> Cutting funding for agencies and organizations that were investigating companies run by Elon Musk.
Which doesn't make any sense because you don't need to cut their funding when it's your buddies in office. They just don't investigate you anymore regardless of their funding level.
> Cutting funding for organizations, like NOAA, that have high economic returns for every dollar the government spent on them.
It's obvious why fossil fuel companies (and therefore Trump) would want to do this, but Musk is the guy who does electric cars and grid storage batteries. His financial incentive would be to play up the dangers of climate change.
And this is the same as the first one. If your guy is in office then you don't need to cut the funding of some agency under your own control, you just have them stop doing whatever it is you don't want them to do anymore.
> Copying information from multiple government databases.
The only reason DOGE could copy them to begin with is that they were already in control of the government and therefore already had access to the databases. If you want to complain about something, how about why does the government keep all of this sensitive information instead of encouraging systems that use decentralized identity or don't imply or require mass surveillance in order to operate? Every administration has access to that when they get elected, including the ones you don't like, so let's not have it to begin with.
> (2) leaves openings for someone with enough capital to fill in the gaps left behind and make a profit charging for what used to be a government service.
If this was actually a profitable market then there would be no reason for it to be a government service to begin with. But it isn't, because collecting the data is expensive and there aren't a lot of buyers. If anything getting rid of NOAA would cost SpaceX money because NOAA pays SpaceX to launch satellites, and nobody else is going to do it.
Republicans want to cut NOAA because they publish climate data and the fossil fuel industry is a Republican constituency. But you don't need DOGE for that when the Republicans control Congress.
They were completely feckless at finding the right things to cut but this stuff is conspiracy theories.
Which doesn't make any sense because you don't need to cut their funding when it's your buddies in office. They just don't investigate you anymore regardless of their funding level.
> Cutting funding for organizations, like NOAA, that have high economic returns for every dollar the government spent on them.
It's obvious why fossil fuel companies (and therefore Trump) would want to do this, but Musk is the guy who does electric cars and grid storage batteries. His financial incentive would be to play up the dangers of climate change.
And this is the same as the first one. If your guy is in office then you don't need to cut the funding of some agency under your own control, you just have them stop doing whatever it is you don't want them to do anymore.
> Copying information from multiple government databases.
The only reason DOGE could copy them to begin with is that they were already in control of the government and therefore already had access to the databases. If you want to complain about something, how about why does the government keep all of this sensitive information instead of encouraging systems that use decentralized identity or don't imply or require mass surveillance in order to operate? Every administration has access to that when they get elected, including the ones you don't like, so let's not have it to begin with.
> (2) leaves openings for someone with enough capital to fill in the gaps left behind and make a profit charging for what used to be a government service.
If this was actually a profitable market then there would be no reason for it to be a government service to begin with. But it isn't, because collecting the data is expensive and there aren't a lot of buyers. If anything getting rid of NOAA would cost SpaceX money because NOAA pays SpaceX to launch satellites, and nobody else is going to do it.
Republicans want to cut NOAA because they publish climate data and the fossil fuel industry is a Republican constituency. But you don't need DOGE for that when the Republicans control Congress.
They were completely feckless at finding the right things to cut but this stuff is conspiracy theories.