Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bringing up "Constitutional responsibilities" right now -- with what's taking place right now .... is wild
I agree with you. It is wild to see some people defending the trillions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse from our government. I think correction is a better word. For example, it blows my mind that people are OK with there being more people on social security than there are people in the country.

And to think, for decades democrats were crying Republicans were going to kill social security. 😄
 
  • Like
Reactions: icanhazmac
I agree with you. It is wild to see some people defending the trillions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse from our government. I think correction is a better word. For example, it blows my mind that people are OK with there being more people on social security than there are people in the country.

And to think, for decades democrats were crying Republicans were going to kill social security. 😄


Enjoy

Ignoring the Constitution, and processes and rules laid out by it, is still not acceptable, no matter what anyone's end goals are
 
That's too far! You can oppose illegal immigration and all, and still sympathize with why they came over here! Well, aside from the ones who came to rape or steal or whatever (as opposed to the ones who came for better economic opportunity, and all). If you don't want to sympathize with them, I won't complain.
I don't care why they come here. If they're here illegally they need to get out to make room for people that want to do it the right way and come legally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit
The vast, vast majority of people coming into this country aren’t criminals, they’re people coming to this country for a better life, like most of our ancestors did. You’d think the President who is married to an immigrant who violated US immigration law would realize that.

Do you consider the First Lady a Criminal?
If they come here illegally, they're criminals, and they need to go. Too many people wait and do it the right way, and so many more could come here legally if we weren't constantly trying to deport the illegal ones. There should be zero debate about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit
If they come here illegally, they're criminals, and they need to go. Too many people wait and do it the right way, and so many more could come here legally if we weren't constantly trying to deport the illegal ones. There should be zero debate about this.
I don’t see an answer to the question as asked by surferfb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
If they come here illegally, they're criminals, and they need to go. Too many people wait and do it the right way, and so many more could come here legally if we weren't constantly trying to deport the illegal ones. There should be zero debate about this.
What if they come here legally, but then overstay their visa? Still criminals? What if they come on a non-working visa, but get work anyway? Criminals? What if their parents brought them here illegally when they were a baby, and now they're 25 and have never been to their "home" country? Are they criminals? What if they came here illegally, but now have US citizen children (no, the President can't overturn a constitutional amendment by executive order). Should we "throw them out of a plane with a parachute"? Do we kick US citizens out of the country because of their parents' crimes? Or is now the taxpayer responsible for the upbringing of these children whose parents have been "kicked out"?

It's not always black and white.
 
What if they come here legally, but then overstay their visa? Still criminals? What if they come on a non-working visa, but get work anyway? Criminals? What if their parents brought them here illegally when they were a baby, and now they're 25 and have never been to their "home" country? Are they criminals? What if they came here illegally, but now have US citizen children (no, the President can't overturn a constitutional amendment by executive order). Should we "throw them out of a plane with a parachute"? Do we kick US citizens out of the country because of their parents' crimes? Or is now the taxpayer responsible for the upbringing of these children whose parents have been "kicked out"?

It's not always black and white.
Overstay visa? Boot them.
Parents brought them as a baby (illegally)? Boot them.
Came illegally but baby was born here? Take them with you.

It's pretty simple. Black and white. Legal or illegal.
 

Enjoy

Ignoring the Constitution, and processes and rules laid out by it, is still not acceptable, no matter what anyone's end goals are
Your article basically states there are issues within the system and assume no payments went out.

“Musk has provided no evidence to back up his claims, and experts quickly pointed out that this is very likely just a quirk of the decades-old coding language that underpins the government payment systems.”

A very holistic take. If we know all this WHY NOT FIX IT?

“No, 150-Year-Olds Aren’t Collecting Social Security Benefits” How do we know this? Do you blindly trust Wired? Or better yet someone in the SS administration that knows a problem exists but refuses to fix it? These anomalies are showing up in the system for a reason. Could be a mistake, could be fraud. We don’t know and are happy to have someone finally investigate it. That’s not ignoring the Constitution.
 
@Razorpit

Your bring up some good points

Musk and his DOGE team members should testify about their actions, under oath, in front of Congress and share what has been found, along with the pertinent data

I'm all for that

No more posting about these sensitive and important things, inappropriately, on social media feeds
 
Your article basically states there are issues within the system and assume no payments went out.

“Musk has provided no evidence to back up his claims, and experts quickly pointed out that this is very likely just a quirk of the decades-old coding language that underpins the government payment systems.”

A very holistic take. If we know all this WHY NOT FIX IT?

“No, 150-Year-Olds Aren’t Collecting Social Security Benefits” How do we know this? Do you blindly trust Wired? Or better yet someone in the SS administration that knows a problem exists but refuses to fix it? These anomalies are showing up in the system for a reason. Could be a mistake, could be fraud. We don’t know and are happy to have someone finally investigate it. That’s not ignoring the Constitution.

Not trying to doxx myself here, but I am intimately familiar with the US government and government contracting.

You say "you're happy to have someone finally investigate it". But, what you don't realize is there already are people who investigate this in government. They're called the Offices of Inspector General, the Governmental Accountability Office, and Congressional Committees (among others). For example, GAO found $250b in improper payments in 2023, and they don't just identify them, they chase them down and get the money back. In 2023 the Social Security's OIG uncovered $10b in improper payments (that's less than 1% of all their payments by the way) - same deal, they go after that money when they discover it. These agencies also turn cases over to Law Enforcement in cases of fraud and oooh boy do people get prosecuted. And they're not the only ones; I have no connection to any of those agencies and I've personally been involved in efforts where the government is chasing down hundreds of millions of dollars in funds that were properly distributed, but the recipients broke the rules that came with the funds and now owe the money back.

A lot of government systems are mission critical and things sometimes don't get fixed because it is not worth the risk of breaking something to fix them, particularly when the thing that is "broken" doesn't actually matter. Or it's too expensive to fix. For the case you are citing here, according to this SSA OIG report, there are over 18.9 million people who are in the SSA's system who are over 100, and of those, 18.4 million aren't receiving benefits, haven't paid into the system in over 50 years, and therefore SSA assumes they are deceased. Why weren't they removed from the rolls? It would cost $5.5m to $9.7m to do so, and since 98% of them aren't receiving benefits, and we can be reasonably sure the vast majority of the 400,000 people over 100 who are are getting benefits are still alive, it would be a waste of government funds to do so. And now ironically, Elon is accusing SSA of wasting taxpayers' money because SSA didn't waste taxpayers' money. (To my point that people are already looking into these things DOGE is "uncovering", that report was PUBLISHED in 2023, which means the investigation started probably a year or two before hand).

And DOGE has already been caught misrepresenting and lying about stuff repeatedly, so they absolutely shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. To give you another example, you may have read that DOGE claims to have canceled 800-900m worth of contracts at the Department of Education. I happen to know people who were working on some of those contracts. What DOGE doesn't tell you is they're counting the entire lifetime value of the contract they canceled as savings. So if your company had a 5 year, $10m a year contract that was set to conclude next month, DOGE is claiming $50m of savings from canceling it, not the $833k that is left to be paid. Even better, in a lot of cases, the final deliverable wasn't finished, so thanks to DOGE, the government just paid $50m over 5 years for literally nothing, when if they had waited a month the government would have gotten what it paid for. And that doesn't count the cases where they said a contract was $8 billion, but turns out the contract was actually for $8 million.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to doxx myself here, but I am intimately familiar with the US government and government contracting.

You say "you're happy to have someone finally investigate it". But, what you don't realize is there already are people who investigate this in government. They're called the Offices of Inspector General, the Governmental Accountability Office, and Congressional Committees (among others). For example, GAO found $250b in improper payments in 2023, and they don't just identify them, they chase them down and get the money back. In 2023 the Social Security's OIG uncovered $10b in improper payments (that's less than 1% of all their payments by the way) - same deal, they go after that money when they discover it. These agencies also turn cases over to Law Enforcement in cases of fraud and oooh boy do people get prosecuted. And they're not the only ones; I have no connection to any of those agencies and I've personally been involved in efforts where the government is chasing down hundreds of millions of dollars in funds that were properly distributed, but the recipients broke the rules that came with the funds and now owe the money back.

A lot of government systems are mission critical and things sometimes don't get fixed because it is not worth the risk of breaking something to fix them, particularly when the thing that is "broken" doesn't actually matter. Or it's too expensive to fix. For the case you are citing here, according to this SSA OIG report, there are over 18.9 million people who are in the SSA's system who are over 100, and of those, 18.4 million aren't receiving benefits, haven't paid into the system in over 50 years, and therefore SSA assumes they are deceased. Why weren't they removed from the rolls? It would cost $5.5m to $9.7m to do so, and since 98% of them aren't receiving benefits, and we can be reasonably sure the vast majority of the 400,000 people over 100 who are are getting benefits are still alive, it would be a waste of government funds to do so. And now ironically, Elon is accusing SSA of wasting taxpayers' money because SSA didn't waste taxpayers' money. (To my point that people are already looking into these things DOGE is "uncovering", that report was PUBLISHED in 2023, which means the investigation started probably a year or two before hand).

And DOGE has already been caught misrepresenting and lying about stuff repeatedly, so they absolutely shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. To give you another example, you may have read that DOGE claims to have canceled 800-900m worth of contracts at the Department of Education. I happen to know people who were working on some of those contracts. What DOGE doesn't tell you is they're counting the entire lifetime value of the contract they canceled as savings. So if your company had a 5 year, $10m a year contract that was set to conclude next month, DOGE is claiming $50m of savings from canceling it, not the $833k that is left to be paid. Even better, in a lot of cases, the final deliverable wasn't finished, so thanks to DOGE, the government just paid $50m over 5 years for literally nothing, when if they had waited a month the government would have gotten what it paid for. And that doesn't count the cases where they said a contract was $8 billion, but turns out the contract was actually for $8 million.
I'm aware they exist, but listen to what you are saying. One one hand you're saying don't worry about fraud and abuse because the OIG, GAO, and congress are on it. Yet everyone who is remotely paying attention is aware of the continuous wasteful spending of billions and trillions of dollars.

Most of which is hidden within multi-hundred/thousand page bills by design. Only a few people on the planet would be for investigating the sexuality of the Schistocerca americana, but add that to a bill that addresses homelessness for veterans and who would be against that? (I'm being hyperbolic of course, our government doesn't give a rat's ass about homeless veterans.)

Is what DOGE found 100% accurate? Probably not, but let's not pretend there aren't some serious issues with SS, government grants, military aid, NASA, military projects, etc. Heck The Pentagon Wars is a classic example of what happened a few years ago and we've learned nothing. Look at the F-35.

Believe it or not but @turbineseaplane are in agreement on some things. In 6-9 months come back and hold DOGE accountable. Review their work. I'm all for it. But as it stands now lets be honest, the OIG, GAO, and congress aren't exactly doing some of their best work. For now Trump is carrying on the precedent Obama set back in 2011. It's his turn to find waste, fraud, and abuse. Give DOGE a few months to wqork and then hold them accountable.
 
Believe it or not but @turbineseaplane are in agreement on some things. In 6-9 months come back and hold DOGE accountable. Review their work. I'm all for it. But as it stands now lets be honest, the OIG, GAO, and congress aren't exactly doing some of their best work. For now Trump is carrying on the precedent Obama set back in 2011. It's his turn to find waste, fraud, and abuse. Give DOGE a few months to wqork and then hold them accountable.

The part I disagree with is the process

DOGE are very indiscriminately rapid firing people across agencies

You can't just "undo that in that 6-9 months" if there are bad decisions being made in the firings (which there absolutely, inevitably, are).

Examples are aplenty, but look no further than "trying to get fired nuclear weapons workers back".
Talk about an ominous headline ☢️

They are mass firing people with long and deep expertise.
These are humans with lives and careers and they move on, especially in scientific and research fields

Permanent destruction is being done to agencies, whether any of it is a good fiscal move or not


You and I will probably disagree on this last point

I think this is by design.

I don't believe the true goal is "efficiency", but rather a sizeable destruction of the administrative state

Think of it this way ...

What's a productive rationale for doing all this literately "as fast as possible" given the damage that is done by doing it this way?
 
Last edited:
Btw - check this out

The director of data science and engineering for what is now known as the US DOGE Service has resigned.

"If DOGE truly was concerned with efficiency, they wouldn’t have fired experts in procurement," she writes, "who prevent waste up front."


 
Can't believe that this still needs to be said after decades of debate.

Crossing the border illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil offense. A misdemeanor. And thus undocumented immigrants are not criminals.

Crossing the border anywhere is legal for the purposes of claiming asylum.
Can't believe this still needs to be said after decades of debate.

While you are partially correct, a first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both, "Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325."

You are leaving out; §1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

No, you do not get to cross the border anywhere you want.

Finally, a second offense, "“Illegal Re-Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1326" makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter.
 
Can't believe this still needs to be said after decades of debate.

While you are partially correct, a first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both, "Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325."

You are leaving out; §1325 . Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

No, you do not get to cross the border anywhere you want.

Finally, a second offense, "“Illegal Re-Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1326" makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter.
I didn't leave any of that out, so much as none of that contradicts what I said.

Illegal Re-Entry is certainly a crime.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.