3 ms·

If it’s a $100,000,000 contract then it was appropriated by Congress. Whether or not it’s “waste” is entirely irrelevant.

by epc 2y ago

almosthere 2y ago
That's the problem, there is no amount of money that separates something "appropriated by congress" or "slush funding in USAID". USAID was given 50B a year, can spend it on ANYTHING it wants, there is no further congressional approval required. I do think we need to get back to a point where a congressmen needs to approve each check over 10k. Heck, it would at least give them something to do, and feel the money roll and make their choices in Congress mean something again.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Literally not how anything in Civ agencies or CivTech works. Can't speak for defense.
- genericresponse 2y ago
  Two things that frustrate me about this line of argument is a failure to recognize the scale being discussed and an implicit assumption that something that isn't trivially obvious doesn't exist. On the scale- We're talking about millions of checks a year. You've effectively proposed to ask every congressperson to spend all day signing checks. By doing so, you've also eliminated the time they spend working with constituents on issues, understanding the facts or background of decisions they've made, or even working to find compromises. On the assumption- There isn't a dollar figure, but there are quite thorough rules. (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497) This spells out how the rules are established and what governs it. You can quite easily look up the authorizing legislation for USAID and see the allowed purposes for funds. Definitionally- that makes it not slush funding.
  - almosthere 2y ago
    The only reason we're writing millions of checks is because MOST OF IT IS FRAUD!
    - drawkward 2y ago
      You ade alleging that. What you do with an allegation, is you prove it, and then you make the cuts. You don't make the cuts in dark of night and then say, "trust me, receipts coming later." This isnt the shoot-fucking-first-ask-questions-never wild west, its a goddamn democracy.
    - genericresponse 2y ago
      Proof or you're lying. Yelling doesn't make something true. It's the standard you've asked others to be held to in these comments. It's fair to be held to it yourself.
      - almosthere 2y ago
        doge.gov/savings
- epc 2y ago
  It is pointless to argue with you. All the relevant documents I should be able to link to have been purged from various Federal sites due to “DOGE” shenanigans. Congressional appropriations are how money is allocated, regardless of party in charge of Congress or the Executive. If the money is misspent there’s a range of tools available to Congress AND the Executive to correct the problem. But if we're just going to let a group of people decide on their own what is or isn't fraud then, regardless of your political belief system, we're simply fucked.

If it’s a $100,000,000 contract then it was appropriated by Congress. Whether or not it’s “waste” is entirely irrelevant.

by epc 2y ago

If it’s a $100,000,000 contract then it was appropriated by Congress. Whether or not it’s “waste” is entirely irrelevant.

almosthere 2y ago

That's the problem, there is no amount of money that separates something "appropriated by congress" or "slush funding in USAID". USAID was given 50B a year, can spend it on ANYTHING it wants, there is no further congressional approval required. I do think we need to get back to a point where a congressmen needs to approve each check over 10k. Heck, it would at least give them something to do, and feel the money roll and make their choices in Congress mean something again.

tomrod 2y ago
Literally not how anything in Civ agencies or CivTech works. Can't speak for defense.
genericresponse 2y ago
Two things that frustrate me about this line of argument is a failure to recognize the scale being discussed and an implicit assumption that something that isn't trivially obvious doesn't exist. On the scale- We're talking about millions of checks a year. You've effectively proposed to ask every congressperson to spend all day signing checks. By doing so, you've also eliminated the time they spend working with constituents on issues, understanding the facts or background of decisions they've made, or even working to find compromises. On the assumption- There isn't a dollar figure, but there are quite thorough rules. (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497) This spells out how the rules are established and what governs it. You can quite easily look up the authorizing legislation for USAID and see the allowed purposes for funds. Definitionally- that makes it not slush funding.
- almosthere 2y ago
  The only reason we're writing millions of checks is because MOST OF IT IS FRAUD!
  - drawkward 2y ago
    You ade alleging that. What you do with an allegation, is you prove it, and then you make the cuts. You don't make the cuts in dark of night and then say, "trust me, receipts coming later." This isnt the shoot-fucking-first-ask-questions-never wild west, its a goddamn democracy.
  - genericresponse 2y ago
    Proof or you're lying. Yelling doesn't make something true. It's the standard you've asked others to be held to in these comments. It's fair to be held to it yourself.
    - almosthere 2y ago
      doge.gov/savings
epc 2y ago
It is pointless to argue with you. All the relevant documents I should be able to link to have been purged from various Federal sites due to “DOGE” shenanigans. Congressional appropriations are how money is allocated, regardless of party in charge of Congress or the Executive. If the money is misspent there’s a range of tools available to Congress AND the Executive to correct the problem. But if we're just going to let a group of people decide on their own what is or isn't fraud then, regardless of your political belief system, we're simply fucked.