SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Musky
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1739213365

Message started by Serowbot on 02/10/25 at 10:49:25

Title: Musky
Post by Serowbot on 02/10/25 at 10:49:25

Musk and his little crew of interns have spent $7.5 million in two weeks

How much is he paying those little nerds?
I see how we could save some money :-?

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/11/25 at 06:46:23

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887037017361420749?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887044047816286278%7Ctwgr%5E671ad15fb8f2241320733c1d1bd6317d92280eba%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fanodtothegods.com%2F

She's just a child,, but she gets it..

Title: Re: Musky
Post by thumperclone on 02/11/25 at 11:37:28

when you have an ingrown toenail, you don't cut off the foot
the sh!tshow clowns don't know how to fix just destroy

Title: Re: Musky
Post by MnSpring on 02/11/25 at 12:19:23

524E534B564354454A494843260 wrote:

"when you have an ingrown toenail, you don't cut off the foot"

You admit their is significant problems.
How DEEP and CORRUPT does it go ?

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/11/25 at 14:31:07

766A776F726770616E6D6C67020 wrote:

when you have an ingrown toenail, you don't cut off the foot
the sh!tshow clowns don't know how to fix just destroy

The FUKKING BILLIONS of waste, fraud and abuse and this fukker compares it to an Muthafukkin ingrown toenail?
Webster doesn't have a sufficient definition r
Suck
to describe you.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by thumperclone on 02/12/25 at 02:03:38

justin said "I'm going to continue to ignore you"
can't help yourself, can you?

your excessive consumption of the Kool aide has inhibited your brain function
Yes there is an abundance of waste
my point is you go in and fix the problem don't destroy a program/agency that is an actual benefit

your car is misfiring throw it away

Title: Re: Musky
Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/25 at 04:52:55

2F332E362B3E29383734353E5B0 wrote:

when you have an ingrown toenail, you don't cut off the foot
the sh!tshow clowns don't know how to fix just destroy

As a survivor of major cancer surgery, sometimes you have to go in and cut deep and it takes recovery time. The idea that the Democratic Party is in such explosive denial is an indication of just how damaging hyper partisanship is. I’m not saying Republicans don’t do the same on their side, I’m just saying, the ridiculous objections and outlandish judicial overreach and the threats of violence are just simply over the top. The federal government waste billions and billions of dollars and anyone objecting to these actions is doing so because they have a severe case of TDS, and all you wanna do is damage Trump and now musk. The people are freaking ridiculous. Grow up.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/12/25 at 05:39:43

Partisan politics at its finest. The Dems look pretty ridiculous here seemingly favoring waste, fraud, and bureaucracy. Suggesting that we should keep working within the same broken framework that got us here in the first place is the definition of insanity.

Should entire programs be eliminated, perhaps not. But if you mix really grungy work clothing with lightly soiled dress clothing in the washing machine, your dress clothing becomes work clothing. My point here is that when obvious problems are found, it’s probably just a matter of time before the good parts become infected. Blow it up and start over. I’ve heard certain broken programs will be replaced.

The Dept of Education is a pretty giant waste. Collect $1.00 and then redistribute $0.90 in some Robinhood-like fashion. Poorer states get their $1 back if they are lucky, and “donor states” get $0.80 back. Just leave the money with the states and let them figure it out. Let Alabama and Arkansas be Alabama and Arkansas (you can’t fix stupid).

I just have to laugh at the people crying, “But Musk wasn’t elected”. Lots of roles aren’t and even Harris didn’t have to go through a Primary election within her own Party to actually “earn” the nomination.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Eegore on 02/12/25 at 06:30:19

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/12/25 at 07:28:13

6040424A5740250 wrote:

This is really no different than Obama era healthcare changes. People constantly criticized a broken system that only worked to make insurance companies more money, but they also didn't want to change things - unless someone from their political affiliation proposed it. The difference here is the shoe is on the other political foot.

Content of each proposal means essentially nothing - it's about who said it.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by MnSpring on 02/12/25 at 07:32:01

0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:

"... Content of each proposal means essentially nothing - it's about who said it. ..."

And that is your OPINION.
Said like it is a fact.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/12/25 at 07:43:24

E said

"... Content of each proposal means essentially nothing - it's about who said it.

Which I disproved over and over when I argued against The Jabs.

That assertion is understandable because of so many people who support what doesn't work because of who said it. I get it. But Some people are honest in their opinions. Some of us are the real source of our positions. We use different sources and people who provide information from varying positions and then we use Observed Reality and choose what to believe. Knowing that more information could come out that would cause me to have to modify that position.

ACA was not only not needed, it made things worse. It created another career for associate degreed people who managed to restrict Who we can see And they interfere with How Your Doctor is Allowed to treat you.
The Goobs screw up just about everything they Fix.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Eegore on 02/12/25 at 07:52:36

And that is your OPINION.
Said like it is a fact.

You infer it as fact. For anyone capable of understanding what an opinion is, they would know all posts are opinions. Feel free to clarify this on all my posts.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by WebsterMark on 02/12/25 at 08:07:29

704C514954415674455148240 wrote:

[quote author=6040424A5740250 link=1739213365/0#8 date=1739370619]

This is really no different than Obama era healthcare changes. People constantly criticized a broken system that only worked to make insurance companies more money, but they also didn't want to change things - unless someone from their political affiliation proposed it. The difference here is the shoe is on the other political foot.

Content of each proposal means essentially nothing - it's about who said it.

I disagree on the analogy, but partisan politics was certainly involved. I was at the peak of my 30+ year career in the healthcare insurance industry when ACA was implemented.

With ACA, we were arguing about more government involvement (funding, single-payer, mandates, etc) in a particular industry. With the DOGE, we are arguing about how the government polices and audits its own domain. Arguing we should just keep operating the same old broken way that hasn’t worked is simply ridiculous. At least with ACA, Republicans were offering new ideas and alternative proposals.
[/quote]

What I recall about the beginnings of ACA is during the campaign, healthcare was the number one issue. John McCain offered ideas that would begin to split health insurance away from employers as a benefit and start the process of turning it over to something along the lines of all other insurance which is more competitive such as property and casualty insurance, life insurance etc…

The media of course was all in for Obama so presented McCain’s ideas as a scheme created by insurance companies. Obama went all in on his plan and we’ve basically kicked the health insurance can down the road ever since.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Eegore on 02/12/25 at 09:04:52

Which I disproved over and over when I argued against The Jabs.

Then explain why the exact same word for word documents, on multiple occasions, were what you specifically called "Lies" until a website you liked, like ThegatewayPundit posted them, and then they became truth?

Literally the exact same documents.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Eegore on 02/12/25 at 09:08:28

I disagree on the analogy, but partisan politics was certainly involved. I was at the peak of my 30+ year career in the healthcare insurance industry when ACA was implemented.

With ACA, we were arguing about more government involvement (funding, single-payer, mandates, etc) in a particular industry. With the DOGE, we are arguing about how the government polices and audits its own domain. Arguing we should just keep operating the same old broken way that hasn’t worked is simply ridiculous. At least with ACA, Republicans were offering new ideas and alternative proposals.

What I recall about the beginnings of ACA is during the campaign, healthcare was the number one issue. John McCain offered ideas that would begin to split health insurance away from employers as a benefit and start the process of turning it over to something along the lines of all other insurance which is more competitive such as property and casualty insurance, life insurance etc…

The media of course was all in for Obama so presented McCain’s ideas as a scheme created by insurance companies. Obama went all in on his plan and we’ve basically kicked the health insurance can down the road ever since.

I can for the most part agree with this assessment. It is an opinion that I agree with this assessment. My point is primarily that systems that don't work are complained about, and people seem to be, and this is an opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, only willing to change those broken systems as long as a source they like is the one doing it. The change isn't important to them, it's who is doing it.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/12/25 at 11:15:40

1131333B2631540 wrote:

That I don't know how to do what you say I must Does Net eliminate my point.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/12/25 at 11:57:53

Again, ACA is not a good analogy. You even acknowledge my point that Republicans had ideas (McCain), and Dems had ideas.

With DOGE, the Dems have nothing but “keep the same broken system that doesn’t work”. That is not a valid or rational idea or plan. They disagree and rebutt for the sole sake of disagreeing. And they can’t stand that someone (Musk), on the other side of the aisle, is actually being successful.

It seems to be mostly the far lefties opposed to Musk and DOGE. Moderate Democrats seem to appreciate eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. And dealing with it swiftly rather than trying to put baidaids on it or just try to continue cover it up and sweep it under the rug. That’s already happened far too long.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by WebsterMark on 02/13/25 at 03:18:59

I think the point I was trying to make is that during that campaign, there was an opportunity for fundamental change. It was wasted. Healthcare was the primary topic for that entire campaign. And had McCain won or had Obama blended his idea with McCain’s, it’s possible healthcare insurance today would be more affordable and the strategies and schemes insurance companies used to make money would’ve been dramatically lessened.

To be fair, had McCain won and tried to dismantle the healthcare insurance industry as it is now, and here was the reason I was bringing this up as an example, he would’ve needed to go full on nuclear like Trump is doing with Doge. You think politicians, mostly Democrats, are fighting now to hang onto their sludge funds, imagine genuinely attacking the healthcare insurance industry. I feel like they would literally hire assassins to kill people. There’s how much money and power are involved in healthcare.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Serowbot on 02/13/25 at 07:43:26

Musk is now paying himself $8 million a day of our tax money, plus he may get a $400 million contract from the Trump admin to supply the military with "armoured" vehicles (Cyber trucks)

I know where we can cut some spending :-?

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/13/25 at 08:30:23

7563746971646972060 wrote:

Show us

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/13/25 at 08:55:04

So misleading….

His business government contracts bring in $8 million per day. I believe this is “revenue” and not profit.

Musk is not getting paid $8M per day for doing the DOGE job. That’s what the clickbait headlines try to make dummies and haters believe.

Musk isn’t taking a paycheck. I also don’t think he’s simply doing the job out of the goodness of his heart and solely for the benefit of the American people. I suspect his self-interest is power, influence, and protection.

He doesn’t personally need the money, but getting the government to buy rockets and equipment so he can move to Mars (and buy it from Trump, lol) is plausible.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/13/25 at 09:06:10

I'm not sure he's got any motive other than helping America. In a Prosperous America, he wins. A rising tide lifts all boats.
But,if he changes the trajectory of power and puts us on the path to prosperity once again, with the corruptocrats in prison and their fortunes returned to We the People, AND he benefits? I'm okay with that.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/13/25 at 09:13:30

7E4B58405B5C584B5D390 wrote:

You aren’t really this naive are you, JOG?

Title: Re: Musky
Post by thumperclone on 02/13/25 at 09:21:40

7B4E5D455E595D4E583C0 wrote:

[quote author=7563746971646972060 link=1739213365/15#19 date=1739461406]Musk is now paying himself $8 million a day of our tax money, plus he may get a $400 million contract from the Trump admin to supply the military with "armoured" vehicles (Cyber trucks)

I know where we can cut some spending :-?

Show us
[/quote]

8 mil a day in government contracts

Title: Re: Musky
Post by JOG on 02/13/25 at 09:51:14

4E524F574A5F48595655545F3A0 wrote:

[quote author=7B4E5D455E595D4E583C0 link=1739213365/15#20 date=1739464223][quote author=7563746971646972060 link=1739213365/15#19 date=1739461406]Musk is now paying himself $8 million a day of our tax money, plus he may get a $400 million contract from the Trump admin to supply the military with "armoured" vehicles (Cyber trucks)

I know where we can cut some spending :-?

Title: Re: Musky
Post by ThumperPaul on 02/13/25 at 10:02:08

Here's a question I have...

When DOGE gets around to the Pentagon, should there be full transparency and dissemination to the American people and the whole WORLD?

Where did this $1 Billion Bitcoin payment really go?

I'm thinking it might not be in the best interests of national security. Maybe skip the Pentagon and just cut their budget 10%. Scrap the F35 and call it done.

Title: Re: Musky
Post by thumperclone on 02/13/25 at 13:02:41

4471627A6166627167030 wrote:

[quote author=4E524F574A5F48595655545F3A0 link=1739213365/15#24 date=1739467300][quote author=7B4E5D455E595D4E583C0 link=1739213365/15#20 date=1739464223][quote author=7563746971646972060 link=1739213365/15#19 date=1739461406]Musk is now paying himself $8 million a day of our tax money, plus he may get a $400 million contract from the Trump admin to supply the military with "armoured" vehicles (Cyber trucks)

I know where we can cut some spending :-?

Show us
[/quote]

8 mil a day in government contracts
[/quote]

So WHAT?
If he's not delivering what the contracts require, Then you have something.
How many of those contracts existed Before DOGE existed?
Hyperventilate over another imaginary outrage.
[/quote]

it's called conflict of interest

were you born an a$$ole or learned it along the way?
your turn to hyperventilate

Title: Re: Musky
Post by MnSpring on 02/13/25 at 14:17:59

4559445C415443525D5E5F54310 wrote:

"... were you born an a$$ole or learned it along the way? ..."

WOW,
and a Mupper complains about,
UL, DFI, FDS, WOKE, Socialist !!!

(not to mention, defending AOC)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Musky
Post by Eegore on 02/13/25 at 17:32:32

it's called conflict of interest

That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of businesses that hold contracts with the US Government that would not create a conflict of interest in regard to them auditing a different section of government.

It is however something that needs to be scrutinized as discovering the details of bids from competitors, without their agreed upon disclosure is illegal.