D.O.G.E. Catch-All | Der Kommissar’s in town - plans for unofficial reps at every agency

JCTarheel82 said:
So DOGE identified five examples of what they presumably consider the most egregiously wasteful spending by the federal government in 2024, mischaracterizing these findings to the American public to foment outrage and justify DOGE's mission, and the grand total of these expenditures is $12 million. At this rate, fElon and his incel lackeys will colonize Mars before they get to $2 trillion in federal budget cuts.
Click to expand...
Well, it is one of 3-4 such tweets but all on similar scale.

IMG_4525.jpegIMG_4526.jpeg
 
Sorry if this is thread derail material NYC. Do with it as you see fit.

I so wanted to add this to the Urban Dictionary (had it all typed up there), but then I remembered how petty Elon is and wouldn't be surprised if he would hunt someone down for some form of retribution and I decided against it. If anyone else wants to do it, feel free to do so and make any changes you want.

DOGE

Definition - An incel that likes to play with feces and always involves attempts to put the feces back into the anus. A group of DOGEs (called a Musk) will often get together and share their feces with each other.

Doodie
Over
Girls
Everyday

Example in a sentence - That DOGE sure made a mess trying to cram all that feces back into his anus.

The Musk got together for their weekly DOGE party and evenly split the collected feces between each other.
 
Last edited:
DOGE committee is eyeing federal diversity programs, mostly minority set asides for federal contracts. I think there may be some savings as the contracts are open to a wider pool of competition, but this is mostly about ending race and probably gender based favoritism. I approve of ending the racially biased contracting. I don't think they should end empowerment zones.

www.the-independent.com

Elon Musk and DOGE eye $120 billion in cuts on federal diversity spending: report

DOGE, which is not actually a government department, wants to cut up to $2 trillion in annual spending
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com
 
Other DOGE news. Federal employees are editing their job profiles to remove mentions of policy and diversity. Probably smart of them. I think it speaks to the Herculean task of paring down a government bureaucracy without cutting too many valuable government services. Its a lot easier to search for keywords than it is to understand what each role in the agency does.

 
gtyellowjacket said:
DOGE committee is eyeing federal diversity programs, mostly minority set asides for federal contracts. I think there may be some savings as the contracts are open to a wider pool of competition, but this is mostly about ending race and probably gender based favoritism. I approve of ending the racially biased contracting. I don't think they should end empowerment zones.

www.the-independent.com

Elon Musk and DOGE eye $120 billion in cuts on federal diversity spending: report

DOGE, which is not actually a government department, wants to cut up to $2 trillion in annual spending
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com
Click to expand...


It’s about DEI not budget savings.

The end of support for women and minority owned businesses in government contracting was very much intended as a response to actual racial and gender bias in government contracting decisions. Is it still necessary? My guess is that among the folks implementing the change in the incoming administration, the result will just be to return to good old days racial and gender bias in contracting decisions and call that neutral/fair.

But maybe the decades of actively giving women and minority owned businesses a shot has had time to build enough businesses that the program is not needed anymore. Unfortunately I don’t trust the Trump Admin to conduct an honest test of such a proposition. But I guess we will find out.

I very much doubt that ending such programs will create any meaningful cost savings by creating some larger pool of contractors though. In most cases, the minority/gender support only kicks in if there are multiple contract bids that are competitive.

But there are small business set-asides for licensed minority and women owned companies certified by SBA — accounting for 5% of government contracts available to small businesses (which excludes most big ticket stuff, like Military and law enforcement equipment). SBA 8a contracting opportunities aren’t just based on race and gender, though, they support small businesses owned by any person facing social disadvantages or disabilities.

The Federal Government also requires that 23% of all government contracts go to small businesses, btw, and the 5% set-aside is a subset of the 23% (so, if there are 100 government contracts that year, 23 of them must go to small business and then 5% of the 23 small business set aside contracts (so one of them) must go to certified minority owned businesses. The competition for those set asides IS pretty low because there are relatively few businesses so certified by the SBA and they span across a lot of services and service areas.

The most successful 8a small business are the ones that develop relationships with large government contractors who include the 8a business as a subcontractor to demonstrate that the big contract also helps satisfy government policy to support disadvantaged business. The prime contractor does most of the government contractor heavy lifting on the bid process and the disadvantaged business gets a shot to go along for the ride as a subcontractor.
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:


It’s about DEI not budget savings.

The end of support for women and minority owned businesses in government contracting was very much intended as a response to actual racial and gender bias in government contracting decisions. Is it still necessary? My guess is that among the folks implementing the change in the incoming administration, the result will just be to return to good old days racial and gender bias in contracting decisions and call that neutral/fair.

But maybe the decades of actively giving women and minority owned businesses a shot has had time to build enough businesses that the program is not needed anymore. Unfortunately I don’t trust the Trump Admin to conduct an honest test of such a proposition. But I guess we will find out.

I very much doubt that ending such programs will create any meaningful cost savings by creating some larger pool of contractors though. In most cases, the minority/gender support only kicks in if there are multiple contract bids that are competitive.

But there are small business set-asides for licensed minority and women owned companies certified by SBA — accounting for 5% of government contracts available to small businesses (which excludes most big ticket stuff, like Military and law enforcement equipment). SBA 8a contracting opportunities aren’t just based on race and gender, though, they support small businesses owned by any person facing social disadvantages or disabilities.

The Federal Government also requires that 23% of all government contracts go to small businesses, btw, and the 5% set-aside is a subset of the 23% (so, if there are 100 government contracts that year, 23 of them must go to small business and then 5% of the 23 small business set aside contracts (so one of them) must go to certified minority owned businesses. The competition for those set asides IS pretty low because there are relatively few businesses so certified by the SBA and they span across a lot of services and service areas.

The most successful 8a small business are the ones that develop relationships with large government contractors who include the 8a business as a subcontractor to demonstrate that the big contract also helps satisfy government policy to support disadvantaged business. The prime contractor does most of the government contractor heavy lifting on the bid process and the disadvantaged business gets a shot to go along for the ride as a subcontractor.
Click to expand...

You probably have more work experience with this than I do, but this is very much consistent with my understanding as well. In short, the VAST majority of our government contract spending, and almost all of it on the defense side, is with very large companies who are making most of their money on volume rather than on margins. And the leadership of those companies is being given a seat at the table in Trump's "populist" administration, so the chances there's any material cutback in what we're paying to the Lockheeds and RTXes of the world are extremely slim.
 
nycfan said:


It’s about DEI not budget savings.

The end of support for women and minority owned businesses in government contracting was very much intended as a response to actual racial and gender bias in government contracting decisions. Is it still necessary? My guess is that among the folks implementing the change in the incoming administration, the result will just be to return to good old days racial and gender bias in contracting decisions and call that neutral/fair.

But maybe the decades of actively giving women and minority owned businesses a shot has had time to build enough businesses that the program is not needed anymore. Unfortunately I don’t trust the Trump Admin to conduct an honest test of such a proposition. But I guess we will find out.

I very much doubt that ending such programs will create any meaningful cost savings by creating some larger pool of contractors though. In most cases, the minority/gender support only kicks in if there are multiple contract bids that are competitive.

But there are small business set-asides for licensed minority and women owned companies certified by SBA — accounting for 5% of government contracts available to small businesses (which excludes most big ticket stuff, like Military and law enforcement equipment). SBA 8a contracting opportunities aren’t just based on race and gender, though, they support small businesses owned by any person facing social disadvantages or disabilities.

The Federal Government also requires that 23% of all government contracts go to small businesses, btw, and the 5% set-aside is a subset of the 23% (so, if there are 100 government contracts that year, 23 of them must go to small business and then 5% of the 23 small business set aside contracts (so one of them) must go to certified minority owned businesses. The competition for those set asides IS pretty low because there are relatively few businesses so certified by the SBA and they span across a lot of services and service areas.

The most successful 8a small business are the ones that develop relationships with large government contractors who include the 8a business as a subcontractor to demonstrate that the big contract also helps satisfy government policy to support disadvantaged business. The prime contractor does most of the government contractor heavy lifting on the bid process and the disadvantaged business gets a shot to go along for the ride as a subcontractor.
Click to expand...

"The prime contractor does most of the government contractor heavy lifting on the bid process and the disadvantaged business gets a shot to go along for the ride as a subcontractor."

I'm not sure that's what we really want. Ideally we would have taken the 50 to 60 years of minority set-asides to build up the knowledge base within those communities. I'm sure some of that happened but I do think there's plenty of window dressing that makes some minority rich without really providing much value to the taxpayers. I don't think that sort of contracting is the best use of tax dollars.

I think that the minority contractors that provide the best value for the money are going to do just fine if these changes go through either as primes or subs. I think if a minority contractor is simply putting the invoice on their paper in exchange for a slight markup, this will weed them out.
 
lawtig02 said:
You probably have more work experience with this than I do, but this is very much consistent with my understanding as well. In short, the VAST majority of our government contract spending, and almost all of it on the defense side, is with very large companies who are making most of their money on volume rather than on margins. And the leadership of those companies is being given a seat at the table in Trump's "populist" administration, so the chances there's any material cutback in what we're paying to the Lockheeds and RTXes of the world are extremely slim.
Click to expand...
I honestly think we will see negligible cost savings. Congress still has the power on almost all of this. They will use the DOGE committee's recommendations as cover to cut a few programs they don't like but we are talking millions to at most low billions in savings on a $7T budget.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I honestly think we will see negligible cost savings. Congress still has the power on almost all of this. They will use the DOGE committee's recommendations as cover to cut a few programs they don't like but we are talking millions to at most low billions in savings on a $7T budget.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll admit I don't have a whole lot of certainty about how the next four years will play out, but I would put an enormous amount of money on these two predictions:

1. Our annual federal spending will be at least 10% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
2. Our deficit will be at least 20% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah, I'll admit I don't have a whole lot of certainty about how the next four years will play out, but I would put an enormous amount of money on these two predictions:

1. Our annual federal spending will be at least 10% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
2. Our deficit will be at least 20% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
Click to expand...
That's a sucker bet if I ever heard one. That's generally what happens when Republicans are in charge.
 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah, I'll admit I don't have a whole lot of certainty about how the next four years will play out, but I would put an enormous amount of money on these two predictions:

1. Our annual federal spending will be at least 10% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
2. Our deficit will be at least 20% higher in 2028 than it was in 2024.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair guess. We aren't going to raise taxes much so very little revenue help. I can't imagine this administration doing much to cut defence and no one is going to cut Medicare or social security.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where something might surprise me. I guess I could see Trump pulling back on some of our defense commitments in Europe or Japan or maybe even Korea. That might save some and if those troops end up in the United States, that spending would be redirected stateside.

I could possibly see some tinkering with the Medicare or social security eligibility ages but that seems like a long shot in 4 years when he's not really talking about it now. Maybe working to allow the government to negotiate for prescription drugs. I guess that's not outside the realm of possibility, especially if news gets out there that other countries he doesn't like are paying less and he wants to reinforce his brand of making deals.

He may raise a little bit of revenue with the tariffs but the more likely scenario is that retaliatory tariffs slow economic growth which would slow tax collections.

I think all the above scenarios for lowering the deficit are pretty unlikely.

I guess it's possible that Trump can't get enough support in Congress to extend his previous tax cuts. That's really the only plausible scenario I can think of that would actually make much difference.
 
So overall we are currently spending $7Trillion while bringing in $5Trillion, a $2T shortfall. Current deficit is around $35T, so we are on a path right now to be more than 20% over. Add in Trump brilliance and it could be 30%.
 
lawtig02 said:
Right. I'm not going out on a limb. But that just exposes the idiocy of Pubs who think DOGE or anyone else is actually going to be instituting fiscal discipline over the next few years.
Click to expand...
The reality of DOGE is already disintegrating — Ramaswamy has met with the governor of Ohio about getting JD Vance’s open senate seat but openly mulling a run for governor of Ohio next cycle. Meanwhile, they will engage tech bros on no pay temporary contracts to go observe various departments for up to 130 days (the time limit for the statutory exception for such hires) in which time it is difficult to see them doing anything meaningful.

But the illusion of DOGE carries on and got Elon Musk office space in the White House/executive complex.
 
uncmba said:
So overall we are currently spending $7Trillion while bringing in $5Trillion, a $2T shortfall. Current deficit is around $35T, so we are on a path right now to be more than 20% over. Add in Trump brilliance and it could be 30%.
Click to expand...
Our current deficit is $2 trillion. Our current debt is $35 trillion (actually $36 trillion).
 
nycfan said:
The reality of DOGE is already disintegrating — Ramaswamy has met with the governor of Ohio about getting JD Vance’s open senate seat but openly mulling a run for governor of Ohio next cycle. Meanwhile, they will engage tech bros on no pay temporary contracts to go observe various departments for up to 130 days (the time limit for the statutory exception for such hires) in which time it is difficult to see them doing anything meaningful.

But the illusion of DOGE carries on and got Elon Musk office space in the White House/executive complex.
Click to expand...
Yep. Everyone who voted for Trump because of fiscal concerns has already been thoroughly had. And Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
 
uncmba said:
So overall we are currently spending $7Trillion while bringing in $5Trillion, a $2T shortfall. Current deficit is around $35T, so we are on a path right now to be more than 20% over. Add in Trump brilliance and it could be 30%.
Click to expand...

2023 GDP was $27T. I've always heard that a useful yardstick is that we don't want the overall national debt to exceed annual GDP, so we are 30% in the red.

That means for the next generation we will have to:
- address entitlements (give less money to old people, or maintain a 3 to 1 employee ratio, which likely means increased immigration)
- stay out of wars
- grow like hell, with all the attendant concerns of energy, immigration, regulation and the perils of a service economy
- keep interest rates low (which has caused all sorts of mischief this century).

IMO, these are unavoidable policy realities regardless of who is in power over the next 30 years.
 
Serious question: who pays for this "DOGE"? It's not hard to predict who will benefit, and it's not the American taxpayer, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top