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

DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#451

Post by api »

cuuupid wrote: post #84

I think impartial observers have not spent time in actual government bureaucracy. Basically everything will seem like “they’re cutting something important!” Or “they’re stopping critical research!” because every government contract needs justification; so naturally they will all sound good. The data and accounting itself is such bad quality in all cases that it is impossible to be perfect at this; there are entire in…

I worked with the government as a contractor for a while and saw a lot of waste and inefficiency. My brother in law works for a bank and what he describes sounds a lot like what I saw at the government: crazy amounts spent on contractors to do stupid or trivial things, massive hardware and software purchases never used, LOTS of consultants consultants consultants, lots of unnecessary travel, people hired to do no work, failed IT projects, wasteful disposal of working equipment, etc. It all sounds exactly the same.

I've talked to a lot of people who have worked for other huge companies and the stories are similar. When I worked for the Fed there were people there who had worked for GM, Boeing, etc. and a few said the Fed was actually more efficient than some of those.

Has anyone ever worked for a very large (several billion annual spend or more) entity that was anywhere near as efficient as a startup or SMB?

This is why small startups can beat enormous companies. From what I've seen, comparatively, startups can at times be thousands of times as cost-efficient. But as startups grow they become less efficient. I've seen this too. It's incredibly hard to maintain efficiency as things scale for a very long list of reasons.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#452

Post by JumpCrisscross »

patagurbon wrote: post #446
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US population is aging, which means that 36% slice is going to naturally grow. What do you think should be cut, and how? Old people [1], veterans [2], high earners and homeowners [3] turn out to vote. The only demographic we can cut benefits to are the poor. That's what's happening. (Given partisan polarisation, my guess is Democrats will take an axe to veteran benefits next cycle.) > Why shouldn't the health i…

> given partisan polarization… Democrats do a lot of things deeply wrong, but they seem to exhibit punitive behavior like this a lot less than their Republican counterparts. Republicans pay a lot of lip service to veterans but actual GOP legislation in favor of them is sparse at best

> they seem to exhibit punitive behavior like this a lot less than their Republican counterparts

It's not about being punitive. It's about finding resources to deliver goodies to your voters. Democrats have plenty of spending priorities. They're also, at least now, cognisant of the electoral impact of inflation. That means no more trillion-dollar deficit packages, but finding places to cut. Republicans have the poor. Democrats had deficits; if they can't figure out how to pass tax increses on the wealthy or corporations, that only leaves cuts, and the first place to start is where people who will never vote for you (and are already turning out to the opposition) live.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#453

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cwalv wrote: post #426
sxyuan wrote: post #248

For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…

> How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average...? Why should it scale linearly with GDP? I can see an argument that it should scale linearly with population (maybe), but if GDP per capita increases, you could also expect better tech/productivity to allow gov spending per capita to decrease. > What do you think should be cut, an…

> Why should it scale linearly with GDP?

It doesn't have to. But GDP is a good proxy for the tax base. If the problem is deficits and spending isn't increasing linearly with GDP, that suggests the problem is with taxation. Not spending.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#454

Post by crooked-v »

cwalv wrote: post #439

> While the DOGE team has surely cut some number of billions of dollars, its slapdash accounting adds to a pattern of recklessness by the group, which has recently gained access to sensitive government payment systems. Billions . I understand that it may be far from sufficient to prevent the US from entering a debt spiral if/when interest rates increase (or stagflation if/when yield curve control is enacted to preven…

I absolutely expect that the slapdash firing and cutting is going to cost the country much more than it saves over the next ten years.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#455

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thrance wrote: post #336
TOMDM wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need their permission to have these conversations.

Yes you do, leftist talking point are systematically downranked on X. If you don't believe me, open a new X account, navigate to the "for me" page and count the number of left-leaning tweets. The expected number is zero.

> leftist talking point are systematically downranked on X

This is about as relevant as when Twitter was a cesspool of far-left nonsense. Twitter and X aren't the real world. They influence it. But what people are talking about there has about as much correlation with policy and politics as what your neighbourhood housecats might be yapping about.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#457

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sxyuan wrote: post #349
jimmar wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. US GDP estimated GDP in 2024 is $29 trillion. According to your first source, U.S. Federal Spending was 23% of GDP. If that were reduced to the 2014-2019 average of 20%, that would trim $870 billion from federal spending. That seems like good progress toward avoiding a potential debt crisis. 2. Reduce defense overall and make the process of getting money to the needy more efficient. 3. No comment. Healthcare is me…

1. I actually mostly agree with you (and the other reply that said something along the same lines). IMO, the debt situation isn't great, and it's getting worse. Bringing down spending as a percentage of GDP doesn't necessarily require trimming the budget, though - it could also be done by keeping the budget flat and letting GDP growth catch up. 2. Personally, I'm not opposed to trimming defense spending. However, how…

> it could also be done by keeping the budget flat and letting GDP growth catch up

This in practice requires real cuts due to inflation.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#458

Post by beepbooptheory »

ctrlp wrote: post #432
yodsanklai wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Centralized power is very susceptible to grift and corruption Does it look like we're going to less of that though? Also, just looking at the numbers, I wonder if a few percent savings in the federal budget could possibly translate to positive changes for the working class. Maybe part of the population will be happy to know they don't fund hypothetical gender studies anymore, but let's hope the cuts don't affect th…

Inevitably, there will be eggs broken to make omelettes. I will consider the realignment successful if there is a reset in the current grift industrial complex and some interregnum until new patronage networks are established and corrupted that will, in their turn, be destroyed to make room for the next generation. If you think the issue is the amount of money spent on "gender studies" you really don't understand the…

> If you think the issue is the amount of money spent on "gender studies" you really don't understand the far greater value of what the education of our children should consist in and who gets to decide what that education will be.

I can't parse this sentence at all. Are you maybe able to better articulate your point?

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#459

Post by rayiner »

elliotto wrote: post #300
rayiner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://youtu.be/O4xHdUOI7ag?si=RPBNdpAiYHuYe7rf I would strongly recommend listening to Rory Stewart's commentary in the first half of this podcast about the function and role of USAID as an expression of soft power.

I have never heard of Rory Stewart. My family came to this country because of USAID and my dad worked for USAID contractors his whole career. Probably 2/3 of the people at my family's Thanksgivings work for USAID and/or World Bank. Whatever "soft power" is projected by USAID is because of stuff like PEPFAR. But Samantha Powers--who my dad hates--shredded that good will by getting USAID involved in "democracy." Why would countries like India and Bangladesh ever trust USAID again after finding out USAID was funding political movements in their countries? It confirms what half the world already thinks about America: busybodies that meddle in other countries' internal affairs.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#460

Post by jwkpiano1 »

yadaeno wrote: post #407
mandmandam wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans cheered for the gutting of USAID because they thought that spending 25% of the federal budget was too much, and should be around 10% instead. The actual spend on foreign aid? Under 1%. Americans are systemically and catastrophically disinformed. Expecting us to be able to assess the real impact of the DOGE team's fuckups is a violation of GIGO.

I agree but condemning government budget cuts because USAID seems reactionary. I think the spirit of cutting budget is still overall popular, and is impossible to do painlessly. Also in the context of federal budget, 1% is a huge number since most of the budget (like social security, interest payments, and Medicaid) is non negotiable. ~30B a year (USAID budget) is enough to make improvements domestically, e.g free co…

That’s for _Congress_ to decide, not the executive. That’s the issue here.
Post reply on HN