Remix clone Hacker News

What do you think about this efficiency, cost cutting and deregulation push

SavageBeast 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People seem to get caught up in the political end of this issue but the fact is the US is spending 1.7T a year MORE than its tax base supports. This MUST stop and if this is how it happens, then I guess this is what it took to make the change. Stop wasting money on silly things and "services" the government has no rational business in (states have their own governments mind you) and THEN come talk to me about a tax increase to make up any necessary shortfalls.

▲

kmos17 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is at best wishful thinking when 2/3 of the federal budget are medicare/ss/military. What exactly will get cut?

The efficiency cuts they are talking about will barely make a dent while making services worse for everyone. Good luck next time a disaster area needs FEMA assistance.

And not unlike a business when you have a deficit you have two options: cut cost and increase revenues, this incoming government will very likely decrease revenues through tax cuts, making the deficit even worse.

▲

SavageBeast 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Absolutely correct regarding medicare/ss/military. Its an issue. What will get cut? Enough things that we can start to have a real conversation about how much "government" we're all willing to pay for.

"What exactly will get cut?" - Make you a deal - set a timer and do 10 minutes of research on the subject and come back to report you found NOTHING that could be reasonably and easily cut?

EDIT - so far I haven't heard anyone claim we're going to balance the budget via this mechanism. The goal is to CUT WASTE and IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. I see this as a basis for having a real conversation about taxation personally.

▲

kccoder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine nearly every single American thinks there is waste in government spending, but it is going to be difficult to find cuts that 60% of the population agrees with, especially in an amount that makes more than a tiny dent in the budget. One thing is for sure, Elon, an unelected individual from another country, who also happens to be the richest man in the world (in history?), is likely to make cuts which advantage him, not the average American. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

It really feels like we're nearing the inevitable outcome from Citizens United, a country ran by billionaires, to the exclusive benefit of billionaires.

▲

ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Musk claimed he could cut 2 Trillion by getting rid of "waste".

	▲	Arnt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe Elon has heard stories about socialist single-payer healthcare systems that deliver good results at half of American prices and wants to copy them in extenso?

▲

mostlysimilar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure buddy. Nothing suspicious at all about the man who became a billionaire thanks to government spending go in and rip it all apart after the fact.

▲

JohnFen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's about further shifting power away from the people and into the hands of corporations.

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think its chances are effectively summed up by the fact that they decided to appoint two co-chairs to it.

(who are promising to personally review CVs https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 for its unpaid positions https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671)

(and claiming "decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change" when it was 74M to 76M votes is a bit silly)

▲

AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will.

Objectively, of course, you're right.

	▲	ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning. Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.

▲

Eumenes 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is this "co-chair" thing such a gotcha? How is this different from having two founders?

	▲	ceejayoz 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When has two co-equal bosses ever made things more efficient? If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency. > How is this different from having two founders? One typically functions as CEO.
	▲	beardyw 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		As far as I can tell this group won't have any actual power, so why not?
	▲	AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste. Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.