There's a new variation on the left's favorite "it's not happening and it's a good thing that it is happening" rhetorical tool. This new and exciting one rose quickly as President Trump's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) started finding billions, yes billions, in waste, fraud and corruption.
Behold the, "gosh why are we making a fuss about a few billion and besides we would have fixed it anyway" ridiculousness.
Federal outlays in FY 2023 were $6.1 trillion, so improper payments would be less than 4%. I'm sure Americans would welcome action to reduce fraud -- that's part of what inspectors general at 17 different departments did until Trump fired them. https://t.co/2t9DbV5qTF
— Lydia DePillis (@lydiadepillis) February 4, 2025
Elected Democrats are throwing everything at the wall to fight the Trump Administration's effort to reduce waste and graft as if their livelihood depended on it. We know that fear-mongering and bald face lying comes as easily as breathing for politicians, especially those who have something to lose, but to see the once reputable New York Times running interference for them is a bit sad. Yeah, we know it's the New York Times. Lydia DePillis, the Times' economy reporter is sure that Americans would would welcome action to reduce fraud, but gosh, it's such a tiny amount, why bother?
Then why did they never do that?
— Grateful Calvin (@shoveitjack) February 4, 2025
They were totally just about to do that until Elon Musk and those meddling kids ruined everything. Part of DOGE involves housecleaning and that is probably the bitterest pill for the corruptocrats to swallow.
Holy crap dude! you must really think your followers are stupid AF!
— Outlaw Voter (@MaineRed2020) February 4, 2025
The Times used to be reading intended for sophisticated left-leaning readers. Since then, they've become a leftist mouthpiece for whoever will listen, so maybe Outlaw Voter is onto something.
Do you think that because it's not a huge part of the budget that means they shouldn't be addressed?
— Frank (@richardrahl1086) February 4, 2025
Because that's what you're implying.
Yes, this! If you find out your household is spending more than it's taking in, you cut things. Sure, your Netflix bill is .05% of your monthly budget, but if you choose to keep it because it's such a tiny amount, your significant other needs to lovingly smack some sense into you. No, cutting Netflix won't solve your financial woes, but you have to start somewhere and then you keep looking. If you're not willing to even cut your Netflix, you're probably not serious about getting your affairs in order.
Only $236 billion.
— Kel in Cali (@KinCali1) February 4, 2025
Do you hear yourself?
And apparently they didn’t do that.
Apparently, she didn't.
If they missed all this obvious fraud then it looks like firings were totally in order. Thanks for confirming it!
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) February 4, 2025
Good point.
They had years to find this fraud. They didn't. @elonmusk did and DID SOMETHING about it.
— Amy Curtis 🇮🇱 (@RantyAmyCurtis) February 4, 2025
Also, once again, this argument that it's only 4% of $6.1 trillion is laughable. That's still $244 billion. https://t.co/I0wTE401po
There's the rub. They weren't supposed to do anything about it.
Why were the inspectors Trump fired allowing a quarter trillion in fraudulent payments? Or were the just about to crack the case when Trump fired them? https://t.co/FsrqUedVsm
— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) February 4, 2025
Why yes, that's exactly what this intrepid New York Times reporter is implying. That, and that it's no big deal.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member