DOGE People Are Idiots. Heres Why

[Wrestleknownothing]

59 minutes ago, jross said:

lost opportunity is waste

You are complaining about a decision that was made 89 years ago. Not even remotely the kind of thing the Dept of Gov Efficiency is said to be targeting.

[jross]

They should be!

Flipping social security to S&P500 and using increased funds to pay down debt would reduce waste on the interest payments.  

[Husker_Du]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

I've only heard about cutting waste, gov workers and dept of education. Haven't heard any remarks about meaningful cuts except maybe medicaid (but not medicare). 

jfc. wake up.

 

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

Yes you should but I'm not electable because I tell it like it is. 

You might have a better chance in San Francisco if you haven’t already missed your opportunity. 

[jross]

• $400B Slash to Defense budget, with $250B granted with detailed expense report, leaving $150B cut objective 
• $200B: Reduce Fraud
• $150B: MAHA to increase health through diet and exercise, thus cutting medicare and medicaid expense
• $10B++: flipping social security to S&P500 and using access funds to pay down debt, reducing interest payments
• $20B: Fossil Fuel Subsidies
• $100B: Corporate Subsidies
• $80B: Cut department of education
• ~$120B+ potentially through cuts to Energy, Housing, Commerce, Interior ( I voted for Ron Paul before! )
• Review additional subsidies... over a $1 trillion to review bringing back to the state level
• Some sort of hair cut across the board (with exception).  Like 20% hair cut to achieve objectives.  Something based on results to increase or decrease the allocations for the current and future years.  Show me where the money went, show me what it accomplished, fully auditable... 

There is a reason this will take manpower to go through the risks and mitigations...

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, jross said:

They should be!

Flipping social security to S&P500 and using increased funds to pay down debt would reduce waste on the interest payments.  

No it wouldn't. The bonds aren't created because Social Security has a demand for them. The bonds are created because the government needs to borrow money. SS is a captive lender. Invest SS in equities instead and the government will just need to auction more public securities.

And how exactly would an "increased funds" be diverted? It would be against every law and every principal of retirement investing.

[jross]

Once they collect the 12.4% tax on net earnings per worker, how they choose to utilize those funds is entirely at their discretion.  The government makes the laws that go against the principals of liberty.   Might as well be more efficient with it.

[Lipdrag]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The bonds are created because the government needs to borrow money.

I think we found the problem.

[RockLobster]

6 hours ago, jross said:

• $400B Slash to Defense budget, with $250B granted with detailed expense report, leaving $150B cut objective 
• $200B: Reduce Fraud
• $150B: MAHA to increase health through diet and exercise, thus cutting medicare and medicaid expense
• $10B++: flipping social security to S&P500 and using access funds to pay down debt, reducing interest payments
• $20B: Fossil Fuel Subsidies
• $100B: Corporate Subsidies
• $80B: Cut department of education
• ~$120B+ potentially through cuts to Energy, Housing, Commerce, Interior ( I voted for Ron Paul before! )
• Review additional subsidies... over a $1 trillion to review bringing back to the state level
• Some sort of hair cut across the board (with exception).  Like 20% hair cut to achieve objectives.  Something based on results to increase or decrease the allocations for the current and future years.  Show me where the money went, show me what it accomplished, fully auditable... 

There is a reason this will take manpower to go through the risks and mitigations...

... I didn't see the part about cutting costs in the "space" budget.

I expect we'll see a seriously significant cut in our space budget if the point is to cut spending.

Cutting the space budget isn't just obvious, it's beyond obvious.

Right?

Private companies are leading the way, so why pump money into these private companies? If they make a profit without subsidies, great. If not, it isn't the taxpayers' problem. They are on their own.

NASA will continue to exist. Sink or swim, the private companies should no longer be sponsored by taxpayers.

Edited yesterday at 07:35 AM by RockLobster

[jross]

4 hours ago, RockLobster said:

... I didn't see the part about cutting costs in the "space" budget.

I expect we'll see a seriously significant cut in our space budget if the point is to cut spending.

Cutting the space budget isn't just obvious, it's beyond obvious.

Right?

Private companies are leading the way, so why pump money into these private companies? If they make a profit without subsidies, great. If not, it isn't the taxpayers' problem. They are on their own.

NASA will continue to exist. Sink or swim, the private companies should no longer be sponsored by taxpayers.

yes - https://www.space.com/14380-republican-debate-florida-president-space-program.html