Trump creates new "department" whose goal is efficiency and cutting down government waste

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Elon Musk is the absolute last person you want making decisions. Ge has $billions in government contracts and dozens or more active investigations re: his blatant disregard for federal regulations. 

If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is 

Just wake up and decide to bring something new and fresh to this discussion?

[red viking]

1 minute ago, jross said:

Military Spending - DoD service contracts are not managed effectively (link)

Understatement of the century. The most waste in any program in the history of our country. Ironically, he won't cut this at all but continue to engorge the fat bloated pig that our military is. 

[mspart]

So to understand correctly, Vak has no objection to a DOGE type group trying to root out wasteful and inefficient spending.   Vak just doesn't want Musk or Vivek at the head.  

Is that correct?

mspart

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Just wake up and decide to bring something new and fresh to this discussion?

Did somebody already say this? 

[uncle bernard]

4 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

that its Elon is a secondary topic.

1) They are starting a Department of efficiency

and

2) You don't like who is leading that department

many of you nitwits are suggesting the department is unnecessary at all despite obvious incompetence, waste, and corruption for years, even self reported like in the above link

on point 2

there are infinite avenues of inquiry into government waste. being utterly concerned with the 5 instances where Elon may have a conflict of interest is either sheer stupidity or simple stubbornness 

This is just make-work so those two weirdos stop bothering him. They'll get bored and we'll all move on.

[VakAttack]

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

So to understand correctly, Vak has no objection to a DOGE type group trying to root out wasteful and inefficient spending.   Vak just doesn't want Musk or Vivek at the head.  

Is that correct?

mspart

In an ideal world, they would just beef up the already existing department; a new department doing something that already exists is inherently wasteful.  But no, I don't have a problem with trying to curb wasteful spending.

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

In an ideal world, they would just beef up the already existing department; a new department doing something that already exists is inherently wasteful.  But no, I don't have a problem with trying to curb wasteful spending.

Do you think Vivek and Musk should be assigned to the already existing department?  I somewhat agree with the duplication of departments, if true, is wasteful unless one of them is going to go away.  I do not understand the visceral reaction to Vivek and Musk running the department...seems like good choices to me.  If your concern is over conflict of interest, well, don't we have a department in the government to oversee that??  Wouldn't they be able to make that call?

[ionel]

11 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

In an ideal world, they would just beef up the already existing department; a new department doing something that already exists is inherently wasteful.  But no, I don't have a problem with trying to curb wasteful spending.

In an ideal world everyone would be accountable and do their best to root out excess and improve efficiency thus needing no oversight.  If you've never done work in government or associated with you probably don't understand what goes on.  In just grant work everybody pads their proposal by 30% because they know the granting agency is going to cut the approved budget by 30%.  If there's a hard max cap on projects you write a proposal with budget equal to the max.  Well ok not exactly let's say max is $1M you make sure you budget is $987k.  

[WrestlingRasta]

 

So I have a serious question. What is the determining factor that switches us from , “question everything never trust the government” to “ well it’s okay…it’s the government. They will handle it appropriately”??

[mspart]

I think in this case it is not the government a group of outsiders looking inside for waste and identifying it.   They seem to be on this train for some time and want to do it.   They do not constitute another agency really.   They can do nothing by themselves.   I think that is the reason. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

I think in this case it is not the government a group of outsiders looking inside for waste and identifying it.   They seem to be on this train for some time and want to do it.   They do not constitute another agency really.   They can do nothing by themselves.   I think that is the reason. 

mspart

I was referring to the stance of “well if there’s a conflict of interest wont the government officials responsible for that call it out” 

So in this instance people, who usually are all about questioning everything and not trusting the government, are taking a completely distance stance here.  I wonder why? 

[mspart]

I see what you mean.   But in this case, it seems apparent that most of the bureaucracy is against Trump so I don't think there would be any issue with them calling this out as currently constituted.   That may change. 

I'm sure someone from across the aisle can call out waste that these guys miss.   Like that would happen. 

mspart

Edited November 14 by mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

So in this case, we’re just going to trust the government, where normally we would not; we should question everything. But this time, it’s ridiculous to question this governmental move, we should just trust them. and furthermore, it’s really going to be okay because there will be more government checking on them.  
 

It makes sense now. 

[ionel]

25 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So in this case, we’re just going to trust the government, where normally we would not; we should question everything. But this time, it’s ridiculous to question this governmental move, we should just trust them. and furthermore, it’s really going to be okay because there will be more government checking on them.  
 

It makes sense now. 

Trust

[Offthemat]

37 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So in this case, we’re just going to trust the government, where normally we would not; we should question everything. But this time, it’s ridiculous to question this governmental move, we should just trust them. and furthermore, it’s really going to be okay because there will be more government checking on them.  
 

It makes sense now. 

It’s all going to be reported online - any and everybody can watchdog it.  

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s all going to be reported online - any and everybody can watchdog it.  

but ... but ... but

[mspart]

34 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So in this case, we’re just going to trust the government, where normally we would not; we should question everything. But this time, it’s ridiculous to question this governmental move, we should just trust them. and furthermore, it’s really going to be okay because there will be more government checking on them.  
 

It makes sense now. 

Unclear on this.  

It is an outside group auditing wasteful spending.   If that needs government oversight ok.   Anybody can do this, the difference will be they will probably have access to info that the normal Joe doesn't.   They might see more areas that are wasteful than otherwise.   I'm still not really clear on why this whole thing is a BAD idea.   If someone really wants to get to the bottom of this topic, now is a good time.  Transparency is "guaranteed" as well as a suggestion box of sorts.   So everyone should be able to see what is going on and if Musk and Vivek are holding on to wasteful spending that helps them personally.  To me this is the first time this has been done in such a serious and open manner.  I think that is a good thing.   And only Congress can make the suggested changes to spending as I understand it. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

26 minutes ago, mspart said:

Unclear on this.  

It is an outside group auditing wasteful spending.   If that needs government oversight ok.   Anybody can do this, the difference will be they will probably have access to info that the normal Joe doesn't.   They might see more areas that are wasteful than otherwise.   I'm still not really clear on why this whole thing is a BAD idea.   If someone really wants to get to the bottom of this topic, now is a good time.  Transparency is "guaranteed" as well as a suggestion box of sorts.   So everyone should be able to see what is going on and if Musk and Vivek are holding on to wasteful spending that helps them personally.  To me this is the first time this has been done in such a serious and open manner.  I think that is a good thing.   And only Congress can make the suggested changes to spending as I understand it. 

mspart

Correct.  And they are working as an addendum, or task force, of the Office of Management and Budget, not a new department.  They themselves can only make recommendations, of which due to the qualifications of the men involved, we expect to be more sensible and considerate than if done by a traditional D.C. operator who lacks business (Mitch Daniels)) expertise. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, Caveira said:

Lol.   Common.  Dramatic much?

If you would care to propose a reasonable alternative I would love to hear it.

But before you do, let's look at Tesla alone, the source of most of his wealth, and all of his liquid wealth.

• 43% of Tesla's profits derive from government largesse. YTD Tesla has made $2.1 billion from selling carbon credits provided to them by the government.
• Tesla has recently faced investigations from the Transportation Department and the Justice Department.
• Tesla has been fined for OSHA violations.
• Tesla has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• Tesla has face enforcement actions from the EPA
• Tesla, and Musk, have been investigated by the SEC and found to have violated securities laws resulting in sanctions on Musk's tweets and fines on the company.

The SpaceX list is longer and higher dollar value, by the way.

[jross]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

In an ideal world everyone would be accountable and do their best to root out excess and improve efficiency thus needing no oversight.  If you've never done work in government or associated with you probably don't understand what goes on.  In just grant work everybody pads their proposal by 30% because they know the granting agency is going to cut the approved budget by 30%.  If there's a hard max cap on projects you write a proposal with budget equal to the max.  Well ok not exactly let's say max is $1M you make sure you budget is $987k.  

Without accountability, managers ensure the money is gone to secure next year's cash flow. With accountability and focus, it is remarkable how much money can be saved. In a big company, simply reclaiming unused software licenses can save millions. At home, buying in bulk and home cooked meals saves a tremendous amount.  You fix what you focus on.  

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If you would care to propose a reasonable alternative I would love to hear it.

But before you do, let's look at Tesla alone, the source of most of his wealth, and all of his liquid wealth.

• 43% of Tesla's profits derive from government largesse. YTD Tesla has made $2.1 billion from selling carbon credits provided to them by the government.
• Tesla has recently faced investigations from the Transportation Department and the Justice Department.
• Tesla has been fined for OSHA violations.
• Tesla has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• Tesla has face enforcement actions from the EPA
• Tesla, and Musk, have been investigated by the SEC and found to have violated securities laws resulting in sanctions on Musk's tweets and fines on the company.

The SpaceX list is longer and higher dollar value, by the way.

That reads like a list of over-regulation more than a critique of Musk. 

[jross]

Needs to be said again that the GAO takes credit for 75% of their past recommendations have been implemented over a four year period.  This begs the question, what the hell do they do? (actually they do something)

Just as a lamp should be put on a stand to light the room, the GAO and Congress' accomplishments should be made visible to ensure that the public can benefit from their work. This isn't criticism per se but an encouragement for better communication or marketing of their efforts.

DOGE is exciting because its lighting up the room.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Just now, Offthemat said:

That reads like a list of over-regulation more than a critique of Musk. 

Yes and no.

Without looking at the facts and circumstances of each situation it might read as over-regulation. But things like the SEC fines were VERY well earned by Musk. And he has broken securities laws since with zero consequence.

The revenue he derives certainly is not due to over-regulation.

But the bigger question is should he be both the regulated and the person who influences the regulation? I say no.

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If you would care to propose a reasonable alternative I would love to hear it.

But before you do, let's look at Tesla alone, the source of most of his wealth, and all of his liquid wealth.

• 43% of Tesla's profits derive from government largesse. YTD Tesla has made $2.1 billion from selling carbon credits provided to them by the government.
• Tesla has recently faced investigations from the Transportation Department and the Justice Department.
• Tesla has been fined for OSHA violations.
• Tesla has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• Tesla has face enforcement actions from the EPA
• Tesla, and Musk, have been investigated by the SEC and found to have violated securities laws resulting in sanctions on Musk's tweets and fines on the company.

The SpaceX list is longer and higher dollar value, by the way.

This stuff or stuff like it was already posted above a dozen times.   We get it.  He has contracts with the gov.  

I’ll take this all day vs the shyte show the last 4 years.    

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yes and no.

Without looking at the facts and circumstances of each situation it might read as over-regulation. But things like the SEC fines were VERY well earned by Musk. And he has broken securities laws since with zero consequence.

The revenue he derives certainly is not due to over-regulation.

But the bigger question is should he be both the regulated and the person who influences the regulation? I say no.

You say no to lobbyists?