Nothing has changed yet. No plans have been rolled out.
We could wait and see what the plan is before claiming it's a failure already?
The poster said no such thing.
Thus my question seems like a pretty good rephrasing.
If someone says: "I think DOGE is BS", they're not saying: "I think any and all efforts to improve goverment efficiency are BS."
Sometimes, the thing a person says is the thing they mean to say. You're clearly creating a strawman.
Trying to give an analogy like “i don’t like football” and “we should kill all football players” for my statement is pretty disingenuous and a massive strawman itself.
Let me illustrate with an example in a statement form: “A rock can’t fly. You can’t fly, therefore you are a rock”.
You’re saying “A wants to do X. You are criticizing A, so you must object to X being done.” That is making an unjustified leap to your conclusion. It doesn’t matter what the subject is, this is a logic error.
The very definition of DOGE is government efficiency.
So please explain why a team focused on efficiency is not the same as a focus o. government efficiency.
And get out of here with that libertarian “services I don’t use” nonsense.
And not just to employees and benefit receivers but also entrepreneurs and companies.
It's by far the largest single economic actor and statistically speaking given the size of such a large actor it is more likely than not you ended up breaking even as far as quality of life (QOL) when considering all your transactions (in money and services) with the Government.
Given the economic growth measured by GDP in the period 2000-2024 even more likely is that you ended up ahead.
Every system has inefficiencies, including the government.
The fallacy is to assume that businesses inherently have less inefficiencies than government and/or that a government’s cost/benefit equation improves if it’s run as a business. Often, their functions overlap and this can be the case. Automated traffic monitoring is cheaper than having people count cars. But beware privatization that promises efficiency and lower costs—the result is almost always worse services, maintainable debt and in time a government bailout.
Often, their functions do not overlap. The purpose of social security is not to tighten spending as much as possible, it is to improve quality of life as much as possible.