Did you hear 21 DOGE employees have quit?
Asked by
JLeslie (
65981
)
1 month ago
from iPhone
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
29 Answers
Yep, I heard about it. Those 21 employees were carry-overs from the US Digital Service as you mentioned. This was the created program (from Obama, I believe) that President Trump took and turned into DOGE. They were already part of the government and likely part of the problem. All I can find shows that USDS didn’t do anything to stop wasteful spending, they just helped to provide technology so it could be done more quickly. They didn’t want to be there, didn’t want to actually care about the money that was being wasted, so they quit. My thoughts? If you don’t like your job, you are completely free to quit.
The problem is that this talking point starts with the idea that they were people Elon Musk brought in so it sounds like even his own people don’t like him. That is erroneous.
I have stopped looking at the train wreck. I am worried for my unborn grandchildren however at the irreversible damage they are doing.
^Same here. I don’t know what’s true or what is lies.
It’s like a tornado of information, disinformation, misinformation, personnel. It’s hard to keep track of all of it. I liked @chyna‘s comment because I agree with her.
@RocketGuy I understand the techy work. But they were rolled over from USDS to DOGE. Their job descriptions changed. They are no longer looking to make things faster or easier because of computer or programming upgrades, they are now being asked to look at the processes those upgrades doing. When you make computer upgrades to make things run faster, but what you are making run faster is money out the door, it isn’t more efficient. It’s more waste. DOGE is looking at what was being processed, not the computer programs being used for processing it.
I don’t really care at all about these folks. I don’t expect them to continue to work at a job they disagree with and I don’t think badly of them for quitting.
You’re blaming the mechanics for making the car drive better, and not the drivers who control where the car goes?
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
I think at this point we should all agree that everything that happens on Trump’s watch, he now owns. Project 2025 is his doing.
I would like to think so, but true magas will still blame anything really bad on the Democrats .
@RocketGuy The mechanics made the car drive better, not knowing or caring that the drivers were driving drunk and hurting people. When they were suddenly asked to look into how the cars were being used, they didn’t want that job. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not blaming the mechanics for anything. But I’m also not saying that the mechanics started into this by working for the sheriff that was looking into the drunk drivers. That is not accurate either.
^^ As opposed to the so called leader driving drunk and hurting people.
There is a big difference between not wanting a job and not wanting to do something unethical.
I think the problem is in the name and not just because it sounds like some meme crypto currency . It shouldn’t be the department of government efficiency it should be the department of government effectiveness. Its perfectly possible to something useless efficiently.
@seawulf575 – they were mandated to drive the cars in illegal ways, which is why they quit.
@Forever_Free When did it become unethical to ask an employee what they do in a given week? When did it become unethical to look at how money is spent? Wow. You have a very strange view of things. It would seem far more unethical for people to collect a paycheck and do nothing for it or, worse, collect a paycheck generating waste, fraud, and abuse.
@RocketGuy Maybe. Or maybe they were realizing they were going to be part of an effort that could lead to the gravy train ending and didn’t want to be there. As I said, I’m not mad at these people at all…if they don’t want to work there, they don’t have to. But I certainly don’t give them any credence for claims. This is the same thing we have seen from the left time and again…the people doing crap jobs or illegal activities suddenly want to play victim and the start spewing all sorts of things to deflect from the focus. I’m not saying they ARE doing that, but we have seen it so much that I’m saying they COULD be doing that.
@seawulf575 Get your stories straight please. It appears you don’t truly understand each and every issue. Please don’t blanket statement false responses.
Look it up if you dare. For the record the facts are:
These people quit because they did not want to jeopardize Americans' sensitive data.
They refused to use their technical expertise to “compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.”
“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,”
@Forever_Free See? This is where you and I differ. In how you interpret things and how I do.
“These people quit because they did not want to jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data.” Wasn’t it their computer programs that were being used to access that data? They weren’t being asked to hack into systems, they were being asked to provide technical advice…period. If they felt that would be jeopardizing American’s sensitive data, what they are saying is that the sensitive data is there already and had been used by unelected bureaucrats already.
“They refused to use their technical expertise to “compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.”” Here we have the same sort of thing, but on steroids. They are saying they don’t want to compromise core government systems, jeopardize the sensitive information, or dismantle critical public services. All sounds good on the surface, but as with many things activists say, when you dig deeper, it doesn’t hold together. According to them, they already had access to the core government systems So that ship sailed. They were not elected…period. We don’t know what guardrails were in place to keep them from abusing the systems or accessing the private information. AND they are going so far as to appoint themselves the arbiters of what is a critical public service. That sort of statement comes right out of the left-wing playbook. The PRESIDENT is wanting to look at these systems and programs. HE is the one that determines what a critical public service is.
”“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” I have doubts about the veracity of this one. Most civilians working for the government are not sworn into office. I say civilians because every serviceman takes an oath when they join the military. Civilians are a different ballgame. They take no Constitutional oaths. I’d be highly surprised to hear that these bureaucrats were so different. I searched and cannot find a single thing about them actually taking an oath of office.
I see them as being part of the problem. They were helping to drive the gravy train and they know that DOGE will end that. So they quit, make a production of it, and leave hints and innuendoes that there is something nefarious going on. That smacks of left-wing activist, not concerned citizens. Concerned citizens or whistleblowers would have had more details and specifics to bring to the table. But you don’t think of anything other than Orange Man Bad and will believe anything you see or hear that supports that…without question. Without research. Without logic.
I know when I worked for the government, I had to go through an extensive background check and training, and different trainings about confidentiality, among other things. Other workers for the government that I knew (all levels from local towns to the County to the State to Federal), which included people in my family, had to do the same. They weren’t elected but they needed to go through the background checks. We don’t know what Musk’s people had to do, so we’re subject to these unknowns having access to our stuff. Hoping for the best. Hope and prayers, as they say.
I am finding it amusing that Tesla’s stock price is sinking, sinking, sinking. The latest attacks are coming from Randi Weingarten, head of the Teachers’ union.
@jca2 Yes, background checks are a matter of course in many jobs for military or civilian. But oaths? I dunno…I never saw that. And these were not people Musk brought in. They were people that were already part of USDS when it got renamed to DOGE. They are carryovers.
Oh, yeah, I was thinking of the other people who have access to the Treasury info, IRS and/or other confidential information when I wrote that, @seawulf575. I was mixing up the two events.
@seawulf575 – you seem to be so worried about freeloading. Is that what you did while in the Navy – freeload?
@RocketGuy Obviously you’ve never been in the military. What a surprise. I doubt you would have made it. And those in the military that did try to freeload (there were a few) didn’t last long. Or at least they didn’t stay slackers for very long.
But your attempted jab makes for an interesting question: why are you okay with people wasting your tax dollars? Do you like paying for people to do nothing? Or worse, to spend your money on useless things?
@seawulf575 You talk as though you have never worked anywhere or in any role where you had a conscience or care of what you were doing and how it may affect people. A rather twisted way of thinking that these people who were upholding their Constitution and pledge were actually in the way as opposed to defending what they swore an oath to uphold.
This is nothing special either. I attest to following certain policies and protocols in my job that has access to people’s data, both PI and PHI. I too would never turn it over just because some unappointed, unelected person said so.
Where is your character? This is not about politics.
@seawulf575 – how do you know they’re doing nothing? Your experience in the military says that freeloaders are quickly gone. Why are you not applying that logic to other govt. services?
Trump is trying to reverse all liberal things since FDR – - Social Security. . . . et al . .
They maybe working on reducing who can vote !
@Tropical_Willie – something about needing ID with last name matching birth certificate. That would then exclude women who changed their last names after marriage.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
