical plan to correct any waste prudently. That's a smart approach.

A person with normal intelligence would see that DOGE is the unnecessary waste since there are already publicly available audits and a government office that over sees them.

 

[Thermal]

A person with normal intelligence would see that DOGE is the unnecessary waste since there are already publicly available audits and a government office that over sees them.

Right, but they are almost by definition just as bloated and inefficient as the rest. Like, as long as the DoD has the incomprehensible virtually blank check budget it has, and can't account for literally trillions of dollars, they need to have the credit cards suspended.

 

[Donal]

And another layer of bureaucracy doesn't address that. More people to stonewall just adds more bloat. Its not a matter of resources. Its a matter of will. DoD is a black box because the people in charge want it to be.

 

[Thermal]

Ok. You say effective auditors and all are already in place. Does that mean that you literally think... the US Government... is running about as efficiently as it can?

 

[Donal]

No. I very plainly said what I meant. I should mention that I think "efficiency" has turned into a cult of its own.

Can agencies and departments in the government be more efficient? Sure. I just don't really care as much as a lot of people seemingly do. I'm certainly not going to sacrifice the actual objectives and missions of these agencies to save a few bucks. If you told me we could save a million dollars a year just by cutting the Medicare benefits of a single red hat wearing dimwit in the Midwest who is in a grey area of qualifying for said benefits...I still wouldn't do it. I would rather err on the side of providing for someone who may or may not "deserve" it than possibly deny someone who does.

And that is assuming these arguments about efficiency are good faith.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which is why a DOGE director that had normal intelligence would have put a group together to financially evaluate what was needed and what wasn't first. Within some months, they would have a surgical plan to correct any waste prudently. That's a smart approach.

Yes... and no.

It's harsh, it's unsavory, and it's painful. But what Musk is doing is not out of the norm in the business world when costs need to be cut. And yes - I know - the government isn't a company. In a whole lot of ways, it's way worse than a company. Bureaucracy tends to breed more bureaucracy.

Reducing the P-cards for the VA is a good example of this. It sucks, absolutely - not questioning that. And 500 is probably not the right number at the end of the day. But it's also not a bad approach from a strategic standpoint. They didn't eliminate all spending, all of the purchasing can be done... but it has to go through many fewer individuals. This has an immediate effect of 1) cutting out any spending that isn't actually necessary and getting rid of "nice to have" purchases and 2) putting the onus on VA to evaluate who has purchasing authority and make sure it's appropriate and reasonable. It's on VA to pick the 500 that get to keep full purchasing power, and that means VA needs to identify what is actually critical and who needs to have the authority to make those critical decisions... and who doesn't. And if they need more than 500 (which I'm sure they do), it's on VA to decide how many more they need and to justify those picks.

It's onerous and annoying, absolutely. But it's also highly likely that it will avoid a whole lot of arguments and conflicts that would arise if DOGE was evaluating all the purchasers and deciding who gets to keep authority and who doesn't.

I'll give you a parallel with something my company is going through right now. 2024 was a rough year, and the company as a whole lost money; the forecast for 2025 is pretty thin too. There are limits to how we can address this - we can't change our premiums as those are filed far in advance, we can't drop high-cost policyholders mid year because 1) we're contractually bound and 2) in the case of individual coverage we're required to be guaranteed issue/renewal. So we can't really increase our revenue, and we can't reasonably reduce our coverage costs. The only thing we can do for the short term is to control our administrative costs. So every department got handed a mandate to reduce our budget by 20%. It's on the leaders of each department to figure out how to meet that directive. Some departments have opted to reduce their short-term contracted positions even though it means more work for their full time staff. Some have opted to lay off unnecessary personnel. Most have opted to cut all discretionary spending, even if that sucks a lot.

But here's the issue - not all departments have the contracted workers, or extra personnel, or high amounts of discretionary spending. My department doesn't - we've got 25 employees total, with almost no overlap in duties, and our budget included a whopping $5K for the entire year for all employee appreciation, celebrations, and the occasional catered lunch when we require everyone to be on-site a few times a year. One of our sibling departments has a lot of catered events, lots of gifts and goodies for their employees, and they've got a lot more employees with a lot more overlap in responsibilities. From an outside perspective, they have a lot more discretionary spending that could be cut, and it's not fair to expect my department to cut the same percentage as them. It sucks, 100% no questions sucks. It's not fair, it's not ideal, and there's undoubtedly a 'better' way to go about this.

On the other hand... the exec over our areas can't play favorites. And they don't have time to do a deep-dive into every department to decide what gets cut. And doing a deep dive with serious consideration for every employee and every budget item would take half a year, and we need to reduce spending now. So even though it sucks for me and my department right now, and it's objectively suboptimal... it's also the most pragmatic and reasonable approach to get something done quickly. We all end up having to cut by a percentage that's higher than absolutely required - and then we go back and make the case for adding budget back in where it's necessary. If the exec was making all the calls, it's inevitable that several people would be butthurt - they would feel they'd been let go out of personal dislike, or because the exec just doesn't know their worth; budget expenditure cuts would feel personal or would be at risk of seeming arbitrary and like the exec doesn't know how important they are.... all of that in addition to taking entirely too long.

Having the departments do the trimming is an absolute pain... but it also lets us make decisions about what's most important, what's critical and what's not, and we end up in an overall better position.

There's no argument that it's not an ideal approach. But in the real world, efficient and pragmatic almost always works better than ideal.

 

[Donal]

Funny how much pain is necessary when you aren't the one feeling it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Funny how much pain is necessary when you aren't the one feeling it.

Funny how much government spending and control is necessary when you aren't the one feeling it.

 

[Donal]

Did that make sense in your head?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Funny how much government spending and control is necessary when you aren't the one feeling it.

Like those in the military, on medicare, medicaid and social security?