Why we need DOGE
-
wrote on 20 May 2025, 19:45 last edited by
I suspect the line between this and Lloyd Austen (and presumably so many of his predecessors) getting extraordinarily lucrative private sector defense industry jobs, is very subtle. But a subtle difference can make the difference between legal and illegal.
This shit where top level government employees get huge amounts of money in the private sector, because there is a reasonable expectation that they will earn that money "somehow", is commonplace to put it mildly.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 00:35 last edited by
Agreed.
And not sure DOGE would have an impact. In general each agency should have a watchdog within for waste fraud and abuse, and bribery I guess.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 00:39 last edited by
Yeah, I was about to ask: what has DOGE done that convinces you that DOGE could have prevented corruption like the one reported.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 01:04 last edited by
Isnt it obvious? Our current oversight is clearly not working.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 01:50 last edited by
@Mik said in Why we need DOGE:
Isnt it obvious? Our current oversight is clearly not working.
Not obvious at all. Just because the current oversight is not working does not mean DOGE will work. I have to see convincing evidence that shows DOGE works, or cogent argument that shows DOGE will work.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 11:57 last edited by
@Mik said in Why we need DOGE:
Isnt it obvious? Our current oversight is clearly not working.
I mean, they found out about this guy and he's going to jail, so...
As a contractor I'm familiar with how strict most COs and COTRs are (the folks in charge of contract awards and execution, sort of), and the hoops you usually have to jump through to see a "sole source" contract come out makes it really hard for the above type of tomfoolery to happen. Perhaps the culture is a bit different in the Navy though, I have no idea.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 12:11 last edited by
I've posted this here many times. The folks in procurement know how to circumvent the controls in place. For instance, if the purchasing department wants only a given product, they will find something unique about it and put that in the requirements - like only Windex has Ammonia-D - so that only the product they want meets the spec.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 12:12 last edited by
And sure, they found this guy, but how much was NOT found?
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 13:09 last edited by
Seems to me this is why we need inspectors general. You know, the ones Trump fired.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 15:06 last edited by
The idea that DOGE will reduce corruption is pretty funny. The idea that Trump wants to eliminate corruption is beyond funny.
-
wrote on 21 May 2025, 15:54 last edited by
He just wants a monopoly on it.
-
wrote on 22 May 2025, 00:39 last edited by
Neo-Mercantilism.