Discussion on Musk's DoGE ideas, the federal deficit, and GDP

111,428 Views | 1134 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by DiabloWags
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 8/14/25
Boom!

Reply Quote
3
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 8:16p, 8/14/25
movielover said:
Boom!

DOGE strikes again.

Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 1:31p, 8/17/25
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?


Reply Quote
3
2 edits
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 1:40p, 8/17/25
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.
Reply Quote
5
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:47p, 8/17/25
Because we don't want to leave astronauts stranded on the ISS?

Landing the reusable booster rockets is amazing and a huge cost / efficiency savings. Blue Origin still struggling?
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 2:21p, 8/17/25
As you know, SpaceX has received roughly $21 Billion in government contracts.

Of that promised money, $14.6 Billion came from contracts with NASA, covering everything from supply runs to the ISS to the design and testing of a new moon lander.

If NASA chooses to exercise all options in every contract, we are talking a whopping $56.4 Billion!





Reply Quote
2
4 edits
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 5:49p, 8/17/25
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.
Reply Quote
3
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 5:54p, 8/17/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 6:00p, 8/17/25
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.

No, I value the environment and despise recklessness more than I value the Democratic Party.
Reply Quote
4
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:14p, 8/17/25
Amen.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:30p, 8/17/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.

No, I value the environment and despise recklessness more than I value the Democratic Party.


Compared to the rockets that the Airforce and NASA dump into the ocean, SPACEX is much more environmentally friendly. It appears some liberal mumbo jumbo has you (and a certain other EDS afflicted individual) confusing up with down.
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 7:10p, 8/17/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.

No, I value the environment and despise recklessness more than I value the Democratic Party.


Then why don't you go help cleanup some disastrous Democrat big cities? Oakland, Stockton, Houston, Detroit.
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 10:16p, 8/17/25
movielover said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.

No, I value the environment and despise recklessness more than I value the Democratic Party.



Then why don't you go help cleanup some disastrous Democrat big cities? Oakland, Stockton, Houston, Detroit.

That's an interestingly partisan and narrow definition of the environment. I do environmental cleanup closer to my home rather than hundreds to thousands of miles away. I do have to show up for my day job after all.
Reply Quote
1
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:21p, 8/17/25
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
DiabloWags said:
Why are my tax dollars subsidizing SpaceX, a private company?





Because they are better than NASA.

Agreed, they do litter the lower atmosphere with rocket debris and unburned fuel far more effectively than NASA does. They also litter LEO with thousands of Starlink satellites with a relatively short lifespan.


Your views would 180 If SPACEX and STARLINK were owned by Democrats.

No, I value the environment and despise recklessness more than I value the Democratic Party.


Compared to the rockets that the Airforce and NASA dump into the ocean, SPACEX is much more environmentally friendly. It appears some liberal mumbo jumbo has you (and a certain other EDS afflicted individual) confusing up with down.

I'd question whether an intact rocket landing in the ocean is worse than blowing up a rocket and scattering the contents over a broad area, but I'm not in favor of either one despite what a pathological contrarian who has twisted himself into a pretzel to make a contradictory argument thinks.
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:42p, 8/20/25
DOGE have a hand in this??

WTH???!!! How can this cut this much? Is this more black budget funding for the CIA, or NGOs? Is it a typo... $700 million in savings?

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 1:02p, 8/20/25
$700 million in savings, my hunch correct.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/20/us-news/tulsi-gabbard-to-downsize-odnis-workforce-by-40-eliminate-politicized-offices/
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 1:31p, 8/20/25
bearister said:
DOGE Saved Just 5% of What They Claimed, Analysis Finds
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/doge-saved-1-4-billion-less-than-5-of-what-they-claimed-shocking-analysis-finds/

"Through July, DOGE said it has saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion.

Despite the administration's claims, not a single one of those 1.4 billion dollars will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it.

The analysis ultimately found that DOGE saved less than 5% than what it claimed from more than 10,000 contract terminations."


The way Musk counted it is the way corporate America counts it. A CEO will add up savings they achieved but it's not real savings. It will be things like growing the business without adding overhead. That never added overhead will be added as savings (efficiency). Or, paying wholesale instead of retail. That difference is savings because they can pretend they invented bulk purchases even if that was already going on. There are a ton of ways the CEO's game the numbers to make themselves and their stock look better.
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 1:42p, 8/20/25
movielover said:


Then why don't you go help cleanup some disastrous Democrat big cities? Oakland, Stockton, Houston, Detroit.


Where do you live?

Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 2:03p, 8/20/25
DiabloWags said:
movielover said:


Then why don't you go help cleanup some disastrous Democrat big cities? Oakland, Stockton, Houston, Detroit.


Where do you live?


In your head. <mike drop>
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 2:05p, 8/20/25
dajo9 said:
bearister said:
DOGE Saved Just 5% of What They Claimed, Analysis Finds
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/doge-saved-1-4-billion-less-than-5-of-what-they-claimed-shocking-analysis-finds/

"Through July, DOGE said it has saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion.

Despite the administration's claims, not a single one of those 1.4 billion dollars will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it.

The analysis ultimately found that DOGE saved less than 5% than what it claimed from more than 10,000 contract terminations."


The way Musk counted it is the way corporate America counts it. A CEO will add up savings they achieved but it's not real savings. It will be things like growing the business without adding overhead. That never added overhead will be added as savings (efficiency). Or, paying wholesale instead of retail. That difference is savings because they can pretend they invented bulk purchases even if that was already going on. There are a ton of ways the CEO's game the numbers to make themselves and their stock look better.


So CONgress will be OK when the next $90 Billion in rescission cuts identified by DOGE come up for a vote
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 5:36p, 8/20/25
movielover said:

So CONgress will be OK when the next $90 Billion in rescission cuts identified by DOGE come up for a vote


You still waiting for your DOGE check?

Lmfao.
Reply Quote
3
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 3:36p, 8/23/25
DiabloWags said:
movielover said:

So CONgress will be OK when the next $90 Billion in rescission cuts identified by DOGE come up for a vote

You still waiting for your DOGE check?

Lmfao.

SBGold is. She mad.
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:00a, 8/29/25
Reply Quote
1
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16a, 8/29/25
Yawn.

The Debt is now up over $37 TRILLION.

And Trump added another $4.1 TRILLION with his "Big Beautiful Bill"

MAGA for MORONS.


Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 12:07p, 8/29/25
movielover said:
Congratulations! The deficit has been reduced by 0.035%. Find about 3,000 more similar savings and you'll be getting somewhere.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:41p, 8/29/25
Amuse@amuse: Trump's Pocket Rescission: A Necessary Showdown With Congressional Overreach

Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 2:56p, 8/29/25
And President Chump will lose.

Congress returns from its August recess next week, but lawmakers in both parties blasted Trump's action.

"Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the Senate Appropriations chair, said in a statement. "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law."

Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), the top Democrat on the panel, echoed the sentiment.

"Russell Vought would like us all to believe that making this rescissions request just weeks away from the end of the fiscal year provides some sort of get-out-of-jail free card for this administration to simply not spend investments Congress has made; it emphatically does not," she said in a statement.

"Legal experts have made clear this scheme is illegal and so have my Republican colleagues."


Reply Quote
3
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 11:07p, 8/29/25
I would expect the $wamp to say ^^^^.
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 11:34p, 8/29/25
movielover said:
I would expect the $wamp to say ^^^^.


And just like Chump, I would expect you to have no regard for the Rule of Law.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 11:46p, 8/29/25
"[Liberal] Legal 'experts' [sic]"

Fixed it for you.
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 7:08a, 8/30/25
movielover said:
"[Liberal] Legal 'experts' [sic]"

Fixed it for you.


Cool story.

You're probably the only person on the planet that believes that there is a children's toy EMERGENCY and that's why there are tariffs on toys.

Or did you not remember that this all started over FENTANYL coming across the border?

Can't wait for you to "think" and "speak" with yet another tweet from that Amuse clown.

Here . . . let me help EDUCATE you:

The trade court (CIT) ruled on May 28th that IEEPA's delegation of power to "regulate . . . importation" does not give the president unlimited tariff power.

The limits that the Trade Act sets on the president's ability to react to trade deficigts, the court continued, indicates that Congress did not intend for the president to rely on broader emergency powers in IEEPA to respond to trade deficits.

The "trafficking" tariffs are also invalid, the CIT continued, because they do not "deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat," as federal law requires. Instead, the CIT concluded, Trump's executive order tries to create leverage to deal with the fentanyl crisis.

The Trade Court's decision was backed up by a U.S. Federal Circuit in a 7 - 4 decision.

In its 127-page judgement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the IEEPA "neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president's power to impose tariffs".


The Supreme Court and Trump's tariffs: an explainer - SCOTUSblog




Reply Quote
1
6 edits
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 7:29a, 8/30/25
movielover said:
"[Liberal] Legal 'experts' [sic]"

Fixed it for you.


Cool story bro.

It was a 7 - 4 decision.

Moore, Lourie, Prost, were appointed by Bush

Dyk was appointed by Clinton

Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll were appointed by Obama

Cunningham and Stark were appointed by Biden

25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_2566151.pdf

There are 19 judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

They aren't all Liberals.
6 were appointed by Bush and 2 were appointed by Reagan.

But you didnt know that, did you?

Judge Biographies - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Reply Quote
3
4 edits
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:52p, 9/8/25
DR is a national treasure. Protests not organic.







https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/09/08/datarepublican-deep-dive-on-funding-for-protests-n2418610
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 4:09p, 9/8/25
movielover said:
DR is a national treasure. Protests not organic.

https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/09/08/datarepublican-deep-dive-on-funding-for-protests-n2418610
I'm not a fan of paid protesters either, but I fail to see anything illegal about it. It's free speech and if some yahoo wants to fund a group of protesters, well, it's their money and the money donated to them. I don't have a problem with taking away their tax exempt donations though. It should be done to political groups of all stripes.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06p, 9/15/25
Has DOGE looked into this?

Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.