Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#51

Post by hallole »

friendlyasparag wrote: post #9
hallole wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the U.S. would've had to supply foreign aid for eternity, then? Instead of appreciating the vast sums given by the U.S. and her taxpayers, there's only vitriol for the stream of aid money having been cut off.

What a sad response to the obvious immediate harm done by poorly thought out policy. I thought hackernews was better than this.

Why am I in charge of speaking on behalf of HN? I could certainly be in the minority on this. Must you ensure that every space you enter hold to your exact opinions?

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#52

Post by maxlin »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #39
maxlin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.

> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.

It doesn't matter to keep something if you know for a fact it will go bad from the simple act of it staying around for too long, and/or having an incentive to keep itself relevant, by complicating/fueling the problem it was made to solve.

You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#53

Post by maxlin »

eqvinox wrote: post #28
maxlin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.

That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?) (I…

>they seem to be doing their job just fine

No one believes that. If it was true, DOGE would not have been necessary.

Now with DOGE's mission having been blocked for a good part, US is in an even worse situation. But can't blame an actual well calculated attempt.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#54

Post by maxlin »

orwin wrote: post #36
maxlin wrote: post #22

By GAO, lol. The only reason they'd do the reports is because DOGE isn't there to respond. Because it was in DOGE's design to not become just an instrument of furthering the problem it was designed to combat, unlike GAO! The spirit of DOGE lives on though. The basics of just having to at least have a reason what an expense is for did wonders, and DOGE did save a ton, even if it'd benefited from more freedom. Another…

Wasn't GAO the leading us org in that big simplification/trim of the Clinton admin? I know for budget hawks of my country (my uncles and whoever informed them for full transparency) it was the only good thing Clinton did and we should have done the same (the US budget was balanced for the first time since Reagan or something, without reducing social aid). I think that's the best way to find out btw. Did the US budget…

Your logic is flawed. If a fire department extinguishes ten fires fire after a fire bombing attack that burnt down half the town, they did not "fail". And further, talking down those that help where you did nothing of the sort yourself is contemptible.

About your example. That is Trumpian logic. Ask for the whole of Greenland and set the goalposts. Then let them "negotiate down" to just some bases. God knows the "trim" was still unbelievably bloated from a non-relative standpoint.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#55

Post by eqvinox »

maxlin wrote: post #53
eqvinox wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?) (I…

>they seem to be doing their job just fine No one believes that. If it was true, DOGE would not have been necessary. Now with DOGE's mission having been blocked for a good part, US is in an even worse situation. But can't blame an actual well calculated attempt.

>>they seem to be doing their job just fine

>No one believes that.

We're having an objective discussion here, please bring receipts, not beliefs.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#56

Post by halJordan »

goatlover wrote: post #4

But closing USAID did result in lots of deaths around the world as life saving aid was just cutoff with no warning. Was done with no regard to consequences or Congressional approval.

I do understand your point. But obviously us foreign aid doesn't (didn't) exist in a vacuum. The stuff you're talking about that would get these countries off the dole was in things like IMF contracts. And in trade deals. The state department actually had a plan. It gets me that somehow you don't know that, but feel entitled to complain about that plan.

Edit: wrong reply, sorry

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#57

Post by NekkoDroid »

maxlin wrote: post #52
NekkoDroid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.

It doesn't matter to keep something if you know for a fact it will go bad from the simple act of it staying around for too long, and/or having an incentive to keep itself relevant, by complicating/fueling the problem it was made to solve. You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from someth…

> You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.

I always crave milk. That is why I always have milk on hand and if I for some reason need more milk one day I get more milk than usual, but I will still always have at least a little bit of milk on hand.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#58

Post by zzrrt »

zzrrt wrote: post #19
dzhiurgis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. But sometimes it's ok to invest into some hard power.

Well we worked real hard on not changing a regime, not disarming a nuclear power, and not protecting a trade route. How's the investment working out? Maybe if we bomb some more schools they'll be too scared to mess with us.

Also, even if we prefer hard power, if DOGE were honest or consistent and looked at how we're doing hard power, they would find at least as much fraud and waste as in social and soft power spending.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#59

Post by orwin »

maxlin wrote: post #54
orwin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't GAO the leading us org in that big simplification/trim of the Clinton admin? I know for budget hawks of my country (my uncles and whoever informed them for full transparency) it was the only good thing Clinton did and we should have done the same (the US budget was balanced for the first time since Reagan or something, without reducing social aid). I think that's the best way to find out btw. Did the US budget…

Your logic is flawed. If a fire department extinguishes ten fires fire after a fire bombing attack that burnt down half the town, they did not "fail". And further, talking down those that help where you did nothing of the sort yourself is contemptible. About your example. That is Trumpian logic. Ask for the whole of Greenland and set the goalposts. Then let them "negotiate down" to just some bases. God knows the "tri…

I think you have to be more explicit because I don't understand fully what you mean.

Which fire department? Are you talking about doge? In your allegory, it more like: a firebomb caused 20 fires, and after a few nights, the fire department all quit, called it a 'success', flooded an area untouched by fire, and now the area have 25 fires and a flood. Also they paid themselves a bonus because of a job well done.

Which trim? Are you talking about the US balanced budget? Why is that setting goalposts? I mean, I personally don't care about a balanced budget, but budget hawks do, and doing it without reducing social aid seems like a good goalpost to have, no? Should we move them? If so, where?

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#60

Post by tharmas »

euroderf wrote: post #44
gumby wrote: post #10

Maybe they didn’t save any money but they did manage to exfiltrate huge amounts of info on citizens and residents that had been provided under the understanding that it would be held in confidence and that was siloed to event cross-correlation and privacy violations. So at least they accomplished that even if they failed to accomplish the cover story.

Ya have to wonder if there is a DOGE-Musk-Palantir connection.

Highly useful if you are building a Digital Control Grid.
Post reply on HN