The last thing we need is more government spending. Any savings need to go to reduce the deficit.

ETA. Unfortunately, we will likely get stimulus call aid for affected industries from tariffs like we did with farmers in 2019.

Government spending is up 3%. DOGE was a scam.

Wouldn't it be a little weird to give these fake savings to the people in a handout when the whole premise was to cut spending? Shouldn't the phantom savings go to the general fund?

agreed...but Elon floated that very idea early on.

It's all a charade.

My gosh, people with some actual sense over here. Elon is just a useful fool, and if he has any sense of what's happening, he'll get out of DO(d)GE before he gets offered up as a public sacrifice.

infinity ag said:

---

DOGE seems to have gone inactive. I don't see Musk making news anymore. Has Trump packed him off?

---

You realize that he's listed as a temporary gov't employee. He cannot work more than X days a year without congress approval.

His whole bit was to get into the gov't to get data. There were/are no savings; we'll end up spending way more money in the long run: court cases, back pay and hiring people to replace those that were fired.

~egon

Dr. Doctor said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

DOGE seems to have gone inactive. I don't see Musk making news anymore. Has Trump packed him off?

---

You realize that he's listed as a temporary gov't employee. He cannot work more than X days a year without congress approval.

His whole bit was to get into the gov't to get data. There were/are no savings; we'll end up spending way more money in the long run: court cases, back pay and hiring people to replace those that were fired.

~egon

---

Yep.

My prediction is the money Elon's companies get per year will dwarf the money "saved" by DOGE when you take out the administrative costs as well as things like severance, court costs, etc.

Dr. Doctor said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

DOGE seems to have gone inactive. I don't see Musk making news anymore. Has Trump packed him off?

---

You realize that he's listed as a temporary gov't employee. He cannot work more than X days a year without congress approval.

His whole bit was to get into the gov't to get data. There were/are no savings; we'll end up spending way more money in the long run: court cases, back pay and hiring people to replace those that were fired.

~egon

---

Yep. Musk took a bunch of data and stopped investigations into his companies. Trump clapped while he did it and sold more of his cryptocoin.

DOGE was always a scam. There never were any savings.

knoxtom said:

---

Dr. Doctor said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

DOGE seems to have gone inactive. I don't see Musk making news anymore. Has Trump packed him off?

---

You realize that he's listed as a temporary gov't employee. He cannot work more than X days a year without congress approval.

His whole bit was to get into the gov't to get data. There were/are no savings; we'll end up spending way more money in the long run: court cases, back pay and hiring people to replace those that were fired.

~egon

---

Yep. Musk took a bunch of data and stopped investigations into his companies. Trump clapped while he did it and sold more of his cryptocoin.

DOGE was always a scam. There never were any savings.

---

Speaking of cryptocoin. This is just one insane sentence after the next. I don't even know where to begin on what we're seeing. What are the Republicans in congress doing?

Who Holds Trump Coin? Top Memecoin Backers Likely Based Outside US: Analysis

Apologies if you have to click on 5 million crosswalks and bicycles to read it...

Quote:

---

Government spending is up 3%. DOGE was a scam.

---

Our mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense is a runaway freight train. That's the core issue.

Cutting DOGE is like giving up alcohol for your health. Sure, it's a good move, but if you're still eating McDonald's three times a day, you're not solving the real problem.

This thread is a breath of fresh air. If it had been posted on the politics board, most of you would have been skewered.

It appears DOGE is headed toward failure, but not necessarily for the most commonly reported reasons. The concept of rethinking government spending is indeed valid and overdue, but to do it properly, it takes thorough and comprehensive process, run by people who have done it before. It can be lengthy and time-consuming, and is a pretty thankless and low-key job. The Musk-led version was high-profile, headline-grabbing, targeted toward perceived "enemies", and performed by people who, to be kind, didn't appear to have the requisite skills. It's no wonder it lost steam so quickly.

Frankly, I applaud Trump for giving it a try, but he should have delegated the design and staffing to someone professionally appropriate (a Jamie Dimon or Jack Welch type as a figurehead would have probably worked), and provided a reasonable time period to start claiming victories (probably 1-3 years, to be honest). But, that's no fun politically, so we probably are stuck with the same-old same-old bloat that perpetuates itself.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/06/trump-meme-coin-crypto.html

Even more fun with his 'coin'. 58 people have made millions. 764,000 have lost money.

PT Barnum is still alive and kickin', apparently...

~egon

To carry your thought of unqualified people making decisions, the destruction being done at NIH and NSF is just unthinkable. To even argue the point betrays an ignorance of how even your basic way of life is made possible by public spending on basic research. I don't think the highly educated (such as myself and every single Ph.D. I know) have been this alienated with a leader since the Chinese cultural revolution.

Been saying since the get go on here and on F16 this will amount to nothing.

It's simple math. When you can't touch 2/3 of the spend and the remaining 1/3 is almost exactly equal to the deficit then there is no way to break even much less reverse the deficit.

You might be able to do it for one year. Maybe 10% chance of that being generous. Now do it year in and year out with a full blown Marxist Democrat party coupled with a spineless Republican Party. Not happening.

Nothing was ever going to happen here and anyone that thought we were actually going to cut spending is delusional and doesn't understand the math or reality of it all.

The entire government payroll amounts to just 4.3% of federal spending so you aren't going to get much savings by just firing workers especially when you consider the overall effect on the economy by having so many people out of work (less money to spend, more reliance on government programs, etc)

When the dust settles I doubt DOGE will have saved any money and very likely cost us a lot when we eventually have to staff up the government again.

permabull said:

---

The entire government payroll amounts to just 4.3% of federal spending so you aren't going to get much savings by just firing workers especially when you consider the overall effect on the economy by having so many people out of work (less money to spend, more reliance on government programs, etc)

When the dust settles I doubt DOGE will have saved any money and very likely cost us a lot when we eventually have to staff up the government again.

---

This is the starting point for trying to understand the real story. No doubt people high up in the current regime know these numbers, and they knew that firing a bunch of federal employees wouldn't make a dent in federal spending. When they proceeded to do it anyway, you wonder if it's just cognitive dissonance, willful oblivion, or perhaps something more orchestrated or even sinister. That is, are we witnessing gross incompetence or deliberate subterfuge?

I had similar thoughts when China had the "zero Covid" policy. There was no way that their scientists and government officials could actually believe that was a good idea. Was it just the typical incompetent outcome of an authoritarian committee (happens in Fortune 500 companies every day), or was there some greater plan? I don't really know the answer, but the outcome certainly seems to be more statism.

The base of our populist regime seems to think a) that the regime can do no wrong, and b) the enemy of their regime must be their enemy. In actuality, of course it is possible to be against abortion on demand AND against gutting the National Science Foundation. Who knew. Ultimately, I am on the side of freedom - you know, pretty much any choice that doesn't take freedom from someone else - association, speech, thought, religion, press, travel, education, basic 1789-type stuff...

The thing that's craziest, and maybe that's an overstatement, is this tacit agreement that's happening in the wide open, while the public defends it. The base of the populist regime keeps talking about the shadowy "deep state," which I don't doubt exists, and includes so many tentacles that reach into our lives (from regime change initiatives, to congressional stock portfolios, to our banking industry, to our tax code, to our education standards, to our military industrial complex...). Yet somehow, the people have been convinced that the answer to this is more statism. We are watching this ham-handed quid pro quo being played out in broad daylight, and even the party of the perpetrators says and does nothing. An almost-trillionaire is given unfettered access to protect and expand his own interests, and to gain access to the private information of every citizen in the country. In exchange, he creates a facade that makes the President look good, helps him control the media more, consolidates power in the executive branch, and inculcates the next generation of minions. How much more deep state can you get?

Of course, this is an uneasy alliance, because both the executive and the oligarch are mad hatters, and the oligarch must realize before it is too late that he is cleaning the teeth of a crocodile. As others on this forum have pointed out, the fiscal situation points to an empire in decline. The debt situation is completely unsustainable, and likely irreversible. As the executive runs out of moves in his playbook, the almost inevitable move will be to "tax the rich." This will of course dismay all of the wealthy capitalists who voted for him, but it will satiate the base temporarily until they realize that the golden goose has been killed. I call this phase the eating of the oligarchs. I was hopeful that we would not follow this Venezuela/Russia playbook, given the age of the executive. However, he appears to be training the next generation of "yes-men," and this makes me feel gloomy. When I saw Vance's carefully choreographed head-shaking, and the planted question about Zelenskii not wearing a suit, I think that was the moment I realized just how moldable and power-hungry the sycophants are.

TheMasterplan said:

---

Agreed.

The "losing jobs" argument makes no economics or business sense. The government is not a jobs program. It is services provided to the public that they pay tax for. If it is deemed those services are not living up to the tax being paid or the customers (taxpayers) are being felt like they aren't being cared for, you get DOGE and Trump.

That money that went to the federal workers is money that should go back to regular taxpayers who would then spend it or save it (for house, emergency expenses) which then create jobs elsewhere.

Look up frederick bastiats broken window fallacy. By taking taxpayer money for government jobs, you're taking jobs out of the natural economy.

---

I've got no problem with being smart about making changes in the name of efficiency.

Anyone that thinks any of the broad stroke approach that this administration used was only getting rid of inefficient positions is just cheering for their team.

The whole thing was performative. The brutality was the point. It was red meat to the populist base with zero regard to any benefits or negative consequences. That's why they routinely came out with incorrect numbers, broadcast them all over, then said nothing when it turns out they were completely wrong.

It's the same reason you still have people who will argue until they're blue in the face that countries are "tariffing us" at the percentages on the chart Trump showed.

And it's the same reason that he's going to likely announce deals that are basically the same, or slightly modified versions of what we've always had and his base will talk about how it was all worth it (even if the market remains well below it was).

They're cutting funding that goes to cancer research, while also trying to push through a bill to reprint all federal maps and documents to say "Gulf of America".

I know which one I think is a more important expenditure.

Again, I'm all for a more efficient, responsible government. I don't see any way to call what we've seen anything close to either of those.

I bleed maroon said:

---

permabull said:

---

The entire government payroll amounts to just 4.3% of federal spending so you aren't going to get much savings by just firing workers especially when you consider the overall effect on the economy by having so many people out of work (less money to spend, more reliance on government programs, etc)

When the dust settles I doubt DOGE will have saved any money and very likely cost us a lot when we eventually have to staff up the government again.

---

I agree practically, but disagree conceptually. I think you're right on the end result, BUT, even though it's a small dollar amount, it affects the economy disproportionally, by adding regulations and bureaucracy that negatively impact the rest of the economy when overdone or done incorrectly. That's where we have been. The leverage involved of reducing unneeded regulations could have been quite stimulative to the economy (with resulting improvements to the deficit) if DOGE was set up apolitically and rationally by the right people. The economic effect of "putting many people out of work" should truly be "transitory" while the workforce transitions to more private employment (which is how it should be, in my opinion), and a proper plan can subsidize and enable this conversion (which was not considered, of course).

Right idea - Wrong execution.

---

I'm going to stop you there. The 'regulations and bureaucracy' is what enables our economy. I work in design of chemical plants and operations of chemical plants. I'm also a professional engineer. I've interacted with 'the gov't' in my work and typically deal with professionals that are easy to work with.

I've been in plants where I could have released chemicals to kill a small city (~75k). I could have done damage to major ports by releasing chemicals by overriding a few controls. You want regulations. You want bureaucracy.

Now, can we talk about the levels and rates? Sure. But, in my professional career (20ish years), I have yet to see rational discussion from both sides of the coin. The only time I can see the need for LESS regulations is when a topic/arena/segment gets LESS technological or simpler. But in my limited life, I have yet to see that happen. Banking hasn't gotten 'simpler'. Computers? Cars? Tractors? Electrical grid? Dryers? Cell Phones?

What I have seen one side present arguments for tightening controls (0000 methane emissions, flare emissions, etc.) while the other side tends to just say no. Not, "well, we disagree on how you calculated the rate of return, the costs of implementation, etc."; just "No". I see some stuff on the fringe trying to get to a more 'discussion' on some regulations, but generally its "no" (some trade group or K street think tank). So the only option left is going to the courts, suing everyone and then after 10-15 years of lawyers getting paid, the rule finally comes out as to what was almost originally proposed (see refinery and Ethlyene facility flare rules for examples).

So to work on these regulations, you need people. But the people you need also need to know what's going on with that arena. Then you need to pay them comparable to what the market pays (and this is the 1st disconnect with reality). Then you need to keep them in the gov't (2nd disconnect). And then you need to ensure they are abreast of the changes in the arena (3rd disconnect).

Part of the regulations should dictate what is considered 'good' or 'acceptable risk'; most don't say that. This needs to be in the law/regulations when it is written. So the direction of regulations are 'keep going until no risk'.

For example, look at NOx emissions on diesel engines. Introduced and implemented in batches (specific years with specific targets); you have a great reduction in NOx generation on diesel engines. But to keep that level of 'improvement' up, you need to massively rachet things down. But we are almost to the point of not technically feasible; the only real solution is to stop using diesel. Most rational people would say that's not a viable solution. So either we need to accept what we're at is 'good' and slow down any future changes or push for new technologies that can maintain the same level of development.

So with my example, so how do we ensure that manufacturer's are following the law? We can either have our labs to test their offerings (best, but expensive), use 3rd party labs and hire someone to audit the results (good, but could have issues with the same lab testing for both groups, industry and gov't) or just have a warm body reading a company's internal report (cheap, but prone to issues; VW anyone?).

But the person you hired, if they are beyond a warm body (and you want them to understand what's going on and what they are supposed to be looking for) is going to have to get paid decently; if not, the car company will come and hire them away. So once you pay them, you have to maintain that they will have employment. If random groups (like DOGE) come in and make waves in employment, or you get leaders that go from "work here" to "you're a drain on everything" and back, people won't WANT to stay there. And the 3rd issue: if the regulations are to find new things out there, they then AGAIN need to be smart enough to know what is 'real' vs. 'PR campaign and vaporware'.

So this person (who can probably do several things regarding regulations of different areas) would need to be college/uni educated, preferrably with a Chemistry focused degree and has some understanding of business/mechanical things. And they'll need to live in DC. So more than likely, you're looking at someone making at least +$100k (salary/benefits). But if the gov't only offers $50k total, you'll never get anyone other than a warm body.

But with most regulations, there is limited view as to what damage one small thing can do. Will one diesel engine making more NOx cause issues? No. But multiple years of many fleets of trucks? Sure. Will one regulation on how much material I'm allow to store on site cause issues? Let's check with West, TX and fertilizer storage. Should we have speed limits on trains? Let's visit East Palestine, OH. Better yet, should we mandate that company's upgrade system from 1950's technology to 1980's (or God forbid, 2010)? Again, look at many train derailments and accidents.

The biggest lie the people believe is that all these regulations are 'killing businesses'. I'll buy that argument, if you understand who's pushing for them. Typically, the biggest player is pushing for them. Why? Because it adds overhead costs to a smaller firm; they can't keep up. If I have 20 plants with 20 flares, I'll have someone fully dedicated to them and the regulations. If I have a small plant with a small flare, the person who's in charge of that is also in charge of 13+ other functions. They don't have time to look at everything and how it fits in. So the larger/largest company can play both sides: push for the regulations AND claim that these regulations are 'killing business!'

What we should be demanding is COMPETENT gov't, not less gov't. That would be both cheaper and more efficient. But, as mentioned before, it'll take a while and cost money to get to that point.

~egon

Dr. Doctor said:

---

I'm going to stop you there. The 'regulations and bureaucracy' is what enables our economy. I work in design of chemical plants and operations of chemical plants. I'm also a professional engineer. I've interacted with 'the gov't' in my work and typically deal with professionals that are easy to work with.

---

Well, I'm going to have to stop you right there, as well.

An economic framework (free market capitalism) is what enables our economy - full stop. This framework includes legislated "rules of the road", the rule of law and a judicial system to inhibit market excesses. Regulations and bureaucracy are merely a tactical step to make this happen - nothing more. Your excellent examples are your firsthand observations of effective regulation at a micro level. You are totally correct on the quality, experience, and training of regulators as being very important to success in this area, and of course, they should be paid market wages when they're doing their job well.

The issue is when political pressure is added to regulators jobs (only investigate or prosecute political enemies), which has crept into the so-called "deep state" for many years. The funding of these efforts certainly influences behavior, and it's a good time to unwind this non-economic additional bureaucracy which strays from their true mission.

Difference of perspective, but important, nonetheless.

Yup. Now do cancer, energy, linguistics, drug development, doctoral education, national defense, food safety, water safety, global hunger, Responsible Care, OSHA, EPA, automobile safety...

this whole conversation reminds me of Rick Perry vowing to shut down the Department of Energy, then being becoming the Secretary of Energy.

The idea that anything government related = waste is lazy, but a common trope these days.