"The dems can't decide if Musk is cutting too much or not enough!!!" No. He is cutting vital programs that support many citizens of our nation and then overstating how much is actually saved doing so.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
263 points (97.5% liked)
News
27164 readers
5362 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I love this idea that somehow we are saving money when making cuts to many life saving and necessary services. Like OK, so we cut funding to NOAA, NASA, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the post office, the department of education, the IRS, the EPA the CDC and some how there's not going to be a big oh shit moment when we realize that those things were required for general maintenance of the country.
Like, I'm gunna cut a lot of cost by no longer changing my tires on my car and just driving in the rain with bald tires. There's simply no way that would end bad for me or anyone else in the vicinity of my automobile.
No one is even benefiting from this alleged saving money. My taxes are higher than ever.
There's gonna be an oh shit moment for a lot of the supporters hopefully, but the actual people in power want the government to collapse. Their goal is to remake all aspects of the government as a private for profit business. The first steps in such a plan is obviously the destruction of public services like the Mail.
The goal here is not actually to save money for the US government, it's to make money from replacing the government with your own private businesses
I just saved a ton of money each month by cancelling all of my health insurance!
To be fair insurance providers shirk obligations to pay for your treatment anyway. It's why Luigi is so damn popular.
Yeah, his blow-up with Rubio 100% confirms that he genuinely thinks that layoffs - not retirements, but actual firing someone - are a metric for success, and that every government contract can be canceled and the whole value of the contract is somehow recovered, which is amazingly idiotic.
They just need to make it down the block though.
Oh, Ms. Streisand! Yoo-hoo!
For real. Thank you Musk for bringing attention to the tracker.
Also even if it was the claimed $109 billion, that's still only 1.5% of the $7 trillion budget.
Musk sucks at logic. You can disapprove of DOGE's goal and also point out that they're lying about how close they are to it. There's no contradiction or hypocrisy there.
more accurately. you can complain about their method to reach their claimed goal... and about the fact that they aren't reaching it.
IE their claimed goal is to save the government lots of money. Objectively the government spending less is a good thing. However losing things that the government does that help people, is objectively bad.
So yes, it's both too much bad, and not enough good, if the dodge cuts, slash jobs, wreck social security, medicaid, medicare. Harm scientific research in medical and other aspects of life. Wreck the US's soft power by killing goodwill programs that help other countries. Wreck projects that help our own people etc....
and so yes, if we wreck all the projects that help people and save lives... AND barely accomplish any savings in the process. That is an extreme double fail, in which something like DOGE can simultaniously be doing far too little, and far too much at the same time. (because they are making a huge negative impact to the quality of life for millions of americans... and they aren't even close to making a visible scratch in saving money.
Objectively the government spending less is a good thing.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Spending more wisely is a good thing. But simply spending less is not.
Agreed, though I think my point is badly phrased.
Ideal is getting the most positive results at the lowest cost, and doge is massively killing positive results, and barely reducing the costs.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I don't even know if that's the ideal. The most important thing is that the money is spent in a way that guarantees a positive impact on whatever specific problem that agency is attempting to tackle. Spending more than strictly necessary can be the difference between simply 'kicking the can down the street' vs picking the can up and getting it to a recycling center.
The only reason I decided to put my two cents in is that I think we need to be aware how much propaganda is getting pushed on the subject of "less is better!! always!!!", which is simply not true. Remember, the smaller and more "efficient" a government is, the easier and faster it is to corrupt said government (which I realize is kinda tangential, but i think still applies).
They love their chainsaw analogy - this is like going to a surgeon to get an abdominal tumor removed, but the surgeon takes a chainsaw to your foot instead. Now you can't walk and you still have a tumor. The doctor took both too much and not enough. It's not hard to understand, but I guess they think it's clever to pretend they don't get it.
Heh the choice of colors for the bars really fits this administration.
You're just russian to conclusions here!