| ▲ | TheAceOfHearts an hour ago |
| I knew some people that were initially very optimistic, and I tried to keep an open mind when DOGE got started despite the outlandish claims that they would be able to cut $2 trillion dollars from the budget, but it's apparent at this point that the project has been an extreme failure. It'll probably take a few years to really sort out their damage and overall impact though. It's also imperative to mention in every DOGE-related discussion and conversation that the funding freeze to USAID is directly responsible for killing thousands of people [0]. Most of the damage done by DOGE can probably be reversed, but the thousands of death as a direct result of actions taken by the richest man in the world should not be forgotten. (Although I'm told there is a bit of uncertainty with any specific figures because the funding disruption also impacted the mechanisms for tracking and reporting deaths.) [0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary... |
|
| ▲ | biophysboy 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I work @ the nih, formerly at the cdc... can I politely ask why they were optimistic? When I first started seeing rumblings about this a year ago, my first thought was "the deficit is entitlement spending; this is a political problem, not a bureaucratic one". Anyways, like you, I genuinely wish the DOGEsters would have asked us what we thought was inefficient about gov work. I have been in many meetings where 90% of it was spent complaining about compliance. I personally hate the USAJOBS system. Like any big company, there's a lot that can be improved. Instead, they went scorched-Earth and assumed we were all deep state leeches. Elon acted like he had just done a leveraged buyout of the US government. For me, he remains the most embarrassing man on Earth. |
| |
| ▲ | stackskipton 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Agreed, anyone who just glanced at federal budget would know, it's Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Defense. Touching anything else is just tinkering at edges. |
|
|
| ▲ | phantasmish 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Any “we’re going to fix waste in the government and reduce the deficit” project that doesn’t lead with “… so first we’re going to review the last twenty years of recommendations from the CBO and GAO and start implementing what they say or imply we should do to meet those goals” is almost certainly bullshit. Being optimistic about this one was one of those “having a mind so open your brain falls out” sorts of things. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yep. There’s an entire catalog already built of deeply researched inefficiencies in the government. What a shame that DOGE burned a huge portion of this generation’s willingness to take a bold approach to said inefficiencies. Similar efforts will be tainted for years. |
|
|
| ▲ | denkmoon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is not remotely a failure. As a vessel for achieving project 2025 goals, the clear purpose of DOGE, it was successful. It's just that the successes it achieved are reprehensible. |
| |
| ▲ | gmd63 an hour ago | parent [-] | | That was not the clear purpose of DOGE. The Trump campaign deliberately distanced itself from Project 2025. If they had been honest about their intent to enact Project 2025 to voters, they would have lost. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond an hour ago | parent [-] | | It was the clear purpose. It just wasn't the openly described purpose. | | |
| ▲ | mmmm2 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew this was the plan all along. It's not like it was hard to find people saying this before the election. | |
| ▲ | gmd63 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, it wasn't clear. I know several Trump voters who either didn't know Project 2025 existed or believed the lies that it was a liberal hoax. To anyone paying an ounce of attention, yeah it might have been clear. | | |
| ▲ | JojoFatsani 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Ignorant voters do not excuse the actions of elected officials | | |
| ▲ | gmd63 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not excusing elected officials. I would go further and blame Vivek Ramaswamy for playing a huge part in pitching the failed DOGE. I'm just pointing out that the Trump admin deliberately lied about its connection to Project 2025, which made DOGE's connection unclear to people who consume Fox News etc. People are downing my comment for suggesting that many people who don't take the internet straight into their veins every day might have had a hard time connecting the dots between DOGE and Project 2025. | | |
| ▲ | phantasmish 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | All they had to do was skim any decent daily, weekly, or monthly newspaper or news magazine in 2024. Folks whose only news sources are Facebook shares and Fox News are simply stupid. The reason they don’t know WTF is going on may be due to their news sources, but they chose those. That’s a really stupid thing to do. | | |
| ▲ | lotsoweiners 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Folks whose only news sources are Facebook shares and Fox News are simply stupid. Maybe or maybe not. What I do know is that they are large in number and a political opponent should realize this and strategize accordingly. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think at some point people need to take some accountability for their own information ecosystem. It really is a Catch-22 though, since the imperative and ability to do that is itself derivative of the information ecosystem. Which is why I blame, more than anyone else, the actual smart people (largely cynical, craven, and greedy) who didn’t through their weight against this stuff when it could’ve mattered. |
|
| |
| ▲ | phantasmish 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know people who didn’t know the government had shut down until more than two weeks into it (and on discovering it were like “oh shit this might affect us!” because their whole lifestyle depends on money from the government). The same people didn’t know the east wing had been torn down until a couple weeks after it happened. In both cases they only found out when my wife told them. They pay attention to lots of “news” but it’s AI videos of mass crimes and viral “look how bad democrats are” garbage. That people are dense motherfuckers (can we stop sugar coating how stupid these people are if they’re surprised about any of these things? I mean dumb as a bag of hammers kinds of dumb, dimmest bulb in a box of broken bulbs, that level of dumb) doesn’t mean this wasn’t clear. It is 100% these morons’ own fault they’re surprised. | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you're missing the point: it was the purpose all along, they just didn't state that. "Several Trump voters"? And, and not just Trump voters - the most common search phrase on Google on 11/20/2024? "Did Biden drop out?" You have far more faith in an educated electorate than I. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kineticdaffodil an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | USAID_SUCKS an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | wonderwonder an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "the funding freeze to USAID is DIRECTLY responsible for killing thousands of people" - emphasis mine "(Although I'm told there is a bit of uncertainty with any specific figures because the funding disruption also impacted the mechanisms for tracking and reporting deaths.)" Come on man... |
| |
| ▲ | TheAceOfHearts 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | From the article I linked: > Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeller, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain. As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children. Which links to Impact Counter [0], if you want to read more on how they reached those figures. I think it's fair to say with absolute certainty that thousands of people have died as a direct result of dismantling USAID, but that we aren't certain of the exact magnitude. One model estimated it's around 600 thousand, but we don't have exact figures because of the disruptions. Do you think there's a way this could be communicated more clearly? I'm not trying to be deceptive in how I present this information, and I could be persuaded to re-evaluate the exact figure if presented with a better analysis. [0] https://www.impactcounter.com/dashboard?view=table&sort=inte... | |
| ▲ | mintplant an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The implication is that the death toll is under-reported due to the disruption of the means by which those deaths would be reported and logged. In other words, those thousands of deaths are just the ones we know about. | |
| ▲ | alwa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m not totally sure what point you’re making, but I don’t see an inconsistency between the two portions of comment that you quoted here. “Thousands of people” covers at least 3 orders of magnitude, depending how loose you get with the language… I don’t see the contradiction in “the error bands are wider without the high-fidelity surveillance, but even from fuzzier sources, the absolute minimum is definitely in the thousands.” | |
| ▲ | danparsonson 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's what honest discourse looks like. |
|