All jokes aside I’m confused why some people are responding to valid criticisms of this team by saying that we only care because they’re young.

It's amusing to me how so many people want to believe technical workers within the government are apparently all crusty, old, 50-something's instead of young "kids" in their twenties and thirties.

NSA, every branch of the military, and more are bursting at the seams with twenty-somethings that have access to some of the most sensitive information on the planet... yet nobody bats an eye.

Then we can consider the technical staff at places such as Experian, Capital One, and more... they're all fairly young too.

This has turned into quite the political narrative... "twenty-somethings have access to your data - be afraid, very afraid!"

I've worked with payment processing and some of the guys I saw makes 'big balls' look like an experienced and reliable custodian. Not to mention the high turnover, bargain priced overseas software outsourcing sweatshops.

Except California, they're fucking wrong! ;)

Republicans, not conservatives, might rightfully have been the party of protecting individual rights and freedoms. Back in the 1850s.

Presumed by whom? I've always understood Conservatism to be explicitly Christian in its ideology, opposed to womens' rights, "non-traditional" sexual orientation and gender identity, abortion, multiculturalism, pornography, modern art, rock music, drug use and a litany of other things. The freedom to think and act outside of the box of "traditional American values and culture" has rather more often been championed by progressives and leftists.

Conservatives do support the individual freedom to own a gun, though. For individuals of a certain phenotype.

It's fine if you want to call it a bad idea... but stopping this access really doesn't give me the freedom to do anything.

If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.

> The SSA was never anything other than a Tenth Amendment violation to begin with, as shown by FDR's court packing threat[1], so a bit of external review seems in order.

I know about the plan. But how did you make the jump from that to SSA being unconstitutional?

> Some sort of sane transition plan off of these socialized programs would be of great interest to a super-majority of voters, one expects.

A plan to eliminate program that keeps 22 million Americans out of poverty most of whom are seniors is of great interest to a super-majority of voters?

Kids, this is what happens when you read far right conspiracy theory websites for news.

There was the proven false claim that 40% of phone calls to SSA were fraudulent. I think it was DOGE fraud checking systems that proved that claim false, quite soon after Musk proclaimed it.

https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2025/05/doge-went...

Personally, it feels like the tiny nibbles that DOGE has managed to save from the massive banquet of spending that US government does is proof that there really isn't a lot of waste based on corruption. The spending is systemic and has built up over decades of various policy changes throughout many administrations of both colours.

Off topic, it feels as if this administration has also very effectively disproved any theory about the presence of a deep state controlling things from the background. Interestingly, Trump appears to be trying to show that it's possible, except for the fact that he's putting ridiculously unqualified and incompetent boobs into positions of influence. It'd be laughable except for the fact that this is not a TV show, this is real life.