Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#21

Post by snehk »

litoE wrote: post #18
hallole wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the U.S. would've had to supply foreign aid for eternity, then? Instead of appreciating the vast sums given by the U.S. and her taxpayers, there's only vitriol for the stream of aid money having been cut off.

I'm not rich, but I give a lot of money every year to charity, to try to help those who need help. The United States is the richest country in the world. It was also giving to charity to help those who badly needed help. It was a small amount compared to its budget, and we called it USAID. To protect the money from being scammed by those running the countries we were helping, the US itself administered those programs…

You're spending your own money. I'm pretty sure that if there was one member of your family that didn't have money for food or medicine, you'd spend it there instead of donating it, wouldn't you?

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#22

Post by maxlin »

By GAO, lol. The only reason they'd do the reports is because DOGE isn't there to respond. Because it was in DOGE's design to not become just an instrument of furthering the problem it was designed to combat, unlike GAO!

The spirit of DOGE lives on though. The basics of just having to at least have a reason what an expense is for did wonders, and DOGE did save a ton, even if it'd benefited from more freedom. Another time.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#23

Post by maxlin »

eqvinox wrote: post #11
hallole wrote: post #8

Although it seems to have been a flop in practice, I do appreciate the spirit of making good use of tax dollars. I only wish the program was more carefully guided, since the motive behind it did seem genuine.

That's why the GAO already exists, and what its job is! There's even an international association and conference of these bodies across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_of_...

If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#24

Post by glaslong »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #16
zzrrt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the soft power argument that it was actually in US's self-interest to help. And for what it's worth, a lot of the vitriol is from taxpayers who supported that aid.

Cool. But sometimes it's ok to invest into some hard power.

See and here I thought we were already spending more on our military than the 2nd - 7th highest spending countries combined

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#25

Post by jerlam »

glaslong wrote: post #24
dzhiurgis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. But sometimes it's ok to invest into some hard power.

See and here I thought we were already spending more on our military than the 2nd - 7th highest spending countries combined

It doesn't really matter how much you spend if the leadership is incompetent.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#26

Post by glaslong »

jerlam wrote: post #25
glaslong wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See and here I thought we were already spending more on our military than the 2nd - 7th highest spending countries combined

It doesn't really matter how much you spend if the leadership is incompetent.

Seems like deposing our leadership would be the best investment strategy into hard power then. Maybe DOGE could get on that.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#27

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

litoE wrote: post #18
hallole wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the U.S. would've had to supply foreign aid for eternity, then? Instead of appreciating the vast sums given by the U.S. and her taxpayers, there's only vitriol for the stream of aid money having been cut off.

I'm not rich, but I give a lot of money every year to charity, to try to help those who need help. The United States is the richest country in the world. It was also giving to charity to help those who badly needed help. It was a small amount compared to its budget, and we called it USAID. To protect the money from being scammed by those running the countries we were helping, the US itself administered those programs…

People against usaid should ask basic questions:

would US (and therefore its individual taxpayers) be globally wealthy without the rest of the world?

does US benefit from disease and death in other countries?

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#28

Post by eqvinox »

maxlin wrote: post #23
eqvinox wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the GAO already exists, and what its job is! There's even an international association and conference of these bodies across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_of_...

If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.

That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?)

(I don't think the GAO could set an expiry date on itself even if they wanted to, they exist by power of Congress, so only Congress could put an expiry date on them.)

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#29

Post by dzhiurgis »

glaslong wrote: post #24
dzhiurgis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. But sometimes it's ok to invest into some hard power.

See and here I thought we were already spending more on our military than the 2nd - 7th highest spending countries combined

It's the cost of being world police.

Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money

#30

Post by glaslong »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #29
glaslong wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See and here I thought we were already spending more on our military than the 2nd - 7th highest spending countries combined

It's the cost of being world police.

And that cost was not enough? We needed more investment into hard power head cracking policing, and reduced soft power community policing?
Post reply on HN