US Securities and Exchange Commission beginning to bring on DOGE staff

SEC Funding, “Budget Neutrality,” and DOGE’s Entry

• Commenters note SEC’s budget is funded by transaction fees, not income tax, but argue those fees are effectively a tax on market participants.
• Some see this as another “budget‑neutral” pool to raid or redirect (e.g., toward a bitcoin/DOGE agenda) and worry about deliberately weakening the regulator.
• Others attack the SEC itself as a New Deal relic, constitutionally shaky and captured, suggesting its role should be cut back to little more than maintaining EDGAR.

DOGE, “Efficiency,” and Accountability

• DOGE is framed as making government “more efficient,” but critics say “efficient” is undefined and functions like “Make X Great Again” rhetoric.
• Supporters point to doge.gov savings dashboards, claimed rapid cuts in real estate and overseas spending, and argue this is concrete proof of useful work.
• Critics counter that many “savings” are accounting games or short‑term cuts with damaging long‑term effects; accuse DOGE of inflating numbers and taking credit for contract expirations.
• Concern is raised about FOIA exemptions and a Reuters report linking a DOGE staffer to past cybercrime support, seen as evidence against “principled honest servants.”
• Defenders say DOGE staff gave up lucrative careers and deserve presumption of good faith; skeptics compare this to past charismatic fraudsters.

Regulatory and Government Capture

• Several comments see a shift from classic “regulatory capture” to broader “governmental capture,” with MAGA‑aligned actors controlling all branches.
• Allegations that DOGE and allies are targeting political enemies (universities, opposing law firms, protesting students) rather than neutral waste.
• Others demand concrete proof and argue the real targets are over‑endowed private universities and bloated programs, not some donor conspiracy.

Public Passivity, Protests, and Power

• One thread laments a “tepid” generation and passive acceptance; replies push back that protests are frequent and that critics often don’t show up themselves.
• Hardline view: protests are “pathetic” unless they create real fear or material disruption (strikes, shutdowns); otherwise they’re no more impactful than staying home.
• Counter‑view: movements must start small; sign‑and‑march actions build networks and experience and shouldn’t be dismissed, even if individually low‑impact.
• Some assert protests have never directly caused political change; others emphasize the need for coordination, focus, persistence, and note state suppression when protests gain momentum.

Elections, Blame, and Structural Limits

• Dispute over whether this outcome reflects a majority mandate vs minority rule plus massive non‑voting.
• Some blame Democrats for failing to defeat an obviously dangerous opponent and for “coasting”; others insist responsibility lies squarely with those who voted for MAGA after seeing its record.
• There’s frustration at limited short‑term remedies: unified MAGA government, no recall, next midterms far off, and blue‑state voters having little leverage over red‑state representatives.
• The passage of a continuing resolution with Democratic support is seen by some as a fatal loss of leverage; others argue a shutdown might have enabled an even deeper purge.

Economic Stakes and Who Gains

• Supporters of the current agenda cite claimed improvements for the bottom 50%, tariff‑driven investment commitments, and a clear, articulated plan to help “average people.”
• Opponents see deliberate sabotage of the regulatory state, expect the rich to become far richer, and warn that cutting a relatively small “SEC tax” mainly empowers financiers and scammers while risking market instability.
• Some predict that when DOGE actions eventually hit “serious money,” entrenched financial and other powerful interests will push back far harder than they have so far.