Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this different from GAO?

+1

Do regular people even know this function already exists?

What a charade

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does Doge differ from GAO?

GAO is an insider organization. They're tone deaf to the fraud, waste, and abuse. We need outsiders, not DC critters, to rock the boat mercilessly. Things need to be broken apart. Heads need to roll. Staring at inefficiency doesn't fix it.

Anonymous wrote:How does Doge differ from GAO?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?

Of course they are! But maybe their greed might also dovetail with some added benefit of reducing bloat. We've been trying the McKinsey/bloated fed way for decades and it hasn't worked. Maybe time to try something different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?

Of course they are! But maybe their greed might also dovetail with some added benefit of reducing bloat. We've been trying the McKinsey/bloated fed way for decades and it hasn't worked. Maybe time to try something different?

That’s some truly dumb sh*t you just wrote right there. By definition, a corrupt leader is himself part of the bloat. I mean jesus christ wtf.

Your solution is more of the same, because clearly that's working :roll: :roll: .

Anonymous wrote:How does Doge differ from GAO?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?

Of course they are! But maybe their greed might also dovetail with some added benefit of reducing bloat. We've been trying the McKinsey/bloated fed way for decades and it hasn't worked. Maybe time to try something different?

That’s some truly dumb sh*t you just wrote right there. By definition, a corrupt leader is himself part of the bloat. I mean jesus christ wtf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?

Of course they are! But maybe their greed might also dovetail with some added benefit of reducing bloat. We've been trying the McKinsey/bloated fed way for decades and it hasn't worked. Maybe time to try something different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?

Of course they are! But maybe their greed might also dovetail with some added benefit of reducing bloat. We've been trying the McKinsey/bloated fed way for decades and it hasn't worked. Maybe time to try something different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you posting this absolutely absurd actual press release. What a bunch of ash hats

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What makes you think that billionaires are not motivated by money and “fringe benefits”? Like why do you trust wealthy business owners more than government workers?