https://x.com/platoonpod/status/2075640108150112369?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I don't label myself The Right, but here's a moral argument: it is immoral to pursue policies that don't work - that will make people poorer and their lives harder - just because they make you feel morally superior. It is immoral to ignore the evidence you don't like. It is immoral to pursue fashion over truth and ego over practicality. It is immoral to ruin people's lives (including the lives of the poorest) to satisfy your own moral narcissism. It is immoral to steal. It is immoral to justify theft on the grounds that a consensus wants to steal. It is immoral to be an MP and be this abjectly stupid."
Amen and Amen! more than anything else, I object to much of gop and conservative policy because it's just so damn stupid, inefficient and doesn't work. it inevitably costs more and produces less and at a good deal of harm, especially to the poor and marginalized .
ReplyDeleteDan
Given that this is is response to a "wealth tax" in the UK (a decidedly left wing policy), your vague and nonspecific response seems a bit strange to me. It's almost like you are suggesting that no policies of the left are stupid, inefficient, fraud ridden, and harmful.
DeleteIf you say so.
https://x.com/drcharliewardq/status/2076653085787611582?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
In the attached clip from CNN there is a discussion of Gavin Newsome's refusal to properly implement policy voted in by the citizens of CA as well as his unilateral closing of 5 state prisons. I can't believe that you would argue that those policies are not stupid and harmful.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"Given that this is is response to a "wealth tax" in the UK (a decidedly left wing policy), your vague and nonspecific response seems a bit strange to me."
I'm sorry you have a hard time following.
I was responding to the literal words you literally quoted. Those ARE words of wisdom.
It IS immoral to pursue policies that don't work - that will make people poorer and their lives harder - just because they make you feel morally superior. Indeed. Same for the rest.
I was then explaining that those are precisely the principles behind why I'm so opposed to so many GOP policies.
Follow now?
Dan
1. It’s good to know that you are so opposed to a wealth tax.
Delete2. Your hyper partisan vagueness undermines your alleged point.
But whatever, it’s good to know that you only oppose GOP policies you don’t like.
Some examples of GOP policies that don't work that makes people's lives poorer and harder to live.
ReplyDeletehttps://inequality.org/article/10-terrible-ways-the-gop-budget-causes-harm/
Or hell, just look at the Doge catastrophe! Surely you can agree that that was a fiscal nightmare, right? Or do I need to cite the data for that?
Also not only was it a fiscal nightmare, but there has been documented harm from those policies - they literally made people's lives poorer and harder, especially those who were already poor and marginalized! - and documented abuses by the Doge manboys who were clearly in over their heads and who did not know what they were doing. Do I need to provide the documentation for that or is that a point we could agree upon?
Dan
I get it, you’re in hyper partisan mode and obsessed with focusing on one side of the aisle.
DeleteHeaven forbid we talk about the well documented (I posted the receipts last week) significant increase in housing costs because of immigration, the massive amounts of fraud (much of which is concentrated in certain immigrant communities), the cronyism that wasted billions on failed green energy, the billions siphoned off by ONGs, the high speed rail boondoggle in CA, the revolving door for violent criminals thanks to Soros DAs, the hundred thousand and growing number of empty apartments in NY because of rent control, the “wealth tax”, “defund the police “, I could go on but that’s enough for now.
Hell, I gave you a direct link to left wing commentators on CNN talking about left wing waste, but you’re too hyper partisan to even consider anything but GOP.
FWIW, to the extent that the DOGE cuts forced able bodied, employable people collecting welfare to have to work, I see that as a win. Likewise the dismantling of the ONG money laundering was good, except for cutting down donations to DFL politicians.
I’ve been posting about every one of these issues for months, if not years, in addition to GOP policies that I find stupid.
The receipts are available, you just have to look for them.
By all means, Horse's Ass (apologies to horses' asses everywhere), provide documentation! I could use more laughter in my life at the present time.
DeleteThis is who Dan cites to pretend he's got more than shit for brains:
https://capitalresearch.org/article/institute-for-policy-studies-the-lefts-original-think-tank/
Knowing Dan didn't do squat to fact-check anything his communist link presented, I don't feel particularly pressed to do so myself. As usual, he simply found something which said what he needed something to say and pretends he's made a point. He's a buffoon.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/think-tank-agrees-pay-more-500000-resolve-allegations-it-falsely-certified-its
Deletehttps://nevadanewsandviews.com/one-big-beautiful-bill-heres-why-the-left-is-losing-its-collective-mind/
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-lefts-tax-cuts-the-rich-bogeyman-doesnt-apply-big-beautiful-bill
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/06/04/what-the-left-gets-wrong-about-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-n4940439
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2025/09/22/rep-kustoff-dont-believe-the-myths-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-is-a-big-win/
https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2025/7/jobs%20and%20economy/blackburn-releases-fact-sheet-and-video-debunking-democrats-lies-on-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-and-highlighting-wins-for-tennesseans
https://www.lincolninstitute.org/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-myth-vs-fact/
Whenever one wishes to assess the impact of economic legislation, one's research must avoid those with no economic understanding or sense. Dan chooses those very sources. He cites a communist site...likely because he didn't do any due diligence of even the most cursory kind, because his source gave him the conclusions he's willing and eager to accept as true without confirmation that they are.
Oh I'm certain it happens on the left as well. It's just so much more common an overtly bad policy on the right. I mean why do you think with each Republican administration our debt goes up and things get worse and with each Democrat administration things improve? As you note, the receipts are available.
ReplyDeleteAs to your sources I don't find you or your sources to be reliable so I don't generally follow them. You want people to watch, review your sources, use better sources. Grown up, responsible, data-driven sources. Not X.
Dan
That you choose to ignore my sources without looking tells me all I need to know about how important you believe your partisan narrative to be.
DeleteBut that’s where we’re different, I don’t ignore sources because of who provides them. I seek out sources and information without regard to partisan predilections.
I literally provided you a link to a clip with a left wing, partisan commentator on a CNN show pointing out bad, harmful policies by a left-wing governor. Overwhelmed data from a news organization that leans left from a commentator that leans left, and you choose to ignore it. I understand your hesitation to look at anything that might not confirm your biases and partisanship.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"In addition to GOP policies that I find stupid."
Have you talked about how stupid Doge is?
Have you talked about how stupid this whole set of claims about "bad guys" vandalizing the reflecting pool is? ...How criminal it is to make up stupidly false charges against someone who almost certainly didn't do anything and who certainly didn't run a box cutter along the bottom of the pool?
These are things that are causing great harm and vast expenses.
How about the harm caused to the Venezuelans he assassinated? How about the billions of dollars spent in his stupid wars and assassinations?
You strain out the net and swallow the camel.
Dan
This will probably come as a shock to you, but I don’t decide what to address on my blog based on the random things you get worked up over. Whether I comment on your specific pet issues or not, doesn’t mitigate the reality that I regularly comment on GOP policies and people that I disagree with. This complaint, coming from you is pretty hilarious given how rarely you have anything negative to say about any DFL/DSA policies or leaders. This thread is a perfect example of you choosing to simply play your hyper partisan games and spew BS about me and what I post about and say.
DeleteI don’t, but you don’t strain out either giants or camels when it comes to DFL/DSA policies, candidates, and leaders.
I’ve served you up a plethora of DFL/DSA policies that you could address, you ignore them. We could talk about Zorahn and his insanely expensive city owned grocery store concept and the abject failures that have resulted from cities owning grocery stores. We can talk about CA laws that virtually decriminalize retail theft under $950 and are causing stores to close.
But we won’t because you won’t acknowledge anything that doesn’t come from your arbitrarily approved approved sources.
I call out both sides regularly.
Yeah, doge being inept and losing or costing us billions of dollars and condemning millions of people to death and harm. That's not worth talking about. Yeah, a criminal and out-of-control administration randomly locking up or killing people without due process. That's nothing to worry about. You're choosing arbitrary things that are not critical to complain about on the Democrats but ignoring massive monstrous actions by the GOP. That's your problem, not mine.
ReplyDeleteDan
By all means, provide the evidence to support your “millions of people to death and harm” claim. Everything I’ve seen is that most of the claims are vastly overblown and that the bulk of the USAID money went to ONGs, to DFL campaign donations, rather than to helping the people they claimed.
DeleteI’ve addressed the Venezuela thing multiple times, including providing the relevant sections maritime and international law that govern interdiction of trafficking in illegal substances.
I appreciate your need to protect yourself by creating a fantasy world. You can’t proudly announce that you ignore my sources and what I post, while simultaneously deciding that you know better than I what I post and comment about.
You’re just pissed the I don’t do what you want me to do, so you make shit up and lie about it.
I’ve served you up plenty of DFL crap to criticize and you choose not to acknowledge it, let alone the CNN video and liberal guest.
If you want to pretend about what you do, go right ahead. Just stop making shit up about me.
I’ll agree that those folx getting food stamps and other government assistance while driving high dollar luxury or sports cars were probably hurt when their scam was discovered, as they should have been. Likewise those who were collecting the same benefit under multiple names or those who literally stole millions intended for feeding children to enrich themselves. They were, and should be hurt.
ReplyDeleteTransportation fraud, adult day care fraud, housing assistance fraud, every taxpayer dollar stolen hurt the taxpayers of the US and our children and grandchildren.
Heaven forbid that the feds crack down on fraud and abuse.
But, let’s talk about the liberal proposal that prompted this quote, the wealth tax.
ReplyDeleteSo, let’s say this wealth tax is levied on anyone with a net worth over 2 million dollars.
Well, all of a sudden my wife and I would be forced to turn non fungible assets into roughly $100k in cash. What, pray tell should we sell to pay the tax? Our farms? Our home? Our investments? Please tell me what of my property the government should be able to force me to sell to pay a wealth tax. Of course the Black Rocks of the world will be happy to offer us half of what our assets are worth so we can scrounge up enough to pay the tax, and there goes over 100 years of farmland owned by one family because a bunch of liberals want what belongs to us.
Talk about a stupid idea, that gets worse when it scales. Who’s got the money to buy Space X at market value? Worse, what happens if a forced sale drives the value into the dirt, ruining the lives of the employees and degrading the ability of the US to put satellites in orbit?
The amount of harm that a wealth tax would case is incalculable, and the proceeds would not fund current government spending for an entire year.
Yeah, trying to stop fraud is way worse than tanking the economy.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"By all means, provide the evidence to support your “millions of people to death and harm” claim. Everything I’ve seen is that most of the claims are vastly overblown and that the bulk of the USAID money went to ONGs, to DFL campaign donations, rather than to helping the people they claimed."
"One year after the Trump administration began its dismantling of USAID, a model that tracks the impact of USAID funding cuts on global disease prevention programs estimates that more than 762,000 people have died as a result of those cuts, including more than 500,000 children."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/chikungunya/quick-takes-death-toll-usaid-cuts-withdrawal-chikungunya-vaccine-funding-updated-ebola
Do you get your "data" from the boys in charge of Doge and the Trillionaire... the nutjob who gutted USAID with no firm understanding of what he was doing and no care about the harm that would come?
Dan
So your “evidence” is based on a “model”, not actual data, and doesn’t actually support your claim of “millions”. Brilliant!
DeleteThe only people disparaging Musk as lacking understanding are those who like spending our money to posture as compassionate and helpful despite not doing much helping in reality. As my links demonstrate, there's much harm being funded by USAID and haters like Dan don't have the understanding to even consider the possibility, especially given how blatantly corrupt some of the leaders of some of the nations being funded with my money are.
DeleteBeing one who constantly whines about "stupidly unsupported claims" and the like, Dan relies on such with his lefty link and all other wild claims about the imagined "horrors" of DOGE. But being also a liar, he has no problem spewing crap he can't support and doing so without even trying to support it...except by citing communist "think" tanks.
ReplyDeleteCraig...
ReplyDelete"So your “evidence” is based on a “model”, not actual data, and doesn’t actually support your claim of “millions”."
If you'll look at my actual words...
"condemning millions of people to death and harm."
...you'll note I said millions have been condemned to being HARMED or killed by your fascist idiots "cuts." If some of the seven hundred thousand have been estimated to have died SO FAR then there is the additional harm to the families and communities, in addition to those who were "merely" sickened and/or otherwise harmed in addition to those projected to die, certainly extends into the millions.
Don't be an idiot.
This is the problem with modern so-called conservatives. They failed the classic test of traditional conservatism in that they fail to take into account unintended consequences. Also, them being distrustful of data and projections to try to get ahead of problems rather than react to them.
You see that is the nature of progressive thinking: Let's try to be proactive and not merely reactive after millions are dying or on their way to death or being sickened.
More support coming in the next post...
Dan
Gotcha, you’re predicting the further based on models. Because that’s always the most accurate way to base claims.
DeleteEven assuming the fear-mongering models have any credibility at all...a stretch to so assume...this is not a matter of "unintended consequences" by conservatives. It's a matter of consequences being self-inflicted and enabled by "progressive" policies. We are not obliged to continue spending our tax dollars on that which leftist politicians chose to spend it simply because stopping that spending might harm those who shouldn't have gotten the money in the first place, especially when our debt continues to rise to the detriment of our own. Government has no right or authority to do that. Individuals are free to render whatever aid they choose to give directly and to improve their own bottom line in order to do more of it.
DeletePart of the problem is accepting models as actual objective fact.
Delete"Conservative estimates show that 750,000 people have already died unnecessarily due to these cuts. And estimates suggest that those numbers could potentially be
ReplyDeleteup to 14 million
over the next five years."
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/making-foreign-aid-work/inside-the-demise-of-usaidand-what-comes-next/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/the-human-cost-of-doges-war-on-usaid
https://www.impactcounter.com/dashboard?view=table&sort=title&order=asc
And on and on the research goes, the death count grows, those sickened and harmed continue to be sickened and harmed, as was predicted by knowledgeable people who look at data instead of short-term, short-sighted, bottom-line nonsense.
Those who live by the tenet of "if it saves me a dollar today then I don't care if it costs me a hundred dollars tomorrow and a hundred lives. I'll have saved that dollar today!" ...are shortThose who live by the tenet of "if it saves me a dollar today, then I don't care if it costs me a hundred dollars tomorrow and a hundred lives. I'll have saved that dollar today!" -sighted fools... adult in age but not grown up in reasoning and moral thinking.
"What you fail to do to the least of these my children, you fail to do to me. "
-God
Dan
It’s always interesting when you try to impose your hunches about scripture on secular governments and to dictate policy.
DeleteThe waste billions in fraud and ONG funding to save hundreds of thousands seems like equality bad math.
What’s strange is this notion that the US is somehow required (based on one out of context proof text apparently) to funnel unlimited (borrowed) money to countries for endless years with no regard to the ROI, effectiveness, or amounts lost to fraud or theft.
Where are the oil rich Muslim countries, and the Hamas billionaires? Where’s Europe and Asia? Why only the US? Why are we borrowing billions only to give it away with virtually no strings attached?
I looked at each of the three links in Dan's comment above (to which this is in response) and found them wanting. What a surprise! As they are reference USAID, I respond thusly:
Deletehttps://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-10/trump-musk-shut-usaid
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800148?seq=2
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5182598-usaid-reform-humanitarian-aid/
https://reason.com/2025/02/10/5-of-the-worst-usaid-scandals-in-history/
https://fincrimecentral.com/usaid-fraud-scandal-terror-funding/
I've little confidence in anyone directly associated with USAID to give an honest accounting. These links I read and gathered to present here based on the first link.
The second link gave me trouble accessing, so I can't address it specifically and directly. I doubt Dan actually read it or any of his links anyway, and that can be affirmed by the fact the third link references "projections", not actual data referring to actual harm caused. Projections are worthless as evidence to support a position.
My links, on the other hand, contain links themselves referring to claims each makes regarding the ineffectiveness in foreign aid, particularly USAID, in accomplishing its stated purpose(s), and thus to eliminate the programs is not only beneficial from a national debt perspective, but demonstrates the wisdom of the president for eliminating the program and others like it.
From an NPR story last year ...
ReplyDelete"The administration says the agency has misspent billions in funds and "has little to show since the end of the Cold War."
That argument clashes with a new study published Monday in the medical journal, the Lancet. The study estimates that USAID programs have saved over 90 million lives over the past two decades. The researchers also estimate that if the current cuts continue through 2030, 14 million people who might have otherwise lived could die."
Just be rational. Think rationally. If, through the efforts and expenditures at USAID, 90 million lives have been saved, then once you remove that money and those efforts, why wouldn't the death rate start increasing?
Cutting this funding without a plan to replace it is not a grown-up moral plan. It's a lifeless, gradeschool wish based on greed and wishful thinking.
I know, why don't we get a cardboard box and push it, put a button on it and just say, "All we have to do is push that button and then lives will be saved and it won't cost us anything!" That'd be just as useful.
Pro-life?!! Sadly, Not even close!
Dan
This is more guesswork propaganda, not actual data. There's no way to prove the claim of how many lives were saved or lost because of spending. But dumbasses simply don't care how much of other people's money is spent in order to make them feel pleased with themselves for being so generous with other people's money. And this funding is not a "moral" plan, and not much of a plan at all. "Give a man a fish" never is. But progressives aren't truly paying out of their own pockets, so what do they care so long as they can pretend they're doing good in the world.
DeleteMarshal...
ReplyDelete"Being one who constantly whines about "stupidly unsupported claims"
I have now provided multiple links. Don't be a soulless idiot, try to be an adult. I've cited multiple links, to experts, researchers, smart people.
On the other hand, neither of you have even tried to present a link to show that removing USAID funding has NOT resulted in countless deaths.
Again if 90 million lives have been saved over the years because of the efforts and the work that has happened because of USAID investments, how does a rational person guess that maybe nothing would happen once that funding and those efforts and that work was removed?
Stop living in fear of false communist threats and the bogeyman of experts. Be a rational grown-up adult. Failing that, get the hell out of the way and let rational educated adults do the work that is saving millions of lives. The best thing you could do to demonstrate you're pro-life (IF you were) is just to shut the hell up and get out of the way if you don't know any better.
Here are some reasonable questions that reasonable adults should be able to deal with.
Do you recognize that there have been great efforts and investments into life-saving measures by USAID over the years?
Do you recognize those investments resulted in millions of lives being saved and improved?
Do you recognize that it makes sense that if you remove that funding and that work then lives will start to be lost and more harm will happen?
If so, is it the case that you just don't care?
Is it the case that You think it's a price worth paying and that the United States should not be investing this money in this sort of soft diplomacy, to hell with the millions of dead people? They're foreigners after all!
Dan
When all of your claims are based on estimates, with the data compiled by ONGs who have a financial interest in perpetuating the funding, it’s hard to take you seriously.
DeleteWhat’s the stat? Severe poverty has dropped to the lowest level in history over the last few decades? But somehow only the US is required to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren to funnel unaccountable billions to ONGs. Good plan.
Oh and we also have to borrow additional billions for the @70% of immigrants who are getting welfare and to fund the billions in fraud.
Dan doesn't care about the inefficiency and incompetence, nor the documented corruption, lack of accountability and other abuses common in foreign aid spending...as my links above have presented. Dan's too wrapped up in feeling all morally superior because he backs spending other people's money on what's only marketed as effective without actually being proven to be effective. I find it especially ironic when even some recipients of foreign aid push for the aid to be stopped because it results in the typical "entitlement mentality" of the people of the country funded. Dan's main concern is his hate for better people whose policies and actions result in actual benefits.
DeleteDan is clearly much more interested in intentions, and great efforts than with effectiveness and fiscal responsibility.
DeleteDambisa Moyo could likely be thought of as an "expert", yet I seriously doubt that Dan would agree with the conclusions in Dead Aid. Likewise, Obianuju Ekeocha could reasonably be considered an "expert", yet her critiques of how the ONG billions pouring into Africa are undermining African culture and harming Africans would also not be anything Dan agrees with. Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett, also reasonably considered "experts" who would strongly disagree with the USAID model of throwing billions at ONGs (with highly paid ad excessively large staff) and doing for people, yet Dan blindly supports just this approach.
Dan is universally supportive of the UN and therefore the UNRWA, yet even the UN has had to acknowledge the significant problems with UNRWA staffers actively aiding Hamas and other terrorist groups.
But whatever, the "experts" tell him what to do regardless.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"Where are the oil rich Muslim countries, and the Hamas billionaires? Where’s Europe and Asia? Why only the US? Why are we borrowing billions only to give it away with virtually no strings attached?"
Are you familiar with concepts around proportional giving? If not, are you familiar with the biblical story of the rich man's gift as compared to the poor widow's mite?
I don't have enough time to provide a better source but here's this from AI.
"Norway, Luxembourg, and Sweden give the highest proportion of their national income, all exceeding the UN's 0.7% target. Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the largest absolute donor globally, providing over $50 billion annually, though this represents only about 0.2% of the U.S. Gross National Income (GNI).
Top Proportional Donors (as a % of GNI)
Generosity in foreign aid is most accurately measured by Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of a country's GNI. The following nations consistently meet or exceed the UN target Our World in Data:
Norway: \(\sim 1.09\%\)
Luxembourg: \(\sim 0.99\%\)
Sweden: \(\sim 0.91\%\)
Germany: \(\sim 0.82\%\)
Denmark: \(\sim 0.74\%\)"
But setting that aside I believe that the Old Testament prophets had it right when they noted that the wealthy nations will be held accountable - at the national level - for failing to welcome the poor, the foreigner, the marginalized. I don't believe that because there's a line in the Bible that says that. I believe it because it's just moral, rational, adult reasoning.
Dan
Again with the expectation that somehow the US should be bound by OT rules.
DeleteYou do realize that the US operates every year at a fiscal deficit, carries a debt that literally cannot be paid, and that interest on the debt is one of the largest single line items in the budget, do you not?
You do realize that every dollar sent out is borrowed and an obligation that will be passed on to our grandchildren and great grandchildren, don’t you?
You do realize that the responsibility of the US government is to use taxpayer money as wisely as possible and to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse, do you not?
Dan doesn't care about that. He also doesn't care that those nations he pretends are more generous than us also are supported in a variety of ways by the USA, including defense. He also doesn't care that dollar amounts mean nothing if the dollars aren't resulting in accomplishing the goals of foreign aid, which they aren't. He also doesn't care that there's a difference between dollars spent to relieve immediate suffering versus that spent for development, which if successful, would reduce episodes of immediate suffering through helping receiving countries more self-dependent.
DeleteWorse, Dan doesn't understand what "moral, rational, adult reasoning" actually is or looks like.
But, in his defense, it's because he's an abject moron.
Good point. The US support of the defense of many countries allows them to use money for other things, while not acknowledging that the US taxpayer is borrowing money to facilitate their lifestyles.
DeleteElsewhere Dan bitches about defense expenditures (ignoring what a small % of the budget it is). Hypothetically, if we cut our commitments to the majority of countries who's defense we pay a significant portion of that would lower our defense budget, and lower the ability of other countries to spend on non defense related things.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteWhen all of your claims are based on estimates, with the data compiled by ONGs who have a financial interest in perpetuating the funding, it’s hard to take you seriously.
Non-profits regularly track their work and results.
Are you suggesting that these reports should not be trusted, in general?
Are you suggesting that non-profits and NGOs should be, in general, considered untrustworthy?
Are you suggesting that these particular NGOs should not be trusted?
If so, based on what? Do you have some data that suggests they are deliberately twisting data to get rich or profiteer somehow?
Why are you SO un-trusting towards folks out there doing good work but have endless grace and trust in billionaires who are clearly, literally profiteering off of gov't ties/connections and who have a history of not doing good work the way these non-profits/NGOs do?
It would be easier to take your fiscal concerns seriously IF you weren't so casually accepting or silent in the face of a profiteering president and his family who are overtly corrupt and hedonistic.
Craig:
we also have to borrow additional billions for the @70% of immigrants who are getting welfare and to fund the billions in fraud.
Um, no. No, we don't. When people cheat, THOSE people (the guilty ones) should be held accountable and funds restored where possible. This is especially true when we're talking about wealthy abusive hedonistic cheaters/scammers, but it's also true for the smaller operations like the, what, dozen or so people?, you're speaking of in your vague accusation.
Let's look at your allegations of welfare use by immigrants (including undocumented immigrants).
ReplyDelete1. Undocumented immigrants generally can't receive welfare for themselves.
2. CHILDREN of undocumented immigrants (at least the ones born in the US - ie, US CITIZENS) CAN receive various types of welfare if they qualify for it.
and keeping in mind:
3. Undocumented immigrants tend to pay more into the tax system than they receive out.
Now, are you suggesting that these children who ARE US citizens and who are poor, should NOT be eligible to receive benefits? That, what..? They should just starve and die? (Of course, you don't think that - let's hope, but what do you propose in the place of starvation and deprivation?)
Here is some data from a conservative group:
Our best estimate is that 51 percent of households headed by legal immigrants use at least one major welfare program. Among illegal immigrants, also called the undocumented, we estimate the rate is 61 percent.
We have no evidence that this is due to fraud.
Illegal immigrants can receive welfare
on behalf of their U.S.-born children, and illegal-immigrant children can receive free/reduced price school lunch/breakfast and WIC directly.
A number of states provide Medicaid to some illegal-alien adults and children, and a few provide SNAP. Several million illegal immigrants also have work authorization (e.g. DACA, TPS, and many parolees) allowing receipt of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn-2024
A more even-handed report addressing these concerns:
Undocumented immigrants
do not have access to federally funded healthcare coverage,
including Medicaid, Medicare, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
They are also unable to purchase health insurance coverage from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace...
Federal law mandates that hospitals provide emergency care to everyone, regardless of their immigration status.
Low-income noncitizens who don’t qualify for Medicare because of their immigration status can receive emergency treatment under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/undocumented-immigrants-snap-medicaid-benefits/
Again, what are you proposing in regards to these poor families and their children (who are sometimes US citizens or who are here through no fault of their own)? That if they are having an appendicitis, they should be forced out of the hospital to die in misery? What specifically are you suggesting?
It's fine, as far as it goes, to be a grumpy complainer about how much we pay in taxes, but we live in the real world where emergencies happen, people are starving or struggling and action needs to be taken. If you want to remove this kind of funding, please tell us what specifically should be done for that hungry US citizen child of undocumented parents?
Thanks for demonstrating that immigration needs to be curtailed, or a least "comprehensibly reformed" to allow entry to only those able to sustain themselves independent of the welfare system intended for the benefit of needy Americans.
DeleteYou also admit that immigrant children (legal or not) are, because of the perversion of the 14th Amendment, able to draw American dollars which should be going to actual Americans in need.
We already know that many immigrants, including of course, illegals, are likely to use emergency rooms because they'll get care without payment, at least up front and likely never.
So what I propose is to stop admitting poor people simply because they're poor, but especially if they sneak in contrary to legal immigration protocols, because better jobs is no reason to OK their request to enter. This will reduce the number of "poor families" to begin with. In the meantime, all income of registered Democrats should be taxed at 50% to pay for those already here, since they believe the foreigners must be cared for regardless of why they came.
It's amazing to hear people like Newsome campaining on how immigrants/illegal aliens will be harmed by losing access to benefits which they allegedly do not have access to. How many thousands/hundreds of thousands of people with BS Social Security numbers or who are collecting benefits under multiple names have come to light of late?
DeleteIn the post immediately above this one, the official government data from Norway are available, elsewhere I've posted the official government data for other European countries. Somehow Dan expects us to believe that the US numbers as substantially different than the European numbers. Part of the problem is that it is unlikely that the US tracks the data by country of origin.
DeleteAlso, shouldn't the massive amounts of fraud be considered in the numbers Dan quotes?
It's strange. Immigrants (illegal and otherwise) steal hundreds of millions/billions from the literal "materially poor and oppressed" and Dan barely works up a lather about that. All that wasted (borrowed) money down the drain and Dan thinks we should trust the "experts" who failed.
Re: "What about all the other nations???!!!"
ReplyDeleteA list of nations that give the most in foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Income:
1. Qatar
2. Turkey
3. Luxembourg
4. Norway
5. Sweden
6. Germany
7. France
8. Denmark
9. India
10. Argentina
What? The US is not even in the top ten? How could that be?!
11. Netherlands
12. Chile
13. Brazil
14. UAE
15. Mexico
16. Switzerland
17. Belgium
18. Finland
19. Japan
20. China
!! What? The great US is not even in the top TWENTY? Mexico and China beat us out?!!
Fear not. We ARE in the top 30 nations that give the most per GNI (29!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors
Anyway, as the data shows, other nations are giving. They may only be giving their "widow's mite," and not anything as ostentatious as the Wealthy Man! But then, well... we remember the moral of that story.
So, the US actually gives the most of anyone, but you’ve decided that it’s not enough and that we need to borrow more to meet your arbitrary standard.
DeleteI am suggesting that given the amounts of fraud among ONGs, as well as the massive amount of donations from ONGs to the DFL, that maybe it is a reasonable expectation that someone actually audits (obviously independent) the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteWell, your entire argument is built on “should”, estimates, projections, and the like. Yet you complain when an attempt is made to do what you say we should do.
So, much of the money stolen in the various MN frauds was spent overseas. Pray tell, how do we get that back?
The reality is that every dollar spent to give away to someone is borrowed, and added to the debt that our great grandchildren will be saddled with.
Strangely enough you’d scream and yell if the US went into Haiti with the military to clean out the scum who are destroying the country (because of the cost), yet you’d be supportive of endless billions sent to Haiti without any structural changes to their society.
Maybe check out Dead Aid for a data driven look at foreign aid.
Dan applying OT rules, and out of context Jesus quotes to support government spending is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that the widow gave hers voluntarily, money spent by governments is money that is taken from citizens under threat of legal or civil penalties.
As to this question:
ReplyDeleteWhy are we borrowing billions only to give it away with virtually no strings attached?"
1. For better and worse, there are generally always strings attached to any gov't funding. Because of course there is.
2. There may or may not be "enough" strings attached and that's a judgment call that has to be made without any one single "right" answer.
3. I believe you've operated closely enough to non-profits to know that, in the non-profit world, there can be a HUGE amount of oversight/record-keeping or very little oversight/record-keeping.
3a. The advantage to an incredible amount of oversight is that it can help reduce any deliberate cheating/misuse of money as well simple mistakes (which are, far and away, the main source of "bad" results from non-profit/helping work - simple human errors without any bad intentions). The disadvantage of oversight is that it takes time and meticulous effort. If an agency and a watchdog group have a combined budget of $1 million, $500,000 could be spent in oversight to make sure no mistakes or cheating happens... but then, that's $500,000 that didn't get used for the intended goal of helping those who are struggling.
Just pointing out some of the circumstances and difficulties around record-keeping and oversight.
I'd say the goal is to invest money into groups that prove themselves to be generally working for the good that could be done for their target clientele and, when deliberate misdeeds are found out, punish those who abused the system and when simple mistakes are found out, improve policies to fix them.
Strings attached? Sure, to a reasonable degree.
And when abusers are found out, hold them accountable. BUT, begin with the billionaire and powerful abusers who twist and design systems to enrich themselves and escape being held accountable.
Incredibly verbose for excuses.
DeleteYou keep referring to ONGs. I assume you're speaking of NGO's but just checking to see if you're speaking of something else.
ReplyDeleteI keep seeing you speak of "massive" amounts of fraud from "ONGs," perhaps you'd be better off explaining 1. WHO you're speaking of specifically and 2 WHAT fraud, specifically?
Are you suggesting that you have data to support your guess that the nonprofits and NGOs who have received money from USAID are actually LYING about the lives saved? And are you suggesting that it's a significant lie?
I mean, because mistakes happen and because sometimes, people ARE dishonest, I could see that where it's reported that 90 million lives have been saved by various USAID efforts and it turn out that it's only 89.94 million, and that's one thing, but it doesn't undo the validity of the claim.
After all, the US military budget is now in the TRILLIONS of dollars and we KNOW (ie, it's documented) that there is vast amounts of fraud and waste there, but you're not complaining about that, are you?
Yes, everything I own identifying me as part of an ONG, says ONG. Because, French.
DeleteI’ve posted extensively about the ONG fraud/DFL campaign contributions. I see no reason to pull all of that together again,
But, here we are speaking about the NGOs who received USAID and you're suggesting - with ZERO support so far - that those numbers shouldn't be trusted. I'm asking, Why? Because you distrust NGO's more than you distrust billionaires who are known to be corrupt hedonists? Why?
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because of the reporting about high salaries, DFL campaign donations, and poor ROI from ONGs which I’ve been posting and commenting on for a while.
DeleteGeneralized speaking, I don’t blindly trust anyone who has a financial incentive to self report how awesome they are.
That’s quite the blanket condemnation.
Why? Because of the reporting about high salaries, DFL campaign donations, and poor ROI from ONGs which I’ve been posting and commenting on for a while.
DeleteGeneralized speaking, I don’t blindly trust anyone who has a financial incentive to self report how awesome they are.
That’s quite the blanket condemnation.
Dan applying OT rules, and out of context Jesus quotes to support government spending is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteAs I have been clear in THIS conversation and generally, I do NOT support enforcing "OT rules" because they are lines in the Bible... not at the governmental level and not at the personal level. I'm saying that it is a rational moral and justice observation that those nations who fail to take care of the poor and marginalized are receiving a judgment/many judgments - and that it's righteous to do so BECAUSE HUMAN RIGHTS, not because of a line in a sacred text.
Nations SHOULD be held accountable for oppression and abuse of the poor and marginalized, not because there is a line in the Bible that says so (although there is, speaking of ancient Israel and its neighbors), but because it's a morally rational thing to do.
Do you disagree?
I DO tend to mention that kind of thing to conservatives like you because YOU ALL place so much value on implementing OT "rules" in modern societies because there IS a line in the Bible and that, alone, is sufficient for you to conclude it's what "god" wants.
Marshal and Glenn would like to outlaw gay folks getting married, if they could, and probably even outlaw gay folks having sex. Why? Because they find lines in the bible that suggest, to them, that this should be done BECAUSE those lines in the bible. Maybe you do, too.
But that's y'all, not me. I mention the Bible for YOUR sake, not mine, nor to say "cuz the Bible says..."
Lots of excuses for engaging in behavior that you criticize in others. It’s almost like you want a theocracy or something.
DeleteI’ll leave the whole judgement thing up to YHWH, i certainly don’t think you are qualified to usurp that responsibility.
I do appreciate your increasing attempts to take this further off topic though.
identifying me as part of an ONG, says ONG. Because, French.
ReplyDeleteAh, mais, oui. Je comprends, mon ami. Still, this is not a French conversation and I wanted to just clarify that we are speaking of the same thing.
No problema.
My blog, my choice, my habit. Enough with your BS.
Delete"No problema" is Spanglish at best.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the US operates every year at a fiscal deficit, carries a debt that literally cannot be paid, and that interest on the debt is one of the largest single line items in the budget, do you not?
Yes, I do. It's precisely why I and people like me are so STRONGLY opposed to the GOP and this president trying to rocket that debt ever higher by waging wars, assassinations and wasteful, corruption-filled spending with their $1.5 + military budget.
Military budget (if the hedonist gets his way): $1.5 trillion.
USAID budget (responsible for saving millions of lives) $40 billion.
Hm. WHO is wasting money?
Also, look at the charts for the budget deficits. UP with every GOP administration, DOWN with every Democrat administration.
https://manhattan.institute/article/covid-19-relief-sends-america-deeper-into-the-red
Once again with the hyper partisan, one sided nonsense.
DeleteThe military budget isn’t close to the largest line item in the budget, let alone that it’s one of the few expenditures constitutionally mandated.
The problem with your childish take is that spending isn’t a magical faucet which magically runs in perfect synchronization with presidential terms. But you feel free to hang out in your fantasy world where overspending is only on one side.
Once again with the hyper partisan, one sided nonsense.
DeleteThe military budget isn’t close to the largest line item in the budget, let alone that it’s one of the few expenditures constitutionally mandated.
The problem with your childish take is that spending isn’t a magical faucet which magically runs in perfect synchronization with presidential terms. But you feel free to hang out in your fantasy world where overspending is only on one side.
I guess you sort of acknowledged that every dollar given away is borrowed and is a debt that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be saddled with.
DeleteCraig:
ReplyDeleteGeneralized speaking, I don’t blindly trust anyone who has a financial incentive to self report how awesome they are.
Part and parcel of the graceless, irrational magaconservative mindset. Never mind that they have data. Never mind that there are checks in place. Never mind that YOU HAVE NO DATA to spread slander that these NGOs are not to be trusted in their reporting or that they, themselves, are the sort of corrupt organizations that the man you keep voting for and defending has proven himself to be, objectively.
I guess you sort of acknowledged that every dollar given away is borrowed and is a debt that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be saddled with
Of course, I never said such a thing and it's not factual. We should LIVE within our budget. Congress should pass rules that say they have to pass a balanced budget that doesn't increase the debit (within reason, I'm fine with some accountable leeway in cases of actual emergencies).
IF the warring class wants a multi-trillion dollar budget for their lawless wars and assassinations, THEN they must raise taxes to pay for them. The GOP refuses to do that.
As to necessary services (hospitals, social security, Medicare... areas that WE have already invested our money into expecting it to be returned with interest), of course, they can't be cut. That's a non-negotiable. So, first, you HAVE to pay the mandatory spending. It's just returning money to we, the people, who invested it. Those were promissory investments beyond the touch of gov't. Or should be.
Beyond the mandatory budget, the interest on the deficit and the military ARE the two largest items of discretionary spending. You want to cut, cutting DISCRETIONARY is your only option and the GOP is not willing to do that for the proposed 1.5 TRILLION military budget, but they did with the $40 billion USAID budget that actually saved lives instead of slaughtering children and innocents.
Your collective moral compass is broke and your reasoning is un-moored.
We should absolutely balance the budget EITHER by cutting the discretionary spending in a responsible way OR by more taxation. Those are our options.
Now, keeping in mind, not all discretionary items are equal. Investments in USAID, as noted, have saved millions of lives. Among other things, it's a form of soft diplomacy, so that we're not so much in need of deadly warring approach. Likewise, state department negotiations like what Obama did with Iran where he actually HAD an agreement with Iran... that is much less expensive than the debacle we've seen these last few months in Iran. Your idiot tore UP the agreement that was working and BROKE the Strait of Hormuz that was working and engaged in a war that is incredibly expensive, bottom line, and as an end result, we'll have, at best, an agreement with Iran that is much WORSE than what we already had in place before the Hedonist idiot broke it.
Beyond the irrational immorality of it all, it was all just so fiscally irresponsible. THAT is the sort of thing the GOP needs to join with the Democrats and take a stand on.
And BOTH parties in Congress need to demand that the president (of either party) acts in a Constitutional manner and leave declarations of war to Congress. That would be a money-saver, too.
The point remains: The GOP drives the deficit up every time and the Democrats bring it down. The data shows which party is the most fiscally responsible, just looking at the bottom line.
And just a reminder: My initial post was just to agree with the principles you quoted from someone else:
ReplyDelete"it is immoral to pursue policies that don't work - that will make people poorer and their lives harder - just because they make you feel morally superior.
It is immoral to ignore the evidence you don't like."
etc.
Warring our way to peace WILL NOT WORK.
Spending our way to fiscal responsibility WILL NOT WORK.
Cutting spending to save a dollar that ultimately costs us $10 WILL NOT WORK.
Distrusting experts (even when you have NO data to dispute them or their data) and then ignoring their data - or worse, disputing it because "they're experts..." - WILL NOT WORK.
etc, etc, etc.
These principles are correct. Live by the principles.
Incessant deficit spending on programs rife with fraud and abuse, is absolutely immoral.
DeleteEliminating evil, using force, is sometimes necessary. Peace that allows evil to flourish isn’t so much peace as a break between conflicts.
Posting data elsewhere is not the same as “not having data”, referring to data without posting it here is not the same as “not having data”, relying on data from groups with a financial interest in the results of the data, isn’t much better that having no data at all.
DeleteNot all “experts” are created equal. “Experts” that push a false narrative, or manipulate data, are worthless.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteIncessant deficit spending on programs rife with fraud and abuse, is absolutely immoral.
So, are you saying we should stop ALL military spending in the US, as the department and its connections are rife with waste and corruption?
Again, AI, just as a shortcut:
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Fraud and Waste
Massive Settlements: Defense contractors routinely face legal action for price gouging and fraud. For example, Raytheon agreed to pay over $950 million to settle accusations of defrauding the DoD by inflating expenses and paying bribes to foreign officials to secure business deals.Price Inflation: Investigations have documented extreme markups on standard parts, such as a DoD contractor charging $71.01 for a 4-cent metal pin—representing a 177,000% markup.
Failed Audits: The Pentagon has historically struggled with tracking its assets and expenditures, marking seven consecutive failed audits. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has continually cited the DoD as being at "high risk for fraud".Global and Structural Corruption Patterns
The "Revolving Door": The relationship between the military and corporate sectors creates conflicts of interest. Watchdog organizations frequently point to the "revolving door," where former Pentagon officials are hired as lobbyists, board members, and executives for major defense corporations, creating incentives to approve lucrative, sometimes unneeded, contracts.
Transparency Shortfalls: Defense "exceptionalism" allows military budgets to bypass the strict oversight applied to other public sectors. Research from Transparency International Defence & Security indicates that nearly a third of countries do not publicly report actual defense spending, making the sector highly susceptible to financial misallocation.International Profiles
Wartime Profiteering: In conflict zones, lack of oversight often creates avenues for graft. For instance, Ukrainian internal government audits have exposed instances where Defense Procurement Agency contracts went to bidders with higher prices or unverified manufacturing capabilities, leading to inquiries into missing funds and delayed deliveries.
No, I am NOT suggesting that we stop funding one of the few constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.
DeleteI AM suggesting that borrowing billions/trillions to spend on things that are NOT constitutionally mandated, that are poorly managed, provide poor/zero ROI, are full of fraud, and burden our great grandchildren with trillions of dollars in debt should be eliminated and/or monitored for waste/fraud/abuse. I am further suggesting that holding the federal government to the highest possible standards in how they spend our money is aligned with the initial post.
The Pentagon Audit Failures
ReplyDeleteThe DoD is the only major federal agency that has never successfully passed a full financial audit, an issue persisting after its seventh consecutive failed audit. With defense budgets topping $1 trillion, watchdogs and agencies routinely document billions of dollars in unaccounted assets, rampant price-gouging, and wasteful spending.
Major Contractor Fraud Settlements
Defense contractors frequently face legal action for price inflation and bribery:Raytheon Settlement: In late 2024, defense contractor Raytheon agreed to pay nearly $1 billion to settle accusations of defrauding the DoD by inflating expenses and paying bribes to secure business deals.TransDigm Group: Congressional investigations revealed that TransDigm Group charged the DoD massive markups on spare parts, including a $71 charge for a $0.04 metal pin...
etc, etc, etc.
Given the fact that I regularly post about and criticize fraud in government programs, then it follows that I would expect every government program to be fraud free. Given the recent spate of hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud in federal and state programs, I'm not sure that bragging about passing audits while missing hundreds of millions in fraud is the flex you seem to think it is.
DeleteJust to be clear: You are questioning the experts in the former USAID office and those connected with them who have provided data about the millions of lives saved and the millions of lives that have been/will be lost and harmed by this completely extrajudicial closing of USAID by the world's richest hedonist with NO governmental background and NO background in humanitarian aid. His "credentials" are that he's extremely rich and powerful and connected to those in power. His young boys who did the slashing have the credentials that they were doing what this unaccountable billionaire told them to do, even though THEY had NO expertise in running governmental institutions or managing high level programs like USAID.
ReplyDeleteThis is blasphemy.
Well, we questioned the validity of the information we got from UNRWA, and finally the UN acknowledged the very problems that questions were raised about. "Experts" are not perfect, especially "experts" with a financial interest in a particular outcome.
DeleteAccounting is accounting, fraud is fraud. Hell, a bunch of Somalis came to the US and in short order were able to defraud state and federal experts out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Questioning "experts" and expecting government programs to be effective, efficient, and free of fraud is a low bar.
Your reverence for "experts" seems to wax and wane depending on what the "experts" say and whether or not those "experts" agree with you.