Musk’s Secret DOGE Team

[K-9]

44 minutes ago, Hank said:

First DOGE hearing will be Wednesday 10AM. If C-SPAN airs it I recommend the fear mongerers on here watch it. 

 

So Musk and his team of Gen Z post (or possibly pre from the looks of them) pubescent engineer geniuses only needed three weeks to uncover 3 trillion dollars in mis-spent funds while nobody in the history of these agencies, from internal and external audits to inspectors general whose job it is to investigate such waste, with all the sophisticated technological tools to assist in those efforts, never even noticed? 

Horse. Crap. 

Another dog and pony show for people who have to believe it’s all true to satisfy their confirmation bias. 

[Hank]

DOGE live tracker website

https://www.doge-tracker.com/

[Hank]

 

I would expect that luxury hotel will be receiving a visit from ICE

[LGR4GM]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/legal-experts-constitutional-crisis-vance-musk-judicial-rulings-trump-rcna191387

Quote

On Saturday, Musk reposted a post on X from a user who wrote, "I don’t like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I’m just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us."

Quote

In a separate post on X, Musk called for U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to be impeached after his ruling early Saturday that temporarily halts DOGE employees’ access to Treasury Department data.

"A corrupt judge protecting corruption," Musk wrote. "He needs to be impeached NOW!"

Quote

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal," Vance wrote on X, adding, "Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power."

 

[Weave]

@Hank  your posts here seem to suggest you are in support of what DOGE is doing.  I am curious to get your reaction re: how they are going about doing it, ie. using executive order to bypass processes that require Congressional direction and ignoring precedent that the Executive branch is required to implement the budget as set by Congress.

It is a helluva power grab for the executive branch that has a high danger potential.

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

@Hank  your posts here seem to suggest you are in support of what DOGE is doing.  I am curious to get your reaction re: how they are going about doing it, ie. using executive order to bypass processes that require Congressional direction and ignoring precedent that the Executive branch is required to implement the budget as set by Congress.

It is a helluva power grab for the executive branch that has a high danger potential.

Thank you for asking Weave. In general I like the idea of USAID being audited. Musk claims to have found much waste and abuse, possibly corruption. Obviously I can't know the truthfulness of his claims. I'm hoping the hearings on Wednesday will be broadcast on C-SPAN, I am interested in seeing them. I question if the way they are going about it is legal, my hunch is it is not but I have no idea. My opinion is that Musk is attempting to be transparent on what he's finding with the constantly updated website and the never ending tweets. YMMV on that. From what he claims to uncovered I see alot of things I personally don't want my tax dollars going to. Again, YMMV on that and I don't fault anyone for having different views than myself. These are interesting times. What Musk is doing is unprecedented and I find myself captivated by it. I'm very curious to see how it plays out. Will the ends justify the means? That may depend on which side of the political aisle you're on, but none the less it's interesting. 

[Hank]

 

[K-9]

That DOGE staff is just full of the best people, from avowed racists to young punks with ties to Russian websites. Yeah, let’s give these guys access to the most sensitive government data bases. 
 

https://www.wired.com/story/edward-coristine-tesla-sexy-path-networks-doge/

 

[K-9]

32 minutes ago, Hank said:

 

Ah, the sweet taste of radical right wing propaganda. When it comes to a thirst for confirmation bias, nothing quenches it better than a steaming pile of radical right wing propaganda. Yummy.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Thank you for asking Weave. In general I like the idea of USAID being audited. Musk claims to have found much waste and abuse, possibly corruption. Obviously I can't know the truthfulness of his claims. I'm hoping the hearings on Wednesday will be broadcast on C-SPAN, I am interested in seeing them. I question if the way they are going about it is legal, my hunch is it is not but I have no idea. My opinion is that Musk is attempting to be transparent on what he's finding with the constantly updated website and the never ending tweets. YMMV on that. From what he claims to uncovered I see alot of things I personally don't want my tax dollars going to. Again, YMMV on that and I don't fault anyone for having different views than myself. These are interesting times. What Musk is doing is unprecedented and I find myself captivated by it. I'm very curious to see how it plays out. Will the ends justify the means? That may depend on which side of the political aisle you're on, but none the less it's interesting. 

My feelings on the subject of the DOGE audits pretty much are framed by, if auditing is the true goal then why are programmers being employed instead of forensic accountants?

 

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, Weave said:

My feelings on the subject of the DOGE audits pretty much are framed by, if auditing is the true goal then why are programmers being employed instead of forensic accountants?

 

Because the goal is destroying the agencies and stealing the information on the way out. EM is getting lots of information which will help his businesses get a competitive advantage. They brought in programmers because it isn't about government waste, it is about government "spending my tax dollars on things I don't want" which has become a common refrain from the far right to justify attacking anything they dislike. I bet the programmers are coming in, and running scripts on these internal datasets looking for coded entries. It is why they can turn around so fast and say "LOOK! We wasted X amount on this thing in the last 10 years!" because they found X payments that fit their search algorithm and if they don't like, if it doesn't fit their ideology, it is bad. The joke is "orange man bad" but in reality we are seeing "whatever orange man dislikes is bad". It will get far worse. We are maybe a couple months at most away from the judiciary being ignored. Everything trump says is true, anything against him we should have no respect for, at least that's what the current climate is. 

We're in the endgame now. 

[LTS]

18 hours ago, K-9 said:

Perhaps the most short-sighted and uninformed take on the social security program I’ve ever read. Safe to say we have no more to discuss on that subject.

Our involvement in the middle east was solidified when the new border lines were drawn by the British and French after WWI. That will only change when oil becomes an antiquated energy source and the other petroleum products we derive from it can be made from other sources. Good luck with that, world.

Many middle eastern countries don’t accept ours or any other foreign presence. Others welcome it. And it’s not that we are attempting to control their very existence, it’s that it’s extremely important to our interests to prevent other hostile/adversarial countries from exerting influence. Ironically, we can thank USAID for that as that has been their mission since it’s inception in 1961. 

Re: SSA: Your choice. You assume that because that is all I posted that it's all I know. I don't care if we have a discussion or not.

Re: Middle East - I'm pretty sure I'm just going to quote you "Perhaps the most short-sighted and uninformed take. Safe to say we have no more to discuss on that subject."

So, it's okay for the United States to get involved in other countries because it protects "our interests" and prevents opposition from exerting influence. The same United States that is taking action within its own borders now to protect "its interests" and prevent opposition from exerting influence? 

Once again we are back to the crucial question "Whose interests?" There are always two sides. You will argue that the other side is wrong because it goes against what you believe in. They will argue the same.  And here we are.. no progress is made.

 

 

[Hank]

You know what I find interesting?  People want to talk about how evil Musk is, what's his REAL motives, is what he's doing even legal. No one wants to talk about all the fraud, waste and a use he claims to have found. Why is that?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

You know what I find interesting?  People want to talk about how evil Musk is, what's his REAL motives, is what he's doing even legal. No one wants to talk about all the fraud, waste and a use he claims to have found. Why is that?

See where you wrote "claims to have found" that's why. He claims he found it. No one has seen it and they won't. They'll get vague data like the USAID info or the FEMA info. No context, just "we wasted x on y, had to go"

[Weave]

53 minutes ago, Hank said:

You know what I find interesting?  People want to talk about how evil Musk is, what's his REAL motives, is what he's doing even legal. No one wants to talk about all the fraud, waste and a use he claims to have found. Why is that?

I am much more concerned about the executive branch power grab, honestly.  Its the stuff of actual constitutional crisis.

Do it the way it was intended to be done, show actual evidence, and you’ve got my attention.

 

I will add, the way this is unfolding, locking out staff, going around dept personnel, firing the inspector generals, makes me very distrustful of what is happening, and therefore distrustful of the communications.  Nothing about how this is being done provides me with the sense that there is benevolent intent.

The constitutional crisis potential far outweighs the stated intent of government efficiency.

Edited Monday at 07:38 PM by Weave

[LGR4GM]

50 minutes ago, Weave said:

I am much more concerned about the executive branch power grab, honestly.  Its the stuff of actual constitutional crisis.

Do it the way it was intended to be done, show actual evidence, and you’ve got my attention.

 

I will add, the way this is unfolding, locking out staff, going around dept personnel, firing the inspector generals, makes me very distrustful of what is happening, and therefore distrustful of the communications.  Nothing about how this is being done provides me with the sense that there is benevolent intent.

The constitutional crisis potential far outweighs the stated intent of government efficiency.

This is well written and exactly how I feel too. The bolded is 100% spot on. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Re: SSA: Your choice. You assume that because that is all I posted that it's all I know. I don't care if we have a discussion or not.

Re: Middle East - I'm pretty sure I'm just going to quote you "Perhaps the most short-sighted and uninformed take. Safe to say we have no more to discuss on that subject."

So, it's okay for the United States to get involved in other countries because it protects "our interests" and prevents opposition from exerting influence. The same United States that is taking action within its own borders now to protect "its interests" and prevent opposition from exerting influence? 

Once again we are back to the crucial question "Whose interests?" There are always two sides. You will argue that the other side is wrong because it goes against what you believe in. They will argue the same.  And here we are.. no progress is made.

 

 

I didn’t say anything about our involvement being OK or not. I merely point out the reality of the situation. 

As for my take on the middle east, every historian who has researched the subject agrees, so I’m in good company with my shortsighted and uninformed take. Tell me, what scholars agree with your take that SS is an infringement on your personal freedom? As far as I know SS never denied anyone medical care like GOP laws do. It never sought to deny people the right to marry like the GOP is seeking to do. Nor did SS ever seek to deny certain people the right to serve in the military. Those are just a few example of actual personal freedoms under attack by radical right wing politicians. Do you feel that all taxes infringe upon your personal freedoms?

So if I understand your point in your third paragraph, it’s not OK for the US to protect its interests abroad? When USAID was created in an attempt to thwart the USSR’s efforts to exert influence and spread their brand of communism, was that not important? Are you paying attention to the efforts by China and Russia to gain footholds worldwide? 

The other side is wrong because they are doing things that are not in accordance with our Constitution. Sometimes there is only ONE side and that’s the side that stands by our Constitution and the rule of law instead of seeing it trampled like it is now by a party whose leader wishes to see it “terminated” as he came right out and said. It saddens me to see so many who are OK with that. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I am much more concerned about the executive branch power grab, honestly.  Its the stuff of actual constitutional crisis.

Do it the way it was intended to be done, show actual evidence, and you’ve got my attention.

 

I will add, the way this is unfolding, locking out staff, going around dept personnel, firing the inspector generals, makes me very distrustful of what is happening, and therefore distrustful of the communications.  Nothing about how this is being done provides me with the sense that there is benevolent intent.

The constitutional crisis potential far outweighs the stated intent of government efficiency.

I understand where you're coming from and share some of your concerns. I'm also concerned about the power grab. 

I keep going back to the birthright citizenship, it was unconstitutional and was quickly shut down. Musk still going strong gives me doubt on whether he/Trump are violating the constitution. I think more likely than not probably, but the stark contrast between DOGE and B.C. gives me pause. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have told us many lies over the last decade so I'm skeptical of anything any of them say. It may turn out to be the constitutional crisis you think, I won't argue against it, I'm just not there yet. 

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

My feelings on the subject of the DOGE audits pretty much are framed by, if auditing is the true goal then why are programmers being employed instead of forensic accountants?

 

This is a fair question. I honestly don't know. All I could do is guess, and any guess from me on this would be *****. It seems a very reasonable question though, hopefully someone will ask in during the hearing. 

[Weave]

11 minutes ago, Hank said:

I understand where you're coming from and share some of your concerns. I'm also concerned about the power grab. 

I keep going back to the birthright citizenship, it was unconstitutional and was quickly shut down. Musk still going strong gives me doubt on whether he/Trump are violating the constitution. I think more likely than not probably, but the stark contrast between DOGE and B.C. gives me pause. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have told us many lies over the last decade so I'm skeptical of anything any of them say. It may turn out to be the constitutional crisis you think, I won't argue against it, I'm just not there yet. 

Correction, not shut down.  Paused while it goes through the courts.  And the administration is certainly making noise around ignoring the courts.

I read today that court enforcement would be the jurisdiction of the US Marshals….. who are under the executive branch and now headed up by a Trump loyalist.

Lots to be concerned about.

[Hank]

39 minutes ago, Weave said:

Correction, not shut down.  Paused while it goes through the courts.  And the administration is certainly making noise around ignoring the courts.

I read today that court enforcement would be the jurisdiction of the US Marshals….. who are under the executive branch and now headed up by a Trump loyalist.

Lots to be concerned about.

Thank you for correcting me on the bolded Weave. Also, I appreciate the civil discussion. 

[LTS]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

I didn’t say anything about our involvement being OK or not. I merely point out the reality of the situation. 

As for my take on the middle east, every historian who has researched the subject agrees, so I’m in good company with my shortsighted and uninformed take. Tell me, what scholars agree with your take that SS is an infringement on your personal freedom? As far as I know SS never denied anyone medical care like GOP laws do. It never sought to deny people the right to marry like the GOP is seeking to do. Nor did SS ever seek to deny certain people the right to serve in the military. Those are just a few example of actual personal freedoms under attack by radical right wing politicians. Do you feel that all taxes infringe upon your personal freedoms?

So if I understand your point in your third paragraph, it’s not OK for the US to protect its interests abroad? When USAID was created in an attempt to thwart the USSR’s efforts to exert influence and spread their brand of communism, was that not important? Are you paying attention to the efforts by China and Russia to gain footholds worldwide? 

The other side is wrong because they are doing things that are not in accordance with our Constitution. Sometimes there is only ONE side and that’s the side that stands by our Constitution and the rule of law instead of seeing it trampled like it is now by a party whose leader wishes to see it “terminated” as he came right out and said. It saddens me to see so many who are OK with that. 

Please tell me where Social Security has anything to do with denying medical care, the right to marry, or the ability to serve in the military? This is the basic problem with your arguments and those like you regardless of what "party" you subscribe to. You are trying to justify Social Security as legitimate because it's not as bad as the things you pointed out. That's not how it works.

Republicans use the defense "Look at what the Democrats did, we're not as bad as that."
Democrats use the defense "Look at what the Republicans did, we're not as bad as that."

News flash.. it doesn't matter. It's all bad. I'm not going to accept the "lesser of two evils" F that. It's all evil. Evil is evil. There are other options out there and that's what I choose to support.

As for SS?  I don't sit around with articles bookmarked, but here's one I went out and read.  It's not bad.. and certainly highlights the problems which are indicative of a "group solution" when the "group" continually changes.  As is the problem when we are all pulled into a "group solution" where the group membership is highly diversified.  It means the benefits of the "group" program will predominantly benefit some over others.  This is fine if one OPTS into it, but it sucks if you are FORCED into it.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/social-insecurity-nows-time-act

Quote

What might those solutions look like? Speakers delved into the obvious and the not-so obvious. Congress could, for example, extend the full retirement age, require workers to pay more into the system, or cut benefits for all or some recipients. They could also tap into general tax revenues to make up for shortfalls, cap lifetime benefits, set a flat payment for all newly eligible beneficiaries, or tax non-wage income like health insurance plans or financial transactions and direct those monies into Social Security.

Make people work longer to get their benefits.  - The never ending finish line.
Require workers to pay more. - this is known as raising taxes
Cut benefits for all or some. - Guess you don't always get what you pay for.

Yeah, no thanks.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-fund-myth#introduction

Quote

The Social Security trust fund is a figurative piggy bank that holds only IOUs issued by the Treasury to the Social Security Administration, not actual money.

Quote

The government has never saved or invested the Social Security tax surplus. Today, all benefits are paid by current tax collections or borrowing since Social Security taxes no longer fully cover the cost of benefits. Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, the government will borrow $4.1 trillion, including associate interest costs, between now and 2033 to pay for Social Security benefits.

I feel so much better.  It's all fictitious money, that when the economy goes tits up will be meaningless.  If I were able to control my OWN money I could diversify my financial holdings into more meaningful investments.

It's broke, it was always going to be broke and it ain't going to be fixed without seriously screwing some people over.

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:01 AM by LTS
changed diversity to diversify

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

Please tell me where Social Security has anything to do with denying medical care, the right to marry, or the ability to serve in the military? This is the basic problem with your arguments and those like you regardless of what "party" you subscribe to. You are trying to justify Social Security as legitimate because it's not as bad as the things you pointed out. That's not how it works.

Republicans use the defense "Look at what the Democrats did, we're not as bad as that."
Democrats use the defense "Look at what the Republicans did, we're not as bad as that."

News flash.. it doesn't matter. It's all bad. I'm not going to accept the "lesser of two evils" F that. It's all evil. Evil is evil. There are other options out there and that's what I choose to support.

As for SS?  I don't sit around with articles bookmarked, but here's one I went out and read.  It's not bad.. and certainly highlights the problems which are indicative of a "group solution" when the "group" continually changes.  As is the problem when we are all pulled into a "group solution" where the group membership is highly diversified.  It means the benefits of the "group" program will predominantly benefit some over others.  This is fine if one OPTS into it, but it sucks if you are FORCED into it.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/social-insecurity-nows-time-act

Make people work longer to get their benefits.  - The never ending finish line.
Require workers to pay more. - this is known as raising taxes
Cut benefits for all or some. - Guess you don't always get what you pay for.

Yeah, no thanks.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-fund-myth#introduction

I feel so much better.  It's all fictitious money, that when the economy goes tits up will be meaningless.  If I were able to control my OWN money I could diversify my financial holdings into more meaningful investments.

It's broke, it was always going to be broke and it ain't going to be fixed without seriously screwing some people over.

 

Perhaps your should re-read what started our entire debate on the subject in the first place.

I had listed several examples of GOP policies that DIRECTLY infringed on personal freedoms. You said “both sides” do that. I disagreed and asked you to give me examples of Dem policies that infringed upon our personal freedoms. You responded by citing social security, NY’s SAFE Act, and another law I don’t recall at the moment. 

In my post from earlier today above, as a way to emphasize the difference in our positions, I was again pointing to the difference between actual policies championed by the GOP by saying that SS never denied those individual freedoms, like medical coverage, etc. that GOP policies do. 

From what I can gather from your examples, it isn’t that SS so much infringes upon your freedoms as it is that you simply disagree with the law. Fine. But SS has never prevented you from enjoying the freedoms that the GOP seeks to deny others. 

[Weave]

18 hours ago, Weave said:

Correction, not shut down.  Paused while it goes through the courts.  And the administration is certainly making noise around ignoring the courts.

I read today that court enforcement would be the jurisdiction of the US Marshals….. who are under the executive branch and now headed up by a Trump loyalist.

Lots to be concerned about.

And today Trump has been found to be violating a court order to reinstate funding that was halted by his sweeping OMB executive order.

So, now it is game on.  Will the Trump administration appeal?  Will they just ignore?  Will they ignore the appeal verdicts?  
 

And will any Republicans stand up and do the right thing while this plays out?

[LTS]

15 hours ago, K-9 said:

Perhaps your should re-read what started our entire debate on the subject in the first place.

I had listed several examples of GOP policies that DIRECTLY infringed on personal freedoms. You said “both sides” do that. I disagreed and asked you to give me examples of Dem policies that infringed upon our personal freedoms. You responded by citing social security, NY’s SAFE Act, and another law I don’t recall at the moment. 

In my post from earlier today above, as a way to emphasize the difference in our positions, I was again pointing to the difference between actual policies championed by the GOP by saying that SS never denied those individual freedoms, like medical coverage, etc. that GOP policies do. 

From what I can gather from your examples, it isn’t that SS so much infringes upon your freedoms as it is that you simply disagree with the law. Fine. But SS has never prevented you from enjoying the freedoms that the GOP seeks to deny others. 

I completely recall it.

Social Security is a restriction of the freedom of where I invest my hard earned money. I fail to see it as anything else. I accept taxes have to exist as a means to support and operate a government. If those taxes are spent in meaningful ways I have no issue with that. Although I do believe the governments job is to be as small as possible and allow people to be people.  When you take my money, you are restricting my freedom. My freedom to choose what I do with the money I earn.  The government, if it operated as a business, would be bankrupt and shutdown. They'd have to "raise prices" and if people could opt-out of buying their product many would.

The SAFE act restricts access to ammunition, etc. It is an infringement on freedom.  It may be put out there to help stop violence but it's all *****. People who want to commit violent acts will find a way to do so. When we allow government to be "our protectors" we absolve ourselves of the responsibility. As such, people stop paying attention to things that matter because they falsely assume the government will take care of it. However, as we see, the government sucks at that and it's all over the place.

The Democrats entire motif is to instill in the people that they need the government to as means to live their lives and so we'll take your money to build all of these social programs so people don't have to think for themselves. They can just assume the government will provide. My problem with FEMA fits in that bucket as well.

People need to be far more aware and accountable for their actions. We need to live in a socially responsible world. I get that we don't, but by placing the soc

As far as Republicans, they are morons too. Their playbook from a social perspective is based from the pure ignorance of religion, which is, in my opinion, an even worse creation than government.