Up date on DOGE- Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts ...

TACO was scheduled to release his health care plan today but of course it didn't happen.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis announced Monday that it had officially canceled releasing the advance estimate on gross domestic product (GDP) for the third quarter of 2025. The TACO administration had previously delayed the release, which was initially slated for October 30, due to the government shutdown—but now it seems to have been abandoned altogether.

Who wrote the UK/Russia Peace Plan? Rubio said it was the US. But backtracked that faster than Prime Time covering Randy Moss. 

After hearing Scott Bessent's plan to reduce inflation, we have to prepare for the influx of blue state citizens here in Florida. What could possibly go wrong?

Government auditors can do a better job of improving efficiency than reckless DOGE.  History of austerity in countries show that increasing tax revenue by boosting economic growth works better in reducing budget deficits than risky spending cuts that could backfire in the long term.  

Republican McConnell criticizes Trump peace plan which is really a surrender plan.  Appeasing bullies only encourage them to be more aggressive.  Russia has a history of breaking peace agreements to invade neighbors again.  Inflation is not everything in determining the best states to live in.  States with high cost of living also tend to have higher incomes and standard of living.  Rich democrat states subsidize poor republican states.

You got that right, blue states for sure subsidize all those maga hill billy states. Dont forgot blue states pay higher for insurance, because our payments keep helping bail out all the disasters red states have. So sick of paying higher insurance premiums because of the free loading red states down south.

Judge rules that $100 million in DOGE cuts to humanities grants are unconstitutional.  Trump administration has no authority to block spending approved by congress.  This is a victory for plaintiffs American historical association and Modern language association.

Trump Administration has the capacity to revoke all Congressional spending deemed inappropriate under clause  in 7.0123B

Everybody already knows this to be true,... but Democrats.  

A clueless maga who actually thinks hes smart.

KEY WORD = INAPPROPRIATE   LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Congress has the power of the purse and just because any president thinks its inappropriate doesnt mean it is and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, EXCEPT BRAIN WASHED MAGA SHEEP

donald trump greatest human ever created. He is a good, honest, caring, big heart, humanitarian, nobel peace prize winner and great PHILANTHROPIST (WHO HAS DONATED ALL THE MONEY HES ROBBED FROM OUR GOVT HIS WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE TO ALL KINDS OF GOOD CAUSES IN OUR COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD)

@cd329

Just wait cdnumbers ,,,,,,,till he finishes building that big beautiful Ballroom and reflecting pool..

cd, here's the way it works under President Donald J.Trump...President Trump comes up with something he want's to build ..he builds it ,,,,and Congress finds the money to pay for it...Prove me wrong !!!! 

@cd329  "power of the purse"

Constitution gives congress sole power of the purse in spending and taxation.  The twice impeached convicted felon's contempt for the rule of law is among characteristics of fascism.  In first term, he was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of congress by withholding aid to Ukraine.  

Oh look another one of my maga trolls. Starting to think all these maga usernames are all the same person.  Or maybe my long time maga troll just got out of the mental ward. 

Remember maga your not supposed to address me in here by name, hate to see you go to the box lolllllllllllllllllll

Public citizen report reveals that Trump administration paid $11 billion to over 140,000 federal employees not to work.  Musk's reckless department of government efficiency downsizing of federal work force turned out to be a waste of time and money.  Employees who do vital work must be rehired.

Mixing a lot of opinion with the fact.  Need to mix in some context as well.

"Public Citizen report reveals that Trump administration paid $11 billion to over 140,000 federal employees not to work."

Largely true, with context. Public Citizen published a report in June 2026 estimating that the Trump administration spent between $11.1 billion and $15.1 billion on its Deferred Resignation Program (DRP). The report says 139,628 federal employees accepted offers to remain on the payroll while being exempt from work before leaving government service. Those figures are based on publicly available Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data and Public Citizen's methodology.

"Musk's reckless department of government efficiency downsizing of federal work force turned out to be a waste of time and money."

Opinion, not established fact. Whether the downsizing was "reckless" or "a waste of time and money" is a value judgment. Critics, including Public Citizen, argue the program was inefficient and wasted taxpayer money. Other analysts have also questioned DOGE's claimed savings. However, supporters argue the restructuring will produce long-term savings by permanently reducing payroll and government size. The ultimate fiscal impact remains debated and depends on whether the ongoing reductions generate savings that exceed the upfront costs.

"Employees who do vital work must be rehired."

Partly factual, partly opinion. It is true that some agencies rehired or attempted to bring back employees after realizing certain positions were critical or because courts ordered reinstatements in some cases. Public Citizen identified multiple agencies that rehired workers, and litigation over some layoffs led to reinstatement orders, although some rulings were later modified or overturned on appeal. Whether those employees "must" be rehired is a policy opinion rather than an objective fact.

The $11 billion/140,000 employees claim is supported by a real Public Citizen report.

The characterization of DOGE as "reckless" and "a waste of time and money" is an opinion, albeit one supported by critics.

The assertion that employees "must be rehired" is a policy recommendation, not a factual claim. Some employees were rehired, but not all, and there is no consensus that all should be.

So, to just take something and throw in opinion without context is disingenuous.

Anyone that thinks the government is not bloated and needs to be rearranged and streamlined or drastically cut, is clearly not seeing the whole picture.

Naturally, something needs to be done.  That is a start and more needs to be followed up.

@Raiders22

 You refute his assertions with the same kind of assertions in reverse. Some say some say what does that even mean?

To those of us against the idiotic Trump choice to let Musk bring his teen cohorts into the government we knew it was poorly planned and lacked any sort of structure or focus, you cannot perform a RIF of this scale using people who have NO government background or understanding. Musk has no experience in the government and his programmer pals had even less and Trump just lets them do whatever they want however they want? That is not the way you efficiently perform a value add RIF, that is how you harm the government and put thousands of hard working middle class citizens on the dole. 

Then shockingly it comes out later the process to how these clowns made decisions and there was absolutely no means or process that could value add and isnt that the REAL purpose of a RIF is to improve efficiency and carefully make reductions that might be redundant or could be combined in some way to add value? That was not done it was chain saw energy drink fueled idiots just randomly making decisions and looking for KEY WORDS as if that is how you perform a task and make the government more efficient.

In 30 seconds I can add more value and reduce government waste- stop supporting Israel and forwarding military operations. There I just saved a 10x multiple of what these children did in harm to actual hard working and necessary government employees.

@wallstreetcappers

 You refute his assertions with the same kind of assertions in reverse. Some say some say what does that even mean?

That's a fair question, and it's one worth unpacking.

When I say "critics argue..." and "supporters argue...", I'm not saying both sides are equally correct. I'm distinguishing between:

Verifiable facts (things that can be confirmed with evidence), and Evaluative judgments (whether those facts amount to success, failure, waste, recklessness, etc.).

For example:

Fact: About 140,000 employees accepted the Deferred Resignation Program and were paid while not working.

Fact: Public Citizen estimated the cost at roughly $11 billion.

Fact: The administration's stated goal was to permanently reduce the size and cost of the federal workforce.

The question "Was it a waste of money?" is different. To answer it objectively, you'd need to compare:

Upfront costs ($11 billion), Long-term payroll savings, Effects on agency performance, Whether the positions were later refilled.

If, hypothetically, the government spends $11 billion today but saves $50 billion over the next decade by permanently reducing payroll, many economists would not call that a waste. If instead many workers are rehired and the savings never materialize, then critics' argument becomes much stronger.

So instead of saying "some say, some say," a more rigorous answer is:

The $11 billion figure is supported by evidence.

Whether it was a waste cannot yet be stated as fact because it depends on long-term outcomes that are still unfolding.

Likewise, the statement that DOGE was "reckless" is not something that can be proved or disproved in the same way as a payroll figure. It's a characterization.

So if someone asks, "Did DOGE waste taxpayer money?" the strongest answer is:

There is evidence that the downsizing incurred large upfront costs, including paying tens of thousands of employees who were not working. Whether those costs are outweighed by future savings is still an empirical question, not one that has been definitively answered.

That avoids simply substituting one political assertion for another and instead focuses on what can actually be measured.

@wallstreetcappers

 To those of us against the idiotic Trump choice to let Musk bring his teen cohorts into the government we knew it was poorly planned and lacked any sort of structure or focus, you cannot perform a RIF of this scale using people who have NO government background or understanding. Musk has no experience in the government and his programmer pals had even less and Trump just lets them do whatever they want however they want? That is not the way you efficiently perform a value add RIF, that is how you harm the government and put thousands of hard working middle class citizens on the dole. 

This is fine for those that agree with this.  It will reinforce their thoughts on it.  However, it's weaker as a piece intended to convince someone who is undecided.

It has a clear thesis for example.  It identifies a specific criticism: the people directing the effort lacked government experience. 

It connects that criticism to a claimed consequence: disruption to government operations and employee layoffs.

However, it has several weaknesses.

It carries /loaded language' that weakens credibility.  For example:

Words like "idiotic," "teen cohorts," "programmer pals," and "just lets them do whatever they want" are rhetorical rather than evidentiary. Readers looking for evidence may discount the argument because it sounds more like venting than analysis.

Some claims need evidence.

For example:

"Poorly planned."

"Lacked any sort of structure or focus."

"Trump just lets them do whatever they want."

"That is not the way you efficiently perform a value add RIF."

These may be true or false, but the paragraph doesn't provide examples or documentation.

It overstates with absolutes.

Saying they had "NO government background or understanding" is a very strong claim. If even a few participants had relevant experience or worked closely with career officials, the statement becomes inaccurate. It's usually stronger to say "little" or "limited" unless you can substantiate "none."

It assumes causation.

The argument implies:

Lack of government experience (leads to)  Poorly executed RIF (leads to) Harm to government.

That could be true, but the paragraph doesn't demonstrate the causal chain.

There were several young engineers and software professionals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and media coverage emphasized their ages because some were in their early 20s. However, describing them as "teen cohorts" is not supported by the available evidence.

Some DOGE staffers were reportedly in their early 20s.

Others had software engineering, finance, or technology backgrounds.

There is no credible evidence that the effort was primarily run by teenagers or that there was a large group of teens carrying out the work.

Calling them "teen cohorts" overstates what is known and could undermine the credibility.

Similarly, saying they were merely "programmer pals" is rhetorical. While many had engineering backgrounds and some had connections to Musk, they were not literally just a group of friends without any technical qualifications.

Then shockingly it comes out later the process to how these clowns made decisions and there was absolutely no means or process that could value add and isnt that the REAL purpose of a RIF is to improve efficiency and carefully make reductions that might be redundant or could be combined in some way to add value? That was not done it was chain saw energy drink fueled idiots just randomly making decisions and looking for KEY WORDS as if that is how you perform a task and make the government more efficient.

Same problem as the above paragraph.   

It raises a legitimate issue but mixes it with assertions and insults that are difficult to substantiate. For example:

"Shockingly" is rhetorical.

"Clowns" is an insult, not evidence.

"It comes out later" is vague. What came out? Through what source? Internal documents? Court filings? Inspector General reports? News investigations?

"...there was absolutely no means or process that could value add..."

This is the weakest factual claim.

"Absolutely no process" is a very high bar to prove. Even if the process was poorly designed, there almost certainly was some process.

Let's say this was said: "The process appears to have lacked a systematic method for evaluating which positions could be eliminated with minimal impact."

That is something that could potentially be supported by evidence.

"...isn't that the REAL purpose of a RIF is to improve efficiency and carefully make reductions..."

This is the strongest part and it true. But...

"...That was not done..."

This is where evidence is needed.

Some examples that would strengthen the claim:

agencies rehiring employees shortly after layoffs,

courts ordering reinstatements,

layoffs of critical personnel,

documented planning failures.

Without examples, it's simply an assertion.

"...it was chain saw energy drink fueled idiots..."

Pure rhetoric.

It may make supporters cheer, but it adds nothing factually.

"...just randomly making decisions and looking for KEY WORDS..."

This one is interesting.

There have been reports that AI tools, keyword searches, or automated methods were used in some aspects of reviewing contracts or agency information. However, saying decisions were made "randomly" because of keyword searches goes beyond what has been established publicly.

If someone has documentation showing decisions relied heavily on simplistic keyword filtering without deeper review, that would be evidence worth citing. Without it, the statement is stronger than the available evidence.

The paragraph contains one potentially strong argument:

A RIF should be a carefully planned reorganization that improves efficiency by identifying redundancy and preserving critical functions.

That's a solid premise.

It then weakens itself by relying on:

insults, exaggeration, absolute statements, unsupported conclusions.

Ironically, if you removed about half the adjectives and added two or three concrete examples, the argument would become much more persuasive—even to someone who doesn't already agree.

@wallstreetcappers

 In 30 seconds I can add more value and reduce government waste- stop supporting Israel and forwarding military operations. There I just saved a 10x multiple of what these children did in harm to actual hard working and necessary government employees.

This statement is mostly rhetorical. It contains one policy proposal, one quantitative claim, and one opinion.

"In 30 seconds I can add more value and reduce government waste..."

This is hyperbole. The point is rhetorical: thisis saying there are easier ways to save money.

It's not meant literally, but taken literally it isn't a factual claim.

"Stop supporting Israel and funding military operations."

This is a legitimate policy position.

Whether it would be "adding value" depends on one's priorities:

Someone focused primarily on reducing federal spending may agree.

Someone who views military aid as advancing U.S. security interests would disagree.

The proposal itself is a value judgment, not something that can be proven true or false.

And again, these things are not binary choice, thankfully.  Domestic issues, foreign issues: all have their place are not necessarily inter-related.

"There I just saved a 10x multiple..."

This is the weakest factual claim.

You appear to be comparing: estimated costs of DOGE's workforce reductions, and the amount spent on Israel and military operations.

Whether the "10×" figure is accurate depends entirely on what spending is being compared over what time period.

For example: 

If comparing roughly $11 billion (Public Citizen's estimate of the Deferred Resignation Program) against annual U.S. military aid to Israel alone (around $3.8–4 billion), the math does not support a 10× claim.

If you instead mean all U.S. military operations or a much broader defense spending category, the comparison could be much larger—but then it is no longer just about Israel.

So as written, "10×" is unsupported.

"...what these children did..."

Again, rhetoric.

Most of the people involved were adults. Some were relatively young, but calling them "children" is meant as an insult rather than an accurate description.

"...harm to actual hard working and necessary government employees."

here is evidence that: many career federal employees lost jobs or accepted resignation offers; some agencies later sought to rehire employees or restore functions; critics argue that some reductions disrupted agency operations.

However, saying the employees were all "necessary" is too broad. One purpose of a Reduction in Force is to determine which positions can be eliminated or consolidated. Some positions may indeed have been unnecessary or duplicative; others may have been critical. Without evidence about specific positions, it's difficult to generalize.

The statement is emotionally forceful but analytically weak because it bundles together:

one debatable policy preference ("stop supporting Israel"), an unsupported numerical comparison ("10×"), insults ("children"), and a broad conclusion ("necessary government employees").

If the goal is persuasion rather than expressing frustration, the argument would be stronger by replacing the exaggerations with specific spending figures and explaining why the proposed cuts would achieve greater fiscal savings than the workforce reductions. That would give folks something concrete to evaluate instead of asking them to accept the conclusions on the assertion alone.

Again these things cannot be done just on rhetoric and emotion.  They all need facts and evidence to back up the decisions the policymakers are making.

This does not matter whether it is on the Left or the Right.  

Agreement needs to be made on what is best for the country.  This is on social issues, how much support an ally is wanted in a critical region of the world.

Also, agreement needs to be made on what government agencies and programs are too bloated are wasteful and need to be streamline, cut, etc.

In order to do all of these things, there needs to be some sort of evidence to back up stances.

This is vastly needed at a time when the country is at an all-time high in debt.  The folks, themselves, are also way in debt.

Things need to be looked at very critically and not with a political bias or a personal feeling.

That answer smells an awful lot like an AI response - if you ask me 

@Calde13

 Totally..I think he is getting even more lax on his efforts as before it was some right wing blog source cut/paste and now its rhetorical gibberish.

I prefer the jab riddled partisan stuff than this "WELL" nonsense.

AI slop indeed!