>DOGE never seriously tried, or even discussed, tackling that problem.

They got shut down and the Trump-Musk thing flared up more or less the nanosecond they looked at the DOD. Sad, but they never had the political capital to win that fight. They probably could've done some good slashing around in there.

▲

snowwrestler 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The general sense in DC was that DOGE was never going to make it to DoD because

a) many of the individual people leading DOGE benefit personally from DoD spending (which is not true of IRS, HHS, USAID, etc), and

b) most civilian policy leaders in this administration have built their political brand around boosting the military, and dramatic cuts don’t align with that.

▲

btreecat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> >DOGE never seriously tried, or even discussed, tackling that problem. > > They got shut down and the Trump-Musk thing flared up more or less the nanosecond they looked at the DOD. Sad, but they never had the political capital to win that fight. They probably could've done some good slashing around in there.

What "good slashing" did they actually do anywhere to assume they would have done good there?

▲

potato3732842 4 days ago | parent [-]

All I said was they probably could've done some good slashing around in the DOD. Nothing more, nothing lesee. Take your strawman and get lost.

	▲	scott_w 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		There’s no straw man in the question. You’re being asked to substantiate your belief by showing where the people who would be responsible for “good slashing” demonstrated their ability to do some “good slashing” elsewhere.