'I'm a business guy. You do the best you can every day. Is it going to be perfect? No. Mistakes will be made.' The narrative that this administration’s mistakes are just like those in a business is 99% a lie. Most businesses take their time to figure out who to let go and handle it with decency. They certainly don’t yo-yo back and forth, firing and then rehiring within days. There is also a LOT of on-the-job training. Many of these people don’t know what they’re doing and, at best, are making rookie mistakes. Businesses do value efficiency, and they do strive for cost savings. But they achieve this with expertise and decency - not with inexperienced, on-the-job training or cruelty toward the people they choose to let go. So, the claim that "it’s just business" is mostly a lie, and the idea that they’re against "incompetent hires" is absolutely false.
a business primary objective is to turn a profit, not what is best for its workers and society as a whole…low IQ MAGAts want the government led by a bunch of greedy billionaires to run the country like a business thinking that means they’ll be taken care of the one leading the charge of this new business style of government went bankrupt 6 times
Trump wasn't lying when he said he wanted to be a dictator. The plan from the beginning was to fire career civil servants so that they could hire Trump/MAGA loyalists to replace them, regardless of competence.
I think.this is actually the way Trump runs his real estate business, which probably explains all the bankruptcies. Also, you can make up for being a disorganized, terrible businessman by screwing over everybody you work with. Not paying contractors what you owe them counters a ton of money lost from inefficiencies. But he strikes a mean pose for his mug shots, is a master of PR, and is a world class s**t talker, so the rubes think he is a great businessman.
If you are treating Governing like a business Who is the Owner? Who gets the "profits"? What are those Profits? Rocket River
Yep, that's how he does business. But let's be clear: this is not the normal way of doing business. Well-run businesses value stability, careful decision-making, and long-term planning. They don’t make a habit of firing people on a whim, rehiring days later, or refusing to pay vendors. That’s not “just business” – it’s reckless and exploitative. His repeated bankruptcies (six) show the consequences of this approach. He has complete control with no obstacles to running his private businesses, and that’s exactly what he’s trying to replicate in the executive branch. It’s not about making improvements or fixing inefficiencies; it’s about pushing out as many apolitical workers as possible to replace them with political appointees who serve his personal or political agenda. @Rocket River – Now, if you’re treating governing like a business, your questions are: Who owns it? Who gets the profits? And what exactly are those profits? The owner, in this case, is the person at the top – him. The profits, however, don’t go to the public. They go to the wealthy elites and corporate interests who benefit from the chaos, instability, and ultimately, bowing to him. What’s "profitable" here isn’t long-term stability or better services – it’s power, control, and personal gain. Just like in his bankruptcies, where investors and employees were left with the aftermath, federal employee and the public will be the ones to bear the costs. Politically motivated restructuring or policies designed to serve the whims of a single leader will damage the entire system, not just the federal workers. The public sector, when gutted or slashed, has a direct impact on the economy, and that kind of instability is just as risky as a bankruptcy. And who stands to benefit? The ones at the top – the wealthy elites and friendly corporate interests – continue to profit while the rest of the system bears the costs. Investors in the US government, including bondholders and our allies, will lose confidence in the country’s stability and leadership. This could have far-reaching consequences for our economy, national bonds, currency, and allies. In the end, while he might come out on top personally, the system itself, the people tied to it, and the economy at large – especially the most vulnerable – will suffer. The ones left standing will be the powerful elites who thrive on chaos and access to the very top, while those who rely on stable jobs and services will bear the brunt of the fallout. We hope, of course, that things do not turn out this dark, that the system can withstand the chaos and emerge stable or even stronger. Still, we can't simply assume everything will be okay. His history shows a pattern (bankruptcies, investors left holding cetns on the dollar while he holds onto the company/ or country in this case) that we can't ignore. The hope is that, somehow, this time will be different, but the risk is real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/24/musk-doge-usaid-cuts-dc/ [op/ed]The blinding contempt of the DOGE bros Takeover of USAID: Elon Musk's "DOGE" (Department of Government Efficiency) initiative, led by young, inexperienced tech enthusiasts, targeted USAID shortly after Donald Trump's inauguration. Humiliating Treatment of Staff: The DOGE team, particularly Luke Farritor and Gavin Kliger, treated USAID staff with contempt, disrupting established processes and sidelining experienced professionals. Disruption of Aid Programs: The DOGE team's actions led to the delay or cancellation of critical aid programs, affecting vulnerable populations worldwide (Ukraine, Syria, HIV in Africa). Techno-Chauvinism: The author argues that Musk's approach is rooted in a Silicon Valley belief that engineers are superior problem-solvers and that government employees are incompetent. Misunderstanding of Government: The article emphasizes that government agencies operate with checks and balances to ensure integrity, unlike corporations focused solely on profit. Musk's team disregards these fundamental differences. Questionable Methods: The author questions whether Musk's goals (streamlining government) justify the disrespectful and disruptive methods employed by DOGE. Potential for Reversal: The author suggests that DOGE's actions may face legal challenges and that their "blitzkrieg" approach to government reform is unlikely to be sustainable. Hot Takes: "...A couple of my interns can do this better than all of you." - the perceived arrogance and disrespect of Musk and his team. "Meanwhile, AIDS clinics shuttered and staff found themselves stranded in unstable countries such as Congo. A pregnant woman in an undisclosed country has sued the Trump administration because she was denied a medevac helicopter. In another case, I was told, an employee in southern Africa who needed chemotherapy was also denied a chopper because no one would authorize the money." - the real-world consequences of DOGE's actions. "A $50 billion agency...is now tightly controlled by a handful of 20-something software engineers who have never worked a day in government." - the perceived absurdity of the situation. "Posting on X, Musk said it was time for USAID to die and crowed about feeding it to a wood chipper. It’s impossible to overstate the level of his contempt." - Musk's extreme disdain for the agency. "...making some of the foremost experts in their fields prostrate themselves before a couple of grad-school-level coders who probably couldn’t find Congo on a map?" - the DOGE team's lack of relevant experience "Humiliating career public servants isn’t some accidental byproduct of the quest for efficiency. It seems to be the point of the exercise." - the DOGE initiative is motivated by malice rather than genuine reform?
good link, i moved this to the the thread on DOGE, https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/doge-the-eschaton.324632/add-reply
On-the-Job Training at the Department of Education McMahon, a billionaire with limited experience in education, is now leading the Department of Education. Five days into the job, she announced that the department is set to cut its workforce by half. Her task is to shut it down while ensuring that no programs fall through the cracks - a very tall order and nearly impossible contradiction. How do you shut down a department while ensuring the programs and services it administers remain intact? Secretary of Education McMahon on Fox: "I’m not sure I can tell you exactly what it (IDEA) stands for, except that it’s the programs for disabled and needs [students]." "This is my fifth day on the job, and I’m really trying to learn them (programs) very quickly." "That was the President’s mandate. His directive to me, clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education." "We wanted to make sure that we kept all of the right people, the good people, to ensure that outward-facing programs, grants, and congressional appropriations are all being met and that none of it falls through the cracks."
