John Kennedy -nobody talking about what is found...just upset it is being found. Also, nobody saying it isn't true!

[atmafola]

I'm unsure what "people like me" means rather than some that share "some" of my concerns and "some" of my wishes. With full disclosure I have some Libertarian leans, and generally want a "REDUCED" blob, because I know, and we all should know, that the bigger the blob the more waste. With a reduced blob, it will naturally force more involvement into it's purpose since the potential waste is smaller. I'm pretty independent and do a LOT of things on my own and old enough to have actually lived through many presidents. I prefer the fed government to have less of a role and the state to have a larger as was intended. So in a nutshell I want a less intrusive government that is smaller. We know from Price's Law the waste in groups. What DOGE is doing I experienced in a similar fashion a few decades ago when I requested data from a school without any names and such adn they replied that I could tie some data to a person which I couldn't but it was their way of not wanting exposed similar to what we are seeing now. I also corrected the Indiana Department of Education on their Analysis of Variance on reduced lunches. Their own data didn't support their contention and they knew it. They responded saying in spite of no support, they believed it, and removed the data from their site and never produced something similar for a few years...maybe never, but I'm no longer involved like I was. It isn't hard to find equalitarian push in group dynamics in schools.

All that said, no doubt there will be things that Trump will espouse I won't agree with, but I sure like shining a light on the corrupt findings that are being found and do want to reduce government. The problems found can also tie into fraud voting which is a problem. A large blob votes for their own paycheck...

So this is me, but you obviously have concerns and so what are they?

my thoughts on this.
I want fraud not just found and exposed but prosecuted. And then we put checks, balances and controls in place (which will not be cheap) to reduce likelihood that fraud ever occurs in the future.

But my guess is most of what will be uncovered won't be "fraud" per se. Rather it will largely fall under these 2 buckets:
1. inefficiencies: There is no organization that large that won't have inefficiencies that can indeed be cut while still keeping things functional. I am all for this, just don't be illegal or unconstitutional.

2. misaligned priorities: these are the things where the implementation of how the fund is being spent is not aligned with how the current administration will prefer to spend things. As long as its not illegal or unconstitutional, I am grudgingly for this. Elections have consequences. If you don't want to have to pay for priorities different from yours, get people aligned with your vision and vote. Otherwise, those who won, have a right to implement their policies. Trump's policies may not be in line with mine, but yeah he's free to (as long as he stays in bounds of what's legal and constitutional, which is what some of my problem with him is), he's free to implement his policies.

Looking through most of the examples you have posted here on this thread, to my eyes, they fall mostly in bucket #2. They are not what Trump and his defenders will prefer we spend money on. If they are really fraud, prosecute, don't just expose.

 

[tjreese]

my thoughts on this.
I want fraud not just found and exposed but prosecuted. And then we put checks, balances and controls in place (which will not be cheap) to reduce likelihood that fraud ever occurs in the future.

But my guess is most of what will be uncovered won't be "fraud" per se. Rather it will largely fall under these 2 buckets:
1. inefficiencies: There is no organization that large that won't have inefficiencies that can indeed be cut while still keeping things functional. I am all for this, just don't be illegal or unconstitutional.

2. misaligned priorities: these are the things where the implementation of how the fund is being spent is not aligned with how the current administration will prefer to spend things. As long as its not illegal or unconstitutional, I am grudgingly for this. Elections have consequences. If you don't want to have to pay for priorities different from yours, get people aligned with your vision and vote. Otherwise, those who won, have a right to implement their policies. Trump's policies may not be in line with mine, but yeah he's free to (as long as he stays in bounds of what's legal and constitutional, which is what some of my problem with him is), he's free to implement his policies.

Looking through most of the examples you have posted here on this thread, to my eyes, they fall mostly in bucket #2. They are not what Trump and his defenders will prefer we spend money on. If they are really fraud, prosecute, don't just expose.

I agree with this, but think we are going to find kickbacks if the money trail is followed. If no kickbacks, I suspect there are going to be some very pointed questions in trying to explain the trail. It makes me tired just thinking how long this could have existed. I think we are going to see some consolidation due to number 1 to prevent some redundancy of functions, but yes #2 is my biggest concern. Now who authorized this...the items in #2. I suspect when the light is on he, she or both we will see some denials and finger pointing...

 

[Riveting-]

i asked for your personal line. not some arbitrary line. Write your line down. yours

I gave it to you. The line was crossed long ago when US taxpayers unknowingly funded terrorist organizations, gain-of-function research at Wuhan, and more. Wake up.