"I hope it's just a rumor." How about let's find out ASAP and make sure it isn't true:

Grassley can't confirm DOGE ordered deep cuts to Social Security staff, services

Grassley couldn't confirm whether DOGE had ordered the deep cuts at Social Security, cuts which would have a significant impact on millions, especially in rural areas of Iowa.

"I hope it's just a rumor, and if it isn't, then I'll be expressing to the DOGE people, I'll be expressing it to the nominee for Social Security administrator," Grassley says, "when I asked and what he said he was going to do is enhance the service."

#9, 10 & 11:

Elon Musk's war on Social Security unmasks the GOP's true disdain for retirees

Terms like "vampires," "fraud," "scam" and "definitely dead" are how the DOGE leader demonizes elderly people

Musk frames retired people in parasitical terms, not seeing them as those who have paid their dues and have earned their reward. In light of that, when he speaks of "waste" in Social Security, he's hinting at this broader view that retired people are inherently illegitimate. While he couches language like "vampire" and "fraud" in false claims that he's talking about illegal payments, the accumulated impact of his rhetoric is to demonize elderly people as a useless burden on society. When the end goal is "efficiency," it's easy to get to this view that retired people are an "inefficiency" and "redundancy" that should no longer be funded. . . .

Musk hinted at this during his Rogan interview, complaining, "The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit." While insisting "you should care about other people," he made it clear this was rear-covering nonsense. His larger point was that empathy is "civilizational suicidal" and "the empathy response" is "a bug in Western civilization." The larger interview painted a picture of a man full of contempt for other people, with all their needs and subjective experiences, when he would rather they be compliant automatons who fulfill his demands without resistance. He fantasized about replacing people with "artificial intelligence" and robots, even talking up the incel-inflected dream of replacing women with sex robots.

Musk and his fellow techno-fascists often cast themselves as the saviors of "civilization," but that rhetoric is only there to put an ennobling gloss on a deeply sociopathic view: that human beings exist to serve the system, and not that the system is there to serve humanity. In this case, the system is capitalism, which has taken on a near-religious status to Silicon Valley's billionaire elite. It's an attitude that's inherently eugenicist, measuring people's value solely in terms of whether they can be utilized to make more money for the already-wealthy investor class. It's why Musk has no respect for federal workers whose labor is centered around helping people, not profits. And it's certainly not a worldview that has space for retirees, people who, by definition, are out of the paid labor market.

Causing people who have earned their Social Security to lose benefits doesn't look like an unintended consequence of "efficiency." It's becoming clear that it is Musk's end goal.

Well, yeah.
So, what are the lies trying to cover up?
#6 | Posted by LampLighter

One theory:

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) laid out a potential GOP "attack plan" for the program on X Friday:

One: Trump and his vassals tell lies that there's no plan to cut Social Security.

Two: Trump and Musk lie loudly about imaginary Social Security "fraud" to lower public confidence in the program.

Three: Musk sends his nasty Musk-rats in to Social Security to damage administration of the fund, leading to "interruption in benefits."

Four: Trump then declares emergency and hands administration of Social Security to private equity and tech bros to fix problem they created.

Five: Republicans declare victory that they "saved Social Security" by handing it to private equity/tech bros, and put Trump's name on checks.

The advocacy group Social Security Works took note of Whitehouse's thread and said: "Everyone needs to read this. Musk and Trump are breaking Social Security so they can turn it over to Wall Street."

Joyce White Vance
@joycewhitevance.bsky.social

If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with what the gov't is arguing today, that the President has broad Article II powers that would permit it to deport people & there can be no judicial review, then literally no one is safe.

Max Kennerly @maxkennerly.bsky.social

The DOJ is arguing, on behalf of the President, that the President can scoop up anyone, put them on an airplane, and then no laws apply because no court has jurisdiction.

Whether the person is a citizen wouldn't change that because there's no point they could even tell a court they're a citizen.

OMG, see how they lie, emphasis mine:

Leaked memo: DOGE plots to cut Social Security phone support

An internal memo from the Social Security Administration proposes changes to its phone service that could derail the benefits application process for many Americans.

Why it matters: The Trump administration has repeatedly said it doesn't plan changes to Social Security, other than to address fraud and waste--but these proposals risk "crippling" a system already plagued by delays, and facing staffing cuts, former agency officials tell Axios.

The latest: Axios obtained a draft of the memo, signed by acting deputy Social Security commissioner for operations Doris Diaz on March 13, and written on behalf of the agency's operations department.

Its existence was first reported by Popular.Info, which published screenshots of a subsequent version, sent to acting commissioner Leland Dudek a little later that day.

Context: The memo was sent one day after the agency denied, in a press release, a report it was scrapping its toll-free phone line.

"It appears that some Dems want to create a big enough ruckus that it will give Trump cover to declare martial law. And Trump will have no compunctions about doing so."

He's going to do that anyway. But that's not the kind of fighting back I'm talking aobut:

Why Democrats are angry at Democrats in Congress:

[I]t's the principle that Democrats are wholly unwilling to fight on the same playing field as Republicans. It's that the Democrats seem forever doomed to be the party that allows the parliamentarian to shut down our entire agenda, while the Republicans won't even let the United States Constitution shut down theirs. As a Democrat, I am desperate for fighters. For brawlers. I know I'm not the only one.

People are paying attention. They're agitating. They are taking to the streets and to town halls and they want to fight back. And most importantly, they want the people who represent us in office who actually can fight back to use every lever at their disposal to do it. And if this crop of elected officials won't, then voters are going to elect new ones who will. This isn't about progressive versus moderate; this is about fighters versus non-fighters. It's about giving power to the people who want to wield it. Quite frankly, the future of the Democratic Party depends on it.

In Trump world only white heterosexual men are military heroes:

Exclusive: Navajo Code Talkers disappear from military websites after Trump DEI order

This isn't just about privatizing SS. They're looking for a so-called "humane alternative to genocide." I think that's also why RFK Jr was chosen to lead HHS: no vaccines means more seniors will die each year. To them seniors are dead weight, useless to society and expendable. The same can be said of disabled people who don't work, including disabled veterans:

Jenny Cohn
@jennycohn.bsky.social
6/ "There is ... the problem of adults who are not productive members of society ... [T]he most profitable disposition is to convert them into biodiesel ... Okay, just kidding," but "it helps us describe the problem we are trying to solve. Our goal ... is a humane alternative to genocide." - Moldbug aka Yarvin

"Nobody is against deporting criminal gang members if they have been shown to be criminal gang members"

IOW, It's not what the adminstration is doing, it's how they are doing it. The same can be said of Musk and the DOGE boys. Nobody is against govt efficiency, eliminating fraud and abuse. It's the rushed, reckless, careless way they are doing it with no transparency or accountablility.

"It's about a political party literally trying to stop the deportation of a criminal gang members."

Nobody is against deporting criminal gang members if they have been shown to be criminal gang members:

Most alarming is the administration's failure to provide any evidence that the deported individuals were actually members of the Tren de Aragua gang. As Adam Isacson of the Washington Office for Latin America warned: "Basically any Venezuelan citizen in the US may be removed on pretext of belonging to Tren de Aragua, with no chance at defense."

This is the definition of arbitrary power"the ability to detain and deport people based on mere accusation, without evidence, without due process, and in direct violation of judicial orders meant to ensure basic rights.

"It's about a political party literally trying to stop the deportation of a criminal gang members."

This isn't about immigration policy or border security. It's about whether we still have a government of laws rather than men. It's about whether presidential power remains constrained by courts and Congress, or whether we've entered an era where such constraints exist only on paper.

The administration isn't hiding its contempt for legal limitations. They're not even pretending to respect judicial authority. They're openly celebrating their ability to act beyond the reach of courts, to implement policies that a federal judge explicitly prohibited. The brazenness isn't accidental"it's the point. It's a demonstration of power unconstrained, a message that the executive now considers itself above judicial review.

If a court order can be ignored today regarding Venezuelan migrants, it can be ignored tomorrow regarding any other matter the president deems important enough. If "war" can be declared unilaterally to access extraordinary powers, what prevents those powers from being used against any group labeled as "enemies"?

PS Jesus, wouldn't that be something if Trump outlived his usefulness to Putin and the Russians took him out? They'd probably be a lot more effective than the Iranians have been. Moussad would probably the most likely to succeed but that will never happen as long as DonOLD keeps protecting Bibi.

"Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed the demand."

taking a dismissive tone regarding foreign leAders seems to be his way:

As for Donald Trump, "he will not be able to stop the conflict in Ukraine in one day, or in three days, or in three months," and "if he really tried, he could become the new JFK," Medvedev continued, referring to the former US president assassinated in 1963.

Democrats still don't get it.
This country is ------.
#44 | Posted by ClownShack

I don't know how many in Congress get it. Plenty of rank and file Democrats get it, but as DB, says, they just don't know what to do about it.

Two thirds of studies are not reproducible by researcher's peers.
#40 | Posted by visitor_

And you consider that an automatic failure? How many failed scientific experiments did it take to produce the polio vaccine? I don't know, but I bet it was a number greater than zero.

Another good piece (shorter!) from the same author, emphasis mine:

From Madison's Vision to Musk's Dystopia
How Libertarian Naivety Paves the Way for Reactionary Control

The blood now staining our hands isn't just from failing to defend democracy"it's from betraying the sophisticated understanding of power that Madison built into our constitutional system itself. We've allowed the very fusion of private and public power that he sought to prevent, creating a new form of tyranny that wears the mask of efficiency and innovation.

This betrayal has given rise to strange bedfellows, alliances that might seem contradictory at first glance. The apparent contradictions can be confusing: How do Christian nationalists and gay atheist tech billionaires end up on the same side? Why are some reactionaries pushing ethnic nationalism while others advocate for immigration? What binds together Catholic integralists, Silicon Valley oligarchs, and MAGA populists?

The answer lies in their shared rejection of Madison's vision. Despite their surface-level differences, these groups are united by a common desire to concentrate power outside of democratic institutions. They may disagree on the specifics of how that power should be wielded, but they agree on dismantling the systems that disperse and balance it.

Tech billionaires see an opportunity to reshape society through private control of crucial infrastructure. Christian nationalists envision a return to religious authority unconstrained by secular checks. MAGA populists dream of a strongman leader unencumbered by institutional restraints. What unites them is not a coherent ideology, but a shared antipathy towards the democratic dispersion of power that Madison designed. . . .

Their thought-leaders provide theoretical justification, the tech oligarchs provide infrastructure and resources, and the populists provide the political energy needed to dismantle democratic institutions.

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Asha Rangappa @asharangappa.bsky.social
Well, looks like we're already here. The Trump administration willfully defied a court order. Hopefully the court will hold the government in contempt. What happens next is going to tell us exactly what direction we are headed

ChrisJustice @chrisjustice01.bsky.social
SCOTUS created a criminal Frankenstein
And soon it will take their power too
Activists warned for the last decade

This piece helped me to understand a lot of disparate bits of information that I have been somewhat aware of but hadn't been able to put together in one coherent, overarching framework regarding the forces that are now ensconsed within our federal agencies and are deliberatley and methodically working to destroy the very fabric of our democracy. Very scary stuff.

"This is not about Trump. This is about what comes after him."

FTA:

The rise of Trump--a figure simultaneously hostile to democratic institutions and eager to embrace tech oligarchs"presented an unprecedented opportunity. Here was a potential autocrat who didn't just accept Silicon Valley's critique of democracy, but embodied it. His contempt for constitutional constraints, his belief that personal loyalty should override institutional independence, and his view that government should serve private interests aligned perfectly with Silicon Valley's emerging anti-democratic worldview. When combined with unprecedented technological control over information flows, financial systems, and social networks, this created a perfect storm: the ideology that justified dismantling democracy, the political vehicle willing to do it, and the technological capability to make it happen. . . .

[R]esistance efforts face an uphill battle against the immense resources and influence of those pushing for a post-democratic future.

And if we do not act now, we may wake up one day to find that democracy was not overthrown in a dramatic coup--but simply deleted, line by line, from the code that governs our lives.

And yet, the most terrifying part? Donald Trump, the supposed strongman at the heart of it all, is oblivious. He has no grand ideological project beyond his own power. He does not understand the system being built around him, nor the fact that his own presidency is merely a vehicle for forces that see him as a useful, temporary battering ram against democracy.

But those around him? They understand perfectly.

J.D. Vance, the Vice President in waiting, has studied Curtis Yarvin's work. Peter Thiel, his longtime patron, has been funding this vision for over a decade. Balaji Srinivasan is writing the blueprint. Elon Musk is laying the infrastructure. And the young operatives now wiring AI models into the Treasury Department--disbanding civil service, bypassing traditional government, and replacing democratic accountability with technological sovereignty--are working toward a future that will long outlast Trump himself.

This is not about Trump. This is about what comes after him.

Actuarial realities do not favor an aging leader with a declining grasp on policy. But they favor the thirty- and forty-somethings laying the foundation for the post-democratic order. The men who have spent the past decade engineering an exit from democracy are no longer whispering in the dark corners of the internet. They are in power, with money, AI, and a plan. And democracy, in its current form, has never been closer to the brink.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei, Elon Musk declares from his digital throne--the voice of the people is the voice of God.

But in the world they are building, the people have no voice. The algorithms speak for them. The executives decide for them. The future is optimized, efficient, and entirely out of their hands.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei. They whisper it, as they lock the gates.

"I have to reconcile it this way, if a group like the KKK were doing some sort of valuable research, should the feds help fund that?"

Ridiculous analogy. Terrorist groups aren't the ones doing the research at these colleges, but then you know that.

Tesla protesters should get same treatment:

DOJ says it will only prosecute anti-abortion protesters if there are "extraordinary circumstances" or in cases involving "significant aggravating factors" such as "death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage."

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Given the lengthy list of flagrantly illegal and/or unconstitutional actions from this administration, I'd like to see an answer to this question.
The courts can stamp their feet and rule rule rule ... but if Trump's hand picked people ignore it because they'll get pardoned or it's immune from any action as being under the power of the executive, what will happen?
More feet stamping and "rulings"?
#15 | Posted by jpw

I'd like to know too. I suspect the rulings will make their way to the Supreme Court that will be the final arbiter on these rulings, either ruling very quickly or after months delay. Trump seems confident they will rule in his favor, but if they don't and Trump refuses to comply, what then? Only a successful impeachment could stop him at that point?

Pres Trump has divided this great Country to the point that he has his followers ascribing "enemy" to those who disagree with him.

Oh, it's about to get a lot worse. Deportations and arrests lie ahead for those who are bold enough to disagree with him publicly:

Domestic Enemy Hat
@kenwhite.bsky.social

A reminder in dark times: kindness, mercy, decency, and respect towards the least of us enrages Trumpists. It burns them. It's like a mirror that shows them how they fall short of humanity.

Kindness and decency towards the people Trumpists hate is not just right; it torments Trumpists.