GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Is the federal govt in the business of making a profit? Yeah, your points are completely off track and irrelevant.

Are you saying you think all those fat liberals at twitter that did nothing but collect paychecks should have kept their jobs? Tons and tons and tons of government needs to get cut. Yesterday. He needs to cut tons and tons and tons of government jobs, and if people lose services that are actually worth something, big deal - they can go find another way while we figure out how to get a handle of 35 trillion in debt.

Once we lose 'currency reserve status' - we're royally screwed. You don't want that. Everyone in the US will feel the pain for generations. I'd much much rather a handful of bureaucrats lose their jobs and agencies close down than for us to go through that. Your priorities are way out of line.

Your point about Musk getting subsidies is a whole other topic. However, let's discuss it: all the EV and 'Green' crap to save the planet (while elites fly around in their jets to global warming conferences in blizzards) was something he benefited from. All those green energy subsidies should not be given out at all. He should not be getting any...but leftists want to save the planet while on their private jets, so by giving him money for Tesla, they satisfy their need to virtue signal.

No, I'm not in any way for Tesla, Space X, Twitter, or any other non-national security companies to get subsidies.

Your priorities are out of line. A lot.

---

When did I mention making profit? There is a difference between generating revenue and profit. You ever actually been responsible for funding anything? You want the US value to decrease? You want currency to lose value? You want services to stop? Yeah, That is productive. The guy destroyed the company YOU are using as an example of Musks skill. The Company is a shell of itself.

So you are into destroying for the sake of destroying? No matter how productive, needed, or it's value. Just gut it. You are the one with F-ed up priorities. Damn sad...

---

1. You keep referring to Musk's profitability... smh
2. Not sure of your economic background, but if we get that budget under control the value of the dollar rises... signaling strength of the nation. Its financial security is where the currency's value is derived from - not by how much services they provide. Go to Argentina or Greece or basically anywhere to see what happens to a nation's currency when their services / social programs costs are too much.
3. The only 'revenue' for the US government is tax dollars. And that is not based on what they make for their goods and services, but the private sector's.
4. Twitter's expenses are a shell of itself under Musk... yet it does exactly the same thing it did a decade ago: let people tweet.

---

1 - You brought up twitter as an example of gutting a Company. I said the value is 75% then when he got it. He did what they are talking about for Govt, gutting for non-business reasons. He got rid of people for their believes and their disagreeing with him. Twitter is a private company, it is supposed to make money.
Yep. He overpaid for it. Then he gutted it to cut expenses. Then the left went after his ad revenues. Choked off most of it. And, still his sales are growing by double digits. And site traffic, the primary monetizable activity of the business, is exploding. And now that the election is over, you will see the ad revenue start trickling back in. So I'd reel in your take and revisit in 6 months.

2 - I agree with you here, the Debt has to get under control. I question the method being touted, firing 1/2 of the Federal workforce, especially when much of the debt was Trump spending. I am always against indiscriminate anything, you take actions for a reason. You get rid of unproductive positions and people, that requires analysis and data.
Talking about firing half of the workforce is good bull. Won't happen, but it will move the Overton Window to fire more than your position on this (nowhere to cut in the USG) could ever accomplish.

3 - Tax dollars are not the only revenue. Tariffs, fees, rent, investments, customs, go with a variety of taxes from different sources. We need to expand revenue to make a dent in this debt. The amounts you can cut are too small, you would need too many years and there is no way Politicians are that disciplined.
Trump is talking about all of that. And he will do more of it than you think possible. (pretty easy assessment to make, given that you think the USG is very lean at the moment).

4 - Twitter is a private company, you treat it like a Govt Agency. Lower expenses and same service works for Govt. Musks moves killed a healthy Company's value. That is not sound business.

---

Musk has done much harder fixes than Twitter.
Same for the USG fix.

All it takes is the will to tune out the naysayers and do it. Trump is a lame duck. He gots nothing to lose, and he's had 4 years to plan.

---

Name the great fixes that have not used Govt subsidies or Govt contracts? He is part of the problem. Same with Trump not only paying low taxes using tax credits, but he approved a lot of the debt.
He is as culpable as Biden.

Watch Musk net worth and SpaceX, Starlink govt contracts over next 4 years. I will bet mostly DOD and Intel which will be budgets not touched. The only thing cut will be social services and Medicare relied on by elderly and poor. Watch who carries the pain Musk is talking about, it won't be him or Vivek.

---

so let's unpack this.

The private sector has never fixed anything without Govt help.
A private citizen using the law to his advantage is a bad thing.
Trump is going to cut social security.
Trump is going to cut Medicare.

That is leftist claptrap.
Who are you and what have you done to FLBear5630?

---

Don't generalize and misdirect.

I said Musk has benefited from the things he is railing against as unsustainable. He has been a huge benefactor from the "Govt Spending". All his companies have benefited greatly from Govt spending. Spending that Trump approved just as much as Biden. So, pardon me if I just don't blanketly trust the rhetoric of two people that have a lifetime of using the Government trough for their personal benefit to save us from "wasteful spending".
How. How have those two individuals benefitted from government spending any more than any other business?

As I said, WHO is going to feel the pain? Those that benefited from the Trillions of dollars of subsidies and contracts? Or, the Ma and Pop citizens that do nothing but go to work each day? I will bet neither Musk nor Vivek feel one bit of pain and actually make out with a profit. What part do YOU have a problem with?
Again. Please show exactly how real estate tycoon Trump got trillions of dollars of government contracts. We would also be amused to hear the explanation for how PayPal, Musk's first company that generated his initial wealth, was a business model built on government contracts.

You seem very eager to just sign on because you like what they are saying and want to believe without really looking at the data behind who is saying it.
The data actually does not support your highly partisan assertions.

Not unusual with rhetoric as they are good at it and entertaining. A dangerous mix. Are we turning over the hen house to the foxes, hoping it all turns out well?
How are Musk & Trump any greater foxes than all the people Biden appointed? They all had political agendas, did they not? He appointed a bunch of people to portfolios over which they had zero prior experience, ideological hacks. Why would it be worse to appoint people who actually have experience in building and reforming large organizations, just because they turned a profit doing it?

---

again, you are literally parroting partisan claptrap not well connected to actual history.

---

Here we go again with the CIA misdirection campaign...


1 - Who said "more than any other business" How is that relevant? No one said more, just that Musk has been a recipient of Billions in Government money. Actually, he is about #50 in terms of dollar value. He doesn't have to benefit more to benefit or have a conflict.
You singled him out. I'm adding perspective. He's the richest man in the world. You claimed it made it off of govt spending. Does that make sense? The #1 guy made it all on govt spending, yet is only #50 on the dollar value list? Quit repeating Democrat talking points! Dude is one of the most successful venture capitalists of all time.

2 - Once again, no one said trillions. Trump received millions in tax credits to build in specific areas of NY, NJ and the Nation. He took full advantage of Government money. Do a little reading on his developer life before he became a TV character. As for PayPal, PayPal has 1.2B in Government Contracts. Musk has billions of dollars in Government Contracts throughout multiple Companies.
Yeah, you did. look at the second paragraph in your post directly above ".....trillions of dollars of subsidies and contracts...." What contract has the USG issued to purchase Tesla products?

3 - Actually it does...
Uh, no. you're just spinning spin.

4 - Once again, the quantitative argument. They don't have to be "worse" than all the others. Musk is right there....

I give Vivek credit, he does not seem to have ties to Government spending, yet. He used the stock market and a drug IPO scheme that paid off. So, for all his ChatBod talk he may actually be more objective.
Neither does Trump, whom you lump in right along with Musk. How does a Manhattan real estate developer with substantial international holdings exploit federal contracts & subsidies? (He didn't.)

Don't be obtuse and act like Musk is an objective 3rd party with no personal or business interest in "restructuring" Govt spending and procurement. He stands to make billions more and more importantly get a free pass to do what he wants with out bothersome regulation (to me, that seems be his end game more than money).
We all have a personal interest in restructuring govt spending and procurement that is trillions of dollars greater than revenues!

---

You also completely ignore perhaps the most important reason Musk is involved with Trump at all - he was personally oppressed by federal regulators due to his political views. He purchased Twitter primarily because he was concerned about the obvious infringements of free speech....Twitter was all too willingly responding to directives from federal regulators to shut down speech in ways govt itself could not do. And when Musk announced his intended purchase...boom....he got investigated by alphabet soup of agencies. A clear intimidation tactic. I hope he made a trillion or three in profits off of Twitter. Dude deserves every penny for what he did.

you are reflexive establishmentarian. That's not a horrible thing. We need establishments. But we do not need them at any cost. And we most certainly do not need them to be used with partisan caprice. We need them to serve common good. And they are not doing that. How do we know they are not serving common good? Anti-establishmentarian candidates are getting elected. On both sides of the aisle. BECAUSE INSTITUTIONS ARE FAILING to serve common good.

Dude. We had a defacto Ministry of Truth formed up in the Biden federal bureaucracy. Trump and Musk have busted it up. Your blindness here is profound. You should be grateful, for yourself, your kids, your grandkids, etc... Things were wildly out of balance. A Republican presidential nominee was cancelled out of social media DURING an election in 2020. Outrageous. And the media establishments that did it have paid a price for it. As they should have.

---

Replaced by a Ministry of Efficiency to control spending? Run by someone with billions of contracts and subsidies There is a potential conflict. You don't see anything fishy about that, which I find just as strange. You are giving me **** for calling it out.

---

LOL you are really rattled!

It's not a Ministry of Efficiency that will control spending. It's a private commission that will analyze regulations and spending and make recommendations for reductions. Reagan had the exact same initiative (the Grace Commission) during his admin. Why shouldn't Trump do the same? The Republic survived the Grace Commission, did it not?

---

Rattled? No, confused. GAO puts out a report every year on all of this. There is no need for a "special department". With all your concern for the overspending have you ever looked at the GAO report on Duplication and Cost Savings? There are 12 of them, all submitted to Congress. We want to do it, let's do it. That is based on actual data and analysis, not some Gold Star Committee of people owning Companies getting Federal contracts.

2024 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Billions of Dollars in Financial Benefits | U.S. GAO

Actually, I will make it easy for you.

GAO identified 112 new matters and recommendations in 42 new topic areas for Congress or federal agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. For example:

• The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency should ensure its working capital fund cash balance is within its operating range, potentially saving its federal customers hundreds of millions of dollars through reduced prices.
• Congress and the Internal Revenue Service should take action to improve sole proprietor tax compliance, which could increase revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
• Agencies could save one hundred million dollars or more by using predictive models to make investment decisions on deferred maintenance and repair for federal buildings and structures.
• Congress should consider taking action that could help the Armed Forces Retirement Home address financial shortfalls to reduce the risk of exhausting the trust fund that supports it and potentially generate revenue of one hundred million dollars or more over 10 years.
• Federal agencies need building utilization benchmarks to help them identify and reduce underutilized office space, which could save ten million dollars or more over 5 years.
• The Department of Defense should reduce the risk of overlapping management activities and potentially save ten million dollars or more over 5 years in medical facility management by continuing its efforts to reevaluate its market structure and establishing performance goals.
• Congress could close regulatory gaps and seven federal financial regulators should improve coordination to better manage fragmented efforts to identify and mitigate risks posed by blockchain applications in finance.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy should facilitate the sharing of information about identifying foreign ownership of research entities to better manage fragmentation of federal efforts to help safeguard federally funded research from foreign threats.

As of March 2024, Congress and agencies had fully addressed 1,341 (66 percent) of the 2,018 matters and recommendations GAO identified from 2011-2024 and partially addressed 139 (about 7 percent). This has resulted in financial and other benefits, such as improved interagency coordination and reduced mismanagement, fraud, waste, and abuse.
As shown in the figure below, these efforts have cumulatively resulted in about $667 billion in financial benefits, an increase of about $71 billion from GAO's last report on this topic. These are rough estimates based on a variety of sources that considered different time periods and used different data sources, assumptions, and methodologies.
Total Financial Benefits of $667.5 Billion Identified in GAO's 2011-2024 Duplication and Cost Savings Annual Reports

There you go, no need for Musk or Vivek to fiddle with Government based on their whims or wants. Do it... Bet they don't. Bet you in is targeted to areas they make more money and have more control

---

You are overlooking one key fact, the People voted for Musk and Vivek by electing Trump. Your time to *****, moan, and complain has past.

---

Nobody voted for Musk to go in and manage the Govt spending. That was AFTER the election.

What I find interesting is that I have said I can see Musks role as directing where we need tech investment to compete in the future. Doing it with little to no oversight, I can't see.

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Is the federal govt in the business of making a profit? Yeah, your points are completely off track and irrelevant.

Are you saying you think all those fat liberals at twitter that did nothing but collect paychecks should have kept their jobs? Tons and tons and tons of government needs to get cut. Yesterday. He needs to cut tons and tons and tons of government jobs, and if people lose services that are actually worth something, big deal - they can go find another way while we figure out how to get a handle of 35 trillion in debt.

Once we lose 'currency reserve status' - we're royally screwed. You don't want that. Everyone in the US will feel the pain for generations. I'd much much rather a handful of bureaucrats lose their jobs and agencies close down than for us to go through that. Your priorities are way out of line.

Your point about Musk getting subsidies is a whole other topic. However, let's discuss it: all the EV and 'Green' crap to save the planet (while elites fly around in their jets to global warming conferences in blizzards) was something he benefited from. All those green energy subsidies should not be given out at all. He should not be getting any...but leftists want to save the planet while on their private jets, so by giving him money for Tesla, they satisfy their need to virtue signal.

No, I'm not in any way for Tesla, Space X, Twitter, or any other non-national security companies to get subsidies.

Your priorities are out of line. A lot.

---

When did I mention making profit? There is a difference between generating revenue and profit. You ever actually been responsible for funding anything? You want the US value to decrease? You want currency to lose value? You want services to stop? Yeah, That is productive. The guy destroyed the company YOU are using as an example of Musks skill. The Company is a shell of itself.

So you are into destroying for the sake of destroying? No matter how productive, needed, or it's value. Just gut it. You are the one with F-ed up priorities. Damn sad...

---

1. You keep referring to Musk's profitability... smh
2. Not sure of your economic background, but if we get that budget under control the value of the dollar rises... signaling strength of the nation. Its financial security is where the currency's value is derived from - not by how much services they provide. Go to Argentina or Greece or basically anywhere to see what happens to a nation's currency when their services / social programs costs are too much.
3. The only 'revenue' for the US government is tax dollars. And that is not based on what they make for their goods and services, but the private sector's.
4. Twitter's expenses are a shell of itself under Musk... yet it does exactly the same thing it did a decade ago: let people tweet.

---

1 - You brought up twitter as an example of gutting a Company. I said the value is 75% then when he got it. He did what they are talking about for Govt, gutting for non-business reasons. He got rid of people for their believes and their disagreeing with him. Twitter is a private company, it is supposed to make money.
Yep. He overpaid for it. Then he gutted it to cut expenses. Then the left went after his ad revenues. Choked off most of it. And, still his sales are growing by double digits. And site traffic, the primary monetizable activity of the business, is exploding. And now that the election is over, you will see the ad revenue start trickling back in. So I'd reel in your take and revisit in 6 months.

2 - I agree with you here, the Debt has to get under control. I question the method being touted, firing 1/2 of the Federal workforce, especially when much of the debt was Trump spending. I am always against indiscriminate anything, you take actions for a reason. You get rid of unproductive positions and people, that requires analysis and data.
Talking about firing half of the workforce is good bull. Won't happen, but it will move the Overton Window to fire more than your position on this (nowhere to cut in the USG) could ever accomplish.

3 - Tax dollars are not the only revenue. Tariffs, fees, rent, investments, customs, go with a variety of taxes from different sources. We need to expand revenue to make a dent in this debt. The amounts you can cut are too small, you would need too many years and there is no way Politicians are that disciplined.
Trump is talking about all of that. And he will do more of it than you think possible. (pretty easy assessment to make, given that you think the USG is very lean at the moment).

4 - Twitter is a private company, you treat it like a Govt Agency. Lower expenses and same service works for Govt. Musks moves killed a healthy Company's value. That is not sound business.

---

Musk has done much harder fixes than Twitter.
Same for the USG fix.

All it takes is the will to tune out the naysayers and do it. Trump is a lame duck. He gots nothing to lose, and he's had 4 years to plan.

---

Name the great fixes that have not used Govt subsidies or Govt contracts? He is part of the problem. Same with Trump not only paying low taxes using tax credits, but he approved a lot of the debt.
He is as culpable as Biden.

Watch Musk net worth and SpaceX, Starlink govt contracts over next 4 years. I will bet mostly DOD and Intel which will be budgets not touched. The only thing cut will be social services and Medicare relied on by elderly and poor. Watch who carries the pain Musk is talking about, it won't be him or Vivek.

---

so let's unpack this.

The private sector has never fixed anything without Govt help.
A private citizen using the law to his advantage is a bad thing.
Trump is going to cut social security.
Trump is going to cut Medicare.

That is leftist claptrap.
Who are you and what have you done to FLBear5630?

---

Don't generalize and misdirect.

I said Musk has benefited from the things he is railing against as unsustainable. He has been a huge benefactor from the "Govt Spending". All his companies have benefited greatly from Govt spending. Spending that Trump approved just as much as Biden. So, pardon me if I just don't blanketly trust the rhetoric of two people that have a lifetime of using the Government trough for their personal benefit to save us from "wasteful spending".
How. How have those two individuals benefitted from government spending any more than any other business?

As I said, WHO is going to feel the pain? Those that benefited from the Trillions of dollars of subsidies and contracts? Or, the Ma and Pop citizens that do nothing but go to work each day? I will bet neither Musk nor Vivek feel one bit of pain and actually make out with a profit. What part do YOU have a problem with?
Again. Please show exactly how real estate tycoon Trump got trillions of dollars of government contracts. We would also be amused to hear the explanation for how PayPal, Musk's first company that generated his initial wealth, was a business model built on government contracts.

You seem very eager to just sign on because you like what they are saying and want to believe without really looking at the data behind who is saying it.
The data actually does not support your highly partisan assertions.

Not unusual with rhetoric as they are good at it and entertaining. A dangerous mix. Are we turning over the hen house to the foxes, hoping it all turns out well?
How are Musk & Trump any greater foxes than all the people Biden appointed? They all had political agendas, did they not? He appointed a bunch of people to portfolios over which they had zero prior experience, ideological hacks. Why would it be worse to appoint people who actually have experience in building and reforming large organizations, just because they turned a profit doing it?

---

again, you are literally parroting partisan claptrap not well connected to actual history.

---

Here we go again with the CIA misdirection campaign...


1 - Who said "more than any other business" How is that relevant? No one said more, just that Musk has been a recipient of Billions in Government money. Actually, he is about #50 in terms of dollar value. He doesn't have to benefit more to benefit or have a conflict.
You singled him out. I'm adding perspective. He's the richest man in the world. You claimed it made it off of govt spending. Does that make sense? The #1 guy made it all on govt spending, yet is only #50 on the dollar value list? Quit repeating Democrat talking points! Dude is one of the most successful venture capitalists of all time.

2 - Once again, no one said trillions. Trump received millions in tax credits to build in specific areas of NY, NJ and the Nation. He took full advantage of Government money. Do a little reading on his developer life before he became a TV character. As for PayPal, PayPal has 1.2B in Government Contracts. Musk has billions of dollars in Government Contracts throughout multiple Companies.
Yeah, you did. look at the second paragraph in your post directly above ".....trillions of dollars of subsidies and contracts...." What contract has the USG issued to purchase Tesla products?

3 - Actually it does...
Uh, no. you're just spinning spin.

4 - Once again, the quantitative argument. They don't have to be "worse" than all the others. Musk is right there....

I give Vivek credit, he does not seem to have ties to Government spending, yet. He used the stock market and a drug IPO scheme that paid off. So, for all his ChatBod talk he may actually be more objective.
Neither does Trump, whom you lump in right along with Musk. How does a Manhattan real estate developer with substantial international holdings exploit federal contracts & subsidies? (He didn't.)

Don't be obtuse and act like Musk is an objective 3rd party with no personal or business interest in "restructuring" Govt spending and procurement. He stands to make billions more and more importantly get a free pass to do what he wants with out bothersome regulation (to me, that seems be his end game more than money).
We all have a personal interest in restructuring govt spending and procurement that is trillions of dollars greater than revenues!

---

You also completely ignore perhaps the most important reason Musk is involved with Trump at all - he was personally oppressed by federal regulators due to his political views. He purchased Twitter primarily because he was concerned about the obvious infringements of free speech....Twitter was all too willingly responding to directives from federal regulators to shut down speech in ways govt itself could not do. And when Musk announced his intended purchase...boom....he got investigated by alphabet soup of agencies. A clear intimidation tactic. I hope he made a trillion or three in profits off of Twitter. Dude deserves every penny for what he did.

you are reflexive establishmentarian. That's not a horrible thing. We need establishments. But we do not need them at any cost. And we most certainly do not need them to be used with partisan caprice. We need them to serve common good. And they are not doing that. How do we know they are not serving common good? Anti-establishmentarian candidates are getting elected. On both sides of the aisle. BECAUSE INSTITUTIONS ARE FAILING to serve common good.

Dude. We had a defacto Ministry of Truth formed up in the Biden federal bureaucracy. Trump and Musk have busted it up. Your blindness here is profound. You should be grateful, for yourself, your kids, your grandkids, etc... Things were wildly out of balance. A Republican presidential nominee was cancelled out of social media DURING an election in 2020. Outrageous. And the media establishments that did it have paid a price for it. As they should have.

---

Replaced by a Ministry of Efficiency to control spending? Run by someone with billions of contracts and subsidies There is a potential conflict. You don't see anything fishy about that, which I find just as strange. You are giving me **** for calling it out.

---

LOL you are really rattled!

It's not a Ministry of Efficiency that will control spending. It's a private commission that will analyze regulations and spending and make recommendations for reductions. Reagan had the exact same initiative (the Grace Commission) during his admin. Why shouldn't Trump do the same? The Republic survived the Grace Commission, did it not?

---

Rattled? No, confused. GAO puts out a report every year on all of this. There is no need for a "special department". With all your concern for the overspending have you ever looked at the GAO report on Duplication and Cost Savings? There are 12 of them, all submitted to Congress. We want to do it, let's do it. That is based on actual data and analysis, not some Gold Star Committee of people owning Companies getting Federal contracts.

2024 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Billions of Dollars in Financial Benefits | U.S. GAO

Actually, I will make it easy for you.

GAO identified 112 new matters and recommendations in 42 new topic areas for Congress or federal agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. For example:

• The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency should ensure its working capital fund cash balance is within its operating range, potentially saving its federal customers hundreds of millions of dollars through reduced prices.
• Congress and the Internal Revenue Service should take action to improve sole proprietor tax compliance, which could increase revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
• Agencies could save one hundred million dollars or more by using predictive models to make investment decisions on deferred maintenance and repair for federal buildings and structures.
• Congress should consider taking action that could help the Armed Forces Retirement Home address financial shortfalls to reduce the risk of exhausting the trust fund that supports it and potentially generate revenue of one hundred million dollars or more over 10 years.
• Federal agencies need building utilization benchmarks to help them identify and reduce underutilized office space, which could save ten million dollars or more over 5 years.
• The Department of Defense should reduce the risk of overlapping management activities and potentially save ten million dollars or more over 5 years in medical facility management by continuing its efforts to reevaluate its market structure and establishing performance goals.
• Congress could close regulatory gaps and seven federal financial regulators should improve coordination to better manage fragmented efforts to identify and mitigate risks posed by blockchain applications in finance.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy should facilitate the sharing of information about identifying foreign ownership of research entities to better manage fragmentation of federal efforts to help safeguard federally funded research from foreign threats.

As of March 2024, Congress and agencies had fully addressed 1,341 (66 percent) of the 2,018 matters and recommendations GAO identified from 2011-2024 and partially addressed 139 (about 7 percent). This has resulted in financial and other benefits, such as improved interagency coordination and reduced mismanagement, fraud, waste, and abuse.
As shown in the figure below, these efforts have cumulatively resulted in about $667 billion in financial benefits, an increase of about $71 billion from GAO's last report on this topic. These are rough estimates based on a variety of sources that considered different time periods and used different data sources, assumptions, and methodologies.
Total Financial Benefits of $667.5 Billion Identified in GAO's 2011-2024 Duplication and Cost Savings Annual Reports

There you go, no need for Musk or Vivek to fiddle with Government based on their whims or wants. Do it... Bet they don't. Bet you in is targeted to areas they make more money and have more control

---

1) $650b is peanuts. Basically 1/3 of this year's deficit. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE REST?

2) If GAO is such an exquisite tool, how did we get a $1.8T deficit this year.

3) You are arguing that a flat tire can fix itself.

whiterock said:

---

1) $650b is peanuts. Basically 1/3 of this year's deficit. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE REST?

2) If GAO is such an exquisite tool, how did we get a $1.8T deficit this year.

3) You are arguing that a flat tire can fix itself.

---

And that amount is over a period of 13 years, or an average of a bit over $50B per fiscal year, the equivalent of loose change in the sofa for the Spendocrats.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

No issues with cutting this.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

---

We are all regulated, friend. In many cases, we are regulated far too much. Getting rid of some is not the end of the world. Regs will be back. They always are. We have to pare them back from time to time or they will smother us.

Remember, Congress has empowered the Executive to write its own rules without ratification. Read up on the Waters of the USA act. No one is contesting there is state interest in regulating navigable waters, shared or flowing across multiple states. But look at what Obama did with the flick of a bureaucratic pen - rewrote rules on that statute that expanded federal jurisdiction to any ground which there was evidence of collection or flow. Before Obama, I had zero percent of my property affected by the law; after Obama, nearly all of it was, despite the fact that there is no permanent flow of water in any of the 3 creeks on my property. Technically, it became illegal for me to construct or repair a ford across any of those creeks. Took many years and some SCOTUS rulings to curtail that regulation. Not a statute, a regulation.

Look at how EPA empowered itself to regulate carbon, by bureaucratically defining it as a pollutant. Bush Admin refused to do it, citing lack of statutory authorization to do so. Obama did. The whole green agenda rests upon it.

Look at how DOJ/DOE used Title IX, a law written with the intent of ensuring women had equal access to govt resources for sports competition, to push biological males into direct competition and even the locker rooms of biological women. No new law was passed changing the definition of things. It was A RULE CHANGE

A reasonable case could be made for sunsetting on all regulations, that Congress must ratify ALL of them every session. You can expect DOGE to start first by identifying rules which go beyond statutory intent, then recommend they be rescinded. (note the verb "recommend" here....DOGE can only recommend, not act......) Once the rule is rescinded, the regulators become excess to needs.

Who better to identify the most harmful rules than those harmed by the rules?
How much wealth must we have before we give up the right of redress of grievances?
Stop treating bureaucratic rules as sacred cows.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

---

We are all regulated, friend. In many cases, we are regulated far too much. Getting rid of some is not the end of the world. Regs will be back. They always are. We have to pare them back from time to time or they will smother us.

Remember, Congress has empowered the Executive to write its own rules without ratification. Read up on the Waters of the USA act. No one is contesting there is state interest in regulating navigable waters, shared or flowing across multiple states. But look at what Obama did with the flick of a bureaucratic pen - rewrote rules on that statute that expanded federal jurisdiction to any ground which there was evidence of collection or flow. Before Obama, I had zero percent of my property affected by the law; after Obama, nearly all of it was, despite the fact that there is no permanent flow of water in any of the 3 creeks on my property. Technically, it became illegal for me to construct or repair a ford across any of those creeks. Took many years and some SCOTUS rulings to curtail that regulation. Not a statute, a regulation.

Look at how EPA empowered itself to regulate carbon, by bureaucratically defining it as a pollutant. Bush Admin refused to do it, citing lack of statutory authorization to do so. Obama did. The whole green agenda rests upon it.

Look at how DOJ/DOE used Title IX, a law written with the intent of ensuring women had equal access to govt resources for sports competition, to push biological males into direct competition and even the locker rooms of biological women. No new law was passed changing the definition of things. It was A RULE CHANGE

A reasonable case could be made for sunsetting on all regulations, that Congress must ratify ALL of them every session. You can expect DOGE to start first by identifying rules which go beyond statutory intent, then recommend they be rescinded. (note the verb "recommend" here....DOGE can only recommend, not act......) Once the rule is rescinded, the regulators become excess to needs.

Who better to identify the most harmful rules than those harmed by the rules?
How much wealth must we have before we give up the right of redress of grievances?
Stop treating bureaucratic rules as sacred cows.

---

You guys keep missing my point. I agree with reform, I want it to be data based not opinion based.

I have said that Musk has a legitimate seat at that table, let's face it he is the Howard Hughes of our time. He has legitimate insight on where we need to go tech-wise in the future to compete. Someone needs to watch, but that should be an issue. I have a lot of respect for Elon, more before his X debacle. But that is another story.

Vivek, he is a clown. He made a fortune with Wall Street maneuvers that were at best questionable in terms of ethics (buying failed vaccines, re-packaging and doing IPOs before trials were complete). Now he starts railing on people's jobs with no knowledge of what they actually do. His comments are irresponsible and inflammatory. I am disappointed in Trump that he would actually give this guy any responsibility for decisions that will impact people's lives. "Get a job in private sector" sounds easy and painless. But the vast majority of these people have done nothing more than their job and many actually feel like they are serving the Country. His approach is not right.

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

DEI is designed to promote discrimination against white men

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sex

So why is DEI even tolerated, much less funded by the U.S. Department of Education—to the tune of over $1 billion dollars per year? https://t.co/Gei91Tu7lw

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

4th and Inches said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

DEI is designed to promote discrimination against white men

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sex

So why is DEI even tolerated, much less funded by the U.S. Department of Education—to the tune of over $1 billion dollars per year? https://t.co/Gei91Tu7lw

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

---

this- it is discriminatory against a specific race and thats illegal.

---

And yet Corporate America, the Gov, and our Universities do it all the time…..

It's like the law does not matter

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

DEI is designed to promote discrimination against white men

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sex

So why is DEI even tolerated, much less funded by the U.S. Department of Education—to the tune of over $1 billion dollars per year? https://t.co/Gei91Tu7lw

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

---

this- it is discriminatory against a specific race and thats illegal.

---

And yet Corporate America, the Gov, and our Universities do it all the time…..

It's like the law does not matter

---

they do it in many ways.. people of every race are discriminated against. its about how the law is enforced more than the law itself.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

DEI is designed to promote discrimination against white men

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sex

So why is DEI even tolerated, much less funded by the U.S. Department of Education—to the tune of over $1 billion dollars per year? https://t.co/Gei91Tu7lw

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

---

It's blatantly illegal & unconstitutional.

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Why the DoE must go, reason 1,892:

Biden's Department of Education spent $1 billion to promote DEI in schools

https://notthebee.com/article/bidens-department-of-education-spent-1-billion-to-promote-dei-in-schools

---

DEI is designed to promote discrimination against white men

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sex

So why is DEI even tolerated, much less funded by the U.S. Department of Education—to the tune of over $1 billion dollars per year? https://t.co/Gei91Tu7lw

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

---

this- it is discriminatory against a specific race and thats illegal.

---

And yet Corporate America, the Gov, and our Universities do it all the time…..

It's like the law does not matter

---

Standard playbook for fascists in all kinds of institutions. It's not just DEI. It's everything else they do that's wrong like stealing elections, spying on Americans, lawfare, etc. Snd they will keep doing it until try ard stopped. Some of them must go to prison.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

---

We are all regulated, friend. In many cases, we are regulated far too much. Getting rid of some is not the end of the world. Regs will be back. They always are. We have to pare them back from time to time or they will smother us.

Remember, Congress has empowered the Executive to write its own rules without ratification. Read up on the Waters of the USA act. No one is contesting there is state interest in regulating navigable waters, shared or flowing across multiple states. But look at what Obama did with the flick of a bureaucratic pen - rewrote rules on that statute that expanded federal jurisdiction to any ground which there was evidence of collection or flow. Before Obama, I had zero percent of my property affected by the law; after Obama, nearly all of it was, despite the fact that there is no permanent flow of water in any of the 3 creeks on my property. Technically, it became illegal for me to construct or repair a ford across any of those creeks. Took many years and some SCOTUS rulings to curtail that regulation. Not a statute, a regulation.

Look at how EPA empowered itself to regulate carbon, by bureaucratically defining it as a pollutant. Bush Admin refused to do it, citing lack of statutory authorization to do so. Obama did. The whole green agenda rests upon it.

Look at how DOJ/DOE used Title IX, a law written with the intent of ensuring women had equal access to govt resources for sports competition, to push biological males into direct competition and even the locker rooms of biological women. No new law was passed changing the definition of things. It was A RULE CHANGE

A reasonable case could be made for sunsetting on all regulations, that Congress must ratify ALL of them every session. You can expect DOGE to start first by identifying rules which go beyond statutory intent, then recommend they be rescinded. (note the verb "recommend" here....DOGE can only recommend, not act......) Once the rule is rescinded, the regulators become excess to needs.

Who better to identify the most harmful rules than those harmed by the rules?
How much wealth must we have before we give up the right of redress of grievances?
Stop treating bureaucratic rules as sacred cows.

---

You guys keep missing my point. I agree with reform, I want it to be data based not opinion based.
We need more than reform. We need to downsize substantially.

I have said that Musk has a legitimate seat at that table, let's face it he is the Howard Hughes of our time. He has legitimate insight on where we need to go tech-wise in the future to compete. Someone needs to watch, but that should be an issue. I have a lot of respect for Elon, more before his X debacle. But that is another story.
Nobody needs to watch Elon. He is the chairman of a commission of what hopefully will be mostly private sector executives, like the Grace Commission.

Vivek, he is a clown. He made a fortune with Wall Street maneuvers that were at best questionable in terms of ethics (buying failed vaccines, re-packaging and doing IPOs before trials were complete). Now he starts railing on people's jobs with no knowledge of what they actually do. His comments are irresponsible and inflammatory. I am disappointed in Trump that he would actually give this guy any responsibility for decisions that will impact people's lives. "Get a job in private sector" sounds easy and painless. But the vast majority of these people have done nothing more than their job and many actually feel like they are serving the Country. His approach is not right.
His approach is splendid. Even if we accept your assessment of him as pure huckster is accurate (which it isn't), he is an outstanding communicator. He earns his place for that alone.

---

It is fair to say there is no single solution here. We will need economic growth to generate more revenue. We will have to look for areas for more revenue, likely lower-level tariffs across the board (very powerful math on that). We will need to reform & restructure everywhere. AND we will have to cut entire agencies & departments.

There is no path to a balanced budget that does not involve significant pain. If nobody squeals, nothing is getting cut and the deficit train keeps rolling on down the tracks.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

---

We are all regulated, friend. In many cases, we are regulated far too much. Getting rid of some is not the end of the world. Regs will be back. They always are. We have to pare them back from time to time or they will smother us.

Remember, Congress has empowered the Executive to write its own rules without ratification. Read up on the Waters of the USA act. No one is contesting there is state interest in regulating navigable waters, shared or flowing across multiple states. But look at what Obama did with the flick of a bureaucratic pen - rewrote rules on that statute that expanded federal jurisdiction to any ground which there was evidence of collection or flow. Before Obama, I had zero percent of my property affected by the law; after Obama, nearly all of it was, despite the fact that there is no permanent flow of water in any of the 3 creeks on my property. Technically, it became illegal for me to construct or repair a ford across any of those creeks. Took many years and some SCOTUS rulings to curtail that regulation. Not a statute, a regulation.

Look at how EPA empowered itself to regulate carbon, by bureaucratically defining it as a pollutant. Bush Admin refused to do it, citing lack of statutory authorization to do so. Obama did. The whole green agenda rests upon it.

Look at how DOJ/DOE used Title IX, a law written with the intent of ensuring women had equal access to govt resources for sports competition, to push biological males into direct competition and even the locker rooms of biological women. No new law was passed changing the definition of things. It was A RULE CHANGE

A reasonable case could be made for sunsetting on all regulations, that Congress must ratify ALL of them every session. You can expect DOGE to start first by identifying rules which go beyond statutory intent, then recommend they be rescinded. (note the verb "recommend" here....DOGE can only recommend, not act......) Once the rule is rescinded, the regulators become excess to needs.

Who better to identify the most harmful rules than those harmed by the rules?
How much wealth must we have before we give up the right of redress of grievances?
Stop treating bureaucratic rules as sacred cows.

---

You guys keep missing my point. I agree with reform, I want it to be data based not opinion based.
We need more than reform. We need to downsize substantially.

I have said that Musk has a legitimate seat at that table, let's face it he is the Howard Hughes of our time. He has legitimate insight on where we need to go tech-wise in the future to compete. Someone needs to watch, but that should be an issue. I have a lot of respect for Elon, more before his X debacle. But that is another story.
Nobody needs to watch Elon. He is the chairman of a commission of what hopefully will be mostly private sector executives, like the Grace Commission.

Vivek, he is a clown. He made a fortune with Wall Street maneuvers that were at best questionable in terms of ethics (buying failed vaccines, re-packaging and doing IPOs before trials were complete). Now he starts railing on people's jobs with no knowledge of what they actually do. His comments are irresponsible and inflammatory. I am disappointed in Trump that he would actually give this guy any responsibility for decisions that will impact people's lives. "Get a job in private sector" sounds easy and painless. But the vast majority of these people have done nothing more than their job and many actually feel like they are serving the Country. His approach is not right.
His approach is splendid. Even if we accept your assessment of him as pure huckster is accurate (which it isn't), he is an outstanding communicator. He earns his place for that alone.

---

It is fair to say there is no single solution here. We will need economic growth to generate more revenue. We will have to look for areas for more revenue, likely lower-level tariffs across the board (very powerful math on that). We will need to reform & restructure everywhere. AND we will have to cut entire agencies & departments.

There is no path to a balanced budget that does not involve significant pain. If nobody squeals, nothing is getting cut and the deficit train keeps rolling on down the tracks.

---

First, have some logic behind it, not indiscriminate.

Second, be realistic. As much as you and some hate some Agencies Trump will not be able to just do away with them. DOE is a good example, everyone's favorite to eliminate. Sounds like low hanging fruit, easy, until you look at the law behind it - ESEA, HEA, NCLB, and ESSA that is the lion's share of the money. All passed by Congress, which means there is no swipe of the sharpie and they are gone. You will have to Congress to eliminate them.

There will be very few things that can be eliminated in the 18 months Trump will have before the midterms start. Will he cut what he wants to do? Of course not. I predict Trump will raise the deficit and the unbalanced budget. Musk will get regulations eliminated that impact his companies and Vivek will keep talking.

If this was a legitimate move to balance budget, I would be for it. Odds are it is another grift in some way that will benefit in this case MAGA supporters (or new supporters). More of the same, we just had Biden's friends make billions, now we will have Trumps.

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Trump campaigned on it, often with Musk next to him.

Get on board.

---

That is not true, he made the announcement 1 week after the election. Musk/Vivek conflict concerns are not limited to just me. This is a legitimate issue.

---

Now you're making stuff up. It was announced in August 2024, as a project for Musk, along with acronym "DOGE." The only thing that's happened after the election is the addition of Ramaswamy to the effort.

You're acting like DOGE is a new federal agency. It's not. It's a commission structure. Teddy Roosevelt had the Keep Commission. FDR had the Brownlow Commission. Truman had the Hoover Commission. Eisenhower reappointed the HC. Reagan had the Grace Commission. As VP, Al Gore chaired a National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The mission statement of those were not identical. The KC was a "best practices" initiative, to professionalize the civil service. The GC and NPRG was more reform/elimination of structures for budget cutting purposes. A plurality of NPRG's proposed savings were in elimination of jobs/departments.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about an entity like DOGE as a tool to reform/downsize government. Neither is private sector involvement in them without precedent. Commissions authorized by Democrats tend to have heavier composition of academic than business input; Commissions authorized by Republicans tended to have more input from private sector businesspeople. You can expect Trump to lean toward the latter. In fact, there is a mini-theme in his appointments = putting people in charge of agencies who have harmed them. The benefits of that go beyond poetic justice. Who better to put in place checks/balances against infringements of liberty than those who have had their liberty infringed?" (insert Tulsi Gabbard here....)

Your argument is the heartbeat of the swamp in counterattack mode - "we don't need your help, thank you very much...." "...you don't know what you're doing...." ".....conflicts of interest...." All of it designed to frustrate, delay, defeat badly needed reforms.

the term "drain the swamp" actually comes from the Grace Commission, ya know......

---

You just said what I did. This is not new. GAO does this every year, it is a Congressional issue not an Executive one. Not to mention Trump increased spending last time...

What is new is the civilian leadership by those being regulated. Having the fox guard the hen house is the issue that many have, not just me.

---

We are all regulated, friend. In many cases, we are regulated far too much. Getting rid of some is not the end of the world. Regs will be back. They always are. We have to pare them back from time to time or they will smother us.

Remember, Congress has empowered the Executive to write its own rules without ratification. Read up on the Waters of the USA act. No one is contesting there is state interest in regulating navigable waters, shared or flowing across multiple states. But look at what Obama did with the flick of a bureaucratic pen - rewrote rules on that statute that expanded federal jurisdiction to any ground which there was evidence of collection or flow. Before Obama, I had zero percent of my property affected by the law; after Obama, nearly all of it was, despite the fact that there is no permanent flow of water in any of the 3 creeks on my property. Technically, it became illegal for me to construct or repair a ford across any of those creeks. Took many years and some SCOTUS rulings to curtail that regulation. Not a statute, a regulation.

Look at how EPA empowered itself to regulate carbon, by bureaucratically defining it as a pollutant. Bush Admin refused to do it, citing lack of statutory authorization to do so. Obama did. The whole green agenda rests upon it.

Look at how DOJ/DOE used Title IX, a law written with the intent of ensuring women had equal access to govt resources for sports competition, to push biological males into direct competition and even the locker rooms of biological women. No new law was passed changing the definition of things. It was A RULE CHANGE

A reasonable case could be made for sunsetting on all regulations, that Congress must ratify ALL of them every session. You can expect DOGE to start first by identifying rules which go beyond statutory intent, then recommend they be rescinded. (note the verb "recommend" here....DOGE can only recommend, not act......) Once the rule is rescinded, the regulators become excess to needs.

Who better to identify the most harmful rules than those harmed by the rules?
How much wealth must we have before we give up the right of redress of grievances?
Stop treating bureaucratic rules as sacred cows.

---

You guys keep missing my point. I agree with reform, I want it to be data based not opinion based.
We need more than reform. We need to downsize substantially.

I have said that Musk has a legitimate seat at that table, let's face it he is the Howard Hughes of our time. He has legitimate insight on where we need to go tech-wise in the future to compete. Someone needs to watch, but that should be an issue. I have a lot of respect for Elon, more before his X debacle. But that is another story.
Nobody needs to watch Elon. He is the chairman of a commission of what hopefully will be mostly private sector executives, like the Grace Commission.

Vivek, he is a clown. He made a fortune with Wall Street maneuvers that were at best questionable in terms of ethics (buying failed vaccines, re-packaging and doing IPOs before trials were complete). Now he starts railing on people's jobs with no knowledge of what they actually do. His comments are irresponsible and inflammatory. I am disappointed in Trump that he would actually give this guy any responsibility for decisions that will impact people's lives. "Get a job in private sector" sounds easy and painless. But the vast majority of these people have done nothing more than their job and many actually feel like they are serving the Country. His approach is not right.
His approach is splendid. Even if we accept your assessment of him as pure huckster is accurate (which it isn't), he is an outstanding communicator. He earns his place for that alone.

---

It is fair to say there is no single solution here. We will need economic growth to generate more revenue. We will have to look for areas for more revenue, likely lower-level tariffs across the board (very powerful math on that). We will need to reform & restructure everywhere. AND we will have to cut entire agencies & departments.

There is no path to a balanced budget that does not involve significant pain. If nobody squeals, nothing is getting cut and the deficit train keeps rolling on down the tracks.

---

First, have some logic behind it, not indiscriminate.

Second, be realistic. As much as you and some hate some Agencies Trump will not be able to just do away with them. DOE is a good example, everyone's favorite to eliminate. Sounds like low hanging fruit, easy, until you look at the law behind it - ESEA, HEA, NCLB, and ESSA that is the lion's share of the money. All passed by Congress, which means there is no swipe of the sharpie and they are gone. You will have to Congress to eliminate them.

There will be very few things that can be eliminated in the 18 months Trump will have before the midterms start. Will he cut what he wants to do? Of course not. I predict Trump will raise the deficit and the unbalanced budget. Musk will get regulations eliminated that impact his companies and Vivek will keep talking.

If this was a legitimate move to balance budget, I would be for it. Odds are it is another grift in some way that will benefit in this case MAGA supporters (or new supporters). More of the same, we just had Biden's friends make billions, now we will have Trumps.

---

there is a legitimate way to balance the budget = quit spending money.

Look at how Obama and Biden used executive power to exponentially increase federal jurisdiction in some areas, then turn their backs on others (the border, for example), literally using prosecutorial discretion to rewrite statute. A creative, committed POTUS desperate to find ways to quit spending money has a very broad and deep portfolio of tools to work with.

You will first see a hiring freeze.
Then Congress will likely authorize some buyouts.
Executive action will make changes to civil service that cause double digit attrition.
And, then, of course, Trump will simply not spend some monies that have been authorized.

No, we can't balance a budget in a year in that way.
But we gotta start somewhere. We're on pace for a $2.5T deficit, facing rising challenges domestically and abroad.
That which cannot continue, won't.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I remember the PInto. Drove a maroon one with a black interior and no air conditioner for as a fill-in summer job a few times delivering prescriptions for a local pharmacy (owned by a family friend). I remember wondering how the potential explosion could make things any hotter than they already were. All that's to say:' Product liability cases happen no matter how many federal regulators/regulations are on the books.

You are making a maximalist case which is more extreme than the agenda you're arguing against. Building regulatory structures with only input from bureaucrats is a great way to stifle an economy. In a free society, individuals and corporations do indeed have 1st amendment rights to speak and assemble to have their interests addressed. More importantly, their input is essential to make sure regulations do more good than harm. What kind of harm, you ask? Every single penny spent on unnecessary regulations drives up costs being paid by the average joe. That question was more than implicit in the last election. It was on the ballot., with names of leaders and a logo. Voters made their choice. And it was logical. Things are wildly out of balance in favor of the regulators, who are long overdue for a haircut.

Don't worry. After the haircuts are done, the regulators and regulations will make a comeback. Nothing is quite so hirsute, nor skilled at avoiding the barber, as the federal government. Things WILL grow back. But when you do have an opportunity to tie the USG down in the salon chair, go for the buzz cut. You will not have many opportunities to do so again.

Here's a handy, on-the-shelf tool

Trump can fire anybody he wants, thanks to @seanspicer https://t.co/NAGtJJGjU3 via @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/eyKSGvl46V

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) December 9, 2024

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I remember the PInto. Drove a maroon one with a black interior and no air conditioner for as a fill-in summer job a few times delivering prescriptions for a local pharmacy (owned by a family friend). I remember wondering how the potential explosion could make things any hotter than they already were. All that's to say:' Product liability cases happen no matter how many federal regulators/regulations are on the books.

You are making a maximalist case which is more extreme than the agenda you're arguing against. Building regulatory structures with only input from bureaucrats is a great way to stifle an economy. In a free society, individuals and corporations do indeed have 1st amendment rights to speak and assemble to have their interests addressed. More importantly, their input is essential to make sure regulations do more good than harm. What kind of harm, you ask? Every single penny spent on unnecessary regulations drives up costs being paid by the average joe. That question was more than implicit in the last election. It was on the ballot., with names of leaders and a logo. Voters made their choice. And it was logical. Things are wildly out of balance in favor of the regulators, who are long overdue for a haircut.

Don't worry. After the haircuts are done, the regulators and regulations will make a comeback. Nothing is quite so hirsute, nor skilled at avoiding the barber, as the federal government. Things WILL grow back. But when you do have an opportunity to tie the USG down in the salon chair, go for the buzz cut. You will not have many opportunities to do so again.

---

No, I wasn't making a maximal case, Elon was. Check out original. Pinto came in response.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I think that because it's MSN doing the article on it, most folks knew that it's gonna be extremely biased, MSN is kinda CNN Jr. And it's originally USA Today which makes it even further to the left. Sad that both these groups have gone off the deep end. They're puppets of the liberal left. Even Washington Post is starting to come around (very slowly)

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I think that because it's MSN doing the article on it, most folks knew that it's gonna be extremely biased, MSN is kinda CNN Jr. And it's originally USA Today which makes it even further to the left. Sad that both these groups have gone off the deep end. They're puppets of the liberal left. Even Washington Post is starting to come around (very slowly)

---

No issues. Sometimes a question is just a question (about knowing the history of it). I thought it was an interesting discussion to have. I agree on the MSN and USA Today.

Vivek Ramaswamy, Elon Musk’s partner at Donald Trump’s planned spending panel, suggested defunding programs that Congress no longer authorizes. Here are some of those.

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 19, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I remember the PInto. Drove a maroon one with a black interior and no air conditioner for as a fill-in summer job a few times delivering prescriptions for a local pharmacy (owned by a family friend). I remember wondering how the potential explosion could make things any hotter than they already were. All that's to say:' Product liability cases happen no matter how many federal regulators/regulations are on the books.

You are making a maximalist case which is more extreme than the agenda you're arguing against. Building regulatory structures with only input from bureaucrats is a great way to stifle an economy. In a free society, individuals and corporations do indeed have 1st amendment rights to speak and assemble to have their interests addressed. More importantly, their input is essential to make sure regulations do more good than harm. What kind of harm, you ask? Every single penny spent on unnecessary regulations drives up costs being paid by the average joe. That question was more than implicit in the last election. It was on the ballot., with names of leaders and a logo. Voters made their choice. And it was logical. Things are wildly out of balance in favor of the regulators, who are long overdue for a haircut.

Don't worry. After the haircuts are done, the regulators and regulations will make a comeback. Nothing is quite so hirsute, nor skilled at avoiding the barber, as the federal government. Things WILL grow back. But when you do have an opportunity to tie the USG down in the salon chair, go for the buzz cut. You will not have many opportunities to do so again.

---

No, I wasn't making a maximal case, Elon was. Check out original. Pinto came in response.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

yes, you are.

You are stating that Musk wants no regulations on his business, when in fact his complaint is quite a bit more narrow than that. From your link:

"Tesla finds the rules unfair because it believes it reports better data than other automakers, which makes it look like Tesla is responsible for an outsized number of crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems, one of the sources said.

NHTSA cautions that the data should not be used to compare one automaker's safety with another's because different companies collect information on crashes in different ways."

I have first hand experience how reporting requirements like this have been exceedingly sloppily designed and distributed by federal regulators, in ways that very unfairly empower competitors to such a degree that it's almost like the government set up the whole program precisely to benefit the competitors. Yeah, yeah, Hanlon's Razor & all that, but what does it matter if regulators bungle a program because of incompetence vs corruption? Stockholders are harmed just as much either way.

Remember: Musk didn't have much problem with regulatory agencies until he started straying from the Democrat plantation. when he did, they threw the alphabet soup of regulators at him.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Curious to see the Boards comments on this.

Do you want manufacturers to have to report information on the cars you drive and crashes? Auto Industry considers them burdensome. Tesla, which brags about the data capabilities, doesn't want to have to share the information because you may use when making a decision to sell. NHTSA uses to develop and test specifications and standards for cars in US. Should we monitor car crashes, especially fatals? Or do you trust Must that he will take care of you, so you don't need to know.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

Which federal agency brought down the Ford Pinto? Or exposed the Bronco/Explorer roll-overs?


Which federal agency exposed the pharmaceutical companies hooking millions on opioids?


Which federal agency is currently linking the Kung Fru vaccines to blood clots?

---

Do you know the history of the Pinto case? Lee Strickland was a NHTSA engineer looking into the Pinto fires. NHTSA stopped the Pinto from being further produced. Really interesting Legal Student paper on it
.
The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893-1978

Was this data gathering requirement a response to the Pinto situation? I don't know, but my opinion is I want to know the data and consumers have a right to know before spending 10's of thousands on a car. This will become more of an issue as cars become more capable of reporting data back. Do we want "Ford" determining what we should see? Just substitute "Ford" for "Elon" does that change the situation?

By the way, I do not believe to have the answers. Just my opinions on legitimate questions that come up from election rhetoric when implementing. What bothers me is the response when the discussions come up, ranging from you are a Liberal to Evil. These questions should be discussed based on real data, not just throwing everyone who discusses into the "Evil" pile based on religious fervor.

---

I remember the PInto. Drove a maroon one with a black interior and no air conditioner for as a fill-in summer job a few times delivering prescriptions for a local pharmacy (owned by a family friend). I remember wondering how the potential explosion could make things any hotter than they already were. All that's to say:' Product liability cases happen no matter how many federal regulators/regulations are on the books.

You are making a maximalist case which is more extreme than the agenda you're arguing against. Building regulatory structures with only input from bureaucrats is a great way to stifle an economy. In a free society, individuals and corporations do indeed have 1st amendment rights to speak and assemble to have their interests addressed. More importantly, their input is essential to make sure regulations do more good than harm. What kind of harm, you ask? Every single penny spent on unnecessary regulations drives up costs being paid by the average joe. That question was more than implicit in the last election. It was on the ballot., with names of leaders and a logo. Voters made their choice. And it was logical. Things are wildly out of balance in favor of the regulators, who are long overdue for a haircut.

Don't worry. After the haircuts are done, the regulators and regulations will make a comeback. Nothing is quite so hirsute, nor skilled at avoiding the barber, as the federal government. Things WILL grow back. But when you do have an opportunity to tie the USG down in the salon chair, go for the buzz cut. You will not have many opportunities to do so again.

---

No, I wasn't making a maximal case, Elon was. Check out original. Pinto came in response.

Donald Trump's transition team wants to scrap a car crash requirement opposed by Elon Musk's Tesla

---

yes, you are.

You are stating that Musk wants no regulations on his business, when in fact his complaint is quite a bit more narrow than that. From your link:

"Tesla finds the rules unfair because it believes it reports better data than other automakers, which makes it look like Tesla is responsible for an outsized number of crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems, one of the sources said.

NHTSA cautions that the data should not be used to compare one automaker's safety with another's because different companies collect information on crashes in different ways."

I have first hand experience how reporting requirements like this have been exceedingly sloppily designed and distributed by federal regulators, in ways that very unfairly empower competitors to such a degree that it's almost like the government set up the whole program precisely to benefit the competitors. Yeah, yeah, Hanlon's Razor & all that, but what does it matter if regulators bungle a program because of incompetence vs corruption? Stockholders are harmed just as much either way.

Remember: Musk didn't have much problem with regulatory agencies until he started straying from the Democrat plantation. when he did, they threw the alphabet soup of regulators at him.

---

BS, he met the same regulatory requirements when he was a Dem. He started complaining about it when he found a sympathetic ear in Trump to get rid of them. He didn't change Parties and then all of a sudden have to report, as if he got a pass before. That is total BS and you know it. Tesla always had to report.

No industry WANTS to report, it is a pain in the ass. But it is there for a reason. There is a history of automakers making decisions favoring the bottomline over safety. Wonder how you would feel if you lost a loved one in your Pinto? Policy is about more than your personal experience.

As usual you want to turn this into some type of witch hunt, when the question was about cars being able to generate more data, Tesla brags about it constantly, yet they are upset when that data is used. He is not even in office and already Musk is trying to get rid of regs that he doesn't like. That is not about efficiency, it is about control. You honestly don't want to know about the safety of the car your daughter drives? Govt has no right. Strangest CIA guy I ever met, most love having more data to make decisions.

BREAKING: Republicans are reportedly having a hard time getting votes for the 1,500 page spending bill because of Elon Musk's crusade against it, per PunchBowl News.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) December 18, 2024