Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 324K
  • Politics 
^^
Perhaps, but when you have the largest (and far most sound relative to any near peers) economy, and near total military dominance, the status quo ain't so bad. And certainly not worth screwing around with by creating unnecessary political and economic friction that could upend that very favorable status quo.

We are stronger relative to the rest of the world than we were four years ago. Our largest geopolitical rivals have far greater headwinds than we do. We hardly needed to be 'rescued'.
 
Why would the State Department need a few hundred armored Cybertrucks for transportation in and around US cities?
Plus, who is doing the armoring work?

If I need an armored vehicle, I’d prefer a better made vehicle than a Tesla, especially a CyberTruck.
 
I think the cabinet would have been much the same and her policies would have just been pretty much that of the last 4 years.
Which is infinitely better than what we have now. Or have you been ignoring all the news about mass illegal firings, open public corruption and solicitation of quids pro quo, theft of data, theft of money, illegally withheld money, unconstitutional collapse of agencies, disregard of court orders, release of classified information, unknown amounts of malware inserted into the government computing systems (if for no other reason than the fucking morons left the database exposed to the internet for hours upon hours)?

Oh, right. You're the piece of shit who actually approves of revenge prosecutions because he's too stupid to comprehend anything but "go team" and too dishonest to admit that he's been wrong.
 
Of course Biden did. Are you saying the US was on the same geopolitical level as Russia and China on January 20 at 11:59am? Biden was far from perfect, but he was a fine steward of America’s role as the global superpower.
I’m saying world leaders are “respected or feared” such that you don’t have 2 allies invaded by enemies unless they don’t respect and fear that leadership and sense weakness. I don’t think the Biden / Harris team projected strength, do you? I also think China’s role as a world leader and influencer grew while ours shrunk.
 
Plus, who is doing the armoring work?

If I need an armored vehicle, I’d prefer a better made vehicle than a Tesla, especially a CyberTruck.
There is an armoring specialist listed as a party in one of the articles I read, though it usually specializes in armoring for private customers IIRC.
 
^^
Perhaps, but when you have the largest (and far most sound relative to any near peers) economy, and near total military dominance, the status quo ain't so bad. And certainly not worth screwing around with by creating unnecessary political and economic friction that could upend that very favorable status quo.

We are stronger relative to the rest of the world than we were four years ago. Our largest geopolitical rivals have far greater headwinds than we do. We hardly needed to be 'rescued'.
Not intended as an insult but I despise the status quo. If you aren’t growing, getting more efficient and lean, and driving development you are going backwards. I definitely think china’s role as a leader on the world stage grew and ours took a step back. I agree we don’t need to be “rescued”. But she would have had us stagnant and possibly looking at China visiting Taiwan without an invitation.
 
“Subcommittee Chairwoman Greene: “Mr. Talcove, do private sector companies have a lower rate of improper payments than the federal government?

Mr. Talcove: “Yes. The fraud rate, that the criminals are taking advantage of the public sector is around 20%. In the private sector, it’s around 3%. And it’s really because the tools that are used in the private sector, aren’t used in the public sector. Front end identity verification, self-certification, and then finally, making sure that individuals are who they say they are. If we start using these tools, you will see the fraud rate go down dramatically because for the most part, this fraud isn’t taking place by individuals. It’s individuals whose identities have been stolen on the dark web.”

Subcommittee Chairwoman Greene: “We would say the private companies that pretty much have to exist on a 20% profit rate. They can’t continue to be successful if they were to allow their customers data to be something like that and used by criminals. However, the federal government, who can continue printing checks and continue an operation, never fixes its problems because it can’t be forced to go out of business. Would you agree with that, Yes or no?

Mr. Talcove: “Yes.”
 

Trump administration says it has no plans to fulfill $400 million 'armored Tesla' contract​



“The State Department said Thursday it is abandoning plans of purchasing $400 million worth of armored Tesla vehicles after a public document detailing federal contracts for fiscal year 2025 gained wide attention.

That expected purchase of Teslas, which was slated for September of this year, is now on hold, according to the State Department, which now says it has no plans of fulfilling the contract.

… After reports circulated Wednesday night of the State Department's intent to purchase Tesla vehicles, NPR noticed that the document was edited, at 9:12 p.m., to say the federal contract is for $400 million worth of "armored electric vehicles," but the word "Tesla" was removed.


The Tesla contract started in the Biden administration "to explore interest from private companies to produce armored electric vehicles," a State Department spokesperson said on Thursday.

Tesla was the only company to express interest in the department's request at the time.

Typically the next step would be "an official solicitation" for vehicle manufacturers to compete for the contract. But now, the solicitation is on hold, according to the State Department spokesperson. …”
 
“Subcommittee Chairwoman Greene: “Mr. Talcove, do private sector companies have a lower rate of improper payments than the federal government?

Mr. Talcove: “Yes. The fraud rate, that the criminals are taking advantage of the public sector is around 20%. In the private sector, it’s around 3%. And it’s really because the tools that are used in the private sector, aren’t used in the public sector. Front end identity verification, self-certification, and then finally, making sure that individuals are who they say they are. If we start using these tools, you will see the fraud rate go down dramatically because for the most part, this fraud isn’t taking place by individuals. It’s individuals whose identities have been stolen on the dark web.”

Subcommittee Chairwoman Greene: “We would say the private companies that pretty much have to exist on a 20% profit rate. They can’t continue to be successful if they were to allow their customers data to be something like that and used by criminals. However, the federal government, who can continue printing checks and continue an operation, never fixes its problems because it can’t be forced to go out of business. Would you agree with that, Yes or no?

Mr. Talcove: “Yes.”
Yes. Mr. Talcove said the fraud rate was 20%. Just happens to be a nice round number like that. Implausibly high, but sure, why would he lie? Oh, his business is hoping to sell anti-fraud software to the government? Oh, he's been out there talking about the government's outdated systems and how they need to buy his products? Oh, what motivation could he possibly have to make shit up?

You people are so credulous. The idea that one out of every five federal payments is fraudulent -- I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you?
 
We have been growing. Must faster than near peers. And we are most certainly leading development. Fomenting trade wars and creating labor shortages sure as hell isn't going to help our economy grow.

What has China done in the past four years that would make you say that? The implosion of Evergreen? The lockdowns that made our modest COVID regs look like a frat party? The revelations that they are in the midst of demographic collapse? And the best way to extend an invitation to China w/r/t Taiwan would be to reward aggression in Ukraine. Pretty sure Harris wouldn't have done that, but it is certainly looking as if the current admin is trending in that direction.
 
Consumption growth that outpaced peers (was worst among peers under Trump 1.0)
1739595916764.png


Strong labor force participation (and big relative improvement from Trump 1.0)
1739596002577.png


Impressive relative inflation reduction (after Trump 1.0 had us leading the pack by the end of his term)
1739596043493.png

Outstanding attraction of capital investment
1739596139778.png
 
As I happened, I previously read Talcove’s prior written submission to another hearing —-


— and read about, but didn’t see his testimony in the MTG subcommittee. A lot of that prior written stuff and what he said in the MTG hearing has focused on COVID programs, which were subject to immense levels of fraud because they was designed to push out the funds first and fast in the face of the pandemic and try to clawback from fraudsters later. That was a design feature of the programs (push out money now and chase fraud later), like PPP (which was a project of Marco Rubio, implemented under Trump and continued for another round under Biden).

PPP and some other programs (particularly the employee retention tax credit) were rife with abuse and that was baked into the design.

Anyway, from reading about his testimony tonight, it seems he conflated intentional waiver of typical anti-fraud documentation requirements from the COVID-era programs with ordinary government programs (which always have a fraud problem separately but don’t have most of the security deficiencies baked into the COVID relief).

TAlcove seems to extrapolate COVID issues as though they directly apply to ordinary welfare programs even though the COVId era programs have notably less stringent requirements. No idea where he got the 20% number or $1 Trillion figure generally.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, a lot of conservative groups tend to conflate error rates and fraud, and extrapolate sometimes wild estimates of welfare fraud on that basis. But there is fraud on welfare programs at differing rates for different programs.

For example:

“…
For every 10,000 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about 14 contained a recipient who was investigated and determined to have committed fraud (via a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service). Within SNAP, for every $10,000 paid in benefits, about $11 is determined by state agencies to have been overpaid due to recipient fraud.

To put this into perspective, the IRS estimates that for every $6 owed in federal taxes, $1 is not paid because of tax evasion or fraud. …”


Dated but still useful as it appears to track the same cross-arguments and stats about welfare fraud as we see now:


“…According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the typical business loses 5 percent of its revenue to fraud each year. Even when detected, 40 to 50 percent of victimized companies don’t recover their losses. The industries most likely to be victims of fraud are the banking and financial sector; government and public administration; and manufacturing.

… It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high.

In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on “welfare” (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same.

A bevy of inspector general reports found “improper payment” levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either “eligibility and payment calculation errors” or “documentation errors”), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

A similar story emerges with everyone’s favorite punching bag, food stamps (or, as they’re known today, SNAP). Earlier this year, Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, both Republicans, introduced legislation to save $30 billion over 10 years from SNAP, purportedly by “eliminating loopholes, waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Once you dig into their fact sheet, however, none of the savings actually come from fraud, but rather from cutting funding and tightening benefits. That’s probably because fraud levels in SNAP appear to be as low as with the other “pure welfare” programs we just touched on: “Payment error” rates -- money sent in incorrect amounts and/or to the wrong people -- have declined from near 10 percent a decade ago to 3 to 4 percent today, most of it due, again, to government error, not active fraud.

The majority of food-stamp fraud appears to be generated by supermarkets “trafficking” in the food stamps. Beneficiaries intentionally ripping off the taxpayers account for perhaps 1 percent of payments.

… No one knows for sure how much Medicaid and Medicare fraud there is. According to the FBI, the cost for Medicare fraud is anywhere from 3 to 10 percent, while Attorney General Eric Holder estimates $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and almost the same amount in Medicaid fraud -- approaching 20 percent. While nowhere near as large as Medicare and Medicaid, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs are each estimated to be paying about 10 percent of their expenditures in fraudulent claims.

To round out the picture, you can toss in defense contractor fraud -- perhaps as much as another $100 billion per year, roughly in the same range as Medicare and Medicaid combined. All told, fraud in federal programs may come to $300 billion a year or about 10 percent of the budget (as with financial services). …”
 
Anyway, a lot of conservative groups tend to conflate error rates and fraud, and extrapolate sometimes wild estimates of welfare fraud on that basis. But there is fraud on welfare programs at differing rates for different programs.

For example:

“…
For every 10,000 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about 14 contained a recipient who was investigated and determined to have committed fraud (via a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service). Within SNAP, for every $10,000 paid in benefits, about $11 is determined by state agencies to have been overpaid due to recipient fraud.

To put this into perspective, the IRS estimates that for every $6 owed in federal taxes, $1 is not paid because of tax evasion or fraud. …”


Dated but still useful as it appears to track the same cross-arguments and stats about welfare fraud as we see now:


“…According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the typical business loses 5 percent of its revenue to fraud each year. Even when detected, 40 to 50 percent of victimized companies don’t recover their losses. The industries most likely to be victims of fraud are the banking and financial sector; government and public administration; and manufacturing.

… It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high.

In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on “welfare” (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same.

A bevy of inspector general reports found “improper payment” levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either “eligibility and payment calculation errors” or “documentation errors”), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

A similar story emerges with everyone’s favorite punching bag, food stamps (or, as they’re known today, SNAP). Earlier this year, Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, both Republicans, introduced legislation to save $30 billion over 10 years from SNAP, purportedly by “eliminating loopholes, waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Once you dig into their fact sheet, however, none of the savings actually come from fraud, but rather from cutting funding and tightening benefits. That’s probably because fraud levels in SNAP appear to be as low as with the other “pure welfare” programs we just touched on: “Payment error” rates -- money sent in incorrect amounts and/or to the wrong people -- have declined from near 10 percent a decade ago to 3 to 4 percent today, most of it due, again, to government error, not active fraud.

The majority of food-stamp fraud appears to be generated by supermarkets “trafficking” in the food stamps. Beneficiaries intentionally ripping off the taxpayers account for perhaps 1 percent of payments.

… No one knows for sure how much Medicaid and Medicare fraud there is. According to the FBI, the cost for Medicare fraud is anywhere from 3 to 10 percent, while Attorney General Eric Holder estimates $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and almost the same amount in Medicaid fraud -- approaching 20 percent. While nowhere near as large as Medicare and Medicaid, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs are each estimated to be paying about 10 percent of their expenditures in fraudulent claims.

To round out the picture, you can toss in defense contractor fraud -- perhaps as much as another $100 billion per year, roughly in the same range as Medicare and Medicaid combined. All told, fraud in federal programs may come to $300 billion a year or about 10 percent of the budget (as with financial services). …”
A related article, from NBC News (dated March 28, 2022).

 
Last edited:

White House forcing out top leadership at National Archives in major shakeup​




“The Trump administration is forcing out senior leadership at the National Archives and Records Administration in a major shakeup, according to a source familiar. President Donald Trump has been highly critical of the archives since the agency asked the Department of Justice to investigate Trump’s mishandling of classified documents after he left office.

Following the dismissal of Archivist Colleen Shoganlast week, Trump officials made it clear to agency staff that the White House wanted to remove the leadership team and replace top officials with Trump loyalists, according to the source.


The exodus of senior staff is seen as a huge loss for the agency, which is considered nonpartisan and dedicated to the preservation of history and documents.

The forced resignations come after Trump vowed to clean house at the agency.

The inspector general of the National Archives referred the case to the Department of Justice in 2022 after more than a year of trying to negotiate with Trump the return of presidential papers including highly classified documents. …”

New Blood Showtime GIF by Dexter
 

3 men claiming to be from DOGE show up at San Francisco City Hall, demand records​



[Sounds like DOGE wannabes/dopey would-be criminals or trolls — SF officials refused their demands and eventually they left]
 
Back
Top