4 ms·

Fraud is also a crime that can be prosecuted. The lack of prosecution exposes they have not found any fraud, and probably aren't even looking.

by xnx 2y ago

localghost3000 2y ago
The president was convicted of fraud and that doesn’t seem to matter. Let’s maybe stop acting like the rule of law is getting applied evenly in these times.
ineedaj0b 2y ago
the 'fraud' will come out around midterms when it's politically advantageous to have publicity.
monkmartinez 2y ago
IANAL. I would think fraud needs investigation much deeper than; "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If there is potential for fraud, you mark the case for further evaluation and investigation. The most important first step is always to stop the bleeding and in this case, bleeding money. You can come back to investigate at a later time. Prosecuting fraud before the bleeding has stopped is a waste of time imo.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  > First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If you're attempting to illegally seize control of the government's spending from Congress, sure, you do that.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off The executive doesn't appropriate funds, Congress does. So that's completely wrong. > think fraud needs investigation much deeper than... Exactly but DOGE isn't doing that.
- xnx 2y ago
  > "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." That's "waste" (in their opinion), but they keep saying "waste, fraud, and abuse".
- tim333 2y ago
  Fair enough, prosecuting takes time but announcing what happened doesn't. So far we seem to get them claiming that 160 year old people are claiming social security which turned out to be them just defaulting to an old date of birth if they didn't know the actual one. Have there been any announcements of actual fraud found that stand up to a common sense look at what they are saying?
notahacker 2y ago
Never mind the prosecution, if you work on the hypothesis there probably is some government expenditure that is at least slightly unnecessary, the shitshow where DOGE look for the most obvious examples and end up bragging about saving money until someone points out that budget was spent last year or that the billion is actually a million or that maybe the people on probation due to recent promotions probably weren't the most dispensible employees, or oops, can we unfire the Ebola staff presents a surprisingly positive impression of how good actual auditors have been at weeding it out...
theshrike79 2y ago
And if there is fraud, there's this thing called the "Inspector General" whose sole job is to find and prosecute fraud. Guess who they fired first?
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  I am deep blue, but if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. Firing the policemen so you can commit crime is what's happening, but your argument isn't a convincing one, neither is the age one. We can do better than that, and by focusing on those as the problem, we disempower ourselves and our message. "There will be a revolution, and it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." We are going through a revolution. DOGE is the revolutionary force purging the old government, just like every other revolution. Just like Stalin, just like the bolsheviks, just like Mao. The only reason it's not violent like those yet is because power was peacefully transferred to them, and FBI agents, generals, US marshals, and other agents of enforcing the law aren't completely replaced with loyalists yet. There's a reason historians are freaking out.
  - watwut 2y ago
    > if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. No it does not stand to a reason. Inspector general is not even supposed to deal with efficiency, he is supposed to deal with fraud. Those are two different things. Second, no, there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops. Or cops boss. There would never be any stable enforcement body if you applied that standard. Third, random decision making creates inefficiency.

Fraud is also a crime that can be prosecuted. The lack of prosecution exposes they have not found any fraud, and probably aren't even looking.

by xnx 2y ago

Fraud is also a crime that can be prosecuted. The lack of prosecution exposes they have not found any fraud, and probably aren't even looking.

localghost3000 2y ago

The president was convicted of fraud and that doesn’t seem to matter. Let’s maybe stop acting like the rule of law is getting applied evenly in these times.

ineedaj0b 2y ago

the 'fraud' will come out around midterms when it's politically advantageous to have publicity.

monkmartinez 2y ago

IANAL. I would think fraud needs investigation much deeper than; "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If there is potential for fraud, you mark the case for further evaluation and investigation. The most important first step is always to stop the bleeding and in this case, bleeding money. You can come back to investigate at a later time. Prosecuting fraud before the bleeding has stopped is a waste of time imo.

alabastervlog 2y ago
> First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If you're attempting to illegally seize control of the government's spending from Congress, sure, you do that.
hypeatei 2y ago
> First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off The executive doesn't appropriate funds, Congress does. So that's completely wrong. > think fraud needs investigation much deeper than... Exactly but DOGE isn't doing that.
xnx 2y ago
> "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." That's "waste" (in their opinion), but they keep saying "waste, fraud, and abuse".
tim333 2y ago
Fair enough, prosecuting takes time but announcing what happened doesn't. So far we seem to get them claiming that 160 year old people are claiming social security which turned out to be them just defaulting to an old date of birth if they didn't know the actual one. Have there been any announcements of actual fraud found that stand up to a common sense look at what they are saying?

notahacker 2y ago

Never mind the prosecution, if you work on the hypothesis there probably is some government expenditure that is at least slightly unnecessary, the shitshow where DOGE look for the most obvious examples and end up bragging about saving money until someone points out that budget was spent last year or that the billion is actually a million or that maybe the people on probation due to recent promotions probably weren't the most dispensible employees, or oops, can we unfire the Ebola staff presents a surprisingly positive impression of how good actual auditors have been at weeding it out...

theshrike79 2y ago

And if there is fraud, there's this thing called the "Inspector General" whose sole job is to find and prosecute fraud. Guess who they fired first?

hayst4ck 2y ago
I am deep blue, but if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. Firing the policemen so you can commit crime is what's happening, but your argument isn't a convincing one, neither is the age one. We can do better than that, and by focusing on those as the problem, we disempower ourselves and our message. "There will be a revolution, and it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." We are going through a revolution. DOGE is the revolutionary force purging the old government, just like every other revolution. Just like Stalin, just like the bolsheviks, just like Mao. The only reason it's not violent like those yet is because power was peacefully transferred to them, and FBI agents, generals, US marshals, and other agents of enforcing the law aren't completely replaced with loyalists yet. There's a reason historians are freaking out.
- watwut 2y ago
  > if you accept the premise that the government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. No it does not stand to a reason. Inspector general is not even supposed to deal with efficiency, he is supposed to deal with fraud. Those are two different things. Second, no, there being a crime does not imply you need to fire all cops. Or cops boss. There would never be any stable enforcement body if you applied that standard. Third, random decision making creates inefficiency.