5 ms·

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The Doge Plan to Reform Government

9 points by techlover14159 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
techlover14159 2y ago
What do you think about this efficiency, cost cutting and deregulation push
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I think its chances are effectively summed up by the fact that they decided to appoint two co-chairs to it. (who are promising to personally review CVs https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 for its unpaid positions https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671) (and claiming "decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change" when it was 74M to 76M votes is a bit silly)
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    Why is this "co-chair" thing such a gotcha? How is this different from having two founders?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      When has two co-equal bosses ever made things more efficient? If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency. > How is this different from having two founders? One typically functions as CEO.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste. Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.
    - beardyw 2y ago
      As far as I can tell this group won't have any actual power, so why not?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will. Objectively, of course, you're right.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning. Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      I just learned from Duolingo that the French word for "term of office" is "mandat". I started a whole unit on words about elections about two weeks ago. It was a pretty damn upsetting two weeks. I really wish Duo gave me the ability to skip a section and come back to it later.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  I think it's about further shifting power away from the people and into the hands of corporations.
- SavageBeast 2y ago
  People seem to get caught up in the political end of this issue but the fact is the US is spending 1.7T a year MORE than its tax base supports. This MUST stop and if this is how it happens, then I guess this is what it took to make the change. Stop wasting money on silly things and "services" the government has no rational business in (states have their own governments mind you) and THEN come talk to me about a tax increase to make up any necessary shortfalls.
  - mostlysimilar 2y ago
    Sure buddy. Nothing suspicious at all about the man who became a billionaire thanks to government spending go in and rip it all apart after the fact.
  - kmos17 2y ago
    This is at best wishful thinking when 2/3 of the federal budget are medicare/ss/military. What exactly will get cut? The efficiency cuts they are talking about will barely make a dent while making services worse for everyone. Good luck next time a disaster area needs FEMA assistance. And not unlike a business when you have a deficit you have two options: cut cost and increase revenues, this incoming government will very likely decrease revenues through tax cuts, making the deficit even worse.
    - SavageBeast 2y ago
      Absolutely correct regarding medicare/ss/military. Its an issue. What will get cut? Enough things that we can start to have a real conversation about how much "government" we're all willing to pay for. "What exactly will get cut?" - Make you a deal - set a timer and do 10 minutes of research on the subject and come back to report you found NOTHING that could be reasonably and easily cut? EDIT - so far I haven't heard anyone claim we're going to balance the budget via this mechanism. The goal is to CUT WASTE and IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. I see this as a basis for having a real conversation about taxation personally.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
uberman 2y ago
Reads more like a help wanted ad than an opinion piece to me.
weberer 2y ago
https://archive.is/9zUCM https://archive.is/9zUCM
archagon 2y ago
> Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab. Talk about doublespeak, given the recent Supreme Court decision to make the president essentially immune from criminal prosecution. The Trump administration's stated goals and policies could not be further removed from the ideals of small government and limited executive power. I'm quite sure the "sharpest technical and legal minds in America" have better things to do than help these clowns, but I'm also sure they're not actually the targets of recruitment here.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  This is the beginning of a long succession struggle for Trumpism. With the assurance that he won’t stand trial, Trump himself will delegate as much as he can until he ages out. Unelected toadies will jostle for the opportunity to call each other “inefficient” or “unable to share Trump’s vision”. With algorithms deciding how that opportunity fits into attention slots.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

techlover14159 2y ago

What do you think about this efficiency, cost cutting and deregulation push

ceejayoz 2y ago
I think its chances are effectively summed up by the fact that they decided to appoint two co-chairs to it. (who are promising to personally review CVs https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 for its unpaid positions https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671) (and claiming "decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change" when it was 74M to 76M votes is a bit silly)
- Eumenes 2y ago
  Why is this "co-chair" thing such a gotcha? How is this different from having two founders?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    When has two co-equal bosses ever made things more efficient? If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency. > How is this different from having two founders? One typically functions as CEO.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste. Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.
  - beardyw 2y ago
    As far as I can tell this group won't have any actual power, so why not?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will. Objectively, of course, you're right.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning. Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I just learned from Duolingo that the French word for "term of office" is "mandat". I started a whole unit on words about elections about two weeks ago. It was a pretty damn upsetting two weeks. I really wish Duo gave me the ability to skip a section and come back to it later.
JohnFen 2y ago
I think it's about further shifting power away from the people and into the hands of corporations.
SavageBeast 2y ago
People seem to get caught up in the political end of this issue but the fact is the US is spending 1.7T a year MORE than its tax base supports. This MUST stop and if this is how it happens, then I guess this is what it took to make the change. Stop wasting money on silly things and "services" the government has no rational business in (states have their own governments mind you) and THEN come talk to me about a tax increase to make up any necessary shortfalls.
- mostlysimilar 2y ago
  Sure buddy. Nothing suspicious at all about the man who became a billionaire thanks to government spending go in and rip it all apart after the fact.
- kmos17 2y ago
  This is at best wishful thinking when 2/3 of the federal budget are medicare/ss/military. What exactly will get cut? The efficiency cuts they are talking about will barely make a dent while making services worse for everyone. Good luck next time a disaster area needs FEMA assistance. And not unlike a business when you have a deficit you have two options: cut cost and increase revenues, this incoming government will very likely decrease revenues through tax cuts, making the deficit even worse.
  - SavageBeast 2y ago
    Absolutely correct regarding medicare/ss/military. Its an issue. What will get cut? Enough things that we can start to have a real conversation about how much "government" we're all willing to pay for. "What exactly will get cut?" - Make you a deal - set a timer and do 10 minutes of research on the subject and come back to report you found NOTHING that could be reasonably and easily cut? EDIT - so far I haven't heard anyone claim we're going to balance the budget via this mechanism. The goal is to CUT WASTE and IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. I see this as a basis for having a real conversation about taxation personally.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago

uberman 2y ago

Reads more like a help wanted ad than an opinion piece to me.

weberer 2y ago

https://archive.is/9zUCM https://archive.is/9zUCM

archagon 2y ago

> Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab. Talk about doublespeak, given the recent Supreme Court decision to make the president essentially immune from criminal prosecution. The Trump administration's stated goals and policies could not be further removed from the ideals of small government and limited executive power. I'm quite sure the "sharpest technical and legal minds in America" have better things to do than help these clowns, but I'm also sure they're not actually the targets of recruitment here.

ttyprintk 2y ago
This is the beginning of a long succession struggle for Trumpism. With the assurance that he won’t stand trial, Trump himself will delegate as much as he can until he ages out. Unelected toadies will jostle for the opportunity to call each other “inefficient” or “unable to share Trump’s vision”. With algorithms deciding how that opportunity fits into attention slots.