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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by InfiniteTitan »

frugalmail wrote: post #510

I think what doge is doing should always be happening. According to the article the website doesn't have the rigor they're expecting. But then again, I never interpreted it as a double entry ledger for the public to review. They're moving fast and put in a position able to make the changes that many know should be made, but lacked the power to make the changes. As long as it's all legal, we should all be glad that th…

> As long as it's all legal

It’s quite clear by the preponderance of the evidence piling up that these actions are not legal.

The cost of defending all of the employment actions that result from this will easily eclipse the “savings” presented.

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

#932

Post by [deleted] »

Glyptodon wrote: post #646
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…

I don't think a reasonable discussion is possible. Congress is supposed to fund the government and say how money is spent. The executive "cutting" things to "save money" is basically the executive assuming the power of the legislative branch. That said, what we're witnessing doesn't actually seem to be about spending. It seems to be more about obtaining direct dominance over the whole branch so it can be run essentia…

[deleted]

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

#933

Post by firejake308 »

tzs wrote: post #380
firejake308 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of at least one source arguing that in fact, population health (mainly obesity and gun violence) explain upwards of 70% of the difference in healthcare spending between the US and other developed nations.[1] To me, this seems like the most likely explanation because I believe we have pretty similar diagnostics and treatments to other developed countries, and I don't feel like a British doctor would give me any…

> I know of at least one source arguing that in fact, population health (mainly obesity and gun violence) explain upwards of 70% of the difference in healthcare spending between the US and other developed nations I have my doubts. Over the last 50 years the ratio of US per capita health care costs and European per capita health care costs (or per capita health care costs for most of the rest of first world countries)…

This implies that healthcare costs in the US were already higher than those in Europe in 1970. Is that a correct conclusion to draw?

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

#934

Post by exe34 »

dmurray wrote: post #726
smogcutter wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd much rather my money being spent on education, foreign assistance, scientific research, etc., even if there is some inefficiencies and waste In fact, I’d argue that the government’s role is specifically to spend on things that are economically inefficient but nonetheless important.

Right, but theres a difference between "economically inefficient because every dollar spent here translates to less than a dollar of direct returns" and "economically inefficient because every dollar spent on this requires spending five dollars more on administering it". It's absolutely possible for a government to value investing in health care or education or foreign aid in a way that a corporation could never mone…

> "economically inefficient because every dollar spent on this requires spending five dollars more on administering it".

could you say a few words on how you think dodge making it harder for anything to happen without going through them is going to make it cost less to spend on the useful things?

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

#935

Post by specialist »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #550
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…

The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Medicare as that is covered by a separate tax). This is much more than any DOGE savings, and shows that this isn't about reducing the federal budget, but about cutting services in order to fund two things: military, and corporate tax cuts (which largely benefit…

Yes and:

> about cutting services in order to fund two things

Gutting the administrative state. Then restaffing with loyalists.

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

#936

Post by ave_b_2011 »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #825

Discussing the correctness in the immoral use of public money is the wrong discussion to have. You don't try play chess with a parasite. You deparasitize a patient and then do any next thing you need to do.

I’m sorry. Just one thing to clear up. Are you saying that the public at large that pays taxes are the parasite?

Veterans seeing the doctor at their VA location are parasites?

Is the clean air and clean water we drink, seat belt laws, cancer research, etc. immoral? I’m not following what you’re saying at all.

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

#937

Post by Sparyjerry »

rassimmoc wrote: post #789
Sparyjerry wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private is not 100% efficient but it is much more efficient because if you don't make a profit you no longer exist. A government program can't go broke. Government programs simply get money with zero effect on their budget or revenue if they execute poorly or well. That's why removing an 'optional' HR role like DEI that does not actual produce anything measurable is slow hanging fruit. You are reducing cost and the r…

Hmmm, A few corporations come to mind that are considered too big to fail (banks a decade and half ago, intel atm,...). Seems like they have aquired government-like powers :D Second point. Nuclear safety inspectors don't produce anything, they just cost us. Lets call them red tape. Simply fire all of them, energy costs will go down and nothing will happen in short term. But somewhere down the line a president will be…

Too big to fail was a joke, they should have made them sell their assets or ownership to other companies and shareholders who would cover the losses. Not one person who owned the company before should have been allowed to remain owning anything, without additional paid in capital. Anything related to safety, social security and veterans benefits, was/is mentioned specifically as exempt to the cuts/payment pauses from what I've seen.

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

#938

Post by pstuart »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #390
pstuart wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an issue and should be addressed. But it should be fixed, not burnt to the ground.

Indeed. In fact, one couldn't be blamed for thinking that perhaps all of this is about something else entirely.

> In fact, one couldn't be blamed for thinking that perhaps all of this is about something else entirely.

Indeed. They've been quite explicit in their goals.

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

#939

Post by caminante »

stouset wrote: post #692
cwalv wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.' This is such an unbelievably lazy response. Every single person in existence thinks there’s some amount of government waste that we wish were cut and either returned to the citizens or put to better use elsewhere. The interesting and important question which GP poijted out—and which you completely dod…

> The interesting and important question which GP poijted out—and which you completely dodged—is where and what should be cut.

This is false on a substantive level. The parent challenged (1) the premise that federal spend should scale and with GDP and (2) whether current healthcare cost levels are justified.

It's also notable that you redacted a key part of the parent's quote. Here's the full quote:

> Given the complexity in the details, I don't think a 'serious discussion' about this is even possible in this forum. But if the question is 'do you think an effort should be made to look for things to cut', I'd say 'yes, of course.'

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

#940

Post by ave_b_2011 »

frugalmail wrote: post #510

I think what doge is doing should always be happening. According to the article the website doesn't have the rigor they're expecting. But then again, I never interpreted it as a double entry ledger for the public to review. They're moving fast and put in a position able to make the changes that many know should be made, but lacked the power to make the changes. As long as it's all legal, we should all be glad that th…

First of all none of this is legal- it’s all money that is appropriated.

Secondly, this is a see-through attempt to further extend an already short staffed federal government in order to justify selling it off in pieces to the millionaire and billionaire class.

One final question, is Elon Musk doing this all purely out of the goodness of his heart? He has nothing to gain from what he is doing?

Basic game theory suggests that maybe he is acting more selfishly than we are being told.

Post reply on HN