Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#61

Post by tharmas » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 6:48 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #38

zzrrt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the soft power argument that it was actually in US's self-interest to help. And for what it's worth, a lot of the vitriol is from taxpayers who supported that aid.

Weirdly, one of the arguments Musk advanced was that is was all a front for the CIA, which I'd guess is closer to hard power that he was dismantling. Not something you'd expect to hear from a big military contractor.

It isn't just Musk, there are plenty of reputable journalists and scholars who argue the same point. Noam Chomsky for starters.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#62

Post by maxlin » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

NekkoDroid wrote: post #57

maxlin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but you don't buy an year's supply "just to be safe". Because you know it's only good fresh.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#63

Post by maxlin » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #55

maxlin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I argued my point. If you don't agree water is wet, that's on you.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#64

Post by maxlin » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 9:56 PM UTC

orwin wrote: post #59

maxlin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nah, DOGE shut down plenty of fires, while being harassed by the arsonist's union. This was known from the start; if you try to attack something corrupt, especially when a lot of the corruption is "grey" of course you'll have tons and tons of people angry, because you're shutting down their grift. The kind of spending, especially just before Trump got to power I heard from NGO's, is so disgusting I rather forget what I saw.

If you don't understand my second point I can't help you.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#65

Post by eqvinox » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 6:07 AM UTC

maxlin wrote: post #63

eqvinox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

I argued my point. If you don't agree water is wet, that's on you.

Can't argue anything without arguments. Let's not discuss water, at this pace we'd end up proving it's dry.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#66

Post by fragmede » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #65

maxlin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argued my point. If you don't agree water is wet, that's on you.

Can't argue anything without arguments. Let's not discuss water, at this pace we'd end up proving it's dry.

Well, if you dehydrate it first...

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#67

Post by eqvinox » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 6:15 AM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #66

eqvinox wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't argue anything without arguments. Let's not discuss water, at this pace we'd end up proving it's dry.

Well, if you dehydrate it first...

Getting it cold enough would probably do the trick too ;D