@St. Louis Hawk care to comment?
Maybe this educated review will relieve some of “the world is ending” liberal anxiety.
Maybe this educated review will relieve some of “the world is ending” liberal anxiety.
🧵🧵DOGE - A Lawyer’s Perspective on the @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump Policy Centerpiece
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
This was a great read by Renz. Every libtard needs to read it and consume the information because they are all spewing total BS that the media is shoveling them.
The DOGE Twitter is a good follow. They tell you everything they find/cut in pretty much real time daily.
I'm not sure we've ever had more transparency from a government organization, but it's refreshing, and they're finding a LOT of useless crap we were spending money on.
I have a feeling if they did too far we're going to find a lot of politicians we're getting kickbacks for some of this stuff our money was being spent on.
I'm not sure we've ever had more transparency from a government organization, but it's refreshing, and they're finding a LOT of useless crap we were spending money on.
I have a feeling if they did too far we're going to find a lot of politicians we're getting kickbacks for some of this stuff our money was being spent on.
This is how Musk operates. He knows transparency engenders trust.
Open patents at Tesla.
Open algorithm at Twitter, now X.
Trust in American institutions was at an all time low prior to January 20 thanks to Biden’s corrupt administration.
How could Musk, DOGE, and Trump being transparent with how government is spending our tax dollars be anything other than good for Americans?
He is doing right by the American people.
Here are some knocks on musk from Elizabeth Warren with commentary from a man who understands reality:
I've always been an advocate for cleaning up the waste before raising taxes any more. I'm well aware that cuts are likely to cause short term problems, and go too deep on the first pass, and I'm 100% ok with it.
I Love the DOGE concept and support their work fully, just like most Americans who voted for this to happen.
I've always been an advocate for cleaning up the waste before raising taxes any more. I'm well aware that cuts are likely to cause short term problems, and go too deep on the first pass, and I'm 100% ok with it.
I Love the DOGE concept and support their work fully, just like most Americans who voted for this to happen.
The more people speaking truth to Democrats lies, the better.
Democratic party is imploding in real time.
1. First, the caveat: If you're making your hay off of podcasts, you may have a law degree but probably aren't much of a lawyer. Quite often they tend to be the types that file lawsuits (and hold big pressers about doing so), but they often don't go anywhere.
2. It's correct that DOGE does "exist" within an organizational structure per the executive order, and the tweets do a decent job laying that out. It was clever, and likely will help them avoid most FACA problems. But I don't think that's really what people are quibbling about.
3. Just for clarity, most of the things cited are not actually within the statutes (which make no mention of either DOGE or the predecessor USDS office within the EOP).
4. However, I disagree that title 44 creates or confers authority for DOGE. It speaks to OMB and other federal agencies which are statutory creatures, whereas USDS/DOGE were simply coordinating policy offices within the executive office of the president. To be sure, the president enjoys a lot of flexibility and authority to restructure his administrative office, including through the temporary office authority cited, but that doesn't give those offices any special powers that exist outside the enabling statutes applicable to agencies.
5. So again, I don't think the establishment of DOGE within the EOP is a particularly big deal. Who its personnel are and how they are employed (and what that status otherwise requires/limits under the law) are things that, frankly, we don't really know much about, though there are certainly no shortage of speculative opinions out there.
6. What may be a big deal is just what DOGE is actually doing. I suppose they can yammer on all they want on twitter (and people can yammer on about them), but from where I sit, there's nothing about the establishment of the organization that conveys any particular superpowers or that otherwise exempts its operations from the usual laws and rules applicable to the administration of government through the executive departments and statutory offices. Again, lots of speculation here, and not a whole lot of transparency regarding what they actually are doing, and whether that is or isn't consistent with those laws. There's some smoke; we'll see (likely through litigation) whether there's a fire on that front.
2. It's correct that DOGE does "exist" within an organizational structure per the executive order, and the tweets do a decent job laying that out. It was clever, and likely will help them avoid most FACA problems. But I don't think that's really what people are quibbling about.
3. Just for clarity, most of the things cited are not actually within the statutes (which make no mention of either DOGE or the predecessor USDS office within the EOP).
4. However, I disagree that title 44 creates or confers authority for DOGE. It speaks to OMB and other federal agencies which are statutory creatures, whereas USDS/DOGE were simply coordinating policy offices within the executive office of the president. To be sure, the president enjoys a lot of flexibility and authority to restructure his administrative office, including through the temporary office authority cited, but that doesn't give those offices any special powers that exist outside the enabling statutes applicable to agencies.
5. So again, I don't think the establishment of DOGE within the EOP is a particularly big deal. Who its personnel are and how they are employed (and what that status otherwise requires/limits under the law) are things that, frankly, we don't really know much about, though there are certainly no shortage of speculative opinions out there.
6. What may be a big deal is just what DOGE is actually doing. I suppose they can yammer on all they want on twitter (and people can yammer on about them), but from where I sit, there's nothing about the establishment of the organization that conveys any particular superpowers or that otherwise exempts its operations from the usual laws and rules applicable to the administration of government through the executive departments and statutory offices. Again, lots of speculation here, and not a whole lot of transparency regarding what they actually are doing, and whether that is or isn't consistent with those laws. There's some smoke; we'll see (likely through litigation) whether there's a fire on that front.
Last edited:
I believe plenty of Republicans are going to be exposed too. This is the reckoning and accountability we need as taxpayers from our elected officials.
I agree with most of the generalizations from @Aardvark86
There are some executive powers regarding repurposing allocated funds, and certainly executive powers that have been tested, but rarely used, regarding deferral. There are a lot of weeds to crawl through as it regards all of this. It is going to get clarified, probably sooner rather than later.
I think the best way for most, including attorneys without any Fed level experience, is to see what direction the court cases take. Somewhat similar to how EPL attorney design their suits based partially on code and most times more so potential sources of recovery, and that template, which is usually a policy of insurance.
The Judge in one case has already spoken to portions of the suit they don't want to mess with.
While the current administration's strategy might partially be volume, speed and throwing things against the wall, the reporting on this hasn't been the best. In several EO's it is very clearly stated that Congressional approval is going to be sought for the elements that require this. It would be foolish for people to think that any of this was done without legal advice.
Setting aside legal issues, the public strategy of this has been done very well. It's anecdotal, but this morning I looked at several left leaning media sources various articles. More importantly I looked at the comments, which of course is anecdotal. They are keeping this big picture, which really is all one needs to do in politics and the court of public opinion. As long as they are able to continue doing this they are going to have support.
The last thing that isn't unimportant is the SCOTUS. Argue all you want about the make up, but they aren't going to budge on separation of power issues. Where poeple that are opposed to this are going to find trouble is that in recent years they have moved toward what I'll call a strong executive. And that would include Justices appointed by both political parties.
My prediction without crawling into the weeds on individual legal issues is that large portions of this are going to stand, as they should since they are legal, but there will be some limited reversal. It will also continue to have broad public support.
I think the most constructive things most can do whether they support this or not, is to position their investments to the outcome, when the outcome starts to become more clear.
There are some executive powers regarding repurposing allocated funds, and certainly executive powers that have been tested, but rarely used, regarding deferral. There are a lot of weeds to crawl through as it regards all of this. It is going to get clarified, probably sooner rather than later.
I think the best way for most, including attorneys without any Fed level experience, is to see what direction the court cases take. Somewhat similar to how EPL attorney design their suits based partially on code and most times more so potential sources of recovery, and that template, which is usually a policy of insurance.
The Judge in one case has already spoken to portions of the suit they don't want to mess with.
While the current administration's strategy might partially be volume, speed and throwing things against the wall, the reporting on this hasn't been the best. In several EO's it is very clearly stated that Congressional approval is going to be sought for the elements that require this. It would be foolish for people to think that any of this was done without legal advice.
Setting aside legal issues, the public strategy of this has been done very well. It's anecdotal, but this morning I looked at several left leaning media sources various articles. More importantly I looked at the comments, which of course is anecdotal. They are keeping this big picture, which really is all one needs to do in politics and the court of public opinion. As long as they are able to continue doing this they are going to have support.
The last thing that isn't unimportant is the SCOTUS. Argue all you want about the make up, but they aren't going to budge on separation of power issues. Where poeple that are opposed to this are going to find trouble is that in recent years they have moved toward what I'll call a strong executive. And that would include Justices appointed by both political parties.
My prediction without crawling into the weeds on individual legal issues is that large portions of this are going to stand, as they should since they are legal, but there will be some limited reversal. It will also continue to have broad public support.
I think the most constructive things most can do whether they support this or not, is to position their investments to the outcome, when the outcome starts to become more clear.
Last edited:
i'm with you other than the scotus strong executive piece. i think their jurisprudence is moving in a direction that will insist that legislatures make choices.
That's a good point I overlooked. Personally I believe part of the reason for the bloated administrative state (and administrative law) is Congress' inability to do what they're supposed to do as it specifically regards ceding their power to bureaucratic departments.
This posted I also believe the framers were brilliant in their creation of a system that results many times in Congressional deadlock, rather than their ability to make significant changes easily, which would likely result in chaos. Oddly enough my position is a position that the opposition should be thankful for right now. I think at higher levels the opposition is certainly aware of this, but I doubt many on here have thought it all the way through based on the posts I read.
Anytime the Democrats dont like something they go after it '...through litigation' God it has become tiresome.
However, I do think that answering some questions about executive power in this era is helpful for our Republic. Birthright citizenship as well.
in fairness, while the D's sort of invented the "advocacy litigation" model in the 60s and 70s, the R's (and beyond) seem to have taken up the model and refined it pretty damn well if the last 6 years is any indication.
Yep. There are several things that can support a reorientation towards Article I. The legal insistence on first choices being made there is one of them, and i think that will be the true legacy of the Roberts court when the dust settles. The other, a harder nut to crack, is getting representatives back to a mode where they represent constituents rather than teams. That takes elections, and probably elections where incumbents lose, ideally on local issues.
I am also with you in seeing moderation and deliberate action as being a brilliant design feature, rather than a bug, of our system. Too many people are far too impatient these days for government action, which is precisely the opposite of what they should be, and which reinforces the "representation problem" i note above, and which seems to be leading us to governance by executive order. That's a problem of modernity.
There might be broad public support for reducing government "bloat" in the abstract, but that's a bit different than a cut to X Y or Z.
The public already had a negative experience with the Trump federal spending freeze EO.
Finally, Musk, who has taken the spotlight on this effort, seems to be taking a popularity hit. His propaganda channel on X probably isn't helping. (i.e. "USAID is a criminal organization")
The public already had a negative experience with the Trump federal spending freeze EO.
Finally, Musk, who has taken the spotlight on this effort, seems to be taking a popularity hit. His propaganda channel on X probably isn't helping. (i.e. "USAID is a criminal organization")
I think you mean the media,.. The public had no real negative experience with that event.
The popularity hit to the freeze had to do with malignant compliance as I explained prior.
Halting programs not subject to the EO that people rely on then blaming that omn the EO to make the President look bad. Things like Medicaid as one example, the Tuskegee Airmen history lesson as another.
The deep state is real and I am glad as hell he's firing a shit ton of people. You can't be President and have people in your administration actively working to undermine it. Call this a warning shot of sorts. You try to undermine the admin you get fired. like it is in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
In reality, there are plenty of Dems on this board that don't really care about waste. They are perfectly fine with some soda drinking, overweight, government lacky, doing little to nothing as they/he/him squeeze into their cubicle chair (probably only 3 days a week because they get to work from home 2 days a week) and eat up $80k a year in salary doing busy work about a bunch of DEI nonsense. They actually like it because they want capitalism to pay for it. They think this is some sort of right of the people to sit in some nonsense job and make $80k + benefits drinking their diet coke.
They want waste and laziness, and they want capitalism to subsidize it.
They want waste and laziness, and they want capitalism to subsidize it.
How do you see the software development charter of USDS >> DOGE and its effect on headcount in executive branch and ultimately federal level agencies?
It seems clear that they have authority over IT systems with a very broad scope. If that work results in the need for fewer people/agencies/budget/bureaucracy then it could not/should not be challenged, correct?
I don't think they want waste. I suspect they haven't taken any time to attempt to understand the issue, and instead just repeat talking points from X, tv, etc. I more than suspect, their posts are almost always verbatim.
This also applies to Republicans and "conservatives" that post on here.
So it applies to the vast majority of the public, and being uninformed is certainly their right.
Obviously it is more noticeable with Democrats and liberals on here as they clearly outnumber Republicans and conservatives.
It is the definition of an echo chamber, and unique insight into how most think and the herd mentality.
Certainly the two may be related. But one is the engine, and the other the caboose. So I'd be skeptical if they're starting with the caboose rather than the engine, or if the engine work took 2 minutes and - 'voila!' - we instantaneously knew we needed fewer drivers (or conductors on the caboose). And either way, those downstream HR consequences are in the wheelhouse of OPM, rather than DOGE, to administer under that line of thinking.
i'm fine with "some" waste. Entropy is, after all, like a natural law. I'm also fine with trying to improve efficiency and accountability.
Caboose in this case may be a very solid hypothesis that starts a big engine.
If the “work” of this temporary agency is allowed to survive and proves the hypothesis then a future Congress could hold OPM in contempt if they do not act on it, correct?
Therefore, if Trump/Musk believe in the hypothesis, they should solely focus on building a solid engine and trust the other branches to do their part. But, I think what has most Americans upset for the last few decades is that Congress has lost the trust of the people and won’t do the needful.
So, someone is going to have to break a few eggs if we want an omelette? Everyone wants an omelette…
Yes I agree, let everything be exposed. Democrats and Republicans. Whatever the truth is, let it be known.
Exactly, Rs aren't any cleaner than Ds in all of this (IMO). Maybe the USAID stuff reflects more poorly on Dems, but that's just one agency.
Similar threads
