2d ago

An unelected billionaire is gunning for Social Security. Get Musk out, now.

www.usatoday.com An unelected billionaire is gunning for Social Security. Get Musk out, now. | Opinion

The time for Americans to demand Elon Musk's removal from the federal government is now.

Summary

Elon Musk sparked controversy by falsely claiming entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have "$700 billion" in fraud annually, vastly exaggerating the actual figure (~$10 billion/year).

Musk labeled Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" and spread conspiracies about immigrants exploiting the system.

Critics argue Musk’s ignorance and conspiracy-mongering threaten essential public programs and data privacy, while his inflammatory rhetoric—such as calling Senator Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and combat veteran, a "traitor"—reinforces demands for his immediate removal from government.

You're viewing a single thread.

79 comments

I do not understand why the fact that Musk is "unelected" matters so much to everyone. Is the Secretary of Defence elected? The Attorney General?
- Is the Secretary of Defence elected? The Attorney General?
  Those are real positions that are appointed by every President. "DOGE" is a complete bullshit position/department pulled out of thin air to avoid any kind of confirmation and/or security clearance.
  It is incredibly dangerous for a President to be allowed to invent whole government departments and appoint whoever he wants to them without any checks and balances.
  
  oh I fully agree. But you didn't address the issue of electedness at all.
  
  It is in fact common for presidents to make up new advisory positions. If Trump wanted to make up an "Advisor of Best-Tasting Coffee", there's no problems there - they can help him make decisions with executive orders, or inform Congress about best steps forward for certain initiatives, etc. So just "making up a role" isn't an issue in itself.
  BUT, even the attorney general or SoD would not have powers to fire people at will all over the administration. In many court cases it's been found even Trump himself wouldn't have that power.
  
  so it's a lot of power that he has, too much power. I think we agree here -- but nothing you're saying seems to be related to electedness. If Trump, who was elected, shouldn't have the power, and yet Musk does, then "unelected" doesn't seem remotely relevant to the problem.
- I think it's just to point out another layer of legitimacy he doesn't have to do what he's doing.
  
  You don't hear this criticism levelled at other malfunctioning government officials though. Perhaps one would if they went as off-the-rails as Musk. Still, I wish people would use accurate critiques of their opponents, such as as @Doctor_Satan mentions, that he is wholly without cheques or balances.
  
  And he's not a government official, even though he's impersonating one, and that the administration tells the public he's in charge of a government agency but tells the courts he's not.
  While all of these things are true, I find it disingenuous to imply that his not having been elected is somehow less accurate than any other criticism levelled against him.
  
  okay, so he's not a government official. I think that "not a government official" would be a great description, still better than "unelected" which in my opinion is not relevant -- he was appointed directly by an elected official, just like actual government officials. I don't see why it's disingenuous.
  
  @sporkler @jsomae has he formally passed any security checks yet?
  
  I doubt he could pass a captcha.

79 comments