“Will DOGE lose more money than it saves?”

SmarterthanYou said:
Churchill is one of the first great so called progressives. he was also the original one to state that you can't tax your way in to prosperity.

Clinton raised taxes and decreased spending not to balance a budget, but to find a way to implement his own desired programs in an agreement with Gingrich.

Agreed. In fact I was one of the first who ridiculed trump for DOGE because you don't tout cutting waste, fraud, and spending by creating an entire new agency within the federal government. We all know that the whistle blower program was smoke and mirrors.......people still get punished for blowing the whistle.

Until we stop electing self serving republicans and democrats in to federal office, we will continue to have our money stolen from us while it is deposited in to the pockets of those democrats and republicans, their donors, and cronies.
Click to expand...
Too generalized

Clinton had surpluses, and did lessen the debt
 
archives said:
That’s wrong, I just gave you the exact reason why, if the IRS already falls to collect now close to a trillion every year in unpaid taxes how does a 50% cut in their staff and resources not result in even greater lost revenue?
Click to expand...

How does it not? Sheer number of employees =/= efficiency. This is an example of Parkinson's Law in action.

memod.com

Parkinson's Law explains how bureaucracies (don't) work

Introduction. Cyril Parkinson was a British army officer and civil servant. Early in his career, he... • 2 mins read
memod.com memod.com

Basically, the workload doesn't change. By hiring more people each person has to do less. Theoretically, if you hire enough people nothing gets done.
archives said:
And no one is arguing the Government needs cutting, but doing it indiscriminately without any design can only result in further problems, when you eliminate half the workforce without first exams that workforce you could wind up with even worse fraud and waste
Click to expand...
Are the cuts "indiscriminate?" I don't think they are. They're targeted. If the amount of work to be done can be completed by half the current workforce, then eliminating half will have no effect.

You assume that in the current bureaucracy each and every person is necessary and working to capacity. That violates all the 'rules' of bureaucracies. Inefficiency is a bureaucratic standard.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
How does it not? Sheer number of employees =/= efficiency. This is an example of Parkinson's Law in action.

memod.com

Parkinson's Law explains how bureaucracies (don't) work

Introduction. Cyril Parkinson was a British army officer and civil servant. Early in his career, he... • 2 mins read
memod.com memod.com

Basically, the workload doesn't change. By hiring more people each person has to do less. Theoretically, if you hire enough people nothing gets done.

Are the cuts "indiscriminate?" I don't think they are. They're targeted. If the amount of work to be done can be completed by half the current workforce, then eliminating half will have no effect.

You assume that in the current bureaucracy each and every person is necessary and working to capacity. That violates all the 'rules' of bureaucracies. Inefficiency is a bureaucratic standard.
Click to expand...
Nothing personal, but you are wrong again, what you are missing is that Musk’s indiscriminate firing of people doesn’t even guarantee you are maintaining the best employees. Parkinson’s law doesn’t apply unless you have a profile of what people do and who is needed, and what is required to complete the task. Randomly flushing half your workforce does not accomplish the goal

The cuts are indiscriminate, you don’t quickly release half your workforce with one month in if your cuts are designed to, the fact that Musk has had to quickly rehire some of those fired proves that point

And I am not assuming each and every person is necessary, rather that the undersigned cutting that is occurring is without real thought or design, it is largely political. As I’ve asked, how do you save when you ax half a workforce that already isn’t staffed enough to collect a trillion dollars a year in unpaid taxes? The loss revenue will never be recovered
 
archives said:
Like thousands of people 150 years old still collection social security?
Click to expand...
There are clearly people that age on the books. Why? Remove them. You shouldn’t be opposed to that should you? It is like you don’t want wast fraud and abuse dealt with
 
archives said:
“ The Department of Government Efficiency claims that it has saved the country $115 billion so far. But is this accurate?”

“On DOGE’s website, it claims that $115 billion has saved taxpayers around $715 each. However, DOGE has deleted hundreds of claims from its “wall of receipts” several times.”

“DOGE’s plan to cut staff at the IRS by up to 50% would lead to a $400 billion increase in uncollected taxes over the next 10 years. This could lead to $2 trillion in losses. Right now, the IRS fails to collect around $700 billion in taxes that are owed each year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics suggests that every dollar that is spent on auditing individuals in the top 10% of earners returns around $12.”

“The Treasury Department’s inspector general has previously estimated that each hour spent auditing a high earner creates close to $5,000 more in tax revenue”


Not surprising, there is a reason Trump quickly eliminated the IGs and watchdogs on Government spending, the last thing he and Musk want is having to prove what they bloviate
Click to expand...
The DOGE clock is not an official website.
 
archives said:
Wrong, it’s been debunked, even Trump’s appointed head of SS confirmed such (https://apnews.com/article/social-s...-claims-doge-ed2885f5769f368853ac3615b4852cf7), and yet both Trump and Musk keep echoing the lie
Click to expand...
Surely you aren’t against cleaning up the books and making sure people who shouldn’t be there aren’t?

It is like when you guys get your knickers in a twist over cleaning up voter rolls

It is like you are ok with fraud. We know you are ok with political terrorism
 
archives said:
So explain to us how his supposed savings, which have not been confirmed, come nowhere near the lost revenue resulted by decimating the IRS, not a loss?
Click to expand...
Not stealing our money isn't "losing" it. The fuck is wrong with your brain?
 
Teflon Don said:
Surely you aren’t against cleaning up the books and making sure people who shouldn’t be there aren’t?

It is like when you guys get your knickers in a twist over cleaning up voter rolls

It is like you are ok with fraud. We know you are ok with political terrorism
Click to expand...

That's kind of like a MAGA opposing the Green New Deal, and me saying conservatives are okay with destroying the planet.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
false comparisons and equivalency....also completely irrelevant. thanks for playing
Click to expand...
Reasonable taxes to pay for the things a modern economy needs are good for the economy. Even in more primitive economies, where taxes either replaced forced service, or pillaging, taxes are good for the economy.
 
Teflon Don said:
Surely you aren’t against cleaning up the books and making sure people who shouldn’t be there aren’t?

It is like when you guys get your knickers in a twist over cleaning up voter rolls

It is like you are ok with fraud. We know you are ok with political terrorism
Click to expand...
Echoing lies about 100,000 people 150 years old collecting SS isn’t cleaning any books, it just demagoguery
 
archives said:
“ The Department of Government Efficiency claims that it has saved the country $115 billion so far. But is this accurate?”

“On DOGE’s website, it claims that $115 billion has saved taxpayers around $715 each. However, DOGE has deleted hundreds of claims from its “wall of receipts” several times.”

“DOGE’s plan to cut staff at the IRS by up to 50% would lead to a $400 billion increase in uncollected taxes over the next 10 years. This could lead to $2 trillion in losses. Right now, the IRS fails to collect around $700 billion in taxes that are owed each year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics suggests that every dollar that is spent on auditing individuals in the top 10% of earners returns around $12.”

“The Treasury Department’s inspector general has previously estimated that each hour spent auditing a high earner creates close to $5,000 more in tax revenue”


Not surprising, there is a reason Trump quickly eliminated the IGs and watchdogs on Government spending, the last thing he and Musk want is having to prove what they bloviate
Click to expand...
The one thing you can count on is that information that comes from the trump administration will never be accurate, and that trump and his thugs will always do more harm to the world than good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top