Plus DOGE published that their biggest cost reduction was 8 billion, but turns out it was, I shit you not, $8,000,000.00
And this is the people that are gonna let manage the treasury.
The difference between 8 million and 8 billion is about 8 billion dollars.
Shows what you know, it's only 7.992 billion different!
I have the urge to slap 99.9% of your face.
^^(kidding)
Ew! Fuck! If you're gonna use shudder MATH, then at least have the common courtesy to CW your post!
Its even more egregious.
So far, doge claims it saved 45 billion on its website. When you add up the actual reciepts posted, it's 16 billion. Of that 16 billion, half is this false 8 billion, which is 8 million, with 2.5 million already paid out, so actually just 5.5 million.
So even by their records, which are not trustworthy, they may have cut 8 billion. The 100 billion number? Just something Charlie kirk made up. No other hard data at all.
Just something Charlie kirk made up.
When your face is that small, everything else looks much bigger.
How are these people brazillionaires and I'm schlepping away to not get my home taken off me by the bank? I can string a sentence together and do basic arithmetic, and I can count to twenty without taking off my shoes!
Hey, I lost a lot of weight by removing my limbs!
So for the first leg you chop off, your BMI goes down. With the second one, it goes up significantly. Only chop off one leg.
One leg and one arm though. The ideal body is very narrow lol
Instructions unclear, I now don’t have a head.
Loose 12lbs instantly!
...by chopping off your arm!
Doctors hate this one weird trick!
I saved about $80,000 by not buying a Cybertruck!
Next time try not buying two of them. The additional $80,000 is life-changing!
If I don’t buy a Cybertruck every day for a year, I can afford a yacht! Now just add some avocado toast, if I’m feeling fancy.
And a fine ooh la la to you too, Lord Fauntleroy!
I have not bought several Cyber Trucks. At this point, I'm a billionaire myself
But then you don't get to lose fingers or burn to death.
Damn. Well that's a chance I'll just have to take..
You can "save" a bunch of money by not paying the Fire Department. It'll look great on a budget, and then you can enjoy the beautiful skyline of your city burning!
Oh hey, I think we did that in 2017 with our pandemic response team. I hear there have been no negative consequences
There's no evidence of negative consequences.
That's true! I just looked for the website and there's nothing! Yay!!! I was worried something like 1.2 million Americans were dead because of it, but apparently not!
(Satire. The CDC website still exists. For now...)
This is what they're doing, but with literally everything.
The country is going to implode.
Is that what happened with the forest fires?
There is a degree to which wild fires could be solved "just" by ramping up land management significantly to remove invasive species, remove dead growth and overgrowth, etc.
The wildfires have been so bad primarily because of invasive species changing what grows where and breaking down natural fire protections, combined with climate change and reduced natural wildfires creating higher fire risk conditions
My understanding is they also introduced Australian trees that drop huge amounts of combustible material to contribute to fires because they thrive in those conditions
It reminds me of sim city budget.
and then you can enjoy the beautiful skyline of your city burning!
But how could I? Especially without firemen to start the glow.
Hard to enjoy when the air quality is so bad that you can't even breath outside lol
Always ask: saved, for what? The money is appropriated by congress. You're actively working to cut services and programs, not eliminating fraud, waste, or abuse in any way. Not that you'd know, because you already fired the people who track fraud, waste, and abuse for identifying your violations, repeatedly.
Social programs are profitable, it costs more to take care of a problem than to prevent it.
I wish there was enough time to sit each of these troglodytes down and teach them the world from kindergarten and up. It clearly didn't take the first time.
Why not one trillion? I mean shit, we're gonna need 4.5 trillion to offset the giveaway to the billionaires. 100 billion is rookie numbers.
Is this how nazi Germany started? Cutting all "unnecessary" projects and personnel then introducing "necessary" projects and personnel that they control...
Did they? Do you have any sources? Because I did a quick search and couldn't find anything about it (though I'll admit I did not invest too much time into that search)
The Nazi regime did lots of shitty things over half a century ago. The Trump administration does lots of shitty things right now. There is an overlap - but this Venn diagram is not a circle.
What about it? I don't see anything there that's about "Cutting all “unnecessary” projects", and rather than "introducing “necessary” projects and personnel that they control" it looks like they directly took control on the existing ones.
The only thing that, if you squint hard enough, can remotely resemble cutoffs was the Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service - which would be better equated to the DEI purge than to the cutoffs that this post is all about.
It's the concept, not the individual steps.
Gleichschaltung is a compound word that comes from the German words gleich (same) and schaltung (circuit) and was derived from an electrical engineering term meaning that all switches are put on the same circuit allowing them all to be activated by throwing a single master switch.[4] Its first use is credited to Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner.[5] It has been variously translated as "coordination",[6][7][8] "Nazification of state and society",[9] "synchronization",[5] and "bringing into line".
Every country requires different steps, so you can't copy paste them. Germany was (and still is) a multi-party democracy using plurality voting. Some of the institutions are the same, but not all. Nazification has to be tailored to the system. One important step is to replace opposition at every level. If you haven't noticed, the US is in the middle of a coordinated cleansing at federal level right now.
Some generalization is always required when drawing equivalences, but if you generalize too much your logic becomes circular. For example - let's overgeneralize to the max:
Of course, I'm not claiming that you took it that far. Instead of going all the way to "evil", you've only generalized up to "grabbing power":
Now, this version does require some non-circular arguing - showing that DOGE's project cuts are actually power-grabbing moves in disguise. But there are two problems with it:
Power-grabbing is not a Nazi-specific thing - many groups have seized political power during the course of history. And not all these groups were evil - at this level of generalization, one could argue that democratic revolutions took power from monarchs and had to convert the institutions to be democratic. And even among the evil movements that did this - the Nazi were uniquely evil, because of other things they did.
You were trying to masquerade this generalized argument as a more specific argument:
Is this how nazi Germany started? Cutting all “unnecessary” projects and personnel then introducing “necessary” projects and personnel that they control…
This is a very specific argument - "here is a specific tactic the Nazis used to grab power, and the Trump administration uses the same tactic!". The logic here is not circular. The only problem with it is that it isn't true.
Comparison to Nazism is the nuclear weapon of debates. Trumps administration did some things that warrant an exemption from Godwin's law. Concentration camps for immigrants is one of them. Purging minorities from federal jobs is another. But this? The very fact they are trying to grab power? This does not justify a comparison to the Nazis.
Watch, they'll cut everything and then they'll somehow blame the dems for mistreating Veterans, causing huge epidemics, planes falling out of the skies, children dying, instigating genocides, and wars
All it cost was two airplane-fulls of people and hundreds of peoples' livelihoods, among other things.
If your premise is "The government does nothing beneficial" then cutting it makes sense 100% of the time. I wish Elon would take some time to check out Chesterton's fence. I'll deliberately not link that here to frustrate readers.
I’ll deliberately not link that here to frustrate readers.
If i could read, I'd be very upset.
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
Rules:
