13 Apr 2025 10:12 am
Vegas » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Another Veghead original: post a link, copy a paragraph, add a punchline, and vanish before anyone asks for your actual opinion. At this point, your OPs are basically PowerPoint slides without the presentation.
Let’s assume for a moment the NYT analysis is correct—DOGE’s projected savings are way off. Fair enough. But here’s the actual question, not that we expect an answer (you’re sitting at dodge number 75 and climbing):
Of course, I expect the usual pattern:That’s how we got to 75 dodges, after all. Just giving you the respect of setting expectations.
- Step 1: Ignore the question.
- Step 2: Ask three unrelated ones.
- Step 3: Demand I prove a quote you already posted.
- Step 4: Call me a moron and strike through everything.
Error on that scale would never be tolerated in the private sector...If the revised $150 billion in projected savings is still greater than what previous administrations have managed through bureaucratic efficiency, isn’t it still something?
Even assuming 150 billion passes cursory scrutiny, AND is all "current", it represents a percentage of total federal spending so small you can't calculate it...not because the math is difficult, mind you.Or is your position that unless a plan is 100% fulfilled, it has zero value?
At this scale, even the promised savings might not meet the cost of remediating the errors of the process....and it certainly doesn't meet the level of "waste" you would anticipate in any enterprise of its size.
Now tell everyone what you refuse to do as a result of me answering your question directly, and the first time.