DOGE!!

[Boyz N Da Hood]

How far should they go back? I say they should go back the past 4+ administrations! Going back one administration is suspect to say the least.... I keep seeing topics of wasteful spending by the Biden administration, I'd like to see Donald's first term and the Obama's...! 3...2...1.... let me hear the negativity behind this reasonable thought.....

[LumRaiderFan]

40 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

How far should they go back? I say they should go back the past 4+ administrations! Going back one administration is suspect to say the least.... I keep seeing topics of wasteful spending by the Biden administration, I'd like to see Donald's first term and the Obama's...! 3...2...1.... let me hear the negativity behind this reasonable thought.....

I think their intent is to make the government more efficient, not looking for reasons to persecute an administration.

I would think they are only concerned with the current budget of the organizations they are looking into.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

How far should they go back? I say they should go back the past 4+ administrations! Going back one administration is suspect to say the least.... I keep seeing topics of wasteful spending by the Biden administration, I'd like to see Donald's first term and the Obama's...! 3...2...1.... let me hear the negativity behind this reasonable thought.....

Anyone who has ripped off the American people needs to be held accountable….R or D. 

[LumRaiderFan]

40 minutes ago, baddog said:

Anyone who has ripped off the American people needs to be held accountable….R or D. 

Agree 100%, but I don’t think that’s the goal of DOGE, but I’m sure some instances of fraud rather than incompetence will lead to consequences.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

Guess we'll see! Like I said, suspect to.say the least

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

How far should they go back? I say they should go back the past 4+ administrations! Going back one administration is suspect to say the least.... I keep seeing topics of wasteful spending by the Biden administration, I'd like to see Donald's first term and the Obama's...! 3...2...1.... let me hear the negativity behind this reasonable thought.....

Why go back at all?

They aren’t looking for a history of wasteful spending. Why would they go back any certain number of administrations?

 They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today. Nothing can be done about past money spent, only keeping it from being spent again.

I don’t know if the reports are true but with all the complaining from the Democrat politicians, I haven’t heard a single comment about the DOGE findings.

Examples….

$2M for sex charges in Guatemala.

$2.5M for Vietnam to buy electric vehicles.

$6M to fund tourism in Egypt.

$1.5M to fund DEI projects in Serbia.

$32T to help Peru to put out a transgender comic book.

$20B from the EPA that no one knows where it was spent.

Why would anyone want to go back to Bill Clinton or G W Bush and find moneys that were spent decades ago? Do you think someone is going to return the money? 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

30 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Why go back at all?

They aren’t looking for a history of wasteful spending. Why would they go back any certain number of administrations?

 They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today. Nothing can be done about past money spent, only keeping it from being spent again.

I don’t know if the reports are true but with all the complaining from the Democrat politicians, I haven’t heard a single comment about the DOGE findings.

Examples….

$2M for sex charges in Guatemala.

$2.5M for Vietnam to buy electric vehicles.

$6M to fund tourism in Egypt.

$1.5M to fund DEI projects in Serbia.

$32T to help Peru to put out a transgender comic book.

$20B from the EPA that no one knows where it was spent.

Why would anyone want to go back to Bill Clinton or G W Bush and find moneys that were spent decades ago? Do you think someone is going to return the money? 

So it's cool to point out 1 administration? If it's already spent why talk about it and not other wasteful spendings? 

"They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today" but talking about only 1 administration spendings... if what you say is true why talk about it and not just put a end to it?

Figured it was reasonable to point out a few administrations wasteful spending but that's just me... I'm sure if Conald wasn't 45th then they'd go back to the Obama era... suspect to say the least

[baddog]

3 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

So it's cool to point out 1 administration? If it's already spent why talk about it and not other wasteful spendings? 

"They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today" but talking about only 1 administration spendings... if what you say is true why talk about it and not just put a end to it?

Figured it was reasonable to point out a few administrations wasteful spending but that's just me... I'm sure if Conald wasn't 45th then they'd go back to the Obama era... suspect to say the least

They have halted some of the spending already to the tune of $billions. Too much more to be discovered. I think some of the fake projects will turn up some kickbacks and pure siphoning, which should be traceable. Some discoveries will show thievery for years, possibly decades. They won’t have to go back and investigate every administration for that. It will be obvious.

[Reagan]

 

Ripe for DOGE!  Need to find out why they've been allowed to lose so much money and nothing ever done about it.  Elon will expose it!!

[baddog]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Ripe for DOGE!  Need to find out why they've been allowed to lose so much money and nothing ever done about it.  Elon will expose it!!

Don‘t ever forget ballot dumping. USPS even had to add Amazon deliveries to try and stay afloat. The rest of their deliveries are junk mail. All other communications are done online. They’ve operated in the red for decades. CUT!!!!

[thetragichippy]

12 hours ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

So it's cool to point out 1 administration? If it's already spent why talk about it and not other wasteful spendings? 

"They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today" but talking about only 1 administration spendings... if what you say is true why talk about it and not just put a end to it?

Figured it was reasonable to point out a few administrations wasteful spending but that's just me... I'm sure if Conald wasn't 45th then they'd go back to the Obama era... suspect to say the least

   The president does not approve detailed line spending. They just approve the overall bill. If you think I’m wrong, do you think Obama read every page of the affordable health care act?

    Everyone seems to think he is going after the previous administration. I would bet money some of the things being spent  are rollovers from the previous administrations including Trumps….   
 

    Lastly, if they wanted to call out anyone, it would be the writers of the bills that had the wasteful spending, but they have not

 

 

[baddog]

Not sure anybody is being hunted down, but some sure do seem anxious about bank accounts…lmao

 

 

[Big girl]

18 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Why go back at all?

They aren’t looking for a history of wasteful spending. Why would they go back any certain number of administrations?

 They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today. Nothing can be done about past money spent, only keeping it from being spent again.

I don’t know if the reports are true but with all the complaining from the Democrat politicians, I haven’t heard a single comment about the DOGE findings.

Examples….

$2M for sex charges in Guatemala.

$2.5M for Vietnam to buy electric vehicles.

$6M to fund tourism in Egypt.

$1.5M to fund DEI projects in Serbia.

$32T to help Peru to put out a transgender comic book.

$20B from the EPA that no one knows where it was spent.

Why would anyone want to go back to Bill Clinton or G W Bush and find moneys that were spent decades ago? Do you think someone is going to return the money? 

Source please

[tvc184]

22 hours ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

So it's cool to point out 1 administration? If it's already spent why talk about it and not other wasteful spendings? 

"They are looking at stopping the ridiculous spending today" but talking about only 1 administration spendings... if what you say is true why talk about it and not just put a end to it?

Figured it was reasonable to point out a few administrations wasteful spending but that's just me... I'm sure if Conald wasn't 45th then they'd go back to the Obama era... suspect to say the least

I know this can’t be that difficult.

Trump to DOGE: Find where money is being wasted. Let’s cut the budget first by knocking out the scams and nonsense.

Are you okay with $2M for sex charges in Guatemala? $6M to help Egypt with tourism? Thousands of dollars to make a transgender comic book in Peru?

This might be hard to believe, but we cannot go back in time. If they found out during the W Bush presidency $10 was sent to a country to study the sex habits of tree frogs, what can we do now?

We are $37T in debt. No one is going to return that money whether wisely or poorly spent. All that we have control over is going forward.

If the Democrats want to fund a study to find which past administrations were the most wasteful, even though none of them will ever return to office, let them go for it. If they are looking for a gotcha moment, which is basically their mantra, dig away.

So what is DOGE finding that actually should be spent?

[LumRaiderFan]

lol, wasn’t very difficult to figure out the intent of this thread.

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Get rid of DEI, best qualified, nothing else should be considered.

 

[Reagan]

 

 

[Reagan]

 

Looks like success to me! 

[thetragichippy]

58 minutes ago, Reagan said:

 

Looks like success to me! 

Someone on this forum will come up with a reason this is a bad thing......or not true......or something negative

[TheMissingBand]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Someone on this forum will come up with a reason this is a bad thing......or not true......or something negative

Yeah…. I hate to rain on your parade, but it’s fake news. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

There’s no proof that any of those SSNs were receiving benefits. I’m sure that you won’t bother to read because the facts are in contradiction  to your fairy tale.  
 

But it’s comical that y’all are having to pull news articles from a year ago to find something “positive” to post about Trump’s second failed presidency. 

[thetragichippy]

6 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Yeah…. I hate to rain on your parade, but it’s fake news. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

There’s no proof that any of those SSNs were receiving benefits. I’m sure that you won’t bother to read because the facts are in contradiction  to your fairy tale.  
 

But it’s comical that y’all are having to pull news articles from a year ago to find something “positive” to post about Trump’s second failed presidency. 

Well, if it is the washington post.....it must be fact

Show me the "proof" there were not - besides the article stating that with also no facts lol

[TheMissingBand]

31 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Well, if it is the washington post.....it must be fact

Show me the "proof" there were not - besides the article stating that with also no facts lol

Here’s the thing… you posted an article that took 1+1 and came up with 12.3 billion, while offering zero proof.  I give an article explains how a stupid person might arrive at that initial conclusion, but you want more proof. 

[Reagan]

6 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Here’s the thing… you posted an article that took 1+1 and came up with 12.3 billion, while offering zero proof.  I give an article explains how a stupid person might arrive at that initial conclusion, but you want more proof. 

Washington Post has a severe case of TDS.  Nuff said!

[TheMissingBand]

Just now, Reagan said:

Washington Post has a severe case of TDS.  Nuff said!

That’s how you know someone lacks sense. They’ll believe some things without a shred of evidence (election fraud, SS fraud), and when someone says “yeah, well… there’s no proof that either one of those things happened,” the stalwart will say “I don’t care… you can’t prove it didn’t happen.”  
 

Or they’ll just attack the source for not merchandising the administration’s lies. 

[Reagan]

52 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

That’s how you know someone lacks sense. They’ll believe some things without a shred of evidence (election fraud, SS fraud), and when someone says “yeah, well… there’s no proof that either one of those things happened,” the stalwart will say “I don’t care… you can’t prove it didn’t happen.”  
 

Or they’ll just attack the source for not merchandising the administration’s lies. 

You know and I know the truth is not the Washington Post.  You gonna to do better!