DOGE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for measured and thoughtful changes to government to make it efficient.

I don’t know that creating a redundant organization outside the government is the efficient way to do that, nor do I think a billionaire deciding randomly that 99 agencies is what is best is measured or thoughtful.

It will not be random. He cut 75% of twitter and it is functioning very well.

Standby.

I’m pp just back to add that this kind of thinking prevails when MAGA don’t understand economics or believe economists.

I have worked in four government agencies int he past. I have seen so many people come in and browse the internet all day and take long lunches in the cafeteria.

Let's get real. You know it. I know it. Some people literally have four hours of work a week that they stretch out. No word of a lie.

+1 It sucks for the people who may lose their job, but everyone knows this is happening and something has to be done about the debt. The national debt is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump will ever be and nobody on the left seems to be talking about it.

Can I assume you are against Trumps corporate tax cuts that will balloon the deficit?

Govt salaries are a minute portion of the federal budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for measured and thoughtful changes to government to make it efficient.

I don’t know that creating a redundant organization outside the government is the efficient way to do that, nor do I think a billionaire deciding randomly that 99 agencies is what is best is measured or thoughtful.

It will not be random. He cut 75% of twitter and it is functioning very well.

Standby.

I’m pp just back to add that this kind of thinking prevails when MAGA don’t understand economics or believe economists.

I have worked in four government agencies int he past. I have seen so many people come in and browse the internet all day and take long lunches in the cafeteria.

Let's get real. You know it. I know it. Some people literally have four hours of work a week that they stretch out. No word of a lie.

+1 It sucks for the people who may lose their job, but everyone knows this is happening and something has to be done about the debt. The national debt is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump will ever be and nobody on the left seems to be talking about it.

Can I assume you are against Trumps corporate tax cuts that will balloon the deficit?

Govt salaries are a minute portion of the federal budget.

https://www.washingtontechnology.com/rankings/top-100/2023/

List of the highest paid contractors

[Anonymous]

I’d love to see the accounting for this organization. Likely just funneling tax payer dollars from public service to line the pockets of cronies because Musk certainly doesn’t need a paycheck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

Who will actually have the wherewithal, motivation and incentive to get the job done? McKinsey and the like have been at it for years, but they have a financial incentive in a bloated government so they can keep winning jobs and contracts. Feds have a financial incentive in bloat so they can keep cashing in for little to no output. Financial incentive are already everywhere baked into the system, maybe a little self interest for these guys might not be the worst thing in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

Who will actually have the wherewithal, motivation and incentive to get the job done? McKinsey and the like have been at it for years, but they have a financial incentive in a bloated government so they can keep winning jobs and contracts. Feds have a financial incentive in bloat so they can keep cashing in for little to no output. Financial incentive are already everywhere baked into the system, maybe a little self interest for these guys might not be the worst thing in the world.

Huh? What financial incentives do feds have in bloat? They personally make no more money if government grows versus if it shrinks.
Government doesn't work the way business does. GS scales are fixed, there is not much of any genuinely meaningful added financial benefit to be had if you manage 7 people versus managing 700 people. It also doesn't make much of a personal financial difference if a fed manages a $50,000 budget versus a $5 million budget. The only difference will be that austerity will make it harder for them to do their work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for measured and thoughtful changes to government to make it efficient.

I don’t know that creating a redundant organization outside the government is the efficient way to do that, nor do I think a billionaire deciding randomly that 99 agencies is what is best is measured or thoughtful.

It will not be random. He cut 75% of twitter and it is functioning very well.

Standby.

I’m pp just back to add that this kind of thinking prevails when MAGA don’t understand economics or believe economists.

I have worked in four government agencies int he past. I have seen so many people come in and browse the internet all day and take long lunches in the cafeteria.

Let's get real. You know it. I know it. Some people literally have four hours of work a week that they stretch out. No word of a lie.

+1 It sucks for the people who may lose their job, but everyone knows this is happening and something has to be done about the debt. The national debt is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump will ever be and nobody on the left seems to be talking about it.

Can I assume you are against Trumps corporate tax cuts that will balloon the deficit?

Govt salaries are a minute portion of the federal budget.

https://www.washingtontechnology.com/rankings/top-100/2023/

List of the highest paid contractors

Outsourcing mandates going back to Reagan are the biggest cost to the government. Government could and should be doing more in-house for lower cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

+1 mind boggling that it has to be explained

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

Who will actually have the wherewithal, motivation and incentive to get the job done? McKinsey and the like have been at it for years, but they have a financial incentive in a bloated government so they can keep winning jobs and contracts. Feds have a financial incentive in bloat so they can keep cashing in for little to no output. Financial incentive are already everywhere baked into the system, maybe a little self interest for these guys might not be the worst thing in the world.

Huh? What financial incentives do feds have in bloat? They personally make no more money if government grows versus if it shrinks.
Government doesn't work the way business does. GS scales are fixed, there is not much of any genuinely meaningful added financial benefit to be had if you manage 7 people versus managing 700 people. It also doesn't make much of a personal financial difference if a fed manages a $50,000 budget versus a $5 million budget. The only difference will be that austerity will make it harder for them to do their work.

Are you serious right now? It's called job security and fringe benefits.

[Anonymous]

Let’s stop the handouts to farmers and Israel that are ongoing from the last Trump administration. The farmers were because he wrecked the agricultural industry. Trump is the king of bloat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

Who will actually have the wherewithal, motivation and incentive to get the job done? McKinsey and the like have been at it for years, but they have a financial incentive in a bloated government so they can keep winning jobs and contracts. Feds have a financial incentive in bloat so they can keep cashing in for little to no output. Financial incentive are already everywhere baked into the system, maybe a little self interest for these guys might not be the worst thing in the world.

Huh? What financial incentives do feds have in bloat? They personally make no more money if government grows versus if it shrinks.
Government doesn't work the way business does. GS scales are fixed, there is not much of any genuinely meaningful added financial benefit to be had if you manage 7 people versus managing 700 people. It also doesn't make much of a personal financial difference if a fed manages a $50,000 budget versus a $5 million budget. The only difference will be that austerity will make it harder for them to do their work.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2024/general-schedule/

The pay is all here and open to the public. For reference a GS-07 is typically starting pay for a college graduate with a bachelor’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to be run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy?

Did Elon come up with the name and acronym?

Doge=Chief Magistrate of federal government.

I hope the guardrails protecting Federal employees are enough to protect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives should support a return to the spoils system. The fed workforce is so far to the left that Trump can cut to the bone without hurting his supporters.

The fed workers were supposed to be neutral, but they couldn't help themselves. I hope they fire 90% of them.

Well the federal workforce is by and large more educated than the general public and we know there is a correlation between lack of education and voting R. So this tracks.

Stop taking this personally. This government is too GD big. Too many moving parts. Too much inefficiency.

Some cutbacks are necessary.

Yes, some cutbacks are necessary. Having a couple billionaires who have a personal vendetta against Feds oversee it as a pet project is not the way.

So what is the way?

Get someone who won’t potentially have financial gain from destroying the federal workforce to do it.

Who will actually have the wherewithal, motivation and incentive to get the job done? McKinsey and the like have been at it for years, but they have a financial incentive in a bloated government so they can keep winning jobs and contracts. Feds have a financial incentive in bloat so they can keep cashing in for little to no output. Financial incentive are already everywhere baked into the system, maybe a little self interest for these guys might not be the worst thing in the world.

Huh? What financial incentives do feds have in bloat? They personally make no more money if government grows versus if it shrinks.
Government doesn't work the way business does. GS scales are fixed, there is not much of any genuinely meaningful added financial benefit to be had if you manage 7 people versus managing 700 people. It also doesn't make much of a personal financial difference if a fed manages a $50,000 budget versus a $5 million budget. The only difference will be that austerity will make it harder for them to do their work.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2024/general-schedule/

The pay is all here and open to the public. For reference a GS-07 is typically starting pay for a college graduate with a bachelor’s.

This is not news. Does that chart show people who are getting paid to produce very little, if anything, of worth? Does it show the boondoggles and a wasteful programs? Nobody is talking about the GS scale. GMAB. If anything raise the scale, get and keep the most productive people and get rid of the rest!