What did Democrats do wrong?

[Thermal]

well there’s supposedly trillions of dollars of it. it would be pervasive and everywhere, the evidence would be overwhelming and obvious.

They haven't balanced the budget in decades. The debt soars ever higher into the trillions. They can't even figure out what the Pentagon is getting paid, nor can they account for trillions of dollars. That's trillions, with a "t".

Does that sound like they have their financial act together? Cuz it sounds to me like a bunch of crackheads with a credit card with no limit that someone else gets to pay.

 

[dirtywick]

certainly we can make a distinction between spending too much and the money is being stolen.

 

[Thermal]

Just as certainly, we can make a distinction between stealing (which I am not claiming) and financial irresponsibility so extreme that it appears incompetent.

 

[dirtywick]

Just as certainly, we can make a distinction between stealing (which I am not claiming) and financial irresponsibility so extreme that it appears incompetent.

yeah, that's exactly the distinction you need to be making.

when the trump admin asserts the government is inefficient, and full of fraud waste and abuse, the money isn't being spent on what they approved it for. it's being stolen and misappropriated and otherwise not spent on what the program is supposed to be doing. this is what they are claiming to be finding and why the budget is so far off, and i think fairly you can make a case that spending should be cut as soon as possible.

if it's not true, the government is using the money on the program as the bill was intended, the money isn't being stolen or misappropriated. the money is being spent on what they approved, this is not fraud waste and abuse, it's not inefficient spending, but it's just how much it costs. you can make a case they should keep the program and find revenue to support it.

i would hope we could agree there's a huge difference between those two things in both what you're looking for and how to address what you find

 

[Thermal]

yeah, that's exactly the distinction you need to be making.

when the trump admin asserts the government is inefficient, and full of fraud waste and abuse, the money isn't being spent on what they approved it for. it's being stolen and misappropriated and otherwise not spent on what the program is supposed to be doing. this is what they are claiming to be finding and why the budget is so far off, and i think fairly you can make a case that spending should be cut as soon as possible.

if it's not true, the government is using the money on the program as the bill was intended, the money isn't being stolen or misappropriated. the money is being spent on what they approved, this is not fraud waste and abuse, it's not inefficient spending, but it's just how much it costs. you can make a case they should keep the program and find revenue to support it.

i would hope we could agree there's a huge difference between those two things in both what you're looking for and how to address what you find

I agree that there is a huge difference between them. It's just not my concern.

My argument is against the more general point where this all started, that the stated idea of government inefficiency is republican propaganda etc, and that evidence should exist if it were true. I believe the evidence is self evident, ie unbalanced budget, debt and all. Specifically why this is so remains to be seen. The name of this program is DOGE, not Stop the Federal Stealing. Government efficiency, run closer to what is needed in the private sector, is a long overdue necessity. A business would have tanked years ago on the Fed's spending model. Maybe a dose of private model checkbook balancing is exactly what's needed.

And no, that doesn't mean Muskrat is doing anything anywhere near right. But couldn't the discussion of the abstract goal be meritorious? No gratuitous waste, and don't spend what you have no ability to repay, that kind of thing.

 

[dirtywick]

well i guess if the self evidence of it is the only evidence, we'd have to agree to disagree.

as far as the abstract discussion, we'd be having that discussion in a circumstance where the doge committee is asserting fraud while looking for none and breaking into treasury software systems, while a cabinet of a mix of billionaires and fraudsters is dismantling regulatory agencies and firing inspectors and lawyers. i think there's bigger fish to fry there but that's my thoughts on it.

 

[Donal]

They haven't balanced the budget in decades.

You understand a government is different than your household, right? That its OK for a government to work a little in the red? Especially when said government prints the world's reserve currency?

The debt soars ever higher into the trillions. They can't even figure out what the Pentagon is getting paid, nor can they account for trillions of dollars. That's trillions, with a "t".

We know why spending goes up. Its not a secret. Nickle and diming the National Park Service or the CDC isn't going to solve it.

There's 2 ways to reduce debt. Cutting spending is the less effective way because there is only so much you can cut before the cuts do more harm than good. Plus, there's a cascade effect when doing cuts in a large organization.

The better way to is to raise more revenue.

Does that sound like they have their financial act together? Cuz it sounds to me like a bunch of crackheads with a credit card with no limit that someone else gets to pay.

You know what your boys in DOGE aren't doing? Auditing the Pentagon.

Or publishing their work.

Or working with accountants and using appropriate accounting practices

Or anything a responsible or competent auditor would do.

This cultish devotion to "efficiency" misses the forest for the trees.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They haven't balanced the budget in decades.

Congress sets the budget, and raises revenue. The government agencies don't just spend whatever they want and then send Congress the bill.
Persistent deficits are on the legislature, not the bureaucracy.

 

[dirtywick]

Congress sets the budget, and raises revenue. The government agencies don't just spend whatever they want and then send Congress the bill.
Persistent deficits are on the legislature, not the bureaucracy.

and i'm sorry if i'm being repetitive here but it bears mentioning that the doge commission and the crypto bros are saying that this deficit can be narrowed by elimination of significant fraud and waste and inefficiency. so it's not a matter of is the budget balanced, but do those conditions causing the deficit exist.

 

[Thermal]

You understand a government is different than your household, right? That its OK for a government to work a little in the red?

Sorry, did you say "a little"? Cuz it sounded like you said "a little". Hey, we must not need spending budgeting at all, then, right? Hell, why bother with taxes, even? Just go "a little" in the red.

Especially when said government prints the world's reserve currency?

Which, if you hadn't noticed, is literally in jeopardy of being replaced in the upcoming years, largely because of its devaluing. Wanna guess what contributed heavily to the devaluation?

We know why spending goes up. Its not a secret. Nickle and diming the National Park Service or the CDC isn't going to solve it.

I said that already. Thanks for repeating my position back to me.

There's 2 ways to reduce debt. Cutting spending is the less effective way because there is only so much you can cut before the cuts do more harm than good. Plus, there's a cascade effect when doing cuts in a large organization.

The better way to is to raise more revenue.

We know this.

You know what your boys in DOGE aren't doing?

"My boys"? The ones I've been blaming left and right? Seriously, are you impaired?

Auditing the Pentagon.

I've said that several times. Thanks for repeating my position back to me.

Or publishing their work.

Or working with accountants and using appropriate accounting practices

Or anything a responsible or competent auditor would do.

This cultish devotion to "efficiency" misses the forest for the trees.

I know. Thank you.

 

[TomB]

I agree that there is a huge difference between them. It's just not my concern.

My argument is against the more general point where this all started, that the stated idea of government inefficiency is republican propaganda etc, and that evidence should exist if it were true. I believe the evidence is self evident, ie unbalanced budget, debt and all. Specifically why this is so remains to be seen. The name of this program is DOGE, not Stop the Federal Stealing. Government efficiency, run closer to what is needed in the private sector, is a long overdue necessity.
A business would have tanked years ago on the Fed's spending model. Maybe a dose of private model checkbook balancing is exactly what's needed.

And no, that doesn't mean Muskrat is doing anything anywhere near right. But couldn't the discussion of the abstract goal be meritorious? No gratuitous waste, and don't spend what you have no ability to repay, that kind of thing.

Tell me, how many people have worked for a large company come home at night thinking: "Man I love the way this business is run!" I hear a lot of "government should be run like a business" but I've never met anyone who though it should be run like the business they work for.

Government isn't a business. It's more of a service. A business model centers on how to maximize revenue and minimize costs. As a service, government has to balance the services it provides with the means to pay for it (revenue). I know it doesn't sound like much of a distinction, but it's a huge difference in how decisions are made.

The output (product) of government is not money or "profit" as it is in a business. It's the services. There is, of course, disagreement as to just what level of services government should provide. As someone pointed out, the disagreements here are not "fraud" or "abuse" and "waste" is subjective. It takes an infrastructure to provide those services in a timely or "efficient" manner. (Note that "efficient" can be used to mean other things than money. In some usages "efficient" can mean more expensive rather than less.)

(Resisting the urge to get sidetracked, so I snipped out a whole thing about efficiency of service delivery in terms of time and overhead expense.)

Unlike a business, revenue isn't the goal. Services are. Revenue is the means to provide the services. Everyone wants more services (or at least the ones that they feel they benefit from) but no one wants to provide the means to pay for those services. (Taxes usually.) The problem is not that government is not "run like a business." It's not a "balancing a checkbook" issue. Government departments are very much run on that basis. A department is given a budget and they go to great lengths to keep track of and stay within that budget. While I'm sure must departments could trim a few staff members from the payroll, it wouldn't really save that much money. Because the "efficiency" in the way the departments are run isn't really a major problem. The agencies are pretty much right sized to provide the services they have been tasked with providing. (Actually, in many cases they are understaffed, leading to time inefficiencies, but I was avoiding going there.)

The problem is less efficiency of operation and more a mismatch between assigned tasks (services) and revenue. USAID wasn't particularly inefficient as far as I can see. Any savings obtained is not coming from streamlining the process of delivering services, but from eliminating the services provided.

To circle this back to "what to Democrats did wrong." They were simply outplayed. Everyone has driven through construction on the highway and griped about the three guys standing around watching one guy work. The Republicans have grabbed onto that emotion. "Look at these lazy government employees! And by the way, look at all these people benefitting from services that do nothing for you!" It's an emotional reaction to what people think they see going on around them.

The Democrats tend to react by trying to explain that people are wrong about what they think they are seeing:
First of all, those four road workers, don't actually work for the government, they work for a private contractor hired by the government to work on the roads. Second, the one guy working is an ironworker welding the rebar to reinforce the concrete that the other three guys are going to pour and finish. they can't do their job until he does his (at which point he will move on) and they can't help because they are either not qualified or not allowed to do that work because of the rules of both unions. (My son-in-law is an ironworker. He's had jobs (private) where he was basically paid to sit in the truck and be on hand in the event they needed him. It's not a government thing.) And those services that other people get often you benefit too, albeit indirectly.

The story of three guys standing around watching makes a more gripping story than the explanation, doesn't it?

The problem is that you cannot counter an emotional reaction with explanations. The Democrats used to have labor support by vocally (and emotionally) involving themselves in the labor movement and its fights. The Republicans tapped into anger. The Democrats didn't. Politics is not rational.

 

[Donal]

Sorry, did you say "a little"? Cuz it sounded like you said "a little".

Because I did

Which, if you hadn't noticed, is literally in jeopardy of being replaced in the upcoming years, largely because of its devaluing. Wanna guess what contributed heavily to the devaluation?

Decreased revenue? Widening wealth disparity? Irrational policies form our executive? Political chaos at the highest levels?

I said that already. Thanks for repeating my position back to me.

You don't seem to udnerstand it.

We know this.

And yet, here you are trying t tell me why cutting cancer research is a good idea.

"My boys"? The ones I've been blaming left and right? Seriously, are you impaired?

I've said that several times. Thanks for repeating my position back to me.

I know. Thank you.

You seem to be toeing their line. You're in the same cult.

 

[Thermal]

Tell me, how many people have worked for a large company come home at night thinking: "Man I love the way this business is run!" I hear a lot of "government should be run like a business" but I've never met anyone who though it should be run like the business they work for.

You don't really have any input in how someone runs their private business. We do, at least in theory, have a say in how our government runs. IMO, anyway. I see you and others disagree.

Government isn't a business. It's more of a service. A business model centers on how to maximize revenue and minimize costs. As a service, government has to balance the services it provides with the means to pay for it (revenue). I know it doesn't sound like much of a distinction, but it's a huge difference in how decisions are made.

The output (product) of government is not money or "profit" as it is in a business. It's the services. There is, of course, disagreement as to just what level of services government should provide. As someone pointed out, the disagreements here are not "fraud" or "abuse" and "waste" is subjective. It takes an infrastructure to provide those services in a timely or "efficient" manner. (Note that "efficient" can be used to mean other things than money. In some usages "efficient" can mean more expensive rather than less.)

(Resisting the urge to get sidetracked, so I snipped out a whole thing about efficiency of service delivery in terms of time and overhead expense.)

Unlike a business, revenue isn't the goal. Services are. Revenue is the means to provide the services. Everyone wants more services (or at least the ones that they feel they benefit from) but no one wants to provide the means to pay for those services. (Taxes usually.) The problem is not that government is not "run like a business." It's not a "balancing a checkbook" issue. Government departments are very much run on that basis. A department is given a budget and they go to great lengths to keep track of and stay within that budget. While I'm sure must departments could trim a few staff members from the payroll, it wouldn't really save that much money. Because the "efficiency" in the way the departments are run isn't really a major problem. The agencies are pretty much right sized to provide the services they have been tasked with providing. (Actually, in many cases they are understaffed, leading to time inefficiencies, but I was avoiding going there.)

The problem is less efficiency of operation and more a mismatch between assigned tasks (services) and revenue. USAID wasn't particularly inefficient as far as I can see. Any savings obtained is not coming from streamlining the process of delivering services, but from eliminating the services provided.

To circle this back to "what to Democrats did wrong." They were simply outplayed. Everyone has driven through construction on the highway and griped about the three guys standing around watching one guy work. The Republicans have grabbed onto that emotion. "Look at these lazy government employees! And by the way, look at all these people benefitting from services that do nothing for you!" It's an emotional reaction to what people think they see going on around them.

The Democrats tend to react by trying to explain that people are wrong about what they think they are seeing:
First of all, those four road workers, don't actually work for the government, they work for a private contractor hired by the government to work on the roads. Second, the one guy working is an ironworker welding the rebar to reinforce the concrete that the other three guys are going to pour and finish. they can't do their job until he does his (at which point he will move on) and they can't help because they are either not qualified or not allowed to do that work because of the rules of both unions. (My son-in-law is an ironworker. He's had jobs (private) where he was basically paid to sit in the truck and be on hand in the event they needed him. It's not a government thing.) And those services that other people get often you benefit too, albeit indirectly.

The story of three guys standing around watching makes a more gripping story than the explanation, doesn't it?

The problem is that you cannot counter an emotional reaction with explanations. The Democrats used to have labor support by vocally (and emotionally) involving themselves in the labor movement and its fights. The Republicans tapped into anger. The Democrats didn't. Politics is not rational.

I have said more than once that a business and government spending are not comparable, but thanks for explaining how they are not comparable. It was refreshing.

 

[Thermal]

And yet, here you are trying t tell me why cutting cancer research is a good idea.

You're a liar.

You seem to be toeing their line. You're in the same cult.

Or maybe you're an idiot. I can't tell.

I'm a Blue Dog, a fan of fiscal responsibility via progressive taxation. But you seem to have some imaginary bull ◊◊◊◊ you like to argue with better, so knock yourself out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Based on Trump over the last 2 months, it's clear that the reason why the Democrats lost is because they didn't lie to the American people as much as Trump did.

2016 and 2020 shows that the biggest liar wins the election.

Hey, you're starting to get it: politicians are all liars!

 

[Emily's Cat]

kind of repeating myself here, but what i’m getting at is there’s an assumption that the private sector can do better, and i question that. i’m not convinced the private sector is as efficient as its made it out to be. if the government is that inefficient, it should be trivially easy to improve efficiency. the private sector currently has the means and opportunity to do so. the trump administration is basically a group of some of the most successful businessmen in the country and he hand picked a cabinet of billionaires to enact their pet projects. and if they fail to cut costs while at least maintaining or improving service levels, which i would consider a fair measure of efficiency, it’s evidence that the government inefficiency we take as a given isn’t as bad as we assume it is. that it can’t be both incredibly inefficient and bloated, but also impossible to measure or identify how or to offer any improvement. and that perhaps as a given the private sector isn’t capable of doing better. maybe the problems in government have been completely misidentified by people acting in bad faith and they’re going to show their asses

The private sector isn't as efficient as possible, but in most cases, it is less inefficient than the government. There are incentives for efficiency in the private sector, and virtually no incentives for efficiency in the public sector. Not all inefficiencies within the government are the result of bad actors, but there still ends up being a lot of things that never get addressed.

Here's a single instance:

Fiscal Year 2024 Improper Payments Fact Sheet | CMS

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is committed to being a responsible steward of public funds and to promoting the sustainability of its programs for future generations. While CMS’ improper payments reporting programs are designed to protect the integrity of CMS programs, it is...

www.cms.gov

Here are the improper payment rates for CMS’ programs in fiscal year 2024:

• The Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) estimated improper payment rate was 7.66%, or $31.70 billion, marking the eighth consecutive year this figure has been below the 10% threshold for compliance established by improper payment statutory requirements.1The 2024 estimated rate is not statistically different from the 2023 Medicare FFS estimated improper payment rate of 7.38%.
• The Medicare Part C estimated improper payment rate was 5.61%, or $19.07 billion. In FY 2024, CMS implemented changes to more accurately represent the Medicare Advantage population within the sample. The FY 2024 estimated rate is not statistically different from the FY 2023 estimated improper payment rate of 6.01%.

Now, CMS has improved FFS Medicare substantially to get it under 10%. In the early 2010s, it was in the mid teens for improper payments (which is a broader category than fraud, waste, and abuse). Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) has *never* operated with improper payment rates that high. Because MA is privately administered, and their profits are on the line, MA insurers want to avoid waste because it keeps their premiums competitive. Improper payments cut directly into their profitability in a way that FFS simply doesn't experience. Additionally, MA has strict rules around what portion of premium can be used for operating expenses (taxes, contractual fees, and administrative expenses like facilities, salaries, etc.), so if the improper payments are too large, private MA insurers can't cover their operating costs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, when Harris was running around with well known progressive...*checks notes*...Liz Cheney

And when she shouted the well known progressive mantra "I will always ensure America as the strongest, most lethal fighting fore in the world"

So. Far. Left.

So... let's take a step back here. Not everything Harris did was progressive... but there were several things they did that failed to resonate with moderate liberals - those who actually comprise the majority of the Dem base voters, as well as the left-leaning independents. Harris managed to be simultaneously too progressive *and* too conservative for the base, which is a testament to their ability to royally ◊◊◊◊ it up, I guess.

Several of Harris' prior views, as well as their voting record, are quite progressive in ways that a lot of average Dems aren't crazy about. Some of their campaigning tried to "reach across the aisle" and appeal to Republican voters... but they were topics that the average Dem also isn't crazy about.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're a liar.

Or maybe you're an idiot. I can't tell.

I'm a Blue Dog, a fan of fiscal responsibility via progressive taxation. But you seem to have some imaginary bull ◊◊◊◊ you like to argue with better, so knock yourself out.

Come on, Thermal - you know how this game is played by now, don't you? If you don't vehemently hate "those evil guys over there" with enough vitriol, it can only possibly mean that you're one of them. A true Blue Dog would never, ever, under any circumstances concede that the Red Threat has a point, even if it's only about what time of day it is. Clearly, you're nothing more than a BDINO.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm pretty sure "politicians are by and large corrupt and scheming" is an entirely ordinary claim.

It is, but it is not one that is immune to the burden of proof.

 

[Hercules56]

I think we have ample basis to think politicians are corrupt and scheming

Such sweeping generalizations are ignorant and paranoid. Pure MAGA.