(11-24-2025 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:41 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:37 PM)Roxie Wrote:  Just say you don't understand soft power its way quicker.

It is great when you can afford it... but when the borrowing costs are leading to huge deficits year over year then you start having a problem. You can't keep buying people off by borrowing against the future, you have to save money in other areas then.

It's peanuts in the grand scheme...the benefits far outweigh the miniscule cost.

What benefits? Be specific in what benefits we've gained from the money we've sent overseas.

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 01:59 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For FY24, USAID was like .3% of the federal budget. You mopes sure get distracted easily.

The 2024 fiscal US budget was approximately $6.8 trillion (yes, I googled it). So, 0.3% of $6.8 trillion is $20,400,000. That's a crap load of waste. Saying it in percentages does not change that fact, imo.

Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

(11-24-2025 03:47 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:41 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:37 PM)Roxie Wrote:  Just say you don't understand soft power its way quicker.

It is great when you can afford it... but when the borrowing costs are leading to huge deficits year over year then you start having a problem. You can't keep buying people off by borrowing against the future, you have to save money in other areas then.

It's peanuts in the grand scheme...the benefits far outweigh the miniscule cost.

What benefits? Be specific in what benefits we've gained from the money we've sent overseas.

Quote:The primary objective of United States Government (USG) foreign assistance is to promote U.S. and international security and prosperity by bolstering economic and political stability and self-reliance in developing countries. There is no doubt that investing in global development progress is vital to U.S. national security. However, USG foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also benefits the U.S. economy and U.S. workers. As one of the most internationally competitive economies in the world, the U.S. is a major exporter of goods and services, and our exports are in demand the world over. As countries get richer, they want to buy more U.S. products and services. By supporting economic growth and self-reliance in developing countries, USAID helps create better, stronger and more resilient markets for U.S. exports.

When countries commit to moving forward, USAID programs can provide the needed capital, technology, ideas, and know-how to assist them. USAID is both from and for the American people.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-globalcwd/1441/

(11-24-2025 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 01:59 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For FY24, USAID was like .3% of the federal budget. You mopes sure get distracted easily.

The 2024 fiscal US budget was approximately $6.8 trillion (yes, I googled it). So, 0.3% of $6.8 trillion is $20,400,000. That's a crap load of waste. Saying it in percentages does not change that fact, imo.

Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

Not going on a wild goose chase to vet these claims, links please.

(11-24-2025 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:47 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:41 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:37 PM)Roxie Wrote:  Just say you don't understand soft power its way quicker.

It is great when you can afford it... but when the borrowing costs are leading to huge deficits year over year then you start having a problem. You can't keep buying people off by borrowing against the future, you have to save money in other areas then.

It's peanuts in the grand scheme...the benefits far outweigh the miniscule cost.

What benefits? Be specific in what benefits we've gained from the money we've sent overseas.

Quote:The primary objective of United States Government (USG) foreign assistance is to promote U.S. and international security and prosperity by bolstering economic and political stability and self-reliance in developing countries. There is no doubt that investing in global development progress is vital to U.S. national security. However, USG foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also benefits the U.S. economy and U.S. workers. As one of the most internationally competitive economies in the world, the U.S. is a major exporter of goods and services, and our exports are in demand the world over. As countries get richer, they want to buy more U.S. products and services. By supporting economic growth and self-reliance in developing countries, USAID helps create better, stronger and more resilient markets for U.S. exports.

When countries commit to moving forward, USAID programs can provide the needed capital, technology, ideas, and know-how to assist them. USAID is both from and for the American people.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-globalcwd/1441/

So you don't have any specific examples of any good that's come from this? We have been unable to solve poverty in our own nation despite throwing trillions at it but somehow can manage to do it in other countries.

(11-24-2025 04:21 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:47 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:41 PM)mlb Wrote:  It is great when you can afford it... but when the borrowing costs are leading to huge deficits year over year then you start having a problem. You can't keep buying people off by borrowing against the future, you have to save money in other areas then.

It's peanuts in the grand scheme...the benefits far outweigh the miniscule cost.

What benefits? Be specific in what benefits we've gained from the money we've sent overseas.

Quote:The primary objective of United States Government (USG) foreign assistance is to promote U.S. and international security and prosperity by bolstering economic and political stability and self-reliance in developing countries. There is no doubt that investing in global development progress is vital to U.S. national security. However, USG foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also benefits the U.S. economy and U.S. workers. As one of the most internationally competitive economies in the world, the U.S. is a major exporter of goods and services, and our exports are in demand the world over. As countries get richer, they want to buy more U.S. products and services. By supporting economic growth and self-reliance in developing countries, USAID helps create better, stronger and more resilient markets for U.S. exports.

When countries commit to moving forward, USAID programs can provide the needed capital, technology, ideas, and know-how to assist them. USAID is both from and for the American people.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-globalcwd/1441/

So you don't have any specific examples of any good that's come from this? We have been unable to solve poverty in our own nation despite throwing trillions at it but somehow can manage to do it in other countries.

It's Tom. What did you expect from him? The truth? Yeah right.

(11-24-2025 03:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 01:59 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For FY24, USAID was like .3% of the federal budget. You mopes sure get distracted easily.

The 2024 fiscal US budget was approximately $6.8 trillion (yes, I googled it). So, 0.3% of $6.8 trillion is $20,400,000. That's a crap load of waste. Saying it in percentages does not change that fact, imo.

Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

Not going on a wild goose chase to vet these claims, links please.

Always a enjoy a typical leftist response from you, Tom.

(11-24-2025 03:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 01:59 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For FY24, USAID was like .3% of the federal budget. You mopes sure get distracted easily.

The 2024 fiscal US budget was approximately $6.8 trillion (yes, I googled it). So, 0.3% of $6.8 trillion is $20,400,000. That's a crap load of waste. Saying it in percentages does not change that fact, imo.

Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

Not going on a wild goose chase to vet these claims, links please.

https://reason.com/2025/02/10/5-of-the-w...n-history/

"USAID tried to change this state of affairs, spending $1.46 billion on "alternative development programs" from 2002 to 2017. The goal was to encourage farmers to move away from opium by providing fertilizers, equipment, and other assistance for non-opium farming. But some of that money "inadvertently supported poppy production," the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported in 2018."

So USAID spent 1.46 billion to encourage Afghans to move away from opium production. The result was opium production grew using those very funds.

"The failed war on drugs was not the only USAID boondoggle in Afghanistan. In a 2021 review of the war effort, SIGAR noted that USAID spent $335 million on a power plant that was rarely turned on, $175 million on roads that floods washed away within a month, and $7.7 million on an industrial park that had no power. Asked by SIGAR about its poor planning, USAID declared that micromanaging these projects would be "counterproductive" to the goal of "increasing Afghan self-reliance."
"

Plenty more in the article.

(11-24-2025 04:34 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 01:59 PM)VA49er Wrote:  The 2024 fiscal US budget was approximately $6.8 trillion (yes, I googled it). So, 0.3% of $6.8 trillion is $20,400,000. That's a crap load of waste. Saying it in percentages does not change that fact, imo.

Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

Not going on a wild goose chase to vet these claims, links please.

https://reason.com/2025/02/10/5-of-the-w...n-history/

"USAID tried to change this state of affairs, spending $1.46 billion on "alternative development programs" from 2002 to 2017. The goal was to encourage farmers to move away from opium by providing fertilizers, equipment, and other assistance for non-opium farming. But some of that money "inadvertently supported poppy production," the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported in 2018."

So USAID spent 1.46 billion to encourage Afghans to move away from opium production. The result was opium production grew using those very funds.

"The failed war on drugs was not the only USAID boondoggle in Afghanistan. In a 2021 review of the war effort, SIGAR noted that USAID spent $335 million on a power plant that was rarely turned on, $175 million on roads that floods washed away within a month, and $7.7 million on an industrial park that had no power. Asked by SIGAR about its poor planning, USAID declared that micromanaging these projects would be "counterproductive" to the goal of "increasing Afghan self-reliance."
"

Plenty more in the article.

I'll point out this is where a robust watch dog agencies would come in handy. I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that USAID works.

They are not "giving away" money to impoverished places. They typically work through public-private partnerships. All of these items mentioned, assuming they are true, were likely public private partnerships with US companies. So they are funded by USAID, but really its a corporate handout.

FWIW China operates a lot of the same. They'll sign these big deals, and fund huge projects but they have to use Chinese companies and Chinese employees. I think USAID is a lot more liberal in their requirements, but they broadly work the same.

(11-24-2025 07:02 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(11-24-2025 04:39 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 04:34 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-24-2025 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feeding and providing health care to starving kids...and building goodwill around the world isn't waste. And their whole budget is FAR from just waste...and the alleged "fraud" is minimal at best. Hate to break this to you, but DOGE, trump, and the GOP lied to you about this...just as they did with ACORN...and just as they do with ANTIFA. You guys are easy marks.

And the US population is 342,879,204 (yes, I googled it). So their budget was $.06 per person.

None of that changes the fact that it was a ton of waste. I'll just list a few:

-$1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.

-$70,000 for production of a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.

-$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

-$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

-$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

Not going on a wild goose chase to vet these claims, links please.

https://reason.com/2025/02/10/5-of-the-w...n-history/

"USAID tried to change this state of affairs, spending $1.46 billion on "alternative development programs" from 2002 to 2017. The goal was to encourage farmers to move away from opium by providing fertilizers, equipment, and other assistance for non-opium farming. But some of that money "inadvertently supported poppy production," the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported in 2018."

So USAID spent 1.46 billion to encourage Afghans to move away from opium production. The result was opium production grew using those very funds.

"The failed war on drugs was not the only USAID boondoggle in Afghanistan. In a 2021 review of the war effort, SIGAR noted that USAID spent $335 million on a power plant that was rarely turned on, $175 million on roads that floods washed away within a month, and $7.7 million on an industrial park that had no power. Asked by SIGAR about its poor planning, USAID declared that micromanaging these projects would be "counterproductive" to the goal of "increasing Afghan self-reliance."
"

Plenty more in the article.

I'll point out this is where a robust watch dog agencies would come in handy. I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that USAID works.

They are not "giving away" money to impoverished places. They typically work through public-private partnerships. All of these items mentioned, assuming they are true, were likely public private partnerships with US companies. So they are funded by USAID, but really its a corporate handout.

FWIW China operates a lot of the same. They'll sign these big deals, and fund huge projects but they have to use Chinese companies and Chinese employees. I think USAID is a lot more liberal in their requirements, but they broadly work the same.

Go jump in a radiation filled pond

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

So because they did not save enough money (as much as promised) it was a flop?

Does that mean that they should now just reinstate all that waste spending they halted because it was enough saving?

Until they find ALL of the waste, they should not be allowed to stop only parts of it?


Please clarify "flop" - Even you cannot be that stupid tommibois.


If in your world even 1 life saved makes the shot worth it (which you stated), shouldn't saving even 1 dollar make doge worth it?

Welp, that’s it.

Ima go change my vote over to knee pads.

RedTom has convinced me.

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)commie kat Wrote:  Doge = Flop

(12-29-2025 01:24 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

So because they did not save enough money (as much as promised) it was a flop?

Does that mean that they should now just reinstate all that waste spending they halted because it was enough saving?

Until they find ALL of the waste, they should not be allowed to stop only parts of it?


Please clarify "flop" - Even you cannot be that stupid tommibois.


If in your world even 1 life saved makes the shot worth it (which you stated), shouldn't saving even 1 dollar make doge worth it?

It achieved its Project2025 goals. None of which was making government any more efficient or saving us any money.

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

First of all the NYTs isnt a serious news source, it hasn't been for a long time.

The author obviously isnt serious nor are the "experts" in the article.

Anyone who knows about contracts or budgets.... and especially government ones, knows any budget ceiling lowered absolutely is a cut in the end. You must not understand how these contracts and budgets work dummy.

Take a guess how much spend happens on a $5.7 billion contract

Then take a guess how much spend happens on a $5 billion contract.



Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(12-30-2025 05:06 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

First of all the NYTs isnt a serious news source, it hasn't been for a long time.

The author obviously isnt serious nor are the "experts" in the article.

Anyone who knows about contracts or budgets.... and especially government ones, knows any budget ceiling lowered absolutely is a cut in the end. You must not understand how these contracts and budgets work dummy.

Take a guess how much spend happens on a $5.7 billion contract

Then take a guess how much spend happens on a $5 billion contract.

And Elon Musk and his band of teenage dolts are? Dude, have a seat.

(12-30-2025 05:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-30-2025 05:06 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doge = Flop. Nobody...with a brain...is shocked.

Quote:Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency said it made more than 29,000 cuts to the federal government — slashing billion-dollar contracts, canceling thousands of grants and pushing out civil servants.

But the group did not do what Mr. Musk said it would: reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October. On DOGE’s watch, federal spending did not go down at all. It went up.

How is that possible?

One big reason, according to a New York Times analysis: Many of the largest savings that DOGE claimed turned out to be wrong. And while the group did make thousands of smaller cuts, jolting foreign aid recipients, American small businesses and local service providers, those amounted to little in the scale of the federal budget.

In DOGE’s published list of canceled contracts and grants, for instance, the 13 largest were all incorrect.

At the top were two Defense Department contracts, one for information technology, one for aircraft maintenance. Mr. Musk’s group listed them as “terminations,” and said their demise had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. That was not true. The contracts are still alive and well, and those savings were an accounting mirage.

Together, those two false entries were bigger than 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined.

Of the 40 biggest claims on DOGE’s list, The Times found only 12 that appeared accurate — reflecting real reductions in what the government had committed to spend.

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?

First of all the NYTs isnt a serious news source, it hasn't been for a long time.

The author obviously isnt serious nor are the "experts" in the article.

Anyone who knows about contracts or budgets.... and especially government ones, knows any budget ceiling lowered absolutely is a cut in the end. You must not understand how these contracts and budgets work dummy.

Take a guess how much spend happens on a $5.7 billion contract

Then take a guess how much spend happens on a $5 billion contract.

And Elon Musk and his band of teenage dolts are? Dude, have a seat.

Ive already proven why the article you posted is garbage.

Your turn....

Oh, and you didnt answer the question dummy

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk