• 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

Chris_Halkides said:
NPR reported, "The Trump administration likely violated the Constitution when it effectively shuttered the U.S. Agency for International Development, a federal judge has ruled...In his ruling, [Judge Theodore] Chuang wrote that "the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to Defendants' sweeping claim that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID's headquarters and website even though he lacked the authority to make that decision.""

This is the right call.
Click to expand...
"Likely violated". Who actually executed the shut down decisions? Were the orders signed by Elon Musk? Or were the orders signed by someone in the executive branch with executive authority (whether inherent or delegated)? The judge's use of "likely" suggests the judge herself doesn't even know for sure. People concerned about a politicized judiciary and judicial overreach should be paying close attention to this decision.
 
theprestige said:
"Likely violated". Who actually executed the shut down decisions? Were the orders signed by Elon Musk? Or were the orders signed by someone in the executive branch with executive authority (whether inherent or delegated)? The judge's use of "likely" suggests the judge herself doesn't even know for sure. People concerned about a politicized judiciary and judicial overreach should be paying close attention to this decision.
Click to expand...
This is a preliminary injunction, as CNN and AP reported: "“Taken together, these facts support the conclusion that USAID has been effectively eliminated,” Chuang wrote in the preliminary injunction."
EDT
"Musk’s public statements and social media posts demonstrate that he has “firm control over DOGE,” the judge found pointing to an online post where Musk said he had “fed USAID into the wood chipper.”"

I thought that there was supposed to be a 90-day review where we learned about fraud and waste. That was a big steaming pile of rose fertilizer.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
You keep saying that, but first, it’s not an argument against doing it, it’s just a personal attack, and second, it’s not even true. Spending has to be cut, and cutting it will cause pain. I would be happy if a Democrat were to actually cut spending, but you and I both know that would never happen.

Debt is the biggest threat to our country. Someone is finally doing something about that. I don't care if you don't like how it's being done.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh.

The debt is a direct result of multiple tax cuts since the Reagan era, none of which included corresponding spending cuts. That is, Republicans bribe their voters and donors, and create deficits. The next issue is deregulation, especially in banking, which led to the S&L crisis back in the day, and culminated with the 2008 financial crisis, aka, the deregulatory Libertarian meltdown-cum-bailout. Other self-inflicted wounds include two costly major wars this century, both GOP-initiated, as well as a far deeper Covid-19 recession than otherwise required by circumstance out of sheer executive ineptitude.

After all that, spending on everyday taxpayers, who in relative terms bear the greatest burden (Buffet's secretary tax story), can hardly be faulted. Besides, major programs like social security and other support funding actually serves as a Keynesian stimulus and softens downturns without causing an inflationary level of demand, being modest in nature and mostly used for necessities.

The plan all along, since Raygun, has been to strangle the programs Republicans hate, but which they are not willing to justify cutting out of opposition to them as policy as such, instead crying "debt, omg, debt", cutting taxes over and over, and using the crisis of their own making to justify draconian measures as last resort.

Trump is doing all that in spades, while hardly justifying his DOGE approach, a method insuring a total lack of accountability, yet another way to attack programs in crisis mode, claiming "waste, fraud and abuse" without any documented due diligence or basis in fact.

It's duplicitous, cowardly, and fundamentally dishonest. Aka, lowdown Libertarian.

ETA: All of which ignores the fact that a large portion of debt is owed by the government to the Treasury from quant easing, which can be reversed, not by "paying for it" out of taxes, but by reducing the money supply, effectively withdrawing "printed" money. No need to ax everything in sight to reduce the debt.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
"Likely violated". Who actually executed the shut down decisions? Were the orders signed by Elon Musk? Or were the orders signed by someone in the executive branch with executive authority (whether inherent or delegated)? The judge's use of "likely" suggests the judge herself doesn't even know for sure. People concerned about a politicized judiciary and judicial overreach should be paying close attention to this decision.
Click to expand...
She does say that "the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to Defendants' sweeping claim that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID's headquarters and website even though he lacked the authority to make that decision." I'd say it's far more probable that he's seen evidence that you haven't to make that determination.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
This is a preliminary injunction, as CNN and AP reported: "“Taken together, these facts support the conclusion that USAID has been effectively eliminated,” Chuang wrote in the preliminary injunction."
EDT
"Musk’s public statements and social media posts demonstrate that he has “firm control over DOGE,” the judge found pointing to an online post where Musk said he had “fed USAID into the wood chipper.”"

I thought that there was supposed to be a 90-day review where we learned about fraud and waste. That was a big steaming pile of rose fertilizer.
Click to expand...
So the judge is basing her decision on Elon Musk's bluster, without having seen any evidence that he's actually responsible. This is bad judging.
 
Stacyhs said:
She does say that "the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to Defendants' sweeping claim that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID's headquarters and website even though he lacked the authority to make that decision." I'd say it's far more probable that he's seen evidence that you haven't to make that determination.
Click to expand...
What evidence has he seen?

Who actually signed the orders?
 
theprestige,
CNN reported, "The times Trump acknowledged Musk led DOGE included, the judge noted: in press conferences, in an interview with TV host Sean Hannity, in a speech to corporate executives, at his first Cabinet meeting, and in his March 4 address to Congress."

Everyone,
Reuters reported, "Chuang did not block the mass terminations of most of USAID's contracts and personnel, which have ended much of the agency's operations worldwide and thrown global humanitarian relief efforts into chaos. He found that while those terminations likely did violate the Constitution, they had been approved by government officials who are not named in the lawsuit." We could use a few more rulings like this one IMHO.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Link

I know we can't do a poll mid-thread, but I wonder if anyone can chime in on this, particularly those who say that checks and balances are being correctly applied. Do you think:

a) The judge is right to intervene (DOGE's behaviour is unconstitutional).
b) The judge is wrong to intervene (DOGE's behaviour is constitutional).
c) I'll wait to find out from the Trump administration what is wrong with the judge.
Click to expand...
I would need some reasonable summary of what constitutional amendments the judge believes are being violated.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
the prestige,

CNN reported, "The times Trump acknowledged Musk led DOGE included, the judge noted: in press conferences, in an interview with TV host Sean Hannity, in a speech to corporate executives, at his first Cabinet meeting, and in his March 4 address to Congress."
Click to expand...
Trump can say about whatever he wants. Who actually signed the shut down orders?

The judge doesn't know. That's why she has to appeal to spurious reports, in order to rationalize her unjust ruling.
 
theprestige said:
So the judge is basing her decision on Elon Musk's bluster, without having seen any evidence that he's actually responsible. This is bad judging.
Click to expand...
It's not just based on his bluster. It is based on claims by Elon Musk and Donald Trump as well as actions by DOGE and by those in departments affected by DOGE, by double-talk on whether DOGE is advisory and also on whether it is actively doing what Elon Musk says they are doing, not to mention the emails sent out laying off staff. The fact that all of this lacks transparency and accountability is a problem in and of itself.
 
angrysoba said:
It's not just based on his bluster. It is based on claims by Elon Musk and Donald Trump as well as actions by DOGE and by those in departments affected by DOGE, by double-talk on whether DOGE is advisory and also on whether it is actively doing what Elon Musk says they are doing, not to mention the emails sent out laying off staff. The fact that all of this lacks transparency and accountability is a problem in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Who. Signed. The. Orders?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Meh. Depends on whether you want to adopt the meaning from a few centuries ago, or a more modern meaning. Historically, willow bark would be considered medicine... but in modern terms, it would be more likely to be an herbal supplement. We generally expect that modern medicine is standardized in dose, controlled by prescription, with clearly identified indications and (known) side effects. We generally expect that they're regulated by the FDA.
Click to expand...
How about we use the first definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "a substance or preparation used in treating disease." None of the definitions in that entry mention dose, prescription, indications, side effects, or government regulation.
 
jt512 said:
How about we use the first definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "a substance or preparation used in treating disease." None of the definitions in that entry mention dose, prescription, indications, side effects, or government regulation.
Click to expand...
Sure, sure. Someone's on your doorstep, pitching a substance or preparation used in treating disease. That fits your definition of medicine, so of course you buy up the entire stock, and put it into your body at the first opportunity. It never occurs to you to enquire about dosage, or ingredients, or regulation, or any of that. You have a dictionary! Bottoms up!
 
theprestige said:
Trump can say about whatever he wants.
Click to expand...
And when he is speaking officially as the President, his statements are evidence of the administration's policy. Since the person finally named as the nominal head of DOGE was vacationing in Mexico when all this happened, I doubt it was her. And since she's someone no one has ever heard of, it's likely that the President's identification of Elon Musk as the head of DOGE is more credible.
 
theprestige said:
Sure, sure. Someone's on your doorstep, pitching a substance or preparation used in treating disease. That fits your definition of medicine, so of course you buy up the entire stock, and put it into your body at the first opportunity. It never occurs to you to enquire about dosage, or ingredients, or regulation, or any of that. You have a dictionary! Bottoms up!
Click to expand...
What your comment has to do with how a medicine is defined is unclear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom