1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 (edited) 42 minutes ago, jross said: How many contracts have you read with your own eyes? That is relevant. I don’t think it is. I don’t need to have read any contracts to point out that any cited “savings” should not include what’s already been paid. A more relevant question is how many contracts had most DOGE employees read with their own eyes prior to being hired? Edited February 24 by 1032004
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 9 minutes ago, 1032004 said: I don’t think it is. I don’t need to have read any contracts to point out that any cited “savings” should not include what’s already been paid. A more relevant question is how many contracts had most DOGE employees read with their own eyes prior to being hired? We do factually know democrats fully support ageism. So this comment does not shock me.
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 4 minutes ago, Caveira said: We do factually know democrats fully support ageism. So this comment does not shock me. Who said anything about age? I asked if they had read any of the contracts they are now cancelling prior to being hired. That’s more about the fields they worked in previously than their age.
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 Just now, 1032004 said: Who said anything about age? I asked if they had read any of the contracts they are now cancelling prior to being hired. That’s more about the fields they worked in previously than their age. We all know what you’re implying boss.
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 23 minutes ago, Caveira said: We all know what you’re implying boss. Lol well you are free to imagine whatever you want. So are you saying you think most DOGE employees had previous experience reading government contracts?
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 3 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Lol well you are free to imagine whatever you want. So are you saying you think most DOGE employees had previous experience reading government contracts? They are ex McKinsey consultants, lawyers / Supreme Court clerks, finance backgrounds, law, politics, and software whiz kids. Of course they do.
Scouts Honor Posted February 24 Posted February 24 17 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Lol well you are free to imagine whatever you want. So are you saying you think most DOGE employees had previous experience reading government contracts? now do the whiz kids
jross Posted February 24 Posted February 24 14 hours ago, 1032004 said: Lol well you are free to imagine whatever you want. So are you saying you think most DOGE employees had previous experience reading government contracts? Its very easy to read https://www.fpds.gov/
jross Posted February 24 Posted February 24 15 hours ago, 1032004 said: I don’t think it is. I don’t need to have read any contracts to point out that any cited “savings” should not include what’s already been paid. A more relevant question is how many contracts had most DOGE employees read with their own eyes prior to being hired? The source of the summary matters. Anonymous Momentum Chaser claims DOGE declared 55B saved from the contracts, whereas the DOGE website does not make that claim. Then he calls DOGE lazy, overpaid, and incompetent. I see no red flags with the guy at all! /s Note that there is a contracts filter and a savings filter. I've place the values side by side. Further I opened the link for one with s substantial difference between contract and saved. It appears the math adds up as 2.1M - 1.1M is 0.9M. See for yourself. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/jsp/viewLinkController.jsp?agencyID=1205&PIID=12314423C0053&modNumber=P00003&idvAgencyID=&idvPIID=&contractType=AWARD Here is one of his examples. The contract is 1B but only 200M is listed as savings. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/jsp/viewLinkController.jsp?agencyID=2800&PIID=28321322FDS030130&modNumber=P00016&idvAgencyID=&idvPIID=SS001760016&contractType=AWARD The twerp is critical about hypothetical savings because he is a twerp.
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 (edited) 14 minutes ago, jross said: The source of the summary matters. Anonymous Momentum Chaser claims DOGE declared 55B saved from the contracts, whereas the DOGE website does not make that claim. Then he calls DOGE lazy, overpaid, and incompetent. I see no red flags with the guy at all! /s Note that there is a contracts filter and a savings filter. I've place the values side by side. Further I opened the link for one with s substantial difference between contract and saved. It appears the math adds up as 2.1M - 1.1M is 0.9M. See for yourself. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/jsp/viewLinkController.jsp?agencyID=1205&PIID=12314423C0053&modNumber=P00003&idvAgencyID=&idvPIID=&contractType=AWARD Here is one of his examples. The contract is 1B but only 200M is listed as savings. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/jsp/viewLinkController.jsp?agencyID=2800&PIID=28321322FDS030130&modNumber=P00016&idvAgencyID=&idvPIID=SS001760016&contractType=AWARD The twerp is critical about hypothetical savings because he is a twerp. DOGE updated the specific examples he called out after being called out on them. Your screenshot still shows “$55b saved,” despite the significant reductions from the errors that were called out… Edited February 24 by 1032004
jross Posted February 24 Posted February 24 14 minutes ago, 1032004 said: DOGE updated the specific examples he called out after being called out on them. Your screenshot still shows “$55b saved,” despite the significant reductions from the errors that were called out… What does the red box underneath say?
Bigbrog Posted February 24 Posted February 24 If a company budget's $2.5M for a new POS system...it is in the budget...and it is determined that the POS system is no longer needed...did the company save $2.5M? How about if they had it in their budget to hire 25 new people in the current year; however, they did some process improvement and made things much more efficient and thus didn't need to hire the 25 new people...is that $$$ savings for the company?
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 20 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: If a company budget's $2.5M for a new POS system...it is in the budget...and it is determined that the POS system is no longer needed...did the company save $2.5M? How about if they had it in their budget to hire 25 new people in the current year; however, they did some process improvement and made things much more efficient and thus didn't need to hire the 25 new people...is that $$$ savings for the company? Yes. But the appropriate comparison in your example is they budgeted $2.5M over 5 years and stopped using it after 4.
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 24 minutes ago, jross said: What does the red box underneath say? About the 20%? Not sure what you’re getting at.
Bigbrog Posted February 24 Posted February 24 20 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Yes. But the appropriate comparison in your example is they budgeted $2.5M over 5 years and stopped using it after 4. Correct...the savings would be $500,000
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 24 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: Correct...the savings would be $500,000 Correct
jross Posted February 24 Posted February 24 59 minutes ago, 1032004 said: About the 20%? Not sure what you’re getting at. The posted wall of receipts accounts for approximately 20% of the overall $55 billion in savings. The wall of receipts IS NOT the $55B.
1032004 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 9 minutes ago, jross said: The posted wall of receipts accounts for approximately 20% of the overall $55 billion in savings. The wall of receipts IS NOT the $55B. Correct, was anyone saying otherwise? In fact the anonymous x user specifically calls out their claim about the list only being 20%. His point is that they never changed the overall savings from $55b despite removing $10b worth of errors. I suppose they could claim the $55b was an underestimate to begin with, or they found another $10b since then.
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Bigbrog said: Correct...the savings would be $500,000 Unless the contract was set to renew for another 4/5 years +. Do a lot of gov contracts get killed (pre doge)? 1
Offthemat Posted February 24 Posted February 24 On 2/23/2025 at 11:43 AM, Le duke said: Huh? Trump’s approval rate is dropping by the day. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-rating-slips-americans-worry-about-economy-2025-02-19/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1894054431403934106
fishbane Posted February 24 Posted February 24 51 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Correct, was anyone saying otherwise? In fact the anonymous x user specifically calls out their claim about the list only being 20%. His point is that they never changed the overall savings from $55b despite removing $10b worth of errors. I suppose they could claim the $55b was an underestimate to begin with, or they found another $10b since then. Without receipts they can claim whatever they want. Elon Musk often does this in his business dealings. Fake battery swaps, taking Tesla private, solar homes built with non-functional solar shingles, the roadster, full self driving, the Hyperloop... this list is long. 1
jross Posted February 24 Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Caveira said: Unless the contract was set to renew for another 4/5 years +. Do a lot of gov contracts get killed (pre doge)? I looked into this and its inconclusive to use comprehensive data. There are some crumbs... largely the bigger answer is that what's different now is a hyperfocus and larger cancellation effort than previous.
fishbane Posted February 24 Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Caveira said: Unless the contract was set to renew for another 4/5 years +. Do a lot of gov contracts get killed (pre doge)? Mayhaps, but when Musk initially said he expected they could cut at least $2 trillion from the Harris-Biden budget that was an annual budget. If it turns out to be an accumulation of $2 trillion in savings over 5-6 years he would have under delivered by a substantial margin.
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 1 hour ago, fishbane said: Without receipts they can claim whatever they want. Elon Musk often does this in his business dealings. Fake battery swaps, taking Tesla private, solar homes built with non-functional solar shingles, the roadster, full self driving, the Hyperloop... this list is long. Is it that they don’t have receipts or other nuggets….. or is it conveniently being withheld. I’ve been through audits for a company. Where unit a stonewalled unit b. Depending on what dirt a had in this sort of contrived example. Red tape is a thing. A real thing. I bet the gov is good at it too.
Caveira Posted February 24 Posted February 24 21 minutes ago, jross said: I looked into this and its inconclusive to use comprehensive data. There are some crumbs... largely the bigger answer is that what's different now is a hyperfocus and larger cancellation effort than previous. I don’t disagree. There is a bit of nuance of what you can fit in a tweet. Especially when the entrenched team red v team blue people start arguing over it. It’s still good to cancel the waste. No matter what the left wingers think. Keep doing it. 1
Xavier Dombkowski Fort LeBoeuf, Pennsylvania Class of 2025 Committed to Mercyhurst Projected Weight: 149, 157
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now