[Hayvok]

Ideally, trying to reform the government & its activities shouldn't require a team to burrow all the way down to the literal payments system & call individual balls and strikes.

But I assume that is indicative of how unresponsive the bureaucracy has become to political direction from the president & secretaries.

[drawkward]

Try this assumption on for size: this team just wants to break the government and make it serve the party, not the country.

[kuschku]

> unresponsive the bureaucracy has become to political direction from the president & secretaries

You call it unresponsive, the founding fathers called it "checks and balances"

[krainboltgreene]

Look I get where you're coming from, but those "checks and balances" can't be the thing you defend because they've largely done neither and in fact allowed this insanity in the first place.

[ConspiracyFact]

A desire for an “independent bureaucracy” is quite the creative interpretation of the idea of checks and balances…

[jenkstom]

Bureaucracy is there to protect us from people like Trump and Elon. Congress can pass laws and the president can issue orders. This action threatens the US financial system, which threatens the economic stability of most of the world. In terms of human suffering this could have massive impact. We now have a psychopath (well, at least one) with his fingers around our throats. We're all waiting to see what comes next, but it won't be good.

[CrimsonRain]

Defending bureaucracy. What next? Lobbying is good?

[dionian]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

[anigbrowl]

If you think you're gonna get sunlight form Musk you're a rube. There isn't any transparency going on here.

[generalizations]

There's been a lot so far. More than we've had in a while.

[anigbrowl]

No there hasn't. When someone named the 6 DOGE guys kicking in doors at OPM and TReasury Musk spluttered on his social media platform that the person was committing a crime by naming them and then deleted the person's account.

What have you actually learned? And consider that there's no way for anyone to argue that information was already available to the public, because the main activity of DOGE so far ahs been taking government web pages or entire domains offline. With no organized archival process, how do you equate significantly less availability of information with 'transparency'?

[generalizations]

> What have you actually learned?

I mean, I've been watching my feed scroll by with the various monetary alotments they've discovered. Finally, someone's taking a critical glance at the $$ dedicated to increasing atheism in Tibet (no, I'm not kidding).

[hypothesis]

Alright, I’ll bite. Any congress critter went onto the floor and started reading “transparency” files? Or is it the usual partisans with Xitter files?