4 ms·

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 matte

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?

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?