OpenAI Swiftly Rebuffs Musk's Surprise $97.4 Billion Buyout Attempt

[Mainsail]

you want the people who are causing waste to review/approve cuts to the waste? ridiculous.

Absolutely, let's throw out Article 1 of the Constitution and all of the representatives elected by voters, and let's give the power of the purse to an unelected unconfirmed oligarch who hasn't even provided a financial disclosure required by many civil servants. Excellent idea. What could possibly go wrong?

Democracy and separation of powers is hard. It requires compromise and coordination between branches of government. Authoritarianism is easy because you only have to make one person happy.

Just remember, it's a double edged sword. Some day there will be a President with an agenda you don't like, and you will be begging for checks and balances between the three branches of government.

 

[breenmask]

Absolutely, let's throw out Article 1 of the Constitution and all of the representatives elected by voters,

Article II says President has power to issue executive orders.
Trump used executive order to create DOGE. It is legally an executive agency which doesn't require direct vote by the public. Article 1 deals with legislative branch which requires voter approval. DOGE is not under legislative branch.

What you're trying to insinuate is invalid.

 

[H2SO4]

I'm just showing you a credible source that backs up Elon's knowledge. You argued "He hasn't really got a handle on what he's talking about". I'm sure you don't like him, but that doesn't take away his knowledge on the matter.

I'm telling you he's an imbecile. If you want to put up another source I'll tell you Musk is an imbecile.
Also that doesn't prove Musk knows what he's talking about. What it might prove is;
I'm sure you like him, but that doesn't confirm his knowledge on the matter.

 

[Mainsail]

Article II says President has power to issue executive orders.
Trump used executive order to create DOGE. It is legally an executive agency which doesn't require direct vote by the public. Article 1 deals with legislative branch which requires voter approval. DOGE is not under legislative branch.

What you're trying to insinuate is invalid.

OMG. Congress appropriates funding. The correct way to redirect or cut budget is via Congressional appropriations signed into law by the President. The President can not usurp Congressional appropriations by executive order or by forming a new Department called DOGE. Musk has absolutely no legal authority to cut a budget.

The President can veto a spending bill, but once it is law...then the only way to change it is by passing a new appropriation law through Congress. IT'S A LAW! If the GOP wants to cut budgets there is a perfectly legal and constitutional way to do it. Congress passes a new budget, and the President signs it.

The current Continuing Resolution runs through March 14. The GOP has the majority in Congress. If they want to cut the budget then they can do it. They just have to do it legally and in plain sight of their constituents. So, no more school lunch programs for kids....fine cut it. No more Medicaid....fine cut it. No more Special needs programs....fine cut it. Bigger tax cuts for the top 1%.....fine do it. Just do it on cSPAN in front of the public for all to see.

 

[nostradumbass]

This is why people said eat the rich. Because they lose their minds and always always always end up supporting totalitarianism to protect their wealth that they will give to their lazy spoilt nepobabies.

Billionaire Larry Ellison says a vast AI-fueled surveillance system can ensure 'citizens will be on their best behavior'

Billionaire Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison said he expects AI surveillance systems to reach a point where all citizens are under constant watch.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[breenmask]

I'm telling you he's an imbecile.

Not sure why you keep repeating this.

If you want to put up another source I'll tell you Musk is an imbecile.

Credible source that backs up Elon's knowledge? You're free to do whatever but that's just ignoring the evidence in front of you.

Also that doesn't prove Musk knows what he's talking about. What it might prove is;
I'm sure you like him, but that doesn't confirm his knowledge on the matter.

John Carmack founded his own rocket company. John Carmack has had personal tours of SpaceX and walked along the campus with Elon discussing rocket engineering. First hand witness of Elon's display of knowledge about rocket engineering and of course plenty of YouTube videos of Elon walking through SpaceX answering all the technical questions (

) about rocket engineering literally proves Musk knows what he's talking about.

 

[breenmask]

OMG. Congress appropriates funding. The correct way to redirect or cut budget is via Congressional appropriations signed into law by the President. The President can not usurp Congressional appropriations by executive order or by forming a new Department called DOGE.

Actually rather than cut the budget, the money can legally be redirected within the agency for other uses, such as asking employees to quit with a bonus, which they've already done 😁. By the time the next budget comes around, they'll see less headcount which congress will approve less $ for the agency. DOGE team is smart.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Actually rather than cut the budget, the money can legally be redirected within the agency for other uses, such as asking employees to quit with a bonus, which they've already done 😁. By the time the next budget comes around, they'll see less headcount which congress will approve less $ for the agency. DOGE team is smart.

"DOGE" is a distraction, as there already is the GAO

In 2022 the federal civilian worker payroll totaled:
$271 billion

The annual cost of permanently extending Trump's tax cuts that primarily benefited rich individuals?
$400 billion

If we want to save money, let's not give tax cuts to folks who don't need them

Or stop giving various subsidies to all of Musks companies
No investigation team needed! -- Musk knows all about how much he takes from the public coffers

 

[Mainsail]

Actually rather than cut the budget, the money can legally be redirected within the agency for other uses, such as asking employees to quit with a bonus, which they've already done 😁. By the time the next budget comes around, they'll see less headcount which congress will approve less $ for the agency. DOGE team is smart.

Wrong. The executive branch can not redirect funding within an agency anyway they want for a purpose not intended by Congress. That is a violation of appropriation law.

I am not sure if offering buyouts requires Congressional authorization. It is a use of government funds, which generally need Congress approval.

 

[breenmask]

"DOGE" is a distraction, as there already is the GAO

In 2022 the federal civilian worker payroll totaled:
$271 billion

The annual cost of permanently extending Trump's tax cuts that primarily benefited rich individuals?
$400 billion

If we want to save money, let's not give tax cuts to folks who don't need them

Or stop giving various subsidies to all of Musks companies
No investigation team needed! -- Musk knows all about how much he takes from the public coffers

1. Money gets returned to US Treasury if it's not spent.
2. If gov did not have contracts with SpaceX, they would be spending more money doing the same thing with other companies.
3. We're already axing EV charging network subsidies and now MSM is painting Elon as evil because Tesla's Supercharger network is already #1 so somehow removing EV charging subsidies is benefitting Elon. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[breenmask]

Wrong. The executive branch can not redirect funding within an agency anyway they want for a purpose not intended by Congress. That is a violation of appropriation law.

Wrong, as long as it is in the same appropriation category, they can redirect it.
Example: unused office leases can be cancelled and that money can be used to upgrade existing security infrastructure in buildings that they are using. This falls under O&M.

 

[BaldiMac]

Wrong. The executive branch can not redirect funding within an agency anyway they want for a purpose not intended by Congress. That is a violation of appropriation law.

I am not sure if offering buyouts requires Congressional authorization. It is a use of government funds, which generally need Congress approval.

Wrong, as long as it is in the same appropriation category, they can redirect it.
Example: unused office leases can be cancelled and that money can be used to upgrade existing security infrastructure in buildings that they are using. This falls under O&M.

The correct answer is in between. It simply depends on how the money is earmarked. If it is for general agency expenses, it can be redirected within the agency. If it is for specific programs within that agency, it can only be redirected within that program. Exceptions apply.

 

[Mainsail]

The correct answer is in between. It simply depends on how the money is earmarked. If it is for general agency expenses, it can be redirected within the agency. If it is for specific programs within that agency, it can only be redirected within that program. Exceptions apply.

Correct. And money earmarked or identified as line items can not be redirected at the whim of the executive branch.

 

[breenmask]

The correct answer is in between. It simply depends on how the money is earmarked. If it is for general agency expenses, it can be redirected within the agency. If it is for specific programs within that agency, it can only be redirected within that program. Exceptions apply.

Correct. And money earmarked or identified as line items can not be redirected at the whim of the executive branch.

It's what I said. Don't know what's the issue there. There's nothing illegal happening at the moment.

 

[Mainsail]

It's what I said. Don't know what's the issue there. There's nothing illegal happening at the moment.

What about freezing major government programs that have been specifically funded by Congress....like USAID?

What if a liberal administration believed there was a lot of waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense budget (point to anecdotal $10K toilets and $1K hammers) and decided to freeze DOD funding, stop all military operations, and send everyone home....including submarines on patrol, training ops, contractors, etc..? Does that violate an appropriation laws?

Edit: This is the reason we have checks and balances in the process. These DODGE bros have absolutely no idea what work is actually done in these Departments. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298190/nuclear-agency-trump-firings-nnsa and https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html

 

[BaldiMac]

It's what I said.

It’s what both of you said. I was just being clear since you both said the other was wrong.

Don't know what's the issue there. There's nothing illegal happening at the moment.

That’s certainly your MO. Reframe the issue to ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your argument.

There are certainly legal issues around impoundment, closing agencies, employment rights and Musk’s ethical conflicts. Hence, multiple injunctions.

Musk just settled a lawsuit that he already won that he had no chance of losing on appeal to pay 47 around $10 million. 47 had the state department purchase $400 million in armored cybertrucks. That is what corruption looks like.

Musk’s disdain for the law is just another reason he doesn’t deserve more power in Open AI.

 

[breenmask]

What about freezing major government programs that have been specifically funded by Congress....like USAID?

What if a liberal administration believed there was a lot of waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense budget (point to anecdotal $10K toilets and $1K hammers) and decided to freeze DOD funding, stop all military operations, and send everyone home....including submarines on patrol, training ops, contractors, etc..? Does that violate an appropriation laws?

Edit: This is the reason we have checks and balances in the process. These DODGE bros have absolutely no idea what work is actually done in these Departments. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298190/nuclear-agency-trump-firings-nnsa and https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-trump/index.html

Was actually merging into State which is allowed under law after consulting with the head of the department. Marco Rubio was appointed acting administrator of USAID so it's legal after consulting with Marco.

 

[breenmask]

It’s what both of you said. I was just being clear since you both said the other was wrong.


That’s certainly your MO. Reframe the issue to ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your argument.

Didn't reframe the issue. Responded to everything that was presented to me.

There are certainly legal issues around impoundment, closing agencies, employment rights and Musk’s ethical conflicts. Hence, multiple injunctions.

You're not being specific here.

Musk just settled a lawsuit that he already won that he had no chance of losing on appeal to pay 47 around $10 million.

The X lawsuit? irrelevant to the context.

had the state department purchase $400 million in armored cybertrucks. That is what corruption looks like.

This was done under Biden's administration actually. The contract appeared in 2024 December. Talk about reframing.

See where you went wrong?

 

[Mainsail]

Was actually merging into State which is allowed under law after consulting with the head of the department. Marco Rubio was appointed acting administrator of USAID so it's legal after consulting with Marco.

You are conveniently forgetting that the administration froze all funding, recalled foreign aid workers, and fired most of the staff., while citing a false claim about $50M of condoms for Gaza. The administration is not executing the programs specifically funded by Congress as part of the appropriation law.....which is the point. You keep diverting the issue. This isn't about a reorganization. Just making Marco head of USAID doesn't mean that the appropriations aren't law, and that he doesn't need to carry out the programs funded by the law.

So, again, how would you feel if a president did the exact same thing with the military? Ignored DOD funding appropriations passed into law, froze all expenditure, recalled deployed military (including our nuclear deterrent subs, planes and manned silos), and fired most of the 3,000,000 personnel plus contractors because an audit found $10,000 toilets?

Imagine a president that said, yeah Congress appropriated funds for this purpose, and I signed it into law, but I never really liked the military. I think it is a terrible waste of money. I simply will not execute the defense programs funded by the appropriation law and save the country $850B. I would rather spend the money on social programs. As president, I get to pick and choose the laws (i.e. appropriations) I follow.

That, my friend, is a dictatorship.

 

[BaldiMac]

Didn't reframe the issue. Responded to everything that was presented to me.

You're not being specific here.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're pretending to be unaware of the issues that I listed or the multiple injunctions.

The X lawsuit? irrelevant to the context.

I find corruption relevant to the context of Musk's trustworthiness for power.

This was done under Biden's administration actually. The contract appeared in 2024 December. Talk about reframing.
See where you went wrong?

I was unequivocally wrong on this point. Sorry about that.

 

[breenmask]

You are conveniently forgetting that the administration froze all funding, recalled foreign aid workers, and fired most of the staff., while citing a false claim about $50M of condoms for Gaza. The administration is not executing the programs specifically funded by Congress as part of the appropriation law.....which is the point. You keep diverting the issue. This isn't about a reorganization. Just making Marco head of USAID doesn't mean that the appropriations aren't law, and that he doesn't need to carry out the programs funded by the law.

So, again, how would you feel if a president did the exact same thing with the military? Ignored DOD funding appropriations passed into law, froze all expenditure, recalled deployed military (including our nuclear deterrent subs, planes and manned silos), and fired most of the 3,000,000 personnel plus contractors because an audit found $10,000 toilets?

Imagine a president that said, yeah Congress appropriated funds for this purpose, and I signed it into law, but I never really liked the military. I think it is a terrible waste of money. I simply will not execute the defense programs funded by the appropriation law and save the country $850B. I would rather spend the money on social programs. As president, I get to pick and choose the laws (i.e. appropriations) I follow.

That, my friend, is a dictatorship.

not really forgetting that. trump put a pause for 90days. it would be illegal to indefinitely cut funding.

 

[breenmask]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're pretending to be unaware of the issues that I listed or the multiple injunctions.

I responded to all that was directed to me. If you have something specific, list it.

I find corruption relevant to the context of Musk's trustworthiness for power.

X lawsuit has nothing to do with this context actually.

 

[Mainsail]

not really forgetting that. trump put a pause for 90days. it would be illegal to indefinitely cut funding.

You keep changing your argument. First, it's just a reorganization...failed argument. Now, it's just a temporary freeze argument. The point is the administration is not executing an appropriation passed by Congress, which means medicine isn't being delivered and food is rotting in warehouses. All stuff Congress authorized and funded.

Gee, what if the President put a 90 day pause on the military, put 3,000,000 people on administrative leave, and left the country undefended for 3 months because he thought Congress was wrong to appropriate money for Defense or he thought $1,000 was too much to pay for a hammer? Any problems there?

I am totally done with this conversation.

 

[BaldiMac]

I responded to all that was directed to me. If you have something specific, list it.

Like I said, you’re simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit your argument. I listed specific areas of legal concern. You're trying to reframe that into only discussing individual violations to take advantage of the fact that we don't have access to what exactly is being done or the legal theory that is being used to justify it.

X lawsuit has nothing to do with this context actually.

You just repeated yourself while ignoring my response. Again, corruption on the part of Musk is certainly relevant to the question of expanding his power, wealth and influence through OpenAI.

not really forgetting that. trump put a pause for 90days. it would be illegal to indefinitely cut funding.

Any impoundment, either temporary or permanent is likely illegal, unless it was for reasons authorized by law. The best that a president could legally do is request Congress rescind the funding. That would allow him to hold the funding for 45 days. Congress does not need to respond. If they do not rescind the funding in 45 days, it must be released.

How could anyone with any respect for the constitution want a president to have that power?!??!

 

[breenmask]

You keep changing your argument. First, it's just a reorganization...failed argument. Now, it's just a temporary freeze argument.

The creation of DOGE is a reorganization (a valid argument considering it's legal) and your argument is simply about a temporary freeze of payments which is legal. Where did I change anything?