Well, it’s no secret that they don’t like the social safety net and the only way that is politically viable to cut them is to exaggerate abuses of the system and deflect/delay the inevitable blow-back when the consequences of their actions start making themselves felt.
It’s not controversial to want to go after fraud in the system. But don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining… 100% they just want to kill the programs entirely.
This is exactly what happened with DOGE, as well. Thiel’s goon squad walked into the beating heart of the executive bureaucracy to start siphoning data and cancelling checks. They’d point at something, say “Fraud!”, stop payments, steal a bunch of personal information, slander random people, fire anyone with a spine thick enough to stand up against them, and then cut themselves giant contractors’ salaries for the privilege.
Reagan had his own variation on this, most notably via Iran-Contra (effectively a massive embezzlement of foreign procured drugs and US military surplus funds), but also via Sewergate, the various lootings of Pentagon, FEMA, and HUD funds, and the mass firing of FAA agents under J. Lynn Helms. All these scandals were downwind of Reaganite claims of corruption, which his appointees were supposed to solve but instead exploited or exacerbated.
Yeah, agreed. I guess what I meant was it’s not controversial to say “I want to stop fraud.”
No one is checking the “Agree” option when the survey question is “Should the government allow for more fraud?” It’s just a matter of if the person who is trying to stop fraud is actually trying to stop fraud or they’re just trying to kill (or defraud) the program themselves.
paywalled article…but anyways
Well, it’s no secret that they don’t like the social safety net and the only way that is politically viable to cut them is to exaggerate abuses of the system and deflect/delay the inevitable blow-back when the consequences of their actions start making themselves felt.
It’s not controversial to want to go after fraud in the system. But don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining… 100% they just want to kill the programs entirely.
Here ya go!
It’s highly controversial when the people claiming to investigate fraud are themselves doing fraud.
This is exactly what happened with DOGE, as well. Thiel’s goon squad walked into the beating heart of the executive bureaucracy to start siphoning data and cancelling checks. They’d point at something, say “Fraud!”, stop payments, steal a bunch of personal information, slander random people, fire anyone with a spine thick enough to stand up against them, and then cut themselves giant contractors’ salaries for the privilege.
Reagan had his own variation on this, most notably via Iran-Contra (effectively a massive embezzlement of foreign procured drugs and US military surplus funds), but also via Sewergate, the various lootings of Pentagon, FEMA, and HUD funds, and the mass firing of FAA agents under J. Lynn Helms. All these scandals were downwind of Reaganite claims of corruption, which his appointees were supposed to solve but instead exploited or exacerbated.
Yeah, agreed. I guess what I meant was it’s not controversial to say “I want to stop fraud.”
No one is checking the “Agree” option when the survey question is “Should the government allow for more fraud?” It’s just a matter of if the person who is trying to stop fraud is actually trying to stop fraud or they’re just trying to kill (or defraud) the program themselves.