[mbrumlow]

All this data?

We really don’t know what data is being accessed. We have a lot of people saying lots of things about the access. Such as he will block payments or tarter people based on how they vote. You have not claimed those so I won’t rebuttal then here. But “all this data” I will.

The systems bending accessed are the ones which handle money approved by congress to be spent in a specific way.

As a tax payer I am appalled that this data is not already public and broadcasted live. Even more so that the specific legislation that granted the money was already public.

Now let’s say there are social security numbers and maybe even social security numbers tied to addresses or even names. This is still not a reason to not allow an audit.

You might say. Okay let’s audit. But people need to be verified. And at this point your argument is watered down to “I don’t like who is doing this”, which is the same bullshit politics we deal with in any tech company and the same bs that only delays results.

If people were actually worried they would not be trying to stop musk. What they would actually be doing is asking for somebody who they politically align with to also have access to the data and perform their own audit, on top of making much if not all of the data public so those with real trust issues can draw their own conclusions.

[cycomanic]

> We really don’t know what data is being accessed. We have a lot of people saying lots of things about the access. Such as he will block payments or tarter people based on how they vote. You have not claimed those so I won’t rebuttal then here. But “all this data” I will.

We do know that they got admin rights to several IT systems. Are you saying that giving admin rights to government IT systems to people with dubious backgrounds is fine, because the guys at the top have been voted in?

> As a tax payer I am appalled that this data is not already public and broadcasted live. Even more so that the specific legislation that granted the money was already public.

As appalled as by the fact that the people who are supposedly doing the auditing are completely intransparent, trying to obscure who is doing the auditing and threatening people who are trying to name people involved? Or is that ok for you?

[ks2048]

> We really don’t know what data is being accessed.

> As a tax payer I am appalled that this data is not already public and broadcasted live.

How are you mad it's not public if you don't know what it is? Sure there is data in computers of the Treasury department that should not be public - individuals' social security numbers, personal financial information, etc.

[mbrumlow]

Stop being so pedantic, we have an idea what it is. When I say “we don’t know what it is” is a nice way of saying the things you say it is you have no proof of it being.

How about you give me an argument of why we should not have this sort of audit?

I am also willing to bet there is no situation where it could be done “right” and have the stated outcome Trump and Musk have outlined be okay. Which makes most of your arguments bad faith ones. Given the things already exposed should have all Americans upset.

[ks2048]

We should know where our tax money is going. As far as I can tell, the alleged fraud that Musk has been tweeting about was already public info. The viral tweets about Politico, etc, were showing screenshots of public dashboards.

The one place that has famously failed audits year after year is the defense department. We shall see if Musk brings his chopping-block to DoD.

Anyone operating in good faith knows to curb spending, everything Musk has been saying won't make a dent until you get to DoD, Social Security, or health care. And of course, any savings are going to be totally swamped by big tax cuts for the billionaire class.

[camhart]

> Anyone operating in good faith knows to curb spending, everything Musk has been saying won't make a dent until you get to DoD, Social Security, or health care

This isn't accurate. Anyone who's managed a large and complex budget knows death by a thousand cuts is a very real thing. Yes, there may be bigger opportunities in the larger pots of money, but to suggest saving a billion here or few million there isn't worth the time is simply wrong.

Simply having the finances be looked at will have an impact on behavior. I see it in my own personal spending. If I'm not watching it, I spend way more. Now what happens if its not even my bank account the spending takes money out of and no one is paying attention? And then it goes on like this for decades?

> And of course, any savings are going to be totally swamped by big tax cuts for the billionaire class.

Aside from 2020, collected tax revenues did not drop under Trump in his first term, even after 2017 tax cuts. The one exception was for 2020 when the economy ground to a halt due to covid and gdp shrunk by a few %.

The point is, the problem is not that the government needs more money. The government needs pressure to be more effecient with the money it has. Thats the root of the issue that needs solved. Until that is solved, increasing tax revenue (which may not even be needed) won't make any difference whatsoever.

[mr_toad]

> We really don’t know what data is being accessed.

And you don’t think that’s a problem?

You think that requiring people to have proper vetting to access information that might include personally identifiable information is “political bullshit”?

[mbrumlow]

No. No I don’t. Before all this nobody knew anything. Then Trump and Elon came along and now everybody on the internet is an expert, and has all sorts opinions based off fear.

We have a system. If it is not legal it will be flushed out. The only people who seem to have an issue seem to be ones who simply don’t like the who.

[MisterBastahrd]

The only enforcement arm is in the executive branch, and we've already got the VP and Republican senators complaining that judges are ruling against Elon's team and suggesting that he just do what he wants to do anyway. Pam Bondi won't stand in his way and neither will whoever eventually becomes head of the FBI.

[caspper69]

I think you mean "if we don't like it, it will be lied about and demonized".

DJT & Friends don't exactly have a stunning track record of being truthful.

In fact, I don't think the man ever tells the truth. And I wish that were hyperbole. He literally just makes shit up as he goes along, and his legions of brainwashed followers just repeat what he says and twist facts to try to fit the narrative after the fact.

Biden was a geriatric moron, and I'm sure he looked the other way while people he knew profited from his actions, but this MAGA shit is a grift on a whole other level. This is like stealing the Holy Grail and getting away with it.

[sigzero]

> We really don’t know what data is being accessed.

Thank you. I think there is a lot of assumption by everyone about that very thing.

[talldayo]

"I want to know what the government is hiding" and "I'm okay with the government hiding what they know" is a very hard circle to square.

[caminante]

> and "I'm okay with the government hiding what they know"

Which part of the above comment are you attributing this to?

Seems like a strawman.

[talldayo]

I don't believe people who say they demand transparency from the government. If they're not genuinely outraged at Musk's lack of accountability then I don't believe they're genuinely outraged at the Pentagon or Treasury either.

Musk is working for the government and sets an example with his own behavior. If he can't commit to his own standard of transparency then I (and no rational person) would trust him to hold the rest of the government accountable either.

[caminante]

> If they're not genuinely outraged at Musk's lack of accountability then I don't believe they're genuinely outraged at the Pentagon or Treasury either.

I'm skeptical of people who do this, too. I also bet that a lot of people want transparency until they find a flaw that serves them and further transparency would attract attention.

However, this skepticism is mis-placed and off-topic. Re-read the posted comment above. The comment wants more transparency and isn't debating weaponizing the data, which they acknowledge and park as a separate issue.

[talldayo]

> As a tax payer I am appalled that this data is not already public and broadcasted live.

As a taxpayer, I'm offended that more of my money isn't spent protecting it. Clearly it wasn't enough to stop a rudimentary attack. I can give you three good reasons this is offensive to American liberty in an apolitical context:

1. The personal information of federal employees should remain private in respects to the Civil Rights act and the impartiality of hiring all candidates. This is what protects both Democrats and Republicans from having punitive action held against them by political opposition.

2. America's actual itemized expenditure is a matter of national security. Publishing a precise budget lets an adversary (of which America has many) estimate our weaknesses and, if specific enough, predict our intent before we strike. The current system of budgeting rather than begging is safe and can still be audited by both parties.

3. Elon Musk has stated business interests in opposing Apple and Google, both of which have secret testimonies he could access for illegal leverage against them in negotiations. Allowing him unfettered access to government records and defunding regulators is an expressly unfair business advantage that should not be tolerated in any free market.

[mbrumlow]

> which have secret testimonies

Tell me what this has to do with am having access to USAAID and the Treasury?

[talldayo]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-02-10/doge-back...