The straw man is pushing the idea that nothing should ever be touched because all of it is essential. Somewhere between don't touch anything and destroy it all is the truth. Finding and fixing problems of this type, whether it is in the private or public domains is difficult and ugly. It never looks good. It never feels good. That's just reality.
BTW, I keep reading and hearing derogative terms like "script kiddies" and "20 year olds". What's happened to diversity and inclusion? So, they have to be of a certain age? What's the magical age? And, do they have to come from the same place that created the problems as well? This isn't sensible at all.
Here's a reality: The US has been on a self-destructive path for decades. You could argue the number is somewhere between 25 and 50 years. Staying on the same path isn't going to make things better. Changing paths is not fun. It's dirty, messy and painful. Welcome to reality.
I remember having discussions here on HN many years back, when the national debt was in the $20 trillion range and annual deficits below a trillion dollars. I remember asking a simple question: Where is the limit? $25 TN, $30 TN, $35 TN ... $50 TN? Where? Where is the limit on annual deficits? 2, 4, 8? Where?
Nobody ever answers this question. Nobody. And yet reality is that this is a nation destroying itself from the inside while others around the world are taking advantage of our fiscal incompetence.
We can't make anything here any more. Not one thing (unless gov/mil and corner cases). This has been a slow-rolling tragedy building up over 50 years. And we absolutely cannot turn that clock back, ever. Some of this is cooked and done and can never be recovered. We can't build a friggin high speed train in CA with over $100 billion while, in China, they built them at a rapid pace during the same period of time.
So, I ask you, and others: When? When are you going to say "enough"? Is there a threshold or limit?
The same issue applies to this stupid Ukraine thing. When? What's the limit? A trillion dollars and ten more years? Sending our armed forces there? What the hell does "security guarantee" mean? I am blown away that no journalist at any media outlet seems to care to ask this term means in practice. Does it mean we, the US, commit to engaging with the full force of our military to protect Ukraine? Nuclear? Building a base in Ukraine? What the hell does it mean? Where are the limits?
Do I, as a US citizen, have to accept having my children go fight this war in Ukraine?
Fuck no.
Do I, as a US citizen, have to accept gifting Ukraine a trillion dollars, with no limits on time and spending? Money we do not have, we have to borrow and will add to the deficit. Money that could and should be spent internally to fix our many problems.
Fuck no.
You see, it is easy to take a side until you have to live with the consequences. Not one person who pushes for the ridiculous continuation of the Ukraine war would be willing to go there and fight for them or send their kids there. Not one. And nobody who is critical of the very necessary process to get our national finances in order would be willing to, today, right now, this moment, send a check for 20% more money to the federal government (which you can do, you don't need a law to donate money to the government). Nobody.
So, what we are talking about is hypocrisy. Talk is cheap. Write a check right now for $50K to the federal government to keep the employees being fired. I won't do that, because I believe there's waste that has to be fixed. If you, anyone, believe this not to be the case, start a GoFundMe and donate money to keep people employed, pay their substantial benefits and do so every year forever. But you won't do that. You'll come here and go on social media to comment on how wrong this is, because that's free and it does not affect you.
> The straw man is pushing the idea that nothing should ever be touched because all of it is essential
Nobody ever said that. They suggested that a bunch of people with no idea how anything in government worked or even the basic numeracy skills to tell the difference between a million and a billion dishing out firings with zero knowledge of who they were firing and bragging about it (with an occasional "oops maybe we shouldn't have fired the guys protecting us from nukes or Ebola) didn't look like a solution. So yes, it's a straw man entirely of your own construction.
I mean, if you're sincerely interested in cutting stuff that's absolute waste you'd maybe start with not charging Secret Service personnel 5x the market rate to stay at places like Mar-a-Lago for a cool $2m income for the president's personal business, not with firing people who create tax filing tools.
> BTW, I keep reading and hearing derogative terms like "script kiddies" and "20 year olds". What's happened to diversity and inclusion?
The government banned it, remember. In favour of "meritocracy". So I'm wondering what merit an 18 year old with two internships (fired from one) and no professional experience has demonstrated in the auditing of government employees? I think there's also a magical ability bar, and I'd set that a bit higher than being unable to tell the difference between a million and a billion when summing up their achievements in a public facing communication. Probably a whole pool of candidates out there that have never tried to procure DDoS attacks; most otherwise-equally-unqualified 18 year olds haven't never mind most people who understand how to audit government departments or at least how to read a balance sheet. But yeah, it does look a whole lot like DEI for people that would definitely have to delete their social media to get a regular job. You like DEI now the beneficiaries are unqualified edgelords rather than qualified people who are black or female?
> Write a check right now for $50K to the federal government to keep the employees being fired
As I understand it, the topic is Mark Cuban proposing a bigger check to them...
> BTW, I keep reading and hearing derogative terms like "script kiddies" and "20 year olds". What's happened to diversity and inclusion? So, they have to be of a certain age? What's the magical age? And, do they have to come from the same place that created the problems as well? This isn't sensible at all.
I don't support DOGE, but I have also wondered if all the roasting them for being young is fair. For now I landed on yes, it's a fair criticism -- these people are too young to be put in control of massive agencies that have been running for decades. If you believe they can make the right choice because it's so obvious, it seems like we may as well just fire everyone, and then we can save the time and expense of even having DOGE. It is not logical IMO to say that some discretion is needed but also unelected 20-year-olds have enough discretion.
Re "script kiddies": the term is a bit rude maybe. But given it means an unskilled programmer who is only barely able to use programs written by others, then yes, it is fair to criticize these DOGE people, whose primary qualification was supposedly being really smart programmers, if they don't appear to meet the mark. (I'm not taking a position on whether it's factual that they are unskilled, but simply whether a "script kiddie" belongs at a helm of the government.)
Regarding what's the right age, I think of Constitutional age limits and Congressional confirmations -- those are the ways we normally have to make sure people are old enough to work in the government. But the side that's been harping about "unelected bureaucrats" is now making the most powerful bureaucrats ever, not subject to election, legal qualifications, or Congressional oversight. Hmm.
> do they have to come from the same place that created the problems as well? This isn't sensible at all.
Well, no, but I have the impression the place they are coming from is "likes right-wing tech leaders like Elon Musk and has worked for them before." I'm not going to dig into investigating or presenting that now, but if it's true, then it's not sensible either. Even under a more charitable characterization of who they are, I don't think engineers, PMs, or MBAs are going to rapidly fix agencies that have been operating in a different sphere and scale. If they went at a more careful pace than DOGE has been doing, I might have more trust they would solve problems.
BTW, I keep reading and hearing derogative terms like "script kiddies" and "20 year olds". What's happened to diversity and inclusion? So, they have to be of a certain age? What's the magical age? And, do they have to come from the same place that created the problems as well? This isn't sensible at all.
Here's a reality: The US has been on a self-destructive path for decades. You could argue the number is somewhere between 25 and 50 years. Staying on the same path isn't going to make things better. Changing paths is not fun. It's dirty, messy and painful. Welcome to reality.
I remember having discussions here on HN many years back, when the national debt was in the $20 trillion range and annual deficits below a trillion dollars. I remember asking a simple question: Where is the limit? $25 TN, $30 TN, $35 TN ... $50 TN? Where? Where is the limit on annual deficits? 2, 4, 8? Where?
Nobody ever answers this question. Nobody. And yet reality is that this is a nation destroying itself from the inside while others around the world are taking advantage of our fiscal incompetence.
We can't make anything here any more. Not one thing (unless gov/mil and corner cases). This has been a slow-rolling tragedy building up over 50 years. And we absolutely cannot turn that clock back, ever. Some of this is cooked and done and can never be recovered. We can't build a friggin high speed train in CA with over $100 billion while, in China, they built them at a rapid pace during the same period of time.
So, I ask you, and others: When? When are you going to say "enough"? Is there a threshold or limit?
The same issue applies to this stupid Ukraine thing. When? What's the limit? A trillion dollars and ten more years? Sending our armed forces there? What the hell does "security guarantee" mean? I am blown away that no journalist at any media outlet seems to care to ask this term means in practice. Does it mean we, the US, commit to engaging with the full force of our military to protect Ukraine? Nuclear? Building a base in Ukraine? What the hell does it mean? Where are the limits?
Do I, as a US citizen, have to accept having my children go fight this war in Ukraine?
Fuck no.
Do I, as a US citizen, have to accept gifting Ukraine a trillion dollars, with no limits on time and spending? Money we do not have, we have to borrow and will add to the deficit. Money that could and should be spent internally to fix our many problems.
Fuck no.
You see, it is easy to take a side until you have to live with the consequences. Not one person who pushes for the ridiculous continuation of the Ukraine war would be willing to go there and fight for them or send their kids there. Not one. And nobody who is critical of the very necessary process to get our national finances in order would be willing to, today, right now, this moment, send a check for 20% more money to the federal government (which you can do, you don't need a law to donate money to the government). Nobody.
So, what we are talking about is hypocrisy. Talk is cheap. Write a check right now for $50K to the federal government to keep the employees being fired. I won't do that, because I believe there's waste that has to be fixed. If you, anyone, believe this not to be the case, start a GoFundMe and donate money to keep people employed, pay their substantial benefits and do so every year forever. But you won't do that. You'll come here and go on social media to comment on how wrong this is, because that's free and it does not affect you.