FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

---

You really have no idea what it takes to eliminate an Agency. (seriously, not meant as an insult, just a statement). Most of what you hate has been passed by Congress, it is backed by law. You are not doing away with that unless Congress does it. It sounds good, plays well in elections, but as Betsy (who HATES DOE) how easy it is to stop it. Think of the how many Intel Agencies we have. How easy to eliminate them and consolidate for cost savings? Now, do it in 2 years before mid-terms...

Musk identified some good easy stuff, 2 trillion? I don't think so. If Trump can get 3/4 of the list in the Fox article that will be good. I especially like this one (one of the problems with Omnibus)

Congress: $516B Authorized for expired programs

"In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law," the DOGE X account posted on Nov. 16. "Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy point to DOGE targets | Fox Business

Now want to talk about curtailing spending - DO AWAY WITH OMNIBUS...

There is no reason for anything called Omnibus these days. For that matter, there is no legitimacy for Congress to have a bill that's 1000s of pages (or 100s) and for anyone to vote on it before they have read the entire thing for themselves.

historian said:

---

There is no reason for anything called Omnibus these days. For that matter, there is no legitimacy for Congress to have a bill that's 1000s of pages (or 100s) and for anyone to vote on it before they have read the entire thing for themselves.

---

We agree. This is where most of the problems come. Pork gets buried. Make that one change and spending will be alot more transparent.

historian said:

---

There is no reason for anything called Omnibus these days. For that matter, there is no legitimacy for Congress to have a bill that's 1000s of pages (or 100s) and for anyone to vote on it before they have read the entire thing for themselves.

---

lol, they dont read them.. the lobbists write what they want, the congress people get it added and agree to pass others pork if their pork gets passed

Only thing they come up with is the fancy acronym for this version.. if this version doesnt pass, they modify and try again under another acronym

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no reason for anything called Omnibus these days. For that matter, there is no legitimacy for Congress to have a bill that's 1000s of pages (or 100s) and for anyone to vote on it before they have read the entire thing for themselves.

---

lol, they dont read them.. the lobbists write what they want, the congress people get it added and agree to pass others pork if their pork gets passed

Only thing they come up with is the fancy acronym for this version.. if this version doesnt pass, they modify and try again under another acronym

---

Yep

In fact Congress works so corruptly it drops these bills on its members at the last minute so they can't have time to read them even if they want to do so.

Its staggering corruption... and just a terrible way to run a legislature in general.

Trump says he plans to sue Ann Selzer and the newspaper in Iowa that published her poll showing Trump losing just days before the election pic.twitter.com/ujSmW3GTTM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2024

I was hoping it would be going away

Trump on a possible TikTok ban: "I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points, and there are those that say TikTok had something to do with that." pic.twitter.com/xv2rm78oMc

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2024

I have to chuckle when I read one guy with no government agency experience telling another guy online that he has no idea what it takes to do something in government.

Gotta love the internet, but in the end change only happens when the people making change don't stop just because someone else says it won't work

It's never going to work ... Until it does.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have to chuckle when I read one guy with no government agency experience telling another guy online that he has no idea what it takes to do something in government.

Gotta love the internet, but in the end change only happens when the people making change don't stop just because someone else says it won't work

It's never going to work ... Until it does.

---

The change has to make sense and move the Nation forward. That doesn't happen haphazardly. The time that works is not what worries me, it is the 999 times it doesn't.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have to chuckle when I read one guy with no government agency experience telling another guy online that he has no idea what it takes to do something in government.

Gotta love the internet, but in the end change only happens when the people making change don't stop just because someone else says it won't work

It's never going to work ... Until it does.

---

The change has to make sense and move the Nation forward. That doesn't happen haphazardly. The time that works is not what worries me, it is the 999 times it doesn't.

---

Just admit you get your jollies hoping for Trump to fail.

I have never yet seen you genuinely admit what he got right in his first term, nor admit the numbers of Democrats, RINOs and career bureaucrats who did literally everything they could to first stop him, then tried to destroy him.

It's more than plain that we need drastic change to set things right in Government. It's painfully obvious we don't need a Romney or a Bush, much less a Boehner or a Cheney.

Give Trump a real chance. Act like you want change, not excuses.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have to chuckle when I read one guy with no government agency experience telling another guy online that he has no idea what it takes to do something in government.

Gotta love the internet, but in the end change only happens when the people making change don't stop just because someone else says it won't work

It's never going to work ... Until it does.

---

The change has to make sense and move the Nation forward. That doesn't happen haphazardly. The time that works is not what worries me, it is the 999 times it doesn't.

---

Just admit you get your jollies hoping for Trump to fail.

I have never yet seen you genuinely admit what he got right in his first term, nor admit the numbers of Democrats, RINOs and career bureaucrats who did literally everything they could to first stop him, then tried to destroy him.

It's more than plain that we need drastic change to set things right in Government. It's painfully obvious we don't need a Romney or a Bush, much less a Boehner or a Cheney.

Give Trump a real chance. Act like you want change, not excuses.

---

Then you have not been reading. I have said numerous times I agree with his 2016 policies and commend him for wanting to make deals. Maybe you don't remember, he came to the White House in 2016 wanting to cut deals and ran on being able to work across the aisle. Art of the Deal? Remember?

As for last Presidency below is a list of what he promised, I thought he did well. He did what he could control. I had issues with Jan 6th, no doubt.

Promises Kept
Nominate someone from his list of justices to replace Antonin Scalia (Ioved - Gorsuch/Barrett esp.)
Renegotiate NAFTA
Raise tariffs on goods imported into the U.S.
Move U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
Cancel the Paris climate agreement
Cut taxes for everyone
Getting NATO to pay
Terminate Barack Obama's immigration so/so

He didn't get these done -
Build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it
Repeal Obamacare
Bring back manufacturing
Grow the economy by 4% a year










Our Sources

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

---

You really have no idea what it takes to eliminate an Agency. (seriously, not meant as an insult, just a statement). Most of what you hate has been passed by Congress, it is backed by law. You are not doing away with that unless Congress does it. It sounds good, plays well in elections, but as Betsy (who HATES DOE) how easy it is to stop it. Think of the how many Intel Agencies we have. How easy to eliminate them and consolidate for cost savings? Now, do it in 2 years before mid-terms...

Musk identified some good easy stuff, 2 trillion? I don't think so. If Trump can get 3/4 of the list in the Fox article that will be good. I especially like this one (one of the problems with Omnibus)

Congress: $516B Authorized for expired programs

"In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law," the DOGE X account posted on Nov. 16. "Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy point to DOGE targets | Fox Business

Now want to talk about curtailing spending - DO AWAY WITH OMNIBUS...

---

you are of course correct that it will be effectively impossible to eliminate the DoEd, given the small margins the GOP has in Congress. But you vastly underestimate what a committed POTUS and Cabinet can do to reduce footprint. Eliminating rules and reinterpreting rules can make a number of jobs irrelevant. Transferring positions halfway across the country or better will cause attrition. Just eliminating work-from-home will cause some attrition. Restructuring of civil service, flattening pyramids, lowering full-performance grades, etc....will cause attrition. And, of course, just refusing to spend all allocated funds will save money.

Most growth of government is done by bureaucratic interpretation of broad statutes.
The same process works in reverse.
Just look, as you note, at how much funding was provided to expired programs.

I would imagine Trump will try to start block-grant programs using existing statutory authority. That will make some jobs excess to needs.

Doing away with Omnibus is the easiest solution of all. All it takes is a Speaker who decides to return to regular order.

FY2025 is off badly. Deficit first two months is up 19%, meaning 2025 is on pace to $2.5T or so.
What cannot continue, won't.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

---

You really have no idea what it takes to eliminate an Agency. (seriously, not meant as an insult, just a statement). Most of what you hate has been passed by Congress, it is backed by law. You are not doing away with that unless Congress does it. It sounds good, plays well in elections, but as Betsy (who HATES DOE) how easy it is to stop it. Think of the how many Intel Agencies we have. How easy to eliminate them and consolidate for cost savings? Now, do it in 2 years before mid-terms...

Musk identified some good easy stuff, 2 trillion? I don't think so. If Trump can get 3/4 of the list in the Fox article that will be good. I especially like this one (one of the problems with Omnibus)

Congress: $516B Authorized for expired programs

"In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law," the DOGE X account posted on Nov. 16. "Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy point to DOGE targets | Fox Business

Now want to talk about curtailing spending - DO AWAY WITH OMNIBUS...

---

you are of course correct that it will be effectively impossible to eliminate the DoEd, given the small margins the GOP has in Congress. But you vastly underestimate what a committed POTUS and Cabinet can do to reduce footprint. Eliminating rules and reinterpreting rules can make a number of jobs irrelevant. Transferring positions halfway across the country or better will cause attrition. Just eliminating work-from-home will cause some attrition. Restructuring of civil service, flattening pyramids, lowering full-performance grades, etc....will cause attrition. And, of course, just refusing to spend all allocated funds will save money.

Most growth of government is done by bureaucratic interpretation of broad statutes.
The same process works in reverse.
Just look, as you note, at how much funding was provided to expired programs.

I would imagine Trump will try to start block-grant programs using existing statutory authority. That will make some jobs excess to needs.

Doing away with Omnibus is the easiest solution of all. All it takes is a Speaker who decides to return to regular order.

FY2025 is off badly. Deficit first two months is up 19%, meaning 2025 is on pace to $2.5T or so.
What cannot continue, won't.

---

Well, we are starting to come to the middle and agree on what can be done versus election rhetoric.

Everything we have discussed here, I would love to see happen. What I don't want to happen is to waste time on **** that can't be done because Vivek has his ear. We need to reduce and get rid of what is not working AND look at how we can readjust to deal with issues - perfect example - Drones. We need capabilities to deal with Drones at the HSA level, not just DOD.

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no reason for anything called Omnibus these days. For that matter, there is no legitimacy for Congress to have a bill that's 1000s of pages (or 100s) and for anyone to vote on it before they have read the entire thing for themselves.

---

lol, they dont read them.. the lobbists write what they want, the congress people get it added and agree to pass others pork if their pork gets passed

Only thing they come up with is the fancy acronym for this version.. if this version doesnt pass, they modify and try again under another acronym

---

Good explanation of how corrupt & illegitimate they are.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

---

You really have no idea what it takes to eliminate an Agency. (seriously, not meant as an insult, just a statement). Most of what you hate has been passed by Congress, it is backed by law. You are not doing away with that unless Congress does it. It sounds good, plays well in elections, but as Betsy (who HATES DOE) how easy it is to stop it. Think of the how many Intel Agencies we have. How easy to eliminate them and consolidate for cost savings? Now, do it in 2 years before mid-terms...

Musk identified some good easy stuff, 2 trillion? I don't think so. If Trump can get 3/4 of the list in the Fox article that will be good. I especially like this one (one of the problems with Omnibus)

Congress: $516B Authorized for expired programs

"In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law," the DOGE X account posted on Nov. 16. "Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy point to DOGE targets | Fox Business

Now want to talk about curtailing spending - DO AWAY WITH OMNIBUS...

---

you are of course correct that it will be effectively impossible to eliminate the DoEd, given the small margins the GOP has in Congress. But you vastly underestimate what a committed POTUS and Cabinet can do to reduce footprint. Eliminating rules and reinterpreting rules can make a number of jobs irrelevant. Transferring positions halfway across the country or better will cause attrition. Just eliminating work-from-home will cause some attrition. Restructuring of civil service, flattening pyramids, lowering full-performance grades, etc....will cause attrition. And, of course, just refusing to spend all allocated funds will save money.

Most growth of government is done by bureaucratic interpretation of broad statutes.
The same process works in reverse.
Just look, as you note, at how much funding was provided to expired programs.

I would imagine Trump will try to start block-grant programs using existing statutory authority. That will make some jobs excess to needs.

Doing away with Omnibus is the easiest solution of all. All it takes is a Speaker who decides to return to regular order.

FY2025 is off badly. Deficit first two months is up 19%, meaning 2025 is on pace to $2.5T or so.
What cannot continue, won't.

---

Well, we are starting to come to the middle and agree on what can be done versus election rhetoric.

Everything we have discussed here, I would love to see happen. What I don't want to happen is to waste time on **** that can't be done because Vivek has his ear. We need to reduce and get rid of what is not working AND look at how we can readjust to deal with issues - perfect example - Drones. We need capabilities to deal with Drones at the HSA level, not just DOD.

---

LOL there is a lot that's not working......so maybe there is more to be cut than you think.

It's not a waste of time to demand things which cannot be done. Nearly every deal in politics and 9ften in business start that way. It is exceedingly unwise to start off on a political endeavor in the middle = it dispirits your base, which weakens you. One should always start off with maximalist demands. So all that claptrap you hate is just part of the process. Without it as a starting point, very little will get done.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

we don't need more data to know that we don't need a Dept of Education. Just eliminate it and block-grant the program funds to the state. We save 100% of the bureaucratic overhead. Ok. We'll need an office of a couple dozen over at the treasury to do the bookkeeping. So we save 99% of the bureaucratic overhead. And we have to ask serious questions about NASA's mission now that we have private sector options for space. Some of its functions could be transferred to Space Force, the rest contracted out to private sector, with NASA itself remaining as a research institute, vastly downsized. So many big picture options for saving.

I agree that Kennedy and Reagan provided vision on where we needed to go. Kennedy's was almost entirely aspirational - rising to meet the Soviet challenge, going to the moon, spreading American exceptionalism around the world, etc..... Reagan had those same themes. But fiscal and regulatory reforms were high on the list, too. Reagan savaged the federal government as an over-bloated behemoth in need of drastic cuts. He appointed a noted private sector CEO Peter Grace to lead a commission of private sector businessmen to identify those cuts. That commission coined the phrase for which Trump has been so villified - "Drain the Swamp."

The vision is "Drain the Swamp." It has been presented to the American people. They voted for it. They deserve to see at least some of it get done.

---

You really have no idea what it takes to eliminate an Agency. (seriously, not meant as an insult, just a statement). Most of what you hate has been passed by Congress, it is backed by law. You are not doing away with that unless Congress does it. It sounds good, plays well in elections, but as Betsy (who HATES DOE) how easy it is to stop it. Think of the how many Intel Agencies we have. How easy to eliminate them and consolidate for cost savings? Now, do it in 2 years before mid-terms...

Musk identified some good easy stuff, 2 trillion? I don't think so. If Trump can get 3/4 of the list in the Fox article that will be good. I especially like this one (one of the problems with Omnibus)

Congress: $516B Authorized for expired programs

"In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law," the DOGE X account posted on Nov. 16. "Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy point to DOGE targets | Fox Business

Now want to talk about curtailing spending - DO AWAY WITH OMNIBUS...

---

you are of course correct that it will be effectively impossible to eliminate the DoEd, given the small margins the GOP has in Congress. But you vastly underestimate what a committed POTUS and Cabinet can do to reduce footprint. Eliminating rules and reinterpreting rules can make a number of jobs irrelevant. Transferring positions halfway across the country or better will cause attrition. Just eliminating work-from-home will cause some attrition. Restructuring of civil service, flattening pyramids, lowering full-performance grades, etc....will cause attrition. And, of course, just refusing to spend all allocated funds will save money.

Most growth of government is done by bureaucratic interpretation of broad statutes.
The same process works in reverse.
Just look, as you note, at how much funding was provided to expired programs.

I would imagine Trump will try to start block-grant programs using existing statutory authority. That will make some jobs excess to needs.

Doing away with Omnibus is the easiest solution of all. All it takes is a Speaker who decides to return to regular order.

FY2025 is off badly. Deficit first two months is up 19%, meaning 2025 is on pace to $2.5T or so.
What cannot continue, won't.

---

Well, we are starting to come to the middle and agree on what can be done versus election rhetoric.

Everything we have discussed here, I would love to see happen. What I don't want to happen is to waste time on **** that can't be done because Vivek has his ear. We need to reduce and get rid of what is not working AND look at how we can readjust to deal with issues - perfect example - Drones. We need capabilities to deal with Drones at the HSA level, not just DOD.

---

LOL there is a lot that's not working......so maybe there is more to be cut than you think.

It's not a waste of time to demand things which cannot be done. Nearly every deal in politics and 9ften in business start that way. It is exceedingly unwise to start off on a political endeavor in the middle = it dispirits your base, which weakens you. One should always start off with maximalist demands. So all that claptrap you hate is just part of the process. Without it as a starting point, very little will get done.

---

I start from the ideal and work off that to what I can accomplish. If it is 7 of 10 or 3 of 10, I take it.

The ideal, to me, is funding what is needed for the amounts needed. I am not a low-bid fan. I have seen too many low-bids end up costing more. If you want quality, you pay for quality. A lot of what we in Government requires quality, especially on the infrastructure, military, intel, space, health, and other areas. Going cheap for the sake of saving money does not accomplish goals.

But, I do agree there is a lot to cut. There is a long way before we would get into any real "beefs" over spending cuts!

Is he saying he will fund moderate Dems in heavy Dem areas or funding moderate Republicans in heavy Dem areas?

BREAKING: Elon Musk has said:

"I’m going to be funding moderate candidates in heavily Democrat districts, so that the country can get rid of those who don’t represent them."

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) December 20, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Is he saying he will fund moderate Dems in heavy Dem areas or funding moderate Republicans in heavy Dem areas?

BREAKING: Elon Musk has said:

"I’m going to be funding moderate candidates in heavily Democrat districts, so that the country can get rid of those who don’t represent them."

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) December 20, 2024

---

He said candidates. He does not care about Party, this is about obedience. Moderate D gets him same as moderate R. You guys think this is good for Conservatism, it is going to be good for Musk, Trump and Vivek. If it helps Conservatism it is secondary. They are going to raise debt ceiling. Getting the picture yet?

This is bad news giving this guy control over legislation. Elon is running things....

I'd rather Elon run things then the libtard politicians.

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump says he plans to sue Ann Selzer and the newspaper in Iowa that published her poll showing Trump losing just days before the election pic.twitter.com/ujSmW3GTTM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2024

---

Waste of the legal system. Just hire a couple of social media folks to drag her around the landscape until she yells, "Calf rope".

Now suing MSN (any media) for receiving the nation over the status of our President is fair game and a great investment; the best kind of "law fare".

I guess Chip lit himself on fire today

Chip Roy just lit the house on fire with this speech. I challenge you to listen to it and then tell me he's in the wrong.

I stand with Chip Roy. pic.twitter.com/ToamcxMJAW

— Clint Russell (@LibertyLockPod) December 19, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

I guess Chip lit himself on fire today

Chip Roy just lit the house on fire with this speech. I challenge you to listen to it and then tell me he's in the wrong.

I stand with Chip Roy. pic.twitter.com/ToamcxMJAW

— Clint Russell (@LibertyLockPod) December 19, 2024

---

Chip Roy is correct and Donald Trump is wrong. The debt is insane and so is any spending bill that fails to address these issues. Congress is trying to bankrupt this country and too many Republicans are willing to go along with the insanity.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I am very happy with my congressman, Chip Roy.,

drahthaar said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump says he plans to sue Ann Selzer and the newspaper in Iowa that published her poll showing Trump losing just days before the election pic.twitter.com/ujSmW3GTTM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2024

---

Waste of the legal system. Just hire a couple of social media folks to drag her around the landscape until she yells, "Calf rope".

Now suing MSN (any media) for receiving the nation over the status of our President is fair game and a great investment; the best kind of "law fare".

---

Didn't we just have discussions about weaponizing and how wrong it is? I know, not the same, because it is someone you like

nein51 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'd rather Elon run things then the libtard politicians.

---

No. That's not how this works. We have a process and that process should be followed by both parties. While I certainly prefer Musk's newest political opinions to a lot of other people's all parties involved need to follow the process.

It's like people are goldfish in here.

In a few years whatever you're "doing to them" will be done back to you only they are much better at that game.

Both parties need to reigned in…a lot…and brought back to the middle, where 95% of people exist.

---

THANK YOU!

We cannot have the Nation being run from "X" waiting for Elon to give thumbs up or down...

nein51 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'd rather Elon run things then the libtard politicians.

---

No. That's not how this works. We have a process and that process should be followed by both parties. While I certainly prefer Musk's newest political opinions to a lot of other people's all parties involved need to follow the process.

It's like people are goldfish in here.

In a few years whatever you're "doing to them" will be done back to you only they are much better at that game.

Both parties need to reigned in…a lot…and brought back to the middle, where 95% of people exist.

---

We've had congress run up $35T or $36T in debt in a very short time. Elon is picked by Trump (who was elected in Nov BTW) to provide a framework so that we don't end up $100T in debt in the near future. Elon has no votes in congress. Congress must do their job. Elon is just there to help. And I trust him way more than those that ran up all this debt.

ScottS said:

---

nein51 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'd rather Elon run things then the libtard politicians.

---

No. That's not how this works. We have a process and that process should be followed by both parties. While I certainly prefer Musk's newest political opinions to a lot of other people's all parties involved need to follow the process.

It's like people are goldfish in here.

In a few years whatever you're "doing to them" will be done back to you only they are much better at that game.

Both parties need to reigned in…a lot…and brought back to the middle, where 95% of people exist.

---

We've had congress run up $35T or $36T in debt in a very short time. Elon is picked by Trump (who was elected in Nov BTW) to provide a framework so that we don't end up $100T in debt in the near future. Elon has no votes in congress. Congress must do their job. Elon is just there to help. And I trust him way more than those that ran up all this debt.

---

Baaa...


But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. The revenue potential is incredible.

Maybe a subscription service for you to give Elon your opinion, American Idol style. Elon can model the lated fashion wear as he makes has decision. 10% dedicated to paying off the debt (Elon will get 45% and Trump the other 45%)

Or, a "Running Man" style Congress show. Think about it, Congress makes its case Richard Dawson-ish host has the audience vote and then Elon gives a Thumbs up or down. Ad revenue would be through the roof. Again, 10% toward debt, etc...

Or, we could just go full blown Idiocracy and have Monster Trucks fight it out. Elon will do what he wants, but we will all be distracted and get our electrolytes.

This is gonna be big!