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.
[dead]
Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#32But closing USAID did result in lots of deaths around the world as life saving aid was just cutoff with no warning. Was done with no regard to consequences or Congressional approval.
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.
If the US wants to be the most powerful country in the world, so that if benefits the most from a non-stop flux of wealth moving in from outside, that involves a cost, tiny as it might be.
The US decided that paying that cost of $0.10 in exchange for earning $10 was too much. So now it's saving those $0.10, and watching the $10 stop comming in.
This is an error all Empires commit a few years before falling from imperial status. As the British, themselves self-inflicted victims of the same mistake, say, penny wise, pound foolish.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#33Although 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.
I mean I surely disagree, but also I don’t think the motive really matters - the decisions made and actions taken very much speak for themselves.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#34Although 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.
DOGE was putting the fox in charge of hen welfare. The “spirit” was just a bare minimum facade so they could redirect funds towards billionaires bank accounts.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#35But closing USAID did result in lots of deaths around the world as life saving aid was just cutoff with no warning. Was done with no regard to consequences or Congressional approval.
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.
That's like helping a grandma to move her groceries, only to throw them on the ground, saying "I didn't sign up to be your carrier for eternity."
Like, understandably you could wish to stop helping her. But if you took her groceries to help, you also supposed to place them down gently.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#36By 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…
Wasn't GAO the leading us org in that big simplification/trim of the Clinton admin? I know for budget hawks of my country (my uncles and whoever informed them for full transparency) it was the only good thing Clinton did and we should have done the same (the US budget was balanced for the first time since Reagan or something, without reducing social aid).
I think that's the best way to find out btw. Did the US budget increase in the last two years. If yes, Doge failed.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If only the government thought like this, instead of blaming those family members of being "lazy welfare queens"...
A relevant segment on a 2h+ documentary: https://youtu.be/t1MqJPHxy6g?t=1936
Or before that: https://youtu.be/t1MqJPHxy6g?t=1702
If you've absorbed the American teaching that "if you just work hard you'll be successful", then you'd have to believe the opposite: "if you're not successful that means you're lazy".
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#38Earlier 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.
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.
Weirdly, one of the arguments Musk advanced was that is was all a front for the CIA, which I'd guess is closer to hard power that he was dismantling.
Not something you'd expect to hear from a big military contractor.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#39Earlier 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.
> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself.
While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.
Re: Obviously, DOGE Did Not Save Money
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Eliminate Iran and you'll eliminate Russia. They need to be stopped.
You do not realize how much of suffering they are causing. Every day I bring kids to playground there's 1 or 2 Ukrainian family. Mother + child + grandmother usually. And it's likely to be worst year yet for them.
You wanna send condoms to Africa while there is active genocide happening in Europe? Send your money, there are plenty of ways to donate.