[thordenmark]

The comments here are crazy. Excuse me if I don't find Wired and a bunch of disgruntled ex-fed employees to be a credible unbiased source. The US Govt is so clearly bloated and inefficient it had to be trimmed and optimized. At least some here recognize that cuts in the 90's also worked. And I'm old enough to remember people crying bloody murder then too. People hate to be pulled off government's gravy train.

[cman1444]

I think the main point is the manner in which these cuts were conducted. These were chaotic, very quick, and reckless. Very little empathy was shown. They were conducted by 19-23 year olds with the world's richest man (who bought his position) in charge of them.

[thordenmark]

Sure, but if they weren't done quick they wouldn't be done at all. Have some empathy for the middle class that has to carry this terrible tax burden.

[ModernMech]

This is not true, as it's been done before by a previous government, the Clinton administration, which actually did post a budget surplus in the 90s. Their method was to go slowly and methodically, so you are not correct to say that it cannot be done unless it's done quickly.

However, you're also wrong about "what's been done" -- this year the government will not only post a deficit but the highest deficit in US history. So to the extent that you support this administrations effort to cut the deficit, they have abjectly failed to do so. So perhaps it's more true that you cannot cut costs if you try to do it quickly, because doing it quickly has not worked. My prediction is in the next 4 years, the deficit will increase every year.

Moreover, you stated in your earlier reply that it is "obvious" the government was "inefficient it had to be trimmed and optimized". This is not obvious.

For starters, you (and also DOGE) neglected to define "efficiency", so we are left wondering what is being optimized. Efficiency is a weasel word -- it doesn't mean anything on its own -- so using it without measuring anything is immediately suspicious. How can you say you've made it more efficient by cutting spending if you don't have a metric for efficiency?

I'll give you a metric: in 2024 there were as many government employees as there were in 1970, despite the population growing by 140 million people, a 70% increase. Population explodes, yet government does not... that's efficiency. So no, it's not "obvious" the government as it existed in 2024 is inefficient.

Look at these two charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_employees_in_the_Un...

First chart shows where the extra work is being handled, it's at the local level. That's what should be happening, so nothing to correct there.

Second chart shows what is actually growing: government dependents. So when you say "Have some empathy for the middle class that has to carry this terrible tax burden." I direct you to the following collection of lamentations of middle class people, his supporters, pleading for the President to stop the economic damage he's doing to the middle class: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace

Actually what you're suggesting is that we have to save the middle class by cutting lower class social support systems. But Trumponomics (all tariffs all the time, crony capitalism, mob-like strongarming of private companies) is driving a reduction of the middle class to the point where they need more social services.

[hansvm]

Even if you take Trump, Musk, etc at their words -- that the government is horribly bloated and that DOGE has saved $206B -- this still doesn't look in totality like a sound economic decision:

1. The deficit has increased with Trump in office.

2. The rate at which the deficit is getting worse has increased with Trump in office.

3. That's in large part due to an increase in government expenditures more than enough to offset the claimed savings.

4. Even if that entire $206B were actually being distributed to taxpayers somehow, it's on par with the increase in grocery prices just since Trump took office, resulting in a net loss for taxpayers (you pay for groceries with post-tax income).

5. The things being cut first are those which help anyone with a middle-class or lower income. E.g., the CFPB more than paid for itself for years from the perspective of anyone other than a malicious bank just from one policy change limiting abusive fees banks are able to charge.

6. Even if you believe that all such departments need to be neutered and downsized (a bit weird that we need to reduce their power, impact, and effectiveness just to make them more "efficient", but whatever), it's objectively costing more in lawsuits and hiring critical personnel back than it would have to think for a moment before firing literally everyone.

7. Even at $206B with sane economic decisions elsewhere in the government, it's still not enough to move the needle on anything, and it's a far cry from the $2T in advertised cuts that were used to trick the American people into allowing this chicanery into our government.

And so on. Nothing about the current administration would qualify as increasing government efficiency even squinting at it in a modern art museum.

And that's if you take them at their word. At a bare minimum, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, DOGE themselves have admitted to many of those advertised cuts being mistakes, oftentimes by an order of magnitude or in totality, yet those mistakes are never corrected in their public leaderboard. If you look at their own sources and receipts there's a significant number of mistakes on top of the ones they've fessed up to.

I agree that the government is bloated, and I'm not particularly happy with many of the political maneuverings on either side of the spectrum the last decade or three, but when it comes to Musk and Trump I think it's reasonable to consider that when there's significant evidence of lying from individuals with a history of lying for personal gain, you're probably being lied to, even if you really want the thing they're claiming to give you.

[Braxton1980]

But you trust the richest elite in the world, Elon Musk, and Trump who has lied multiple times about serious issues?

[thordenmark]

It's not about how much I trust them, but that they were the only ones with the cajones to do the job. And you can see how hard it was by the outcry. It's easy to give people taxpayer money, nye impossible to stop it.

[Braxton1980]

Doing something isn't as important as doing it well in a situation that wasn't an emergency.

Not trusting the government but happy they are performing some action at all seems reckless.

> only ones with the cajones to do the job.

Trump doesn't have the balls to cut defense spending or to stop government subsidizes to farmers. Firing people and cutting aid to poor people isn't brave.