• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

BBC reported, "President Trump asked Musk to "mention some of the things that your team has found some of the crazy numbers, including the woman that walked away with about 30 million."...Musk responded to Trump's prompt in the Oval Office by saying: "There are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know what happened to USAID.

"Maybe they're very good at investing… I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at the taxpayer expense."" His quote is probably in reference to Samantha Power. One of many problems with Musk's claim is that the estimate of Ms Power's net worth is a broad range, 10-30 million. Another is that the methodology behind this estimate is less than crystal clear. There are more problems, as previously mentioned in this thread.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
She's still with him, she's not made one single protest against him nor moved to ameliorate his evils. If Trampy is Hitler, Melanoma is Ilse Koch, and don't for a second doubt that Trampy isn't Hitler.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so what?

None of that proves a thing but go ahead and hate her anyway. You're no better than the maga weirdoes who made fun of Walz's son or Biden's daughter or all those AHs who criticized Chelsea Clinton or even Hillary because she didn't divorce Bill after he cheated on her.

I'm sure that made you and them feel like BIG, BIG men.

Hell, you even accused me of being a nazi, and you were wrong then, and that's all the confirmation that I need to prove that you're wrong again.

Good luck with that kind of sick attitude, especially since the REAL problem is the fat clown and not his damn wife.


-
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Why? Gender-affirming health care is health care. Do you not believe that governments should not invest in peoples' health?
Click to expand...
C'mon dude, one of these things is not like the others. Do you also believe that the government should pay for botox injections, breast enlargements and facelifts?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
BBC reported, "President Trump asked Musk to "mention some of the things that your team has found some of the crazy numbers, including the woman that walked away with about 30 million."...Musk responded to Trump's prompt in the Oval Office by saying: "There are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know what happened to USAID.

"Maybe they're very good at investing… I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at the taxpayer expense."" His quote is probably in reference to Samantha Power. One of many problems with Musk's claim is that the estimate of Ms Power's net worth is a broad range, 10-30 million. Another is that the methodology behind this estimate is less than crystal clear. There are more problems, as previously mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...
That really doesn't leave any doubt about who he's accusing of what. It sounds actionable to me.
 
Puppycow said:
C'mon dude, one of these things is not like the others. Do you also believe that the government should pay for botox injections, breast enlargements and facelifts?
Click to expand...
Botox is more than just wrinkle remover and women who have had a mastectomy due to breast cancer probably appreciate reconstructive surgery. And what you are complaining about is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall budget and generates good will. Again just because you don't like it or it makes you feel icky doesn't mean it isn't a good use of money.

You know what I don't think the government should pay for? Armored Teslas. Not to the tune of $400 million.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not specifically Hitlerian, but I'd accept dictatorial.

You know what I don't accept as being dictatorial? Cutting government spending and reducing the size of government. It's really not on brand.
Click to expand...

Republicans have brutally cut programs for actual working Americans while still managing to spend more.
Tax and spend is an easy to critique political strategy; I’m amazed that in fifty years no Republican has figured out that “don’t tax, but spend much more” is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid
 
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud by healthcare "providers" is many tens of billions, well documented, but it is far more important to shut down something Trump doesn't like for the cost of a few ten thousand dollars.
You are a gullible idiot if you think any of this is about fraud or saving money.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud by healthcare "providers" is many tens of billions, well documented, but it is far more important to shut down something Trump doesn't like for the cost of a few ten thousand dollars.
You are a gullible idiot if you think any of this is about fraud or saving money.
Click to expand...
As I said that is the fig leaf his supporters are trying to use, but it fails at every point to cover up the embarrassment which is a toddler kicking his building blocks over because he is having a tantrum.
 
autumn1971 said:
Republicans have brutally cut programs for actual working Americans while still managing to spend more.
Click to expand...
This is just an ordinary policy critique, not a sign of dictatorship. And yeah, traditionally Republicans didn't really cut spending. Trump didn't in his first term.

But this isn't a traditional approach, is it? This might actually get real cuts accomplished. The traditional approach certainly hasn't worked.
 
Cleveland13 reported, "Musk also admitted to making public statements that were “absolutely not true” since launching his initiative, including misinformation about U.S. foreign aid. He acknowledged errors but maintained that his team is committed to fixing mistakes quickly. “Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected,” Musk said. “We will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes.”"

No, he should not be saying things until they have been thoroughly examined; he is harming the reputation of individuals and of an organization. The falsehoods spread quickly, and not everyone will hear the corrections. His appearance in the Oval Office doubled down rather than corrected unsubstantiated and misleading claims about Samantha Power. I have had my fill of Musksplaining.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is just an ordinary policy critique, not a sign of dictatorship. And yeah, traditionally Republicans didn't really cut spending. Trump didn't in his first term.

But this isn't a traditional approach, is it? This might actually get real cuts accomplished. The traditional approach certainly hasn't worked.
Click to expand...
Republicans are already all in favor of raising the debt ceiling, something that was supposedly pure evil under Democrats.
How balanced will their budget be, you think?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Republicans are already all in favor of raising the debt ceiling, something that was supposedly pure evil under Democrats.
How balanced will their budget be, you think?
Click to expand...
I don't know. There are a lot of establishment Republicans in congress who want to keep the gravy train running, it's not just Democrats, and I never said it was.
 
Ziggurat said:
Do you even know where the term "earmark" comes from? It's a metaphor, but in the metaphor, whose ears are being marked? Pigs' ears. The connection between earmarks and pork is in the name.
Click to expand...
So what? Are all figurative references to pigs also references to pork barrel politics?

"In a pig's eye" is a reference to pork barrel politics?
"When pigs fly" is a reference to pork barrel politics?
"Pearls before swine" is a reference to pork barrel politics?
"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" is a reference to pork barrel politics?

And if you're going to splutter: "That's not what I was saying!" then by all means please clarify: What, then, *were* you saying here? What is your point?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are a gullible idiot if you think any of this is about fraud or saving money.
Click to expand...
Not gullible idiots as much as unthinking cult members who also aren't arguing in good faith. Seriously, how long does "lol, i had never heard of usaid until a few days ago but i have issues with a few tiny points of their massive budget so i think it should be abolished" be entertained as if it's a serious stance? They might as well be say USAID should be abolished because Dump saw his own shadow on the way to the golf course, or because it's blasphemous that their name contains a D even though that's the first letter of Donald Dump's first and last name, or that the the janitor at one of their facilities was once overheard insulting President Elonia's second cousin thrice removed. It's all noise, even pre-programmed noise, repeated mindlessly by trumpkins all over the world (for example, the fascists in Norwegian comments threads sound exactly like their American counterparts). It's not worth our time of day.

At least the pointless quibbling over the exact definition of 'political pork' is somewhat original, if equally desperate and useless.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't know. There are a lot of establishment Republicans in congress who want to keep the gravy train running, it's not just Democrats, and I never said it was.
Click to expand...
Not Trump of course. That man is a true patriot.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
What is your point?
Click to expand...
That earmarks are a bad way to allocate government spending, and usually indicative of political payoffs. Note that I'm not suggesting that they're illegal. They aren't, not since the prohibition on earmarks was repealed. But they're still a primary way for politicians to pay off special interests. This isn't a controversial opinion, this is how the system works. And everyone knows it.
 
Ziggurat said:
That earmarks are a bad way to allocate government spending, and usually indicative of political payoffs. Note that I'm not suggesting that they're illegal. They aren't, not since the prohibition on earmarks was repealed. But they're still a primary way for politicians to pay off special interests. This isn't a controversial opinion, this is how the system works. And everyone knows it.
Click to expand...
it's a side effect of all laws being a Frankenstein's monster of multiple issues, because it's the only way to get to a majority.
It would take a lot of congressional reform, including doing away with the Filibuster, to have a lot of very short, very targeted laws instead of very few that have to go through endless revisions in committees - maybe Republicans could tackle that?
Unless you attack the cause of the problem, you are just making sure it will continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom