Government Funding of Religious/501(c)(3) Charities / Social Services

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Wow.

Was she, as FLOTUS, aware of its corruption, mismanagement, etc.?  It seems unlikely, since USAID stonewalled members of Congress as to such matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

was she a member of congress, no. So she said it was successful, but then again her standards of what success is .............

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

was she a member of congress, no.

She was acting as FLOTUS, and so likely did not have any particularized access to the inner workings of USAID.  

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So she said it was successful, but then again her standards of what success is .............

USAID is, it seems, both profoundly corrupt and secretive.  And having succeeded at the latter, you demean Melania Trump because she - like so many of us - were not aware of USAID's corruption (and because she's married to Bad Orange Man).  Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2025 by smac97

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She was acting as FLOTUS, and so likely did not have any particularized access to the inner workings of USAID.  

USAID is, it seems, both profoundly corrupt and secretive.  And having succeeded at the latter, you demean Melania Trump because she - like so many of us - were not aware of USAID's corruption (and because she's married to Bad Orange Man).  Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

secretive? but the information is out there for people to judge as being secretive, that's weird

So, she like her con artist felon husband has no idea what she is talking about and like him just wants to pull the wool over your eyes, she did say it's "successful" but apparently it's corrupt and secretive. Like I say your country is total S&*(

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

She was acting as FLOTUS, and so likely did not have any particularized access to the inner workings of USAID.  

USAID is, it seems, both profoundly corrupt and secretive.  And having succeeded at the latter, you demean Melania Trump because she - like so many of us - were not aware of USAID's corruption (and because she's married to Bad Orange Man).  Weird.

secretive?

Yes.  Secretive.  Secretary Rubio has talked about that a few times now.  I encourage you to look into it.

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but the information is out there for people to judge as being secretive, that's weird

"{T}he information is out there" only because of DOGE, which you apparently find objectionable.

Consider these comments from Sec. Rubio (from the transcript of the video) (cleaned up) :

Quote

1:02 We froze foreign aid so that we 1:07 can review those programs.  The waiver 1:09 process exists so that we can review 1:11 those programs.  Today here we've issued 1:13 waivers for programs that make all the 1:14 sense in the world.  They make America 1:16 safer to make America stronger because 1:18 the programs we've issued a waiver for 1:20 are helping our trusted Partners 1:22 intercept and stop drugs and terrorists 1:25 from coming into the United States.  But I 1:27 issued a blanket waiver that said if 1:29 this is is life-saving programs okay if 1:32 it's providing food or medicine or 1:34 anything that is saving lives and is 1:35 immediate and Urgent you're not included 1:38 in the freeze.  I don't know how much more 1:40 clear we can be than that and I would 1:42 say if some organization is receiving 1:44 funds from the United States and does 1:46 not know how to apply a waiver then I 1:48 have real questions about the competence 1:50 of that organization.  Or I wonder whether 1:52 they're deliberately sabotaging it for 1:54 purposes of making a political point.

"Or I wonder whether they're deliberately sabotaging {humanitarian programs} for purposes of making a political point."

I have wondered about that as well.  It's not like the Deep State apparatchiks have been coy about their efforts to resist in current administration.  There's even a term for what they are doing: "malicious compliance," described here (Washington Examiner) :

Quote

President Donald Trump’s first term popularized the phrase “fake news.” In the early days of his second term, it looks like the next phrase people will become familiar with is “malicious compliance.”

Malicious compliance occurs when bureaucrats directed to do something by law implement an overly strict interpretation of that law to inconvenience or scare people into opposing.

Often, their excessive interpretation directly violates the directives of the law. Sabotage is the point.
...

We are now seeing what malicious compliance looks like at the federal level in the early days of the Trump administration. One of Trump’s first actions upon taking office was uprooting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and curricula in the executive branch, especially in the military. Air Force cadets recounted to the Washington Examiner the countless hours of divisive trainings and meetings they were forced to sit through. One described how, after going through several preliminary DEI trainings, the first thing he received upon arrival was a book by liberal celebrity activist George Takei, which denounced Trump and America itself.

Anti-American training encourages cadets and everyone else in the federal government to view people by their skin color and to hate what America stands for. When one examines this and the hirings and promotions based on filling skin color quotas, it is shockingly clear what is intended and what Trump and his team rightly want to excise from the federal government by removing DEI.

To sabotage this effort, someone in the Air Force blocked a course about the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black military Airmen in history. The point was, of course, to make it look like Trump’s anti-DEI efforts were trying to erase black men from history so the Air Force could continue to shame white cadets under its DEI policies.

Something similar happened when the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memo ordering a “temporary pause” in grant program spending for agency activities “implicated” by Trump’s executive orders. The memo went as far as it did because executive bureaucrats were already stonewalling Trump’s efforts to examine the merits of each program. Bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services then exploited it by warning about disruptions in state Medicaid reimbursements, with the portal even being unusable for many states.

This was despite the fact that Medicaid funding was not included in the memo. HHS bureaucrats pushed ahead with all this in the morning when the memo explicitly stated the pause wouldn’t take place until 5 p.m.

The White House had another memo clarification dispute over funding at the National Institutes of Health, with the administration claiming a legacy NIH official used an overly broad interpretation of the funding pause. The administration was not freezing “clinical trials, procurement of supplies, and submission of research papers to scientific journals.” The most lenient interpretation of what happened is that there was a coincidental miscommunication that happened to make the Trump administration look bad at a time when bureaucrats in other areas are doing so intentionally. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern.

Trump is no stranger to this, as even the creation of the Space Force was mired in accusations of “malicious compliance” that the Air Force was inflating the estimate of the cost of the branch. Nor can anyone forget the constant calls from Democratic politicians and liberal pundits for people in the administration to serve as a “Resistance” to Trump from the inside. With the Democratic Party apparently at its weakest in decades, one can expect left-liberal bureaucrats worried that their agenda is being rolled back, or that their unnecessary jobs may be eliminated, will do their best to muddy the waters and sabotage Trump’s standing with voters.

The best solution for this is twofold. The first is clear and undeniable directives that leave no room for malicious interpretations from bureaucrats who are more worried about undermining the administration than doing their job. The second is making sure any bureaucrat who takes part in sabotage is fired. Liberal career bureaucrats must not be allowed to inflict harm on the public through government self-sabotage.

The article includes a number of examples of government employees doing this "malicious compliance" thing.  Pretty troubling stuff.

Back to Sec. Rubio:

Quote

I have 1:58 long supported foreign aid, I continue to 2:00 support foreign aid, but foreign aid is 2:02 not charity.  It exists for the purpose of 2:05 advancing the national interest of the 2:06 United States.  Every dollar we will spend 2:09 as long as I'm Secretary of State and as 2:12 long as president Trump is in the White 2:13 House is going to be a dollar that's 2:15 advancing our national interests.  And you 2:17 see this here today.  These are programs 2:19 that work this is the kind of foreign 2:21 aid we need to do.  And there are programs 2:23 that we have questions about that do not 2:24 further the national interest, and they 2:26 should be eliminated.  And then there are 2:28 those we need to learn more about.  But 2:30 I've in we have a blanket waiver it's 2:31 been out for a week, and anybody who 2:33 tells you they don't understand it let 2:34 me repeat it in very simple words: If it 2:37 saves lives if it's emergency life 2:39 saving Aid, food, medicine whatever, they 2:42 have a waiver.  I don't know how much 2:44 clearer we can be.  And if they're 2:46 not applying it then maybe they're not a 2:48 very good organization and maybe they 2:49 shouldn't be getting money at all.

Good stuff, this.

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, she like her con artist felon husband has no idea what she is talking about and like him just wants to pull the wool over your eyes, she did say it's "successful" but apparently it's corrupt and secretive.

Again, I suspect she, like the rest of us, were not aware of the widespread corruption at USAID.

Again, I find it weird that your vituperations are aimed at Mrs. Trump because she was duped by USAID, rather than at the corrupt USAID.

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Like I say your country is total S&*(

I'm sorry to hear you say that.  I think the United States is a wonderful country, despite its flaws and the flaws of its leaders.  Same goes for Canada (though lately, the Canadian government seems to have done a lot to make life more difficult for Canadians, which I find unfortunate).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2025 by smac97

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Secretive.  Secretary Rubio has talked about that a few times now.  I encourage you to look into it.

"{T}he information is out there" only because of DOGE, which you apparently find objectionable.

Consider these comments from Sec. Rubio (from the transcript of the video) (cleaned up) :

"Or I wonder whether they're deliberately sabotaging {humanitarian programs} for purposes of making a political point."

I have wondered about that as well.  It's not like the Deep State apparatchiks have been coy about their efforts to resist in current administration.  There's even a term for what they are doing: "malicious compliance," described here (Washington Examiner) :

The article includes a number of examples of government employees doing this "malicious compliance" thing.  Pretty troubling stuff.

Back to Sec. Rubio:

Good stuff, this.

Again, I suspect she, like the rest of us, were not aware of the widespread corruption at USAID.

Again, I find it weird that your vituperations are aimed at Mrs. Trump because she was duped by USAID, rather than at the corrupt USAID.

I'm sorry to hear you say that.  I think the United States is a wonderful country, despite its flaws and the flaws of its leaders.  Same goes for Canada (though lately, the Canadian government seems to have done a lot to make life more difficult for Canadians, which I find unfortunate).

Thanks,

-Smac

Canada is doing fine! We are like you guys, ups and downs

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Canada is doing fine! We are like you guys, ups and downs

I would love to live in Canada, except for the cold. 

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, I find it very interesting that folks like you, who are currently experiencing having fits of apoplexy about efforts to reduce the size and scope of the State are doing so by objecting to the use that tremendous power.  Isn't that . . . inconsistent?  You and yours have long wanted Big Government.  This is what Big Government looks like.

Also irony in saying you're for small government, but boy howdy are these executive orders fun! You don't want big government but you sure seem pleased with how effective it is when it works to get the things you want done.

Quote

And the author of the a key component of that tremendous power currently which is now being deployed by the Bad Orange Man (that is, the power to give DOGE legal authority to do what they are doing) was . . . President Obama, as a part of the hallmark of his presidency, Obamacare.

The irony.  It burns.

This is the problem isn't it? you see the risks when your guy isn't in office and do everything you can to check his power, but when your guy hefts the big government axe. its a hoot

What do you do when the pendulum swings back to the other party and all these loopholes being opened now are used to weaken democracy even more, and more. again and again?

Let's not forget, at some point in the future there will be a dem president with popular support that, in retaliation, issues twice the EOs on Day One and renames DOGE to something else and all the sudden you'll wonder how Americans could permit such authoritative abuses. it'll happen. it always does

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let's heavily scrutinize the defense budget and clean up mismanagement, malfeasance, corruption in how money is spent there.  Let's find ways to let technology work to our advantage so as to create savings on entitlements and social programs.  Let's let Americans keep as much of their own money as possible, and then hope that they turn around and - of their own volition - fund and participate in humanitarian efforts.

I agree with you here, and most Americans would. I'd be 100% on board with DOGE if they would stop with all the partisan garbage. TBH i get the feeling Musk is playing Trump and MAGA. At some point things will sour between him and the conservatives and you'll see how ridiculous and dangerous it was to give such a man such powers

[Tacenda]

Just now, Zosimus said:

Also irony in saying you're for small government, but boy howdy are these executive orders fun! You don't want big government but you sure seem pleased with how effective it is when it works to get the things you want done.

This is the problem isn't it? you see the risks when your guy isn't in office and do everything you can to check his power, but when your guy hefts the big government axe. its a hoot

What do you do when the pendulum swings back to the other party and all these loopholes being opened now are used to weaken democracy even more, and more. again and again?

Let's not forget, at some point in the future there will be a dem president with popular support that, in retaliation, issues twice the EOs on Day One and renames DOGE to something else and all the sudden you'll wonder how Americans could permit such authoritative abuses. it'll happen. it always does

I agree with you here, and most Americans would. I'd be 100% on board with DOGE if they would stop with all the partisan garbage. TBH i get the feeling Musk is playing Trump and MAGA. At some point things will sour between him and the conservatives and you'll see how ridiculous and dangerous it was to give such a man such powers

I feel the same, this relationship might become rocky at one point. I hope everything falls into place for the good. Maybe it's like the adage, it's going to be worse before it gets better. Hoping! And I've felt a load off my chest on being allowed to discuss these things. Thanks Mods...

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I clicked on it and it didn't take me to it. Can you find another way? Because when I search it says false information. But I'm willing to be wrong, since these days the truth is harder to find.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Also irony in saying you're for small government,

I am for smaller government.  As small as possible.  

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

but boy howdy are these executive orders fun!

You apparently missed my previous comment:

Quote

Quote

Last point. I don’t like that this has to be done and think the executive branch has far more authority than they should. That said, this order was very well done and Trump and Musk have really done a good job strategically here. Here’s to hoping these guys follow through on the MAGA/MAHA mandate that we the people have given and do everything possible to ensure the American people have the best future imaginable for our kids.

...
As it happens, I largely concur with the the X thread's final comment about the executive branch having "far more authority than they should."  I think the entire federal government has far more power and authority and money that it should.  I would prefer to have that power and authority and money devolved to the several states, or to the people.  

 

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

You don't want big government but you sure seem pleased with how effective it is when it works to get the things you want done.

"{T}he things {i} want done" are less government, less waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, less incompetence, less graft, less corruption, and so on.

I admit that I like seeing the government pare itself down.  Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

And the author of the a key component of that tremendous power currently which is now being deployed by the Bad Orange Man (that is, the power to give DOGE legal authority to do what they are doing) was . . . President Obama, as a part of the hallmark of his presidency, Obamacare.

The irony.  It burns.

This is the problem isn't it? you see the risks when your guy isn't in office and do everything you can to check his power, but when your guy hefts the big government axe. its a hoot

When Big Orange Man "hefts the big government axe" to make the government smaller, less wasteful of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, less incompetent, less grafting, less corrupt, etc., yes, I am very pleased with that.

Conversely, when other administrations use "the big government axe" to make government bigger, to waste more of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, to be more incompetent, more grafting, more corrupt, etc., no, I don't like that stuff.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

What do you do when the pendulum swings back to the other party and all these loopholes being opened now are used to weaken democracy even more, and more. again and again?

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  

First, we are not a "democracy."  We are a federal republic.  The difference is fairly significant:

Second, your statement seems kind of Orwellian.  The Bad Orange Man was elected, both by the Electoral College and the popular vote.  He campaigned by promising to do the things which he is now doing.  He was elected to do the things he is now doing.  And to you, this amounts to the "weaken{ing}" of "democracy."  I can't go along with that.

Third, you seem to be bemoaning not the weakening of democracy, but rather then weaking of bureaucracy.  That is, a system where the administration of government functions is primarily carried out by a complex network of non-elected officials.  Some of this is, of course, necessary.  But when some parts of the bureaucracy starts to act against the duly-elected President of the United States, then some house-cleaning is in order.  Pres. Obama was quite correct when he said that "elections have consequences."

Fourth, you asked what I will do "when the pendulum swings back to the other party"  I guess we may see a return to the sort of stuff that Bad Orange Man is presently attempting to eradicate.  Heck, members of his own party may try to re-institute such things.  As for me, I will continue to work, pay taxes, vote, observe, and pray.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Let's not forget, at some point in the future there will be a dem president with popular support that, in retaliation, issues twice the EOs on Day One and renames DOGE to something else and all the sudden you'll wonder how Americans could permit such authoritative abuses. it'll happen. it always does

The duly-elected POTUS working to eradicate corruption and waste and incompetence in government is, according to you, "authoritative abuses."

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

Let's heavily scrutinize the defense budget and clean up mismanagement, malfeasance, corruption in how money is spent there.  Let's find ways to let technology work to our advantage so as to create savings on entitlements and social programs.  Let's let Americans keep as much of their own money as possible, and then hope that they turn around and - of their own volition - fund and participate in humanitarian efforts.

I agree with you here, and most Americans would. I'd be 100% on board with DOGE if they would stop with all the partisan garbage.

That DOGE is decimating USAID, and that you are characterizing that as "partisan garbage," is . . . interesting.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

TBH i get the feeling Musk is playing Trump and MAGA. At some point things will sour between him and the conservatives and you'll see how ridiculous and dangerous it was to give such a man such powers

I think Sec. Rubio seems to be a pretty tough guy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I clicked on it and it didn't take me to it. Can you find another way? Because when I search it says false information. But I'm willing to be wrong, since these days the truth is harder to find.

I already provided the links.  Feel free to do your own research.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Politico and the NY Times have received millions from the federal government.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

She was acting as FLOTUS, and so likely did not have any particularized access to the inner workings of USAID.  

USAID is, it seems, both profoundly corrupt and secretive.  And having succeeded at the latter, you demean Melania Trump because she - like so many of us - were not aware of USAID's corruption (and because she's married to Bad Orange Man).  Weird.

You seem incredibly naive and trusting of the Trump administration. Do you think its possible that politicians who depend on Trump for their jobs will help Trump spread lies?

Marco Rubio sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2011 to 2025, directly overseeing USAID for over a decade. Not once in that time did he call it "profoundly corrupt." Only after joining the Trump administration in 2025 did he suddenly declare USAID a viper’s nest of corruption. If USAID was truly as rotten as you now claim, why didn’t Rubio—your supposed beacon of honesty—say a word about it while he had actual oversight? Either he was oblivious, complicit, or is now just parroting whatever lies Trump tells him. Pick one.

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"{T}he information is out there" only because of DOGE, which you apparently find objectionable.

Nah. The information has been here for all to see since 2014. Its the same site everyone is now screenshotting to prove that USAID is so secretive and insubordinate with their budget, yet the data on their spending has been available there for 10 years now

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

let 2:34 me repeat it in very simple words: If it 2:37 saves lives if it's emergency life 2:39 saving Aid, food, medicine whatever, they 2:42 have a waiver.  I don't know how much 2:44 clearer we can be.  And if they're 2:46 not applying it then maybe they're not a 2:48 very good organization and maybe they 2:49 shouldn't be getting money at all.

Sorry, this is absurd. Rubio says that but then he probably goes home cursing because its painfully obvious he doesn't believe for a moment that its sooooo obvious. Like duh, this project saves lives immediately and that one doesn't. Try putting a bunch of lifetime politicians with differing opinions on foreign aid and budgets in a room together and ask them to make those life-or-death decisions thousands of times, NOW. And if you screw up, people might die.

You can be sure Rubio is privately hating every moment of this decision to shut down USAID overnight, instead of over months

[Zosimus]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I already provided the links.  Feel free to do your own research.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Politico and the NY Times have received millions from the federal government.  

It takes two minutes to Google Politico's response. They've never received a dime of government funds. It's like this, they have a subscription model and people in government are encouraged to subscribe to news sites. 

If you wanted to push this, you could also say that Elon Musk's Twitter is getting govt funds because all those government agencies and officials are paying for Twitter Premium or for the Verified Orgs checkmark at something like $10K per month. But you don't see anyone complaining about that, because this is all partisan noise

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That DOGE is decimating USAID, and that you are characterizing that as "partisan garbage," is . . . interesting.

My friend, if Biden had put Soros in as a government employee at the Department of Digital Services and gave him the keys to the databases of the DOD, I'd object.

If Soros then proceeded to dismantle and fire every employee at the OCO after tweeting that they are all criminals because they have wasted taxpayer money ($10K for toilet seat covers), I'd object

If democrats started slapping themselves on the back because Soros is saving us billions of dollars, I'd object

I also like cutting costs wherever costs can be cut, whether at USAID or OCO. So why on earth would I object to George Soros shaving budgets and protecting my tax dollars? 

Because its obviously partisan hackery and I'm just sooo tired of partisanship in America. Soros is not the right person for that job because he's partisan, and he has no business accessing government data and firing federal employees. 

This is how I feel about Musk and DOGE. They are doing the right thing, but they are doing it wrong. They are doing it in a way that stirs the pot and makes things worse

Edited February 7, 2025 by Zosimus

[Analytics]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I already provided the links.  Feel free to do your own research.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Politico and the NY Times have received millions from the federal government.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, you are incredibly naive, trust all the wrong sources, and don’t fact check anything. You have terrible instincts for discerning what’s true from what’s false. You should be embarrassed.

According to Politico:

POLITICO has been the subject of debate on X this week. Some of it has been misinformed, and some of it has been flat-out false. Let’s set the record straight.

POLITICO is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years.
Millions of people around the world read our journalism on POLITICO.com, POLITICO.EU and in newsletters. It is supported by advertising and sponsorships.

POLITICO Pro is different. It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs — helping them track policy, legislation and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence and a suite of data products. At its core, POLITICO Pro is about transparency and accountability: Shining a light on the work of the agencies, regulators and policymakers throughout our vast federal government. Businesses and entities within the government find it useful as they navigate the chaotic regulatory and legislative landscape. It’s that simple.

Most POLITICO Pro subscribers are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value. And 90 percent renew every year because they rely on our reporting, data and insights.

Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes — just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction — just as the government buys research, equipment, software and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: POLITICO has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy — that’s our job.

We are so proud of our journalists and so proud of the connection we have with you, our readers.

We stand by our work, our values and our commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency — the same principles that drive great journalism and great business.

Now, back to work.

Goli Sheikholeslami, CEO
John Harris, Editor-in-Chief

According to the New York Times:

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for The Times, said in a statement that the only federal funds the company receives were for subscriptions, which have been bought by both Democratic and Republican administrations, including during President Trump’s first term. The amount of revenue from federal subscriptions is less than 1/1000th of The Times’s annual revenue, he said.

 

Edited February 7, 2025 by Analytics

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sure would like to see some clinical and objective news reporting of this stuff.  As it is, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled to Politico, the NY Times, and who knows where else.

I want the United States to be generous with its bounty.  Sadly, I think there is immense corruption in USAID and throughout the international humanitarian relief industry.

If USAID totals $50 billion a year and let' say $100 million is for things that it not ought to be for, does that justify shuttering the agency that also does a tremendous amounts of good and provides relief and when cutting all aid causes death?  Rather than the typical right wing outrage for so called and alleged misuse of funds how about oversite of the agency improves and do better going forward rather than blowing the whole damn things up. And beside, Musk, DOGE and Trump DO NOT have the authority to do this unilaterally.  There is this provision called Article 1 of the Constitution. DOGE is not an official agency and Musk has not been appointed and confirmed by the Senate to take any action.  This need to be reigned NOW.

[Doctor Steuss]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the author of the a key component of that tremendous power currently which is now being deployed by the Bad Orange Man (that is, the power to give DOGE legal authority to do what they are doing) was . . . President Obama, as a part of the hallmark of his presidency, Obamacare.

Thank you for this key bit of information.  I was wondering how DOGE was able to get $6.75 million apportioned to them for "unanticipated needs," on top of the $750,000 they had already had apportioned.  Handful of guys working for a few weeks... $7.5 million sounds super efficient and not wasteful or corrupt at all.

So glad they stopped funding that was providing medical care to over 600,000 pregnant women with AIDS, to prevent them from giving HIV to their babies.  About a million dollars for each of them for a few weeks' work sounds very reasonable.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am in favor of across-the-board reductions in government spending.  Let's kill off the DOE, as it's been a massive waste of time and effort.  Let's heavily scrutinize the defense budget and clean up mismanagement, malfeasance, corruption in how money is spent there.  Let's find ways to let technology work to our advantage so as to create savings on entitlements and social programs.  Let's let Americans keep as much of their own money as possible, and then hope that they turn around and - of their own volition - fund and participate in humanitarian efforts.

It is fine to do all that so long as it is done constitutionally. I have no issue with DOGE and an oversight and advisory committee working with the administration and congress to identify waste and recommend efficiencies.  After that work through congress on spending increases or decreases as well as whether to end an agency such as DOE or any other agency.  I do object to the shuttering of any congressionally approved agency or impounding previously approved spending by DOGE and the administration. They do not have the Constitutional authority do do such things. It is easier to things without working thro0ugh congress. That is messy and hard and takes time and votes. But that is the beauty of it.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was she, as FLOTUS, aware of its corruption, mismanagement, etc.?  It seems unlikely, since USAID stonewalled members of Congress as to such matters.

Uh hem....Alleged corruption and mismanagement. Just because you can find a lot of poop to toss against the wall and all the while acting very jubilant like you the sky is falling over all this waste,fraund and grift does not make it so. I rather thing the poster @Zosimusis more credible because they seemingly have actual experience with USAID. And do you have the same outrage over the alleged DOD corruption, mismanagement, etc?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Again, you are incredibly naive, trust all the wrong sources, and don’t fact check anything.

There is a term for that I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

When Big Orange Man "hefts the big government axe" to make the government smaller, less wasteful of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, less incompetent, less grafting, less corrupt, etc., yes, I am very pleased with that.

Even when the way it is done is unconstitutional?

[longview]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is a term for that I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

That only applies to communist stooge.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Second, your statement seems kind of Orwellian.  The Bad Orange Man was elected, both by the Electoral College and the popular vote.  He campaigned by promising to do the things which he is now doing.  He was elected to do the things he is now doing.  And to you, this amounts to the "weaken{ing}" of "democracy."  I can't go along with that.

If he is doing it unconstitutionally it does not matter that he was elected to do things slightly less than half of those who voted want him to do. It all needs to be done constitutionally. The current actions are weakening our constitutionally republic.  And I think you mentioned Trump has a mandate. No, his election was a far cry from a mandate. If he does these things constitutionally and congress passe legislation to accomplish what you think America voted him to do then fine, even if I do not like it personally. I apply this to any president no matter what their party is and what their political sway is.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Sec. Rubio seems to be a pretty tough guy. 

I don't. I think he sold his soul to the devil. I think he is a wimp and patsy and is doing things he never would have supported ten years ago.  I am am shocked that he had 99 votes.