4 ms·

I don't think it would be unpopular for me to say that most taxpayers believe there is huge waste in government, up to and including the government's spending.

• jimnotgym 2y ago
  I have never seen a large organisation without waste. That doesn't mean the organisation needs ripping up
  • nritchie 2y ago
    "taxpayers believe" is very different from "there actually is".
  • KetoManx64 2y ago
    $15 million for condoms to the Taliban through USAID. $446,700 to promote the expansion of atheism in Nepal through the State Department. $1 million to boost French-speaking LGBTQ groups in West and Central Africa through the State Department. $14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at the southern border through the State Department. $20,600 for a drag show in Ecuador through the State Department. $47,020 for a transgender opera in Colombia through the State Department. $32,000 for an LGBTQ-centered comic book in Peru through the State Department. $55,750 for a climate change presentation warning about the impact of climate change in Argentina to be led by female and LGBT journalists through the StateDepartment. $3,315,446 for “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean” through USAID. $7,071.58 for a BIPOC speaker series in Canada through the State Department. $80,000 for an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia through the State Department. $3.2 million to help Tunisian migrants readjust to life in Tunisia after deportation through the State Department. $16,500 to foster a “united and equal queer-feminist discourse in Albanian society” through the State Department. $10,000 to pressure Lithuanian corporations to promote “DEI values” through the State Department. $8,000 to promote DEI among LGBTQ groups in Cyprus through the State Department. $1.5 million to promote job opportunities for LGBTQ individuals in Serbia through USAID. $70,884 to create a U.S.-Irish musical to promote DEI in Ireland through the State Department. $39,652 to host seminars at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on gender identity and racial equality through the State Department. $425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly through USAID.
    • basementcat 2y ago
      First, I would appreciate a citation for each of these. Second, perhaps you can explain to me why it is necessary to threaten the health and safety of 20 million people instead of specific targeted cuts? https://www.devex.com/news/scoop-usaid-kenya-partner-has-no-funds-to-carry-out-pepfar-waiver-109390 https://www.devex.com/news/scoop-usaid-kenya-partner-has-no-...
    • MoneyMeMoneyNow 2y ago
      [dead]
    • juntoalaluna 2y ago
      Soft power is an undervalued thing that is hard to build. It's hard to quantify how much the US benefits from promoting (what was previously) its values in other countries. I bet its more than the $40m (or, to put it in perspective, 12 cents per citizen) that this list adds to.
    • xnx 2y ago
      You've been lied to
    • bdangubic 2y ago
      this post is a posterchild for everything that is wrong with the US society today. I truly hope you do not believe in what you wrote here and just trolling :)
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • b_davis_ 2y ago
      Is this 'waste'? Until the last election, it was not. These were considered "american values".
• moolcool 2y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/trump-usaid-court-lawsuit-constitutional-crisis-2ee3374100720d093588e2234e8be601 https://apnews.com/article/trump-usaid-court-lawsuit-constit... I would prefer it if they they stopped
• bryanlarsen 2y ago
  A major recent one was what DOGE is using as a vehicle. The DSGS was set up in the Obama administration to replace thousands of different IT departments with a single one. Increasing government efficiency was a major Obama plank which he partly delivered on.
  • bryanlarsen 2y ago
    More examples: Clinton balanced the budget, and Carter cut more government regulation than Reagan did.
• erehweb 2y ago
  People certainly believe there is huge waste in government, but that doesn't make it true - people believe all sorts of incorrect things. Politicians have been running for years on plans to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" in government spending, but I suspect there's a lot less fat than the average taxpayer thinks.
  • goalieca 2y ago
    Compare budgets in 2024 ( $6.752 trillion) vs 2015 ($3.688 trillion)
    • xnx 2y ago
      Where are these numbers from? I see 2015 (4.89 trillion): https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
      • unsnap_biceps 2y ago
        And let's correct for inflation. 2015 4.89 trillion is 6.503 trillion, which means the budget only went up 249 billion, or 3.83% over that 10 year span.
        • goalieca 2y ago
          The number is from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_b... Total expenditures $3.90 trillion (requested) $3.688 trillion (actual)[3] 20.6% of GDP[4]
  • wklauss 2y ago
    There is fat, but I'd venture not much on the CDC, FEMA or USAID. A big part of this mess is that fat is concentrated on areas that are very unpopular to cut, like military expenditure, or in legacy processes and systems that will take years and a lot of upfront investment to streamline (and that DOGE won't touch). If you meet an average government worker in the US, you quickly realize how little they make and how understaffed their departments tend to be. People underestimate how complex government work is and how different it is from what you do at a regular business.
• Matthyze 2y ago
  And most people believe there's too much crime. The DOGE answer to that is to round up people indiscriminately. (Not entirely indiscriminately — gotta get those political opponents!)
  • MattGaiser 2y ago
    All while crime is plummeting and has been for a long time.
• Larrikin 2y ago
  So instead of a department of Education for example, what should all that money go towards? Resegregation of schools under the title of school vouchers instead of Jim Crow?
  • KetoManx64 2y ago
    How about the money just remains in the citizens bank accounts to use as they please?
    • Larrikin 2y ago
      So you'll use your money to fund scholarships for smart but poor students, fix the roads by my house, pay for basic scientific research that might not benefit you personally ever.? Or just screw society if you're personally fine right now.
• theGnuMe 2y ago
  yet 4.5T tax cuts which is also govt spending.
• digdugdirk 2y ago
  "which is to say that it's literally the only one that I've ever heard about in my lifetime" ^ That statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your general sentiment. And (not meaning this as a personal attack at all) it's a huge problem for our society as a whole if citizens are more in favour of large scale destruction of institutions based on a lack of understanding that has been pushed by the same economic class benefiting from the wholesale destruction of democratic institutions. There are numerous entities that do good work in the government to combat waste. You just don't hear about them because it's not a sexy topic that the media gets clicks from. Unfortunately, those entities are being shut down by DOGE, so sadly, it's not a start of anything good.
• juntoalaluna 2y ago
  Randomly destroying things without actually understanding why they are important is a very short term view on reducing waste. Fixing things if/when they go wrong is going to be expensive.
  • jimnotgym 2y ago
    Look how the same process failed to turn Twitter into a profitable enterprise!
    • MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
      I don't know if you're being serious, but Twitter's financials are not in any better shape since Musk took over.
      • jimnotgym 2y ago
        I'm intrigued how you read and understood my comment? I thought I said that this approach had failed?
        • MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
          I read it sarcastically, due to the exclamation point. May have been a misread on my part.
• larusso 2y ago
  Not a US citizen but I know my fair share of bureaucratic processes from my home country Germany. That being said it’s one thing to start a process to limit overspending without simple budget cuts which can be more hurtful. That’s why you need an actual audit to figure out what is and what isn‘t waste or inefficient. Inefficient also doesn’t mean shutting things down. Maybe improving processes and leverage the people better etc. Then comes the whole topic of who is in charge. It’s still baffling that an unelected person can conduct official government business. I understand how the system works in the US but one would think that in order to be granted this much power, that some checks have to fly by congress / senate (not that this would make a difference since there is only the party line no conscience voting) before this person can set out to dismantle US agencies. For me that is not a start. Why not bring a person from big Pharma in to audit and reform the FDA. While at it let’s some Exxon guys evaluate the environment regulations etc etc. You can‘t let the wolf guard the sheep.
• basementcat 2y ago
  > I don't think it would be unpopular for me to say that most taxpayers believe there is huge waste in government, up to and including the government's spending. No one wants wasteful spending. The difference is that DOGE proponents are totally okay with threatening the lives of over 20 million people. https://www.devex.com/news/scoop-usaid-kenya-partner-has-no-funds-to-carry-out-pepfar-waiver-109390 https://www.devex.com/news/scoop-usaid-kenya-partner-has-no-... > While DOGE is not a good long-term solution, it's so far better than literally any other major effort by a US government entity to combat waste at the federal level - which is to say that it's literally the only one that I've ever heard about in my lifetime. Perhaps you're very young. Every few years there have been "Hoover-style" commissions that have resulted in bipartisan efficiency optimizations, without the mass disruptions (that will end up costing taxpayers even more money) and threats to safety of millions of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Commission
• jgon 2y ago
  This is your lucky day, because you get to learn about the Government Accountability office! Formed literally over 100 years ago to literally provide professional and non-partisan audit and investigative services to the government! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi... This is probably a good time to do some reflection on your current world view. You thought that it seemed possible, and possibly even likely that the largest and most powerful government in the world was operating completely without any sort of accounting checks as it worked with literal trillions of dollars a year, and that none of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who make up the workforce of this organization had any motive to try and responsibly carry out their duties and spend their money. They were all just irredeemably committed to flagrantly wasting your money and enriching themselves on your tax dollars, instead of taking seriously the responsibility they had. As it turns out, this is just a completely ludicrous fantasy. There are already numerous mechanisms in place to combat fraud and waste, staffed by competent professionals who generally try their best to uphold the trust granted to them. Some of them might even be your friends or neighbors. They're people, just like you, and are generally trying to do a good job and move society forward. In any multi-trillion dollar organization there is going to be waste and fraud. Like the battle against entropy it can never be fully won, its an ongoing battle that is fought each year. There will be scandals of misspent money, and victories of services delivered for good value on the dollar spent. Its not some sort of black and white, good vs evil struggle, and the fact you thought that literally no one had every thought to do this before should probably give you pause the next time you start to think about politics.