Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

[FlyAway1]

https://wapo.st/3DcnJcP

Well, that seems relevant.

[Nemesis]

Yeah sure he does . Cons are always the victims.

[WuWei]

It’ll be ok. Will you? Do you have a support network?

[FreeAndClear]

But there is a pretty sign with numbers on it on social media.

[PurpnGold]

@FreeAndClear

But there is a pretty sign with numbers on it on social media.

And Elon is all knowing so he can’t be wrong.

[DougBH]

So if the Post is correct, instead of saving 55,000,000 doge only saved about 45,000,000? Ok. That is better than the record of those throwing it away in the first place.

[Guvnah]

@DougBH

So if the Post is correct, instead of saving 55,000,000 doge only saved about 45,000,000? Ok.

And nobody considers the likelihood of the program in question getting renewed. (Or any of the things DOGE is finding.)

Also, this is just the first month. And we haven’t even seen what is fermenting in the DOD’s dungeons. That’s going to be a treasure chest of nuggets. And Hegseth has already started the process of budget cutting without DOGE helping.

When you get down to it, 55 billion (or 45, or 75) isn’t the goal when the deficit is 2 trillion. Five hundred billion is where we are starting to make a dent. Libs quibbling over 9 billion is just another distraction.

[JayJay]

@DougBH

@FreeAndClear

@DougBH

No. An actual comparison would have been if Trump had said he was calling for a literal bloodbath using weapons if he lost, instead of saying there would be a bloodbath in the automobile industry if he lost.

Bleep blip bloop

The correct phrase is bringing weapons to a knife fight. It’s a metaphor and an idiom. It’s used throughout politics.

You are over reacting based on the source

Again…,if Obama had said he wanted his supporters to bring actual knives to stab specific Republicans you would have a comparison. The subtle difference between calling for actual compared to allegorical weapons seems difficult?

[JayJay]

@DougBH

So if the Post is correct, instead of saving 55,000,000 doge only saved about 45,000,000? Ok. That is better than the record of those throwing it away in the first place.

All the Post is saying is DOGE has made corrections.

It’s not saying that DOGE’s numbers are any more accurate.

Not to mention that costs of programs are not the only costs to the taxpayers.

When all is said and done, you could delete $2 T in spending, but the true costs to Americans could actually go up.

And the hidden costs incurred in ■■■■■■■ up…for example when DOGE “accidentally” fired a whole bunch of people who oversee our nuclear weapons, and had to rush to hire them back…at some as of yet unknown cost to us because the government didn’t have access to personal contact information for many of them and had to scramble resources to find them.

See? When you’re running a social media platform and you fire the wrong people, the social media platform doesn’t run well for a while, and yeah people get pissed, but so what?

Not the same for government agencies.

And most businesses.

If you owned a business, and you hired DOGE to help you find savings…and they did to your business what they’re doing to government?

You’d have fired them long before this.

Or else dealt with the wreckage of your company afterwards.

I think it’s long past time to pretend they’re doing an “efficiency audit” and actually just wrecking ■■■■ without regard to what happens.

Why should you believe this?

Because they told you beforehand that this is what they would do…had you been actually listening to them.

[Gaius]

@FlyAway1

https://wapo.st/3DcnJcP

Well, that seems relevant.

Now this is better journalism. sort of
It still misrepresents things a little.

DOGE’s website lists 8 categories of savings. The article selectively mentions one category, and presents that as the sum total of everything DOGE is doing or claims to have done.

(That’s like presenting a picture of someone’s butt and saying “See this is John Smith. He looks like a butt!”)

Why not write “of the eight categories DOGE is investigating -->one<-- looks like this.” What are they so afraid of?

[peek-a-boo]

@JayJay

When all is said and done, you could delete $2 T in spending, but the true costs to Americans could actually go up.

How so?

[peek-a-boo]

@JayJay

See? When you’re running a social media platform and you fire the wrong people, the social media platform doesn’t run well for a while, and yeah people get pissed, but so what?

Not the same for government agencies.

And most businesses.

[peek-a-boo]

@JayJay

I think it’s long past time to pretend they’re doing an “efficiency audit” and actually just wrecking ■■■■ without regard to what happens.

Why should you believe this?

Because they told you beforehand that this is what they would do…had you been actually listening to them.

Frothy

[WuWei]

[gooddad409]

@peek-a-boo

@JayJay

I think it’s long past time to pretend they’re doing an “efficiency audit” and actually just wrecking ■■■■ without regard to what happens.

Why should you believe this?

Because they told you beforehand that this is what they would do…had you been actually listening to them.

Frothy

Poor overworked camel.

[thinkingman]

@Nemesis

Ah good old double standards for Trump. But its not a cult.

no. it’s not

can you still deal?

[Nemesis]

Are federal employees supposed to be tracking X for instructions now? What if they are not checking emails on a weekend? What if they are on PTO for the next week? Is this even legal?

Who will be reviewing the emails? Who will be checking the accuracy?

As usual with DOGE more questions than answers.

[WuWei]

Don’t worry about it. Go sit in the corner.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Don’t worry about it. Go sit in the corner.

Right next to you… stop trolling

[WuWei]

Nope, I’m on the dance floor. I just can’t pick the tunes.

You on the other hand…

Calling a loser a loser is not trolling. I know you want to be relevant, but… you just aren’t.