Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE.

NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
5,177
Completely against money focused get out the vote campaigns like Musk's. It's just plainly wrong no matter who is doing it
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,108
Well he’s not technically buying votes but soliciting block captains. He’s not trying to hide it which is better than hiding it. Not a good look either way.
 
NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
5,177
Thank christ. Liberals will cheer this but then realize that Russell Vought will be spearheading this and be sorely disappointed lmao
 
C

ColoradoIrish

Guest
NDVirginia19 said:
Thank christ. Liberals will cheer this but then realize that Russell Vought will be spearheading this and be sorely disappointed lmao
Click to expand...
The optics look better for a split second, and then bam stuck with Russell. Fun fact he went to college in my hometown which was the same college as Todd Beamer from flight 93 on 9/11
 
C

ColoradoIrish

Guest
NDVirginia19 said:
It always made way more sense for OMB to be the lead on the DOGE project.
Click to expand...
Definitely did. Not a fan of someone who is a self described Christian nationalist, but the optics look better than having musk run it
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,108
NDVirginia19 said:
It always made way more sense for OMB to be the lead on the DOGE project.
Click to expand...
Musk's strength's are getting goals outlined, projects identified and started. He put all the parameters in place for someone else to take over. I always figured this would happen sooner or later, but he is exactly what was needed initially.
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,457
Reaction score
8,537
Irish#1 said:
Musk's strength's are getting goals outlined, projects identified and started. He put all the parameters in place for someone else to take over. I always figured this would happen sooner or later, but he is exactly what was needed initially.
Click to expand...
The impression I was left with when I look at what happened when he took over Twitter and when he helped with DOGE ........ a belief that both organizations are bloated.

1. Fire a crap load of people.
2. See where there is "excess negative fallout" that impacts operations.
3. Rehire people in small waves till negative operation issues reach an acceptable level.

It may be the best approach (in theory) when trying to decrease the bloat rapidly, but it sure creates a ton of chaos. Inside a private company, that chaos may be viewed as acceptable. When you're talking about the federal government and the delivery of services, "chaos" has more far reaching implications.
 
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
ab2cmiller said:
1. Fire a crap load of people.
2. See where there is "excess negative fallout" that impacts operations.
3. Rehire people in small waves till negative operation issues reach an acceptable level.
Click to expand...
FWIW, steps 1 and 2 here are flipped from what they should be. There are entire industries, disciplines, and theories around finding where bloat/inefficiencies/issues are AND then making adjustments (firings) if needed.

Ready shoot aim isn't a viable or sane strategy.

Some of the best practice out there right now from top level people who do this (and do it well) would advocate for observing and collecting data for at least six months before making most any move...and that's at a single company...not something the size of the Federal Gov't.

Here is the rub though..this was never about improving the way the government worked..it was a trojan horse to get rid of programs people didn't ideologically agree with/like and coming up with any excuse to do so.
 
Last edited:
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,108
ab2cmiller said:
The impression I was left with when I look at what happened when he took over Twitter and when he helped with DOGE ........ a belief that both organizations are bloated.

1. Fire a crap load of people.
2. See where there is "excess negative fallout" that impacts operations.
3. Rehire people in small waves till negative operation issues reach an acceptable level.

It may be the best approach (in theory) when trying to decrease the bloat rapidly, but it sure creates a ton of chaos. Inside a private company, that chaos may be viewed as acceptable. When you're talking about the federal government and the delivery of services, "chaos" has more far reaching implications.
Click to expand...
They most definitely could have done this more effectively when it comes to minimizing the chaos.

Corporations layoff thousands of people in the private sector all the time and no one blinks an eye, protests or vandalize peoples cars and businesses. This happens when Trump is POTUS and people think it's terrible. Having been in a RIF before (Sallie Mae over 3K laid off), I feel for those that have to look for another job and know what they are going through, but it's not the end of the world and no different than Joe Blow who gets let go from XYZ Corp.
 
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
Irish#1 said:
They most definitely could have done this more effectively when it comes to minimizing the chaos.
Click to expand...
Way to admit the department that is in charge of efficiency isn't being efficient.

Irish#1 said:
Corporations layoff thousands of people in the private sector all the time and no one blinks an eye, protests or vandalize peoples cars and businesses
Click to expand...
1. This isn't true. "All the time" is slightly ambiguous, but it's not an "all the time" thing. It's major news when a company like John Deere did it last year in the manufacturing sector and most companies don't have the employee size to even layoff thousands "all the time".

2. You understand why that is, right? If a CEO who has been at WidgetTech for five years lays off a ton of people at a business with a few thousand employees, it's because they know the business structure and have in depth knowledge of functions of that specific company. The downstream effects of those layoffs also don't prevent people from getting life saving/needed services that they depend on to live.

Elon Musk/DOGE has been around less than 90 days and is attempting to or has gutted departments that have nearly as many employees as Apple does in the US alone. The SSA employs(ed?) nearly 57,000 people. HHS had over 80,000. There is absolutely ZERO way that Musk, RFK, DOGE, or anyone else has the needed insights and data analysis to effectively and efficiently make these cuts to tens of thousands..perhaps eventually hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's even before we get into the downstream effects of people not being able to access basic healthcare or their social security funds that people depend on to live. These government agencies are "companies" unto themselves and given their massive sizes need to be treated as such.

You can't/don't run the government like a company...at best you can attempt to run some of the departments like companies...but many of the departments you can't even do that with since they are not profit centers..they provide services so you're trying to manage services and efficiency of delivery of those services. Blindly cutting staff less than 90 days in is not the way you do it.

Either way..your comparison sucks and I can see why you were RIF'd.
 
Last edited:
Fbolt

Fbolt

I've been around
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
2,259
BuaConstrictor said:
Way to admit the department that is in charge of efficiency isn't being efficient.


1. This isn't true. "All the time" is slightly ambiguous, but it's not an "all the time" thing. It's major news when a company like John Deere did it last year in the manufacturing sector and most companies don't have the employee size to even layoff thousands "all the time".

2. You understand why that is, right? If a CEO who has been at WidgetTech for five years lays off a ton of people at a business with a few thousand employees, it's because they know the business structure and have in depth knowledge of functions of that specific company. The downstream effects of those layoffs also don't prevent people from getting life saving/needed services that they depend on to live.

Elon Musk/DOGE has been around less than 90 days and is attempting to or has gutted departments that have nearly as many employees as Apple does in the US alone. The SSA employs(ed?) nearly 57,000 people. HHS had over 80,000. There is absolutely ZERO way that Musk, RFK, DOGE, or anyone else has the needed insights and data analysis to effectively and efficiently make these cuts to tens of thousands..perhaps eventually hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's even before we get into the downstream effects of people not being able to access basic healthcare or their social security funds that people depend on to live. These government agencies are "companies" unto themselves and given their massive sizes need to be treated as such.

You can't/don't run the government like a company...at best you can attempt to run some of the departments like companies...but many of the departments you can't even do that with since they are not profit centers..they provide services so you're trying to manage services and efficiency of delivery of those services. Blindly cutting staff less than 90 days in is not the way you do it.

Either way..your comparison sucks and I can see why you were RIF'd.
Click to expand...
Your experience working in government is?
 
Fbolt

Fbolt

I've been around
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
2,259
My question was to see if you have any actual experience working in government and are able to use this experience for critical analysis. If you have none, merely saying so is acceptable. However, if you have significant experience, I'd like to hear it and then how has that shaped your views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top