6 ms·

The types of waste, fraud, and abuse matter as much as the scale. Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. As it is, that

The types of waste, fraud, and abuse matter as much as the scale. Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. As it is, that "small" corruption is funding an extensive network of NGOs, nonprofits run by the families of people in government, media, etc. -- all to (a) keep a ton of money flowing to people in Washington DC and (b) protect that status quo. Politics aside, widespread corruption in the US capitol should be taken very seriously. Presidential administrations have been repeatedly trying to deal with the sheer behemoth bureaucracy, the growing power of unelected officials, and all the associated corruption since the early 1960s and so far have been defeated every time (see JFK's comments on the CIA for one example; there are also videos of Obama and Biden trying to address it during Obama's presidency). Each time it wins again, it grows stronger and more entrenched. Our partisan attitude is understandable: our tribal wiring seems to make us gravitate towards "us/them" thinking and to cheer when "their" side loses. But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy?

llamaimperative 2y ago
> Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. Timeless: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... How about let's solve problems practically instead of having trillion dollar decisions made in the name of virtue signaling about "moral purity." > But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy? Uh, no. USAID etc. have money because our elected representatives gave it money, as prescribed by the Constitution which governs our country.
- TimTheTinker 2y ago
  > as prescribed by the Constitution The constitution doesn't mention anything about any federal agencies. The Department of State didn't even exist until a 1789 law signed by George Washington. USAID was established by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Its express purpose is to fund U.S. foreign economic and humanitarian assistance programs. If the majority of USAID money is going towards things that do not align with the law that governs it, would you say that fits somewhere under the umbrella of "waste, fraud, and abuse"?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Congress controls the budget, it really is that simple. If I believe USAID is full of waste, fraud, and abuse, I’m free to express that at the ballot box where I vote for a congressperson who wishes to vote on the next budget accordingly. The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom.
    - TimTheTinker 2y ago
      > The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom. I don't think the current administration actually abolished USAID or its funding; it just froze outgoing transfers from it. Some of the verbage used by Musk & others is exaggerated. They're playing to their voter base, unfortunately. It doesn't accurately describe what is technically or legally happening.
      - majormajor 2y ago
        Elected officials lying about what they are doing seems bad, by your line of thought about fraud and accountability and all. Unelected ones - worse still? The unsurprisingly-ignored central sin of the Trump administration for those who voted for it for reasons of "free speech" or "reducing government corruption" or "accountability" is that Trump and his circle do not actually believe in any of those things and are not acting in ways consistent with any of those priciples. Those are just the things they say to get votes so they can grab all the power they can. Anyone opposed to government waste or corruption should be beating down the door to get Republicans to impeach Trump because he's trying to create a whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents.
        TimTheTinker 2y ago
        > lying about what they are doing seems bad Yeah, I hate that. Their talk is closer to WWE guys in the ring (at least on X) than the thoughtful orators whose pictures line the oval office. There's no thoughtful, careful, wise poise about it. There are many others like me who also dislike how things are said, but we look back at the actions taken (not words said) and are a lot more happy with them than we are with Biden's actions (or lack thereof). > whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents Could you elaborate? I'm curious to know specifics you'd call out as examples.
acdha 2y ago
> Presidential administrations have been repeatedly trying to deal with the sheer behemoth bureaucracy, the growing power of unelected officials, and all the associated corruption since the early 1960s and so far have been defeated every time Clinton cut the size of the government considerably – 400k federal workers! – but you probably didn’t hear a lot about it because it was a thoughtful process designed not to impact the ability of the government, and because it undercuts the narrative that Democrats increase spending which is popular in right-wing propaganda. What DOGE is doing locks in as much cost and disruption as possible while minimizing benefits because that’s not the actual goal (scoring political points against what’s perceived as a democratic stronghold).
imglorp 2y ago
Citizens United v FEC is probably the fattest root cause of it. Of course, no one on the gravy train will vote to limit their own bribery.
mlyle 2y ago
People spending money in ways that you consider wasteful is not the same as corruption.
- TimTheTinker 2y ago
  How much fraud and abuse has to occur before it's able to be labeled as "corruption"? Fraud literally means intentional lying in accounting or other financial representations, for the purpose of improperly benefiting someone. If people in government are benefited directly or indirectly by fraud, that's literally included in the definition of corruption.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    What a long gallop. > If people in government are benefited directly or indirectly by fraud, that's literally included in the definition of corruption. Yup, that endpoint is fine and can be agreed with. People in government having a job doing something you think isn't useful isn't corruption, though. And if a few percent of the money their program spends is wasted or benefits other people through fraud-- that's not corruption either. And the blanket cuts, layoffs, offers for voluntary separation /early retirement, and contract cancellations don't seem to be aimed at the thing we agree is corruption.
    - TimTheTinker 2y ago
      > People in government having a job doing something you think isn't useful isn't corruption, though I didn't say anything about that; I don't think I know enough yet to have a fully formed opinion. But I do think that the overly powerful DC bureaucracy, DC NGOs, and corruption that holds it together is a worthy common enemy for all of us - that's what I'm trying to point out. I'm actually amazed at Democrats' position on this. I grew up in a Democratic family... We used to be the anti-establishment party! JFK was a Democrat - and he's the one who was apparently taken out by the CIA because he said he was going to destroy it. It used to be Republicans who wanted to keep the institutional status quo in DC. Either way, I think a pro-Democracy attitude will oppose growing power of unelected officials, regardless of political leanings.
isx726552 2y ago
> fraud Prove it. They keep saying “fraud” without proof of anything other than just spending they disagree with. Spending, I might add, which was previously duly authorized by Congress. The use of the word “fraud” is a smoke screen. To unquestioningly accept it is to be complicit in their lies. And that’s what they’re doing: lying. If there really is fraud, let’s see it prosecuted via due process, like it should be. The fact that that isn’t happening speaks volumes.
- TimTheTinker 2y ago
  > Prove it. No one can "prove" anything without a clear goalpost that doesn't move :) That being said, there is evidence I can present from the past. Here are a couple of cases: - https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chemonics-international-inc-pay-31m-resolve-allegations-fraudulent-billing-under-global https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chemonics-internatio... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/usaid-suspends-ird-its-largest-nonprofit-contractor-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/2015/01/26/0cafe16a-a599-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/usaid-suspends... Also, not exactly "fraud" in the accounting sense, but there is a slew of NGOs that purport to support foreign aid, but most of the money is paid to people in DC. Only about $5B/yr actually went from USAID to directly meet needs in other countries: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/us-foreign-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/us-foreign-aid.ht...
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    Someone makes concrete allegations of massive fraud and then uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts. Folks ask for evidence of the fraud justifying these cuts. They are instead given evidence of the existence of some different fraud that occurred some point in the past. If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place?
    - TimTheTinker 2y ago
      > uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts I am personally not calling for that. What I do want is for the flow of money to this network of DC-based NGOs to get cleaned up. Have you ever heard of a grant "poem"? That's an inside term for the fancy language that is written when an NGO or university requests funding from a US federal agency. It has to sound quasi-legitimate, even erudite. But the purpose is to secure more money, and for NGOs, the actual funds are almost entirely used to enrich the people in the NGO, and often to fund things that keep the left in power (like local protests, far-left media, "grassroots" left-wing campaign organizations, etc). Grant poems to enrich NGOs constitute fraud -- maybe not in an accounting sense, but it very much is a defrauding of the citizens who pay taxes. Also, DOGE has so far found 14 "magic money" computers located in various agencies, including the department of the treasury. When a particular API call comes in, these computers will transfer money from nothing, essentially creating new money out of thin air. That is the worst form of fraud. > If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place? Because the faithlessness of the federal bureaucracy and its network of NGOs, combined with its sheer magnitude and entrenched power, is a very real problem. I guess I'm not articulate enough to engage productively with folks like yourself who inexplicably seem to think it's really great... Modern democratic governments ought to implement the will of the people, not subvert it to enrich themselves and stay in power. Do you disagree? --- In summary, Trump will be gone in 4 years, Elon Musk is rapidly losing his money and influence. The wheel of fortune turns rapidly for elected officials and their administrations. But by default, these lifetime Washington DC residents (and their WEF allies) who exert enormous power over the populace will only be more rich and powerful with each passing election season. They hate the USA and those who love it, precisely because the freedoms and stipulations of the Constitution, and the hardy "free settlers of the frontier" ethos, threaten their power. (I don't mean every, or even most of the residents of DC. I mean those who are the most personally enriched and who wield the most political power without being elected or appointed by someone who is elected. Most of these people are in the vast NGO network.)

llamaimperative 2y ago

> Even just a "little" (5%-10%) corruption is a moral stain on the whole thing. Timeless: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... How about let's solve problems practically instead of having trillion dollar decisions made in the name of virtue signaling about "moral purity." > But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy? Uh, no. USAID etc. have money because our elected representatives gave it money, as prescribed by the Constitution which governs our country.

TimTheTinker 2y ago
> as prescribed by the Constitution The constitution doesn't mention anything about any federal agencies. The Department of State didn't even exist until a 1789 law signed by George Washington. USAID was established by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Its express purpose is to fund U.S. foreign economic and humanitarian assistance programs. If the majority of USAID money is going towards things that do not align with the law that governs it, would you say that fits somewhere under the umbrella of "waste, fraud, and abuse"?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Congress controls the budget, it really is that simple. If I believe USAID is full of waste, fraud, and abuse, I’m free to express that at the ballot box where I vote for a congressperson who wishes to vote on the next budget accordingly. The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom.
  - TimTheTinker 2y ago
    > The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom. I don't think the current administration actually abolished USAID or its funding; it just froze outgoing transfers from it. Some of the verbage used by Musk & others is exaggerated. They're playing to their voter base, unfortunately. It doesn't accurately describe what is technically or legally happening.
    - majormajor 2y ago
      Elected officials lying about what they are doing seems bad, by your line of thought about fraud and accountability and all. Unelected ones - worse still? The unsurprisingly-ignored central sin of the Trump administration for those who voted for it for reasons of "free speech" or "reducing government corruption" or "accountability" is that Trump and his circle do not actually believe in any of those things and are not acting in ways consistent with any of those priciples. Those are just the things they say to get votes so they can grab all the power they can. Anyone opposed to government waste or corruption should be beating down the door to get Republicans to impeach Trump because he's trying to create a whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents.
      - TimTheTinker 2y ago
        > lying about what they are doing seems bad Yeah, I hate that. Their talk is closer to WWE guys in the ring (at least on X) than the thoughtful orators whose pictures line the oval office. There's no thoughtful, careful, wise poise about it. There are many others like me who also dislike how things are said, but we look back at the actions taken (not words said) and are a lot more happy with them than we are with Biden's actions (or lack thereof). > whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents Could you elaborate? I'm curious to know specifics you'd call out as examples.

acdha 2y ago

> Presidential administrations have been repeatedly trying to deal with the sheer behemoth bureaucracy, the growing power of unelected officials, and all the associated corruption since the early 1960s and so far have been defeated every time Clinton cut the size of the government considerably – 400k federal workers! – but you probably didn’t hear a lot about it because it was a thoughtful process designed not to impact the ability of the government, and because it undercuts the narrative that Democrats increase spending which is popular in right-wing propaganda. What DOGE is doing locks in as much cost and disruption as possible while minimizing benefits because that’s not the actual goal (scoring political points against what’s perceived as a democratic stronghold).

imglorp 2y ago

Citizens United v FEC is probably the fattest root cause of it. Of course, no one on the gravy train will vote to limit their own bribery.

mlyle 2y ago

People spending money in ways that you consider wasteful is not the same as corruption.

TimTheTinker 2y ago
How much fraud and abuse has to occur before it's able to be labeled as "corruption"? Fraud literally means intentional lying in accounting or other financial representations, for the purpose of improperly benefiting someone. If people in government are benefited directly or indirectly by fraud, that's literally included in the definition of corruption.
- mlyle 2y ago
  What a long gallop. > If people in government are benefited directly or indirectly by fraud, that's literally included in the definition of corruption. Yup, that endpoint is fine and can be agreed with. People in government having a job doing something you think isn't useful isn't corruption, though. And if a few percent of the money their program spends is wasted or benefits other people through fraud-- that's not corruption either. And the blanket cuts, layoffs, offers for voluntary separation /early retirement, and contract cancellations don't seem to be aimed at the thing we agree is corruption.
  - TimTheTinker 2y ago
    > People in government having a job doing something you think isn't useful isn't corruption, though I didn't say anything about that; I don't think I know enough yet to have a fully formed opinion. But I do think that the overly powerful DC bureaucracy, DC NGOs, and corruption that holds it together is a worthy common enemy for all of us - that's what I'm trying to point out. I'm actually amazed at Democrats' position on this. I grew up in a Democratic family... We used to be the anti-establishment party! JFK was a Democrat - and he's the one who was apparently taken out by the CIA because he said he was going to destroy it. It used to be Republicans who wanted to keep the institutional status quo in DC. Either way, I think a pro-Democracy attitude will oppose growing power of unelected officials, regardless of political leanings.

isx726552 2y ago

> fraud Prove it. They keep saying “fraud” without proof of anything other than just spending they disagree with. Spending, I might add, which was previously duly authorized by Congress. The use of the word “fraud” is a smoke screen. To unquestioningly accept it is to be complicit in their lies. And that’s what they’re doing: lying. If there really is fraud, let’s see it prosecuted via due process, like it should be. The fact that that isn’t happening speaks volumes.

TimTheTinker 2y ago
> Prove it. No one can "prove" anything without a clear goalpost that doesn't move :) That being said, there is evidence I can present from the past. Here are a couple of cases: - https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chemonics-international-inc-pay-31m-resolve-allegations-fraudulent-billing-under-global https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chemonics-internatio... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/usaid-suspends-ird-its-largest-nonprofit-contractor-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/2015/01/26/0cafe16a-a599-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/usaid-suspends... Also, not exactly "fraud" in the accounting sense, but there is a slew of NGOs that purport to support foreign aid, but most of the money is paid to people in DC. Only about $5B/yr actually went from USAID to directly meet needs in other countries: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/us-foreign-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/us-foreign-aid.ht...
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  Someone makes concrete allegations of massive fraud and then uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts. Folks ask for evidence of the fraud justifying these cuts. They are instead given evidence of the existence of some different fraud that occurred some point in the past. If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place?
  - TimTheTinker 2y ago
    > uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts I am personally not calling for that. What I do want is for the flow of money to this network of DC-based NGOs to get cleaned up. Have you ever heard of a grant "poem"? That's an inside term for the fancy language that is written when an NGO or university requests funding from a US federal agency. It has to sound quasi-legitimate, even erudite. But the purpose is to secure more money, and for NGOs, the actual funds are almost entirely used to enrich the people in the NGO, and often to fund things that keep the left in power (like local protests, far-left media, "grassroots" left-wing campaign organizations, etc). Grant poems to enrich NGOs constitute fraud -- maybe not in an accounting sense, but it very much is a defrauding of the citizens who pay taxes. Also, DOGE has so far found 14 "magic money" computers located in various agencies, including the department of the treasury. When a particular API call comes in, these computers will transfer money from nothing, essentially creating new money out of thin air. That is the worst form of fraud. > If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place? Because the faithlessness of the federal bureaucracy and its network of NGOs, combined with its sheer magnitude and entrenched power, is a very real problem. I guess I'm not articulate enough to engage productively with folks like yourself who inexplicably seem to think it's really great... Modern democratic governments ought to implement the will of the people, not subvert it to enrich themselves and stay in power. Do you disagree? --- In summary, Trump will be gone in 4 years, Elon Musk is rapidly losing his money and influence. The wheel of fortune turns rapidly for elected officials and their administrations. But by default, these lifetime Washington DC residents (and their WEF allies) who exert enormous power over the populace will only be more rich and powerful with each passing election season. They hate the USA and those who love it, precisely because the freedoms and stipulations of the Constitution, and the hardy "free settlers of the frontier" ethos, threaten their power. (I don't mean every, or even most of the residents of DC. I mean those who are the most personally enriched and who wield the most political power without being elected or appointed by someone who is elected. Most of these people are in the vast NGO network.)