5 ms·

I definitely agree. Their goal is to balance the budget and reduce the national debt (which ballooned to 36T under the previous administration). Reducing waste

by Dig1t 2y ago

I definitely agree. Their goal is to balance the budget and reduce the national debt (which ballooned to 36T under the previous administration). Reducing waste at the Pentagon is absolutely necessary if they are going to achieve that goal. The Pentagon has failed 7 audits in a row. https://econofact.org/factbrief/has-the-pentagon-failed-its-7th-audit-in-a-row https://econofact.org/factbrief/has-the-pentagon-failed-its-...

timeon 2y ago
I think the goal is to find ~4T $ to cover next batch of corporate tax-cuts.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  According to the DOGE tracker: https://www.doge-tracker.com/ https://www.doge-tracker.com/ It looks like they are targeting 2T in savings as a goal.
  - lawn 2y ago
    So the net result is that they'll increase spending by 2T in order to give themselves tax cuts. Remember this the next time they talk about "wasting money".
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      They are absolutely wasting a lot of money: >$3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans >$5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda >$6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world” >$6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa >$8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion” The list goes on. https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553
      - computerthings 2y ago
        > $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa Heh. But all in all: yes, and? You're just listing things as if listing them means there's a problem with them, without even bothering to identify problem with any of them. Or why they would require a fascist coup to address, for that matter.
        Dig1t 2y ago
        We did not vote to send our tax dollars to other countries for these things. People are outraged that their hard earned tax dollars are being wasted on stuff like this. I think you know that, there’s a reason these items are being downplayed or glossed over by corporate media. They know that if average people understood this waste they would be outraged. These are government employees. Government employees having read-only access to government systems is completely legal. You can keep throwing around the word “coup” as much as you want, the only thing it’s accomplishing is to make the word mean less. Just like calling everyone you disagree with “racist”. It’s not effective anymore, nobody cares.
        computerthings 2y ago
        > We did not vote to send our tax dollars to other countries for these things. I have no reason to believe you know what "these things" are. > People are outraged that their hard earned tax dollars are being wasted on stuff like this. And they too don't know, and don't even ask, what "this" is. They see "men having sex with men" and it's off to the races apparently. > You can keep throwing around the word “coup” as much as you want, the only thing it’s accomplishing is to make the word mean less. With whom? The people who are going along so far are probably FUBAR anyway, not everything is for them.
      - lawn 2y ago
        Those numbers are drops in the bucket compared to the cuts they plan to give themselves. (Not to mention calling fighting HIV "for men who have sex with men"...) They're also cutting funding to agencies that make money!
Jtsummers 2y ago
There is a lot of waste (or, to be generous, inefficiency) in the DOD, but the DOD budget could be entirely wiped out and we'd still have deficits. The last time the DOD budget was larger than the deficit was FY16. After that, FY17, FY18, and FY19 deficits were $0.67, $0.78, and $0.98 trillion, then a whopping $3.13 trillion for FY20. If we want to really tackle the deficit we probably need to raise revenue at least for a while, get the debt itself down (debt payments are a large percentage of the budget, and of course compounding). And figure out how to get Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be more efficient or just say fuck it and cut them. So far this FY we've accumulated another $700 billion in deficits with $1.79 trillion spent and about $1.08 trillion in revenue. If you look at the spending by agency, the DOD so far this FY has spent $250 billion, a bit more than 1/3rd the new deficit. HHS and SSA are $452 billion and $395 billion. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio... https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
palmfacehn 2y ago
Defense spending keeps coming up as a point on this site, usually in an argument along the lines of, "So what if you cite malfeasance by USAID. It doesn't matter anyway. Defense spending and entitlements are the biggest items..." Yet, here we see that partisans are similarly inflamed by the prospect of the Defense Dept. facing scrutiny. There's truly nothing which can satisfy some of these extreme voices.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Because people are upset with the process, as in there doesn’t seem to be any transparency, oversight, or methodology, and essentially no concern for whether what they’re doing is legal. Just flat assertions. Rooting out waste is a laudable goal but it’s easy to use “waste reduction” as a pretext for waging an ideological purge. I thought we all agreed ideological purges are bad on the basis that you will disagree when the purge eventually comes for you?
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    So the government has hired some people to audit the government. They have read only access to the government data. They are posting every single recommendation they make for spending reduction on their website AND on Twitter for transparency. What about this process do people have a problem with? It seems like the real reason people are upset is that dollars are no longer flowing to leftist groups who were using the money to advance leftist causes. Example: - $3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans — $5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda — $6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world” — $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa — $8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion” https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > They have read only access to the government data. Turns out actually in a court filing today they told the judge they have read/write access. Does this change your assessment, or will you rationalize it? > They are posting every single recommendation they make for spending reduction on their website AND on Twitter for transparency. These aren't recommendations, they are just posting things supporters don't like on ideological grounds as a pretext for cutting entire programs. Which, I can see is your main interest when you bring up the next point about leftist causes (frankly I don't care about any of those causes you linked to). Which, let's unpack that. Because what are you saying here? That leftist causes should not be funded? Why? America is split about 50/50, which means you're talking about 100+ million people who support those causes. People on the left voted for representatives and passed legislation which provided money to do things they want to do. The same is true for the right. We have to find a way to agree to disagree, and cutting all of the other side's priorities is not that. But now you're saying that the President can just come in and pull all grants and funds toward political causes his 50% doesn't support? What's stopping the next Democrat then from just defunding everything Republicans supported and voted for?

by Dig1t 2y ago

timeon 2y ago

I think the goal is to find ~4T $ to cover next batch of corporate tax-cuts.

Dig1t 2y ago
According to the DOGE tracker: https://www.doge-tracker.com/ https://www.doge-tracker.com/ It looks like they are targeting 2T in savings as a goal.
- lawn 2y ago
  So the net result is that they'll increase spending by 2T in order to give themselves tax cuts. Remember this the next time they talk about "wasting money".
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    They are absolutely wasting a lot of money: >$3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans >$5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda >$6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world” >$6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa >$8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion” The list goes on. https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553
    - computerthings 2y ago
      > $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa Heh. But all in all: yes, and? You're just listing things as if listing them means there's a problem with them, without even bothering to identify problem with any of them. Or why they would require a fascist coup to address, for that matter.
      - Dig1t 2y ago
        We did not vote to send our tax dollars to other countries for these things. People are outraged that their hard earned tax dollars are being wasted on stuff like this. I think you know that, there’s a reason these items are being downplayed or glossed over by corporate media. They know that if average people understood this waste they would be outraged. These are government employees. Government employees having read-only access to government systems is completely legal. You can keep throwing around the word “coup” as much as you want, the only thing it’s accomplishing is to make the word mean less. Just like calling everyone you disagree with “racist”. It’s not effective anymore, nobody cares.
        computerthings 2y ago
        > We did not vote to send our tax dollars to other countries for these things. I have no reason to believe you know what "these things" are. > People are outraged that their hard earned tax dollars are being wasted on stuff like this. And they too don't know, and don't even ask, what "this" is. They see "men having sex with men" and it's off to the races apparently. > You can keep throwing around the word “coup” as much as you want, the only thing it’s accomplishing is to make the word mean less. With whom? The people who are going along so far are probably FUBAR anyway, not everything is for them.
    - lawn 2y ago
      Those numbers are drops in the bucket compared to the cuts they plan to give themselves. (Not to mention calling fighting HIV "for men who have sex with men"...) They're also cutting funding to agencies that make money!

Jtsummers 2y ago

There is a lot of waste (or, to be generous, inefficiency) in the DOD, but the DOD budget could be entirely wiped out and we'd still have deficits. The last time the DOD budget was larger than the deficit was FY16. After that, FY17, FY18, and FY19 deficits were $0.67, $0.78, and $0.98 trillion, then a whopping $3.13 trillion for FY20. If we want to really tackle the deficit we probably need to raise revenue at least for a while, get the debt itself down (debt payments are a large percentage of the budget, and of course compounding). And figure out how to get Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be more efficient or just say fuck it and cut them. So far this FY we've accumulated another $700 billion in deficits with $1.79 trillion spent and about $1.08 trillion in revenue. If you look at the spending by agency, the DOD so far this FY has spent $250 billion, a bit more than 1/3rd the new deficit. HHS and SSA are $452 billion and $395 billion. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio... https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

palmfacehn 2y ago

Defense spending keeps coming up as a point on this site, usually in an argument along the lines of, "So what if you cite malfeasance by USAID. It doesn't matter anyway. Defense spending and entitlements are the biggest items..." Yet, here we see that partisans are similarly inflamed by the prospect of the Defense Dept. facing scrutiny. There's truly nothing which can satisfy some of these extreme voices.

ModernMech 2y ago
Because people are upset with the process, as in there doesn’t seem to be any transparency, oversight, or methodology, and essentially no concern for whether what they’re doing is legal. Just flat assertions. Rooting out waste is a laudable goal but it’s easy to use “waste reduction” as a pretext for waging an ideological purge. I thought we all agreed ideological purges are bad on the basis that you will disagree when the purge eventually comes for you?
- Dig1t 2y ago
  So the government has hired some people to audit the government. They have read only access to the government data. They are posting every single recommendation they make for spending reduction on their website AND on Twitter for transparency. What about this process do people have a problem with? It seems like the real reason people are upset is that dollars are no longer flowing to leftist groups who were using the money to advance leftist causes. Example: - $3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans — $5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda — $6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world” — $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa — $8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion” https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > They have read only access to the government data. Turns out actually in a court filing today they told the judge they have read/write access. Does this change your assessment, or will you rationalize it? > They are posting every single recommendation they make for spending reduction on their website AND on Twitter for transparency. These aren't recommendations, they are just posting things supporters don't like on ideological grounds as a pretext for cutting entire programs. Which, I can see is your main interest when you bring up the next point about leftist causes (frankly I don't care about any of those causes you linked to). Which, let's unpack that. Because what are you saying here? That leftist causes should not be funded? Why? America is split about 50/50, which means you're talking about 100+ million people who support those causes. People on the left voted for representatives and passed legislation which provided money to do things they want to do. The same is true for the right. We have to find a way to agree to disagree, and cutting all of the other side's priorities is not that. But now you're saying that the President can just come in and pull all grants and funds toward political causes his 50% doesn't support? What's stopping the next Democrat then from just defunding everything Republicans supported and voted for?