Summary

Elon Musk’s DOGE faces mounting pressure to show achievements amid criticism. Staffers, under pressure from Trump administration officials, seek public relations wins to counter negative headlines.

Cuts to federal offices led to mass layoffs, and efforts to modernize government services have been chaotic. DOGE prioritizes speed over security and protecting sensitive information.

Trump has distanced himself, stating agency chiefs, not Musk, control department cuts, preferring a “scalpel” over a “hatchet” approach. Public opinion has turned against DOGE, with 48% disapproving versus 34% approving, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll.

With limited time before their tenure ends, DOGE officials are desperate to show results.

  • rigatti@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    My societal dream is that the government would nationalize industries once they reach the monopoly or oligopoly stage. Like, congratulations Comcast/Verizon, you won the game of capitalism. Now move over and let the government actually provide services to the people at a reasonable cost.

    But I know this is just a dream.

    • oppy1984@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Honestly I’d prefer that the government set up government corporations to provide basic needs. The private corporations could still operate but they would control the higher end market. The gov. corps. would just make sure basics were affordable, not high quality.

      Need a car? The gov corp car is $15,000 brand new and is basic as hell, but it gets the job done.

      Need Internet? The gov corp fiber network is mid range speed and connects to everyone. As a bonus for profit corps and but rights to the dumb pipe fiber network that the gov corp set up and off higher speed at a higher price.

      Basic clothes, basic toiletries, basic food, etc. you want designer or high end stuff, get it from the for profit corps. But basic necessities should be made at cost by the government for the citizens. It is the job of the government to care for it’s citizens after all.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I mean, the poison is already in your pitch - “private sector gets the high end”. What happens when the government fiber turns out to be faster? What happens when the government cheese is actually better? What happens when the government clothes turn out to be higher quality than the shit we wear today?

        What is Verizon going to do? Cry to Congress that they need to go out of their way and pay more to artificially slow down gov fiber. Kellogg will cry free healthy food is ruining demand for overprocessed corn syrup products. If they don’t kill it in the cradle they’re all going to chip away at it, one bit at a time

        How about the government produces the basics and the infrastructure, and corporations get fucked? Let small local business take over, and use the infrastructure at cost. Let competition thrive, and we use antitrust like the pro-active protection against oligarchy it was meant to be

        • oppy1984@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          I get what you’re saying, but government fiber speeds could be capped, products wouldn’t be high end, ect.

          I am by no means an economist, or an expert in these matters, and I apologize if I was presenting as those I was. I just feel like you should put those kind of ideas out there for others to iterate on.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            But there’s the root problem - why are you capping the speed at all? Why are you making inferior products?

            To leave room for others to make money. That is the taint in the idea… Why do they need to make money if they can’t provide a better service than what the government can do at cost? Or lower even, for the essentials

            It’s looking at it backwards. People don’t need to make money - money is the sign that you’re providing value to society. If you can’t beat out the government, which is presumably focused on the things everyone needs, why does someone deserve money for it?

            It’s ok if the government becomes the largest food distributor, hopefully that means everyone eats. It’s ok if telcos go out of business, so long as people pay less to get online

            Companies should be able to challenge the government, but that doesn’t mean they should be given special privilege - making money is a sign you’re doing something valuable. If you’re carving out room for people to make money you’re doing it wrong

            • oppy1984@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days ago

              I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.

              Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 days ago

                That’s the kind of middle ground with fascism the Democratic party is engaging in…

                You can make compromises, you can find a middle ground. But that ground has to be stable, it can’t be compromised from the get go - that’s how you get Obamacare, a payout to insurance companies that has a few positives baked in

                If it’s compromised from the start, you haven’t done anything positive - you’ve just opened the floor to bastardize it further

                • oppy1984@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I guess I’m just stuck in the 90’s mindset of trying to find compromise. I know that idea was on the decline then, but I still, maybe foolishly, hold on to it.

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I mean, the 90s are what got us here…

                    You can’t try to meet the opposition halfway, especially not when they’re ideologically opposed to your goals. Especially when they’re dishonest. Especially when they stretch and exploit the rules to get their way.

                    Even if their strategy wasn’t to rig the system and manipulate the game, they are oppositional on near everything.

                    It just ends up in you starting the negotiation halfway, before they compromise 75% in their favor, and they might squeeze another bit here and there

                    The 90s were not a good time politically - it was a civil time. It was also constant pull to the right, we dismantled our social safety nets, we let worker protections get whittled down, we let corporations grow too powerful to reign in. We even removed banking regulations that allowes the 2008 recession, and it all culminated in citizens united.

                    Our problems now are because of that attitude… Congress used to occasionally erupt into fist fights, and it was better for it. You need the push and pull, or you get the uni party the GOP and Democratic party became - two faces squabbling over social issues as they cooperated to sell out the people