From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: DOGE Slashes 3,600 Wasteful HHS Jobs-Saving Taxpayers $600
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:47:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2/18/25 18:56, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:22:53 -0500, -hh says...
>
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:14:30 -0500, -hh says...
>>>
>>>>> The implication was that some were working/staying at home, AND
>>>>> getting second jobs, outside of government work.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely: it is an innuendo that's unproven.
>
> Well, it's proven now.
Not at all.
>>>> Furthermore, the innuendo is trying to falsely suggest that it is a
>>>> widespread practice without any substantiation on magnitude either.
>>>
>>> No one said "widespread".
>
> And how widespread or not it is... HOW would YOU know?
From the absence of being able to cite proof of systemic fraud.
>> Yet that's what the innuendo is from the "only 1%" bit.
>
> It's not innuendo if it's true... right?
Sure, if it is the correct metric. Unfortunately, its not.
>
> Annnnd, it's not innuendo, because I found it to be true. Simple searches.
>
> Swiftly checking the first one or two results that came up: did
> you know what 10% of the federal workforce went entirely remote.
Oh, so going remote is now *proof* of fraudulently working a 2nd job?
> 1% may seem small, but 2,280 workers taking 2nd or 3rd jobs is quite a bit.
Except that 2K out of a 2M workforce isn't 1%, but is 0.1%.
> "What we're trying to do is reduce government. We have too many people. WE HAVE OFFICE SPACE, IT'S OCCUPIED BY (6%). Nobody's showing up to work because they were told not to. And then Biden gave
> them a five-year pass, some of them, 48,000 of them, (he) gave a five-year pass, that for five years, you don't have to show up to work."
A quote from ... who?
>> Do these unnamed 'studies'...
>
> They were government studies, written about on reputable LEFT-WING websites. I'll consider going back through my browser's history to give you the site(s), if you say please. LOL... nope.
"Pics or it didn't happen". /s
>
>> ... bother to note that some, not all, workers took 2nd jobs even before CoVid or telework?
>
> Reasons?
>
> You gonna pull "reasons" on us?
No. I'm merely noting that the pre-CoVid rate of 2nd jobs wasn't zero.
So even if you can prove that the rate today is 0.1%, you need to show
that the rate actually increased.
> If DoGE finds these jobs redundant, therefor wasteful, who are you and I to argue?
I'll argue that DOGE has a motivation to lie, so we should independently
check the numbers in whatever claims they make.
For example:
"Headline number: $55B saved. They list the savings per nixed contract.
This should be easy to verify then."
<https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676>
"he first thing I did is add up the "saved" column for all canceled
contracts and real estate. The numbers are $16.5B and $0.14B,
respectively. Odd..."
And just like that, the claim of $55B became $16.6B .. 70% smaller.
Continuing:
"The single biggest ticket item is a DHS contract listed as saving $8
billion. Wow, that's a huge contract!
Actually no, it's $8 million. They must have tried to automate scraping
the FPDS form and failed.
That means we're down to $8.5B in savings."
That's -50% from the correction of the first error, or -85% lower than
the original top claim of $55B
"The next 3 biggest ticket items are all USAID contracts listed as $655M
each, so $2B total. Wow, pretty big.
Wait, these are IDVs, not contracts. $655M is the entire set-aside,
being triple counted. In the first 5 years, only $73M was awarded, and
only 2 years remain.
So we're down to $6.5B in savings, and an alarming trend emerges:
@DOGE does not seem to understand how the government contracts they are
canceling work. The savings they are claiming are not annual savings,
but rather hypothetical savings if we spent every unobligated penny."
And -88% lower than the original top claim of $55B
"Here's the next biggest item: an IT services contract for the Social
Security Administration worth $1B. That's a lot of savings!
Well, again, this contract spanned 6 years. 80% has already been spent.
Ah well, more like $240M in savings spread over the next 3 years.
$80M/year."
Thus, the maximum cost savings already down to $5.7B, which means that
DOGE's claim was exaggerated by a factor of 10x =(aka 90% bullshit).
"This "select group of geniuses" has not double checked even the LARGEST
items accounting for the bulk of their claimed savings. This is a sad,
pathetic farce"
-hh