Debating what? It's my opinion.
You have yours. Neither of us have access to government inside documents that show whether the doge website is complete bs or is on track to actually save 200B.
What is there to debate?
Discussion
If you respond to someone's point with a counterpoint, it's generally understood that you are responding to them, engaging in something we call a "conversation". In such a conversation, also known as a "debate", assertions are likely to be tested and/or questioned by the other party. It's generally understood to be frustrating when each assertion made is followed with a "I can't prove this", "it's my opinion", or "I'm not debating".
Yes, a conversation.
It's not a debate if neither side can prove their opinion to be true, nor do I care to sway you. It's just chatting as normal people do. In this case it is impossible to sway one side or the other using data, since the data doesn't exist. Or at least normies do not have access to it. All we have is a partisan website with random shit on it that may or may not be true.
Most of these contracts are between the government and private entities. It would *certainly* be possible to find contracts where the private entity disputes the numbers. I am totally sure there are mistakes, but if it was a grand conspiracy of fake contracts and marketing, it would be trivial to gather all sorts of examples. Also why wouldn't they claim larger savings?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. There is no dispute on the amount. The amount is accurate as best as I can tell from both the landlord and federal employees. The timeline and claiming it is being saved is the issue. By the time the lease is up, the Dems will have taken back the house and Senate, and if large enough, could freeze everything in the savings.
"Savings" means something very specific for both the contractual context and the accounting context. It's not as simple as "money saved"
Tell you what. I'll change my original note:
I am very skeptical of DOGE's savings claims. The reason I am skeptical to them being as high being as high as their website claims to be saving money from a local federal office that is near me is not actually closing for 1.5-2 years due to a costly lease termination requirement. The staff will however move to a close by office. So I suppose there will be some electricity and internet savings.
Because of this local claim, while possible, I find it hard to believe this is the only listed savings on the DOGE website that isn't completely accurate.
Better? 😉
You don't think keeping an office vacant for 2 years could save 60k?
Of course not. It may save $200 per month. That's likely high.
Something tells me you've never leased office space... Easily 1k-5k of operational costs for even a small space that would be largely avoidable if held vacant. *Especially* for something like a public office. Hell just the insurance savings could be over $200 a month
I own a 9 unit commercial complex, my own 5k sqft building, and run own a biz condo in a complex. Lol, but ok.
Where the hell is this where you think $200 a month is probable?! (Rhetorical not asking you to dox)
Something tells me you run a much tighter ship than the federal government... They are absolutely saving more than $200 a month by closing an office... 2.5k seems completely reasonable and that's just if the only saving are from reduction of operational expense.
But I guess we'll never know. I completely understand why you can't share it, but wish you could. Super curious now
The building will be used for storage. Employees will still come and go. Insurance savings will be minimal, but some.
Trash is forced fixed cost as is water/sewer in the complex.
Electricity will be cut down to minimal cost, however they didn't have high use previously as their is a landlord credit given with the lease. Some savings here.
For sure the internet bill is gone.
I am completely ballparking as I do not have access to their insurance, full electric, or internet cost.
If I am wrong, ok.
Gotta go. Peace.