You’re arguing with a guy that spent no less than 5 posts denying that 610<720.😆
I hope that it's simply because he is at ~~ 9,000' elevation, the pollen is EFFING intense and he drinking some nice Pappy! But I suspect it's something else.
** ETA - see how I trimmed that post, ALOT. !! ! 
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
You’re arguing with a guy that spent no less than 5 posts denying that 610<720.😆
I hope that it's simply because he is at ~~ 9,000' elevation, the pollen is EFFING intense and he drinking some nice Pappy! But I suspect it's something else.
** ETA - see how I trimmed that post, ALOT. !! !
That was his dishonest summary of his dishonest argument. I think he's ALOT worthless. 😉
I hope that it's simply because he is at ~~ 9,000' elevation, the pollen is EFFING intense and he drinking some nice Pappy! But I suspect it's something else.
** ETA - see how I trimmed that post, ALOT. !! !
That was his dishonest summary of his dishonest argument. I think he's ALOT worthless. 😉
So, are you still at 9,000' (Flag) and are you drinking Pappy? Please don't say Mich Ultra.. PLEASE
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
I hope that it's simply because he is at ~~ 9,000' elevation, the pollen is EFFING intense and he drinking some nice Pappy! But I suspect it's something else.
** ETA - see how I trimmed that post, ALOT. !! !
That was his dishonest summary of his dishonest argument. I think he's ALOT worthless. 😉
So, are you still at 9,000' (Flag) and are you drinking Pappy? Please don't say Mich Ultra.. PLEASE
7,000 and I’ll be having a Scotch soon. Probably Macallan.
I lost my fairly long response to you due to a computer glitch. I'll try again but make it briefer.
I support the broad goals of DOGE, but DOGE was the most stupid way to attempt it that could be devised. It would be a ridiculous experiment doomed to failure under any President but only this President would think it was a great idea.
Inspector Generals have been watchdogs on government for fraud, ethics, and other violations of government laws and policies. Unfortunately, the President fired many of them without cause though it looks that he intended to get them out of the way so he could implement unethical and possibly illegal policies in various agencies. The government organization that is tasked with looking at the things DOGE was doing stupidly is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) go to their website and look at the reports of their investigations and their recommendations and the status of implementing their recommendations.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)
I've long been for reducing the size of government including rightsizing (reducing) the federal workforce but not for doing it in a silly unintelligent way like DOGE tried to do it. It'll take years to determine the damage they've done and who, in addition to the 10s of thousands already refilled (which is still happening, by the way, look at the IRS doing an expedited hiring of something like 7,000 personnel) there will be more. We did a reduction in force in the 90s which was done intelligently and analytically and didn't result in the damage. I like the efforts of downsizing and eventually cutting the Department of Education which I've been for since the 1990s. Actually, I opposed its formation. TSA security agents should never have been government employees when implemented after 9/11. There's a good target for cuts. Replace them with contractors ideally paid for by the airports and airlines. These things can be done intelligently too.
I originally had a lot more about DOGE and its obvious failures, but I don't have the time or desire to type it all again. There is a lot of analysis out there from the right, left and center and I don't recall reading any that called DOGE a success and plenty that talk about its failures and negative impacts. Hell, they didn't even save much money - they claimed to be gunning for trillions in savings (only morons would have believed that) and if they saved anything (various estimates) it was a tiny fraction. It all adds up to an epic failure to reach goals many of us support.
Here's one. Feel free to look for more.
Why are you so protective of the status quo? We are in a helluva fiscal mess with the GAO and IG’s. Why defend them? And the Center on Budget and Policy priorities? Are you kidding me? Lobbying efforts by organizations like that is why we have so much waste, fraud, graft and abuse in the system. The idea that you would cite them with approval is a big tell. It tells me you really aren’tt wanting to change much.
Here is what I know. Space X turned the world of rocket science upside down and became able to deliver payloads into space at a fraction of the cost of any entity on the planet. NASA and the U.S. government could never do that in a million years. Neither could Boeing, Lockheed or any other company. Thousands of people work for Space X. It all isn’t just Musk. But Musk sets the tone. Musk (and Trump for that matter) are used to moving an ideas to an action faster than any government and faster than most companies. Government doesn’t operate that way, but it should.
I still think Trump bringing Musk into the picture was brilliant. Yeah, Musk is difficult to please and hard to work for, but those who can cut the mustard are the better people. The breadth and violence of Musk opposition reveals a number of things. Some want government corruption. Some want bureaucracy and bureaucrats who waste time, money, and kill momentum. Some just are more comfortable with no changes except at a cosmetic level. I’m not so naive to deny that Musk made some errors. But in the larger sense, we need people like those who brought Space X To the position it holds today in authority at all levels of government. Either that or we all get flushed along with your precious GAO and IG’s.
The GAO and IGs have done great work and it's not my fault that you don't know that. The GAO and IGs are most definitely not responsible for the graft, waste and abuse in the system. I'm pretty sure that you didn't even bother to look at the GAO's website. The government is huge and it'll take a large systematic effort to look at all of it. DOGE wasn't it. If you don't see that it was a failure that's your problem not mine. Even the administration realized it was a failure and shut it down way earlier than planned. Some of the personnel cuts were OK, but many were big mistakes. That's what happens when you try to use a hammer when a screwdriver is the right tool.I lost my fairly long response to you due to a computer glitch. I'll try again but make it briefer.
I support the broad goals of DOGE, but DOGE was the most stupid way to attempt it that could be devised. It would be a ridiculous experiment doomed to failure under any President but only this President would think it was a great idea.
Inspector Generals have been watchdogs on government for fraud, ethics, and other violations of government laws and policies. Unfortunately, the President fired many of them without cause though it looks that he intended to get them out of the way so he could implement unethical and possibly illegal policies in various agencies. The government organization that is tasked with looking at the things DOGE was doing stupidly is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) go to their website and look at the reports of their investigations and their recommendations and the status of implementing their recommendations.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)
I've long been for reducing the size of government including rightsizing (reducing) the federal workforce but not for doing it in a silly unintelligent way like DOGE tried to do it. It'll take years to determine the damage they've done and who, in addition to the 10s of thousands already refilled (which is still happening, by the way, look at the IRS doing an expedited hiring of something like 7,000 personnel) there will be more. We did a reduction in force in the 90s which was done intelligently and analytically and didn't result in the damage. I like the efforts of downsizing and eventually cutting the Department of Education which I've been for since the 1990s. Actually, I opposed its formation. TSA security agents should never have been government employees when implemented after 9/11. There's a good target for cuts. Replace them with contractors ideally paid for by the airports and airlines. These things can be done intelligently too.
I originally had a lot more about DOGE and its obvious failures, but I don't have the time or desire to type it all again. There is a lot of analysis out there from the right, left and center and I don't recall reading any that called DOGE a success and plenty that talk about its failures and negative impacts. Hell, they didn't even save much money - they claimed to be gunning for trillions in savings (only morons would have believed that) and if they saved anything (various estimates) it was a tiny fraction. It all adds up to an epic failure to reach goals many of us support.
Here's one. Feel free to look for more.
Why are you so protective of the status quo? We are in a helluva fiscal mess with the GAO and IG’s. Why defend them? And the Center on Budget and Policy priorities? Are you kidding me? Lobbying efforts by organizations like that is why we have so much waste, fraud, graft and abuse in the system. The idea that you would cite them with approval is a big tell. It tells me you really aren’tt wanting to change much.
Here is what I know. Space X turned the world of rocket science upside down and became able to deliver payloads into space at a fraction of the cost of any entity on the planet. NASA and the U.S. government could never do that in a million years. Neither could Boeing, Lockheed or any other company. Thousands of people work for Space X. It all isn’t just Musk. But Musk sets the tone. Musk (and Trump for that matter) are used to moving an ideas to an action faster than any government and faster than most companies. Government doesn’t operate that way, but it should.
I still think Trump bringing Musk into the picture was brilliant. Yeah, Musk is difficult to please and hard to work for, but those who can cut the mustard are the better people. The breadth and violence of Musk opposition reveals a number of things. Some want government corruption. Some want bureaucracy and bureaucrats who waste time, money, and kill momentum. Some just are more comfortable with no changes except at a cosmetic level. I’m not so naive to deny that Musk made some errors. But in the larger sense, we need people like those who brought Space X To the position it holds today in authority at all levels of government. Either that or we all get flushed along with your precious GAO and IG’s.
You're no better than Farva on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - I said there are many who've looked at DOGE and critiqued its effectiveness. That is ONLY ONE OF THEM. Once again, if you don't bother to look, that is your problem and not mine.
We have the same goals with respect to rooting out corruption and increasing efficiency, but I want to reach the goals intelligently. DOGE was the opposite of an intelligent solution.
Starting with the Grace Commission, we’ve had a shit-ton of government “intelligence “ looking at the fiscal problems and nothing changes. I’m not as impressed as you are with the results from the GAO or the IG’s. Musk and his minions have a track record unmatched in modern history about organizational mechanics and effectiveness. There is nothing stupid there.
You keep talking about personnel cuts as evidence of DOGE failure. As far as I am concerned that is only part of the issue. DOGE is still around and we need more, not less.