[Humble_Opinion]

Look, I’m all for slashing government waste; but maybe let’s have an actual independent council handle that? You know, someone who isn’t cashing government checks...

Independent council? Like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that has been pointing out waste/fraud/abuse for decades now and have been ignored? Those people are cashing government checks. Maybe you could hire an accounting firm? PWC, E&Y, KPMG, Deloitte, BDO?? Guess what... they also cash PLENTY of government checks. Hopefully you get the point by now - if your M.O. is to find someone who doesn't rely on the government for at least part of them paying the bills then we'll be right where we were a month ago. No action.

You can complain about Elon all you want and even question whether he's the best fit for this role. Most things Elon touches though do pretty well. He's smart because he surrounds himself with smart people. One of the guys on the DOGE team cracked a language code to allow us to read some of the missing texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. These people on this team aren't your average government/corporate types. Also, are we really asking for MORE transparency re: USAID?? That organization has IGNORED requests from both houses of congress for details on their spending. That's well-documented on CSPAN/YouTube. Samatha Powers herself straight up told them that she wouldn't comply with those requests. Elon has been at this for 3 weeks. Your clamoring for "transparency" rings hollow for me.

[jpwood]

I'm all for cutting waste, but I have no interest in a billionaire who profits from the government taking the lead. That's all.

[TH Spangler]

[aredd33]

I'm all for cutting waste, but I have no interest in a billionaire who profits from the government taking the lead. That's all.

So you’d rather have waste than Elon shed light on it? Why does it matter who points it out?

Also, let’s not pretend Elon needs to government to be successful.

[jpwood]

Again...I'm all for cutting waste...

Look, Elon Musk is a smart guy, no doubt. But even the smartest guy in the room needs a little help sometimes; especially when he’s trying to build electric cars nobody wanted (at first) and rockets that land themselves instead of crashing into the ocean.

Tesla got a $465 million loan from the government when it was struggling, which helped keep the lights on and the cars rolling. SpaceX? Same deal. NASA took a chance on them with billions in contracts to send cargo—and eventually astronauts—to the ISS. Without those deals, SpaceX might’ve just been another startup with cool ideas and no fuel (literally).

So yeah, Elon had the vision, but the government helped foot the bill. Think of it like a group project where one guy does all the talking, but the other members—AKA taxpayers—chip in to actually get it done.

Imagine with me for a minute if instead of Elon, this was Bill Gates

[Purple Haize]

It’s become apparent that those in charge of monitoring waste fraud and abuse have not been doing a very good job.
As much as some people hate them who else but Trump and Musk could expose these types of expenditures and move to eliminate them? You can’t resort to ‘well Congress is supposed to’ or ‘That what IG’s are for’. Well, they’ve been titularly in charge of doing that and look what we have.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have kicked the can down the road for someone else to deal with later. Trump 2.0 is picking up the can and dealing with it.

[jpwood]

Picking up the can? Sure. Actually dealing with it? Way too soon to say.

What blows my mind is how many people here overlook why Musk’s involvement is a problem.

The ends don’t always justify the means.

[Purple Haize]

Picking up the can? Sure. Actually dealing with it? Way too soon to say.

What blows my mind is how many people here overlook why Musk’s involvement is a problem.

The ends don’t always justify the means.

The expenditures are being exposed and attempting to be eliminated. That’s a whole lot more than anyone else has done. Including Trump 1.0
Why is Musk and his people a problem. No one has been able to articulate that. I see him as an apolitical outsider who is doing to the Federal Government what he did at X. If you don’t like Musk, ok, then who else has the credibility to expose these things? THAT is a question I’ve never seen answered by Musks critics

[jpwood]

Conflict of interest. I articulated it in my posts above.

I'll expand on that thought.

Elon Musk’s involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency could be a conflict of interest for several reasons:

1. Government Contracts & Business Interests; Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink, have received significant government contracts and subsidies. If he influences policies related to efficiency, he could shape decisions in ways that benefit his businesses.

2. Competitive Advantage – As a government advisor, Musk could gain insider knowledge about federal contracts, upcoming regulations, and policy changes, giving his businesses an edge over competitors who don’t have the same access.

3. Personal Ideological Bias – Musk has strong public opinions on issues like AI, space exploration, and infrastructure. His personal ideology might shape efficiency measures in ways that prioritize his own vision rather than what’s best for the broader public.

4. Self-Policing Issue – If part of the efficiency effort involves reviewing government contracts and expenditures, there’s a risk Musk could downplay scrutiny on industries he operates in while promoting cuts elsewhere.

To put in sport terms. Having a major government contractor shape policies on government efficiency is like letting a player referee their own game; it raises questions about fairness, transparency, and whether public funds are being used in the best way possible.

[Purple Haize]

Conflict of interest. I articulated it in my posts above.

I disagree it’s a conflict of interest. I would agree if he was not looking at his contracts as well. But he is welcoming any and all scrutiny. I believe he’s even on record saying all EV subsidies should be done away with. Which directly affects Tesla. Should the Government not do business with SpaceX?
You don’t like Musk. Fine. Who else is capable of doing what his people are doing?

[jpwood]

I like Elon actually.

I added to my post above for more context.

[Purple Haize]

I like Elon actually.

I added to my post above for more context.

Thanks for adding the list.
#1 I don’t believe his position in DOGE is awarding contracts etc. The only influence he could bring is showing how poorly Lockheed is managing Government funds and how good Space X is handling it. I already mentioned Tesla and EV subsidies. Incidentally you have a State Government in CA that is actually inacting laws to specifically punish Tesla
#2 That’s a tough one to know. If his group of techies are looking at has been spent I’m not sure they have access into future contracts.
#3 I’m ok with his ideological view but understand others who aren’t. Which again goes to the point if not Musk,, who?
#4 That’s a hazard with anyone undertaking this type of venture. People elected Trump knowing Musk would be heading up DOGE and we’re ok with it. And again, if not Musk, who?

I understand it’s a fine line. Heaven knows you put Robert Reich in charge of something like this you’d end up with more rather than less government spending and Conservatives would go nuts. Musk is tight with Trump but he’s also pretty apolitical outside of that. He’s an outsider with a proven track record. I’m willing to take the ‘risk’ with him.

[RubberMallet]

Every attempt at building a "DOGE" in the past has been a complete failure because we've placed bureaucrats who need something from someone else to further whatever endeavor or hopes and dreams they may have. Which basically means they are held high by the entities they are supposed to be auditing by their short and curlies.

So while its not perfect, clearly Elon needs nothing from anyone. He's used gvt money in the past sure but we are beyond that. The difference is the director of USAID can't touch him. the director of the IRS can't touch him. the senators and congress people pulling strings behind the string have nothing on him and if they did who cares. They guy is a brilliant autist who just lives on a different planet. Its like the perfect person.

the moment you find a "actual independent council" they are seconds away from being poisoned in back room meetings because "ooh i'd like that position" or "yes my daughter is trying to get into harvard", etc etc etc

[Humble_Opinion]

Conflict of interest. I articulated it in my posts above.

I'll expand on that thought.

Elon Musk’s involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency could be a conflict of interest for several reasons:

1. Government Contracts & Business Interests; Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink, have received significant government contracts and subsidies. If he influences policies related to efficiency, he could shape decisions in ways that benefit his businesses.

2. Competitive Advantage – As a government advisor, Musk could gain insider knowledge about federal contracts, upcoming regulations, and policy changes, giving his businesses an edge over competitors who don’t have the same access.

3. Personal Ideological Bias – Musk has strong public opinions on issues like AI, space exploration, and infrastructure. His personal ideology might shape efficiency measures in ways that prioritize his own vision rather than what’s best for the broader public.

4. Self-Policing Issue – If part of the efficiency effort involves reviewing government contracts and expenditures, there’s a risk Musk could downplay scrutiny on industries he operates in while promoting cuts elsewhere.

To put in sport terms. Having a major government contractor shape policies on government efficiency is like letting a player referee their own game; it raises questions about fairness, transparency, and whether public funds are being used in the best way possible.

1) Because he "could" do something is not a valid reason. There are lots of people with influence that have served in our government in a similar capacity. Musk is maybe the most high-profile person to do this with the exception of Trump himself.

2) As an employee of a large government contractor, I can tell you that the staffs of companies are filled to the brim with former government types and well-connected individuals. If Musk starts reviewing proposals as opposed to active contracts I might think otherwise on this one. Until then, there's no reason for me to be worried about it.

3) Again, you're getting into hypotheticals. What you're stating as a reason to not trust him would be applicable to almost any other person that could feasibly work in this capacity.

4) Yeah he could do this. Again, it's a hypothetical. Government has become so large though that literally anyone that you choose for this role could do it. So far, I have no reason to question his seemingly good intentions that he's trying to make government more efficient without personal gain.

Elon spent $44B on his purchase of X, which by all accounts was way too high of a price. He made it more efficient, got rid of the bloat and now it's an open platform for discussions to occur instead of another tool for government sponsored propaganda and speech control. A bunch of people said he was going to run it into the ground because he dared to question the need for a majority of the workforce. I'm willing to let him go at it, because this is a sharp departure from our modus operandi for the past 3 decades in government. The fact that nearly 90% of our national debt has been incurred in the past 30 years is more than enough reason for me to let Elon go about this. The reason we have inflation and high interest rates is directly correlated to our irresponsible level of government expenditures.

[TH Spangler]

Conflict of interest. I articulated it in my posts above.

I'll expand on that thought.

Elon Musk’s involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency could be a conflict of interest for several reasons:

1. Government Contracts & Business Interests; Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink, have received significant government contracts and subsidies. If he influences policies related to efficiency, he could shape decisions in ways that benefit his businesses.

2. Competitive Advantage – As a government advisor, Musk could gain insider knowledge about federal contracts, upcoming regulations, and policy changes, giving his businesses an edge over competitors who don’t have the same access.

3. Personal Ideological Bias – Musk has strong public opinions on issues like AI, space exploration, and infrastructure. His personal ideology might shape efficiency measures in ways that prioritize his own vision rather than what’s best for the broader public.

4. Self-Policing Issue – If part of the efficiency effort involves reviewing government contracts and expenditures, there’s a risk Musk could downplay scrutiny on industries he operates in while promoting cuts elsewhere.

To put in sport terms. Having a major government contractor shape policies on government efficiency is like letting a player referee their own game; it raises questions about fairness, transparency, and whether public funds are being used in the best way possible.

1) Because he "could" do something is not a valid reason. There are lots of people with influence that have served in our government in a similar capacity. Musk is maybe the most high-profile person to do this with the exception of Trump himself.

2) As an employee of a large government contractor, I can tell you that the staffs of companies are filled to the brim with former government types and well-connected individuals. If Musk starts reviewing proposals as opposed to active contracts I might think otherwise on this one. Until then, there's no reason for me to be worried about it.

3) Again, you're getting into hypotheticals. What you're stating as a reason to not trust him would be applicable to almost any other person that could feasibly work in this capacity.

4) Yeah he could do this. Again, it's a hypothetical. Government has become so large though that literally anyone that you choose for this role could do it. So far, I have no reason to question his seemingly good intentions that he's trying to make government more efficient without personal gain.

Elon spent $44B on his purchase of X, which by all accounts was way too high of a price. He made it more efficient, got rid of the bloat and now it's an open platform for discussions to occur instead of another tool for government sponsored propaganda and speech control. A bunch of people said he was going to run it into the ground because he dared to question the need for a majority of the workforce. I'm willing to let him go at it, because this is a sharp departure from our modus operandi for the past 3 decades in government. The fact that nearly 90% of our national debt has been incurred in the past 30 years is more than enough reason for me to let Elon go about this. The reason we have inflation and high interest rates is directly correlated to our irresponsible level of government expenditures.

As of the latest reports, specifically from Bloomberg on February 19, 2025, X is in talks to raise money that would value the company at approximately $44 billion. This figure matches the $44 billion Elon Musk paid to acquire the platform in October 2022. While these talks are ongoing and could still fall apart, this potential valuation indicates that X’s market value may have reached what Musk originally paid for it.

[Purple Haize]

Zelensky screwed the pooch today. It’s unfortunate

[LUOrange]

He clearly is not smart or professional enough to have saved that conversation for behind closed doors. Of course, that conversation behind closed doors might've been a lot shorter and more intense as well. I know I would've told him take the deal or the US is done. That he'd get no more support or aid of any kind. He and NATO can start WW3 without us.

[olldflame]

Zelensky screwed the pooch today. It’s unfortunate

That seems to be what most Americans believe by the polling, and yet if you listen to virtually every dem, the MSM and many euro leaders, it was Trump who was "embarrassing". The globalist Euros want to dump on Trump, but they clearly don't want to fund Volodmyr's plan either, with France offering a pitiful 5 billion dollar "loan". That won't cover his coke budget for a month .

[Kricket]

Trump and Vance were embarrassing in their demeanor but not necessarily what they said. Zelenskyy is a straight up moron though. He doesn’t seem to care what happens to Ukrainians. He’s only thinking about himself.

The truth is, the US has enabled him to act tough, like Trump said. Without the US, Ukraine would have been gone in a couple of months. Zelenskyy should show a little respect and stop acting so entitled for the good of his people, if he cared about them.

[TH Spangler]

That war resembles our Civil War rather than Revolutionary War. Cousin virus cousin. Family feud. Hatfields and McCoys. Zelensk would welcome WW3. Ukraine should never be considered for NATO. I have a feeling Susan Rice got into Z's head right after he arrival here. I pray that bunch (Rice) never sees the WH again.

[JK37]

Is Russia wrong at all?

[TH Spangler]

Is Russia wrong at all?

Yes, absolutely. And so was Biden and the EU.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AAJkq ... tid=oFDknk

[Purple Haize]

Is Russia wrong at all?

Invading another Country is generally considered bad form

[JK37]

Is Russia wrong at all?

Invading another Country is generally considered bad form

One would assume, but that’s the part it seems like some are forgetting. That’s why I asked.

We can debate whether or not it’s the US’ place to help Ukraine. But Russia did start this mess as far as I can tell. They are the aggressor. Getting involved may mean choosing sides, and the US has already given so much aid to Ukraine I’m not sure it’s possible to play the part of objective third party.

When Vance brings up diplomacy, Zelenskyy has a point: Russia hasn’t followed any form of diplomacy.

One can still support the current admin, and agree that that meeting didn’t go well.

But maybe that was the plan. Push on Ukraine publicly so that Russia may finally come to the table in a serious way.

[Humble_Opinion]

Is Russia wrong at all?

Invading another Country is generally considered bad form

One would assume, but that’s the part it seems like some are forgetting. That’s why I asked.

We can debate whether or not it’s the US’ place to help Ukraine. But Russia did start this mess as far as I can tell. They are the aggressor. Getting involved may mean choosing sides, and the US has already given so much aid to Ukraine I’m not sure it’s possible to play the part of objective third party.

When Vance brings up diplomacy, Zelenskyy has a point: Russia hasn’t followed any form of diplomacy.

One can still support the current admin, and agree that that meeting didn’t go well.

But maybe that was the plan. Push on Ukraine publicly so that Russia may finally come to the table in a serious way.

I would encourage you to go and listen to Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin. I don't disagree that Russia invaded Ukraine. That's obvious. What's not obvious to most are the actions leading up to his decision to pursue that course of action. For years, NATO has run an expansion campaign that has lead us to the borders with Russia. Ukraine has been of particular importance since the mid-1990s when the original security agreement was established between Russia, Ukraine and the US. If you consider our actions during 2013-14 in Ukraine and the role we played in influencing the elections that year, I think you would be hard-pressed to not lay some of the blame for where we are right on our own doorstep. It's simply naive to see this as a Russia bad, us good thing at this point. Too much has happened leading up to this.

Zelensky is an idiot. I don't blame the reaction that Trump and Vance had last week in the oval. You don't come to our place and try and role us on our home turf in front of the world. That's exactly what took place on Friday. Best of luck to Zelensky and his European stooges. The U.S. accounts for 76% of all defense spending amongst NATO member states. There are 500 million Europeans relying on 300 million Americans for their defense against 140 million Russians. It's backwards. What's more is that last year they spent more money on oil and natural gas from Russia than they EVER have. What kind of sense does that make?