Reblogged:'Big Bill' Threatens Nonprofits

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Late last year, the Foundation for Economic Freedom warned that a bill called the "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act" presented the danger of soft censorship of nonprofits the government does not like.

Peter Jacobsen of FEE noted that the law loudly promised income tax abatements for individuals being held hostage by terrorist organizations -- but quietly included another provision:

But then, we tack on one more thing -- no more tax-exempt status of terrorist-supporting organizations. This part of the bill has earned it a nickname: the "nonprofit killer." [bold added]

Obviously, this measure would have made it easier for the government to abuse the tax system to punish nonprofits the government disapproves of -- something even worse than the Republican Party vehemently objected to the Obama administration doing.

According to Slate, a similar measure is now part of the budget bill before Congress, and it will be much easier to pass under the same budget reconciliation process the Democrats abused to pass ObamaCare.

Supporters claim to be targeting Palestinian rights activists, but the piece warns of abuse:

The tax code already suspends the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, and criminal law already prohibits giving "material support" (funding, training, and other resources) to terrorist groups. But this bill needlessly creates a broad new category of "terrorist-supporting organizations" that would also lose their tax-exempt status.

Groups accused of supporting terrorism would have little meaningful opportunity to challenge their designations, especially since the bill lets the government claim they can't release information explaining a designation for reasons of national security.

Worse still, once one group is deemed a terrorist-supporting organization, the bill could be interpreted to allow the government to strip the tax-exemption of other charities that supported that group -- creating a daisy-chain effect that links liability from one group to the next to the next. And unlike the existing criminal law prohibiting material support to terrorist groups, this bill doesn't explicitly require that groups know that the money or services they provide are going to a terrorist organization. [links omitted, bold added]

The piece presents a hypothetical scenario, and then warns that conservative groups could become the targets under a future Democratic administration.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[DavidOdden]

Either, this provision is unnecessary because the power already exists, or the Slate description of the effect is wrong.

The bill in the form passed by the House adds in §112209 a provision for suspending tax-exempt status to “terrorist supporting organizations”, which parallels the existing suspension of tax-exempt status for terrorist organizations. The current bill allows suspension if a tax-exempt organization is  “provided, during the 3-year period ending on the date of such designation, material support or resources” to a terrorist organization. So, Hamas is a terrorist organization, it cannot have tax-exempt status. But Hamas can currently create a pass-though fund-raising organization, call it “Students for Hamas in Tampa”, which is not a terrorist organization, and SHIT can pass fund through to Hamas.

The bill would extend the power of suspension tax-exemption to such pass-through organizations. Taxes are evil, nobody should be taxed, but they are, so shouldn’t everybody be granted an exemption from taxes? Of course, but that is not the world that we live in. So I accept the premise that an evil organization should not be granted tax-exempt status. The fact that SHIT is not directly killing people in Israel does not reder them a non-evil organization. They have the same moral complicity that the Nazi judges did in sanctioning evil Nazi laws.

Under the bill, an organization is not just whimsically deemed to be “terrorist supporting”, the term is defined in terms of a 3-year period of “material support or resources”, and already defined in 18 USC 2339A(b)(1) as 

any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.

How then could this law be “abused”, while adhering to the rule of law? You may consider it to be an “abuse” if SHIT loses its ability to collect tax-free funds for Hamas. It is correct that the bill closes a pass-through loophole in anti-terrorist tax laws. It does not allow Harvard to lose its tax-exempt status for being a terrorist-supporting organization, because at best Harvard only provides First Amendment-protected rhetorical support for terrorists, and that is not material support. Make your case if you think Harvard funnels money to Hamas.

The real threat stems from the proviso “while adhering to the rule of law”. The reason why it is so easy to set aside the rule of law is that the law is so poorly written that any interpretation is conceivable. Anti-discrimination law was not written with the “effects test” baked in, that was created by collusion between the executive and judiciary branches decades ago where the executive branch cooked up a new reading of the law and SCOTUS said, “Yeah, we buy that”. Chevron deference was another conspiracy, which was more recently swept away by a different version of SCOTUS. Congress simply sits on its thumbs, passing laws that can be interpreted many different ways, leaving it to chance how a law will be actually implemented.

Incidentally, it is illegal to discriminate, pollute, monopolize or take an improper tax deduction, even if you don’t explicitly know that you are discriminating, polluting, monopolizing or taking an improper tax deduction. That is the “worse still” nature of civil law.

[stansfield123]

Nonprofits should pay the same exact taxes as for-profits. There is no rational basis to differentiating between the two. Not in laissez-faire capitalism, obviously (where taxes would be voluntary, but nonprofits would still be expected to pay them, same as everyone), but also not in the current system.

As an aside, I imagine that further measures are coming. As per Elon's audit of the federal government, nonprofits are the main tool people use to steal taxpayer money: people in government have associates set up non-profits, and apply for federal funding. The same corrupt scheme is used in corporations, mind you, where, instead of taxpayers, corrupt executives steal money from shareholders.

There is no policing this, since the criteria which govern these payments are subjective and often political. Theft is impossible to prove, because rabbid incompetence is always an alternate explanation. Just because the charity doesn't do anything to help anyone doesn't mean the owners stole the money. They got paid to do a job, and they're just very, very bad at it. Oh well.

The only way to save those funds is to cut off the money going to non-profits, from both government and corporate sources. If people wish to donate to non-profits, they should only be allowed to use their own money. Money that's 100% theirs. And the non-profit should be taxed the same exact way a business is taxed.

Edited May 26 by stansfield123

[DavidOdden]

Nonprofits are one of many tools that people use to steal taxpayer money, it is not the “main” tool. There is no essential distinction between non-profit and for-profit organizations in terms of access to taxpayer’s money, it is just less likely that the local grocery store would be in a position to apply for government money. The key to access to government handouts is that your request has to be in support of The Greater Good, as defined by the agency. Requesting a million bucks from NIH to assist the Martian cabal of demons who are studying Kant will not make it past square one – wrong agency, go to NEH (ya gotta memorize the agency acronyms correctly!).

To figure out what the “main tool” is, you have to first find the main source of theft. That would be old people, banks, hospitals and insurance companies, which accounts for 2/3 of theft. We can partition this into the “principal and interest” and “health” subgroups. Because the government spends more than it actually steals, it has to borrow money with the promise to steal more in the future, and banks are (so far) willing to lend the government on the basis of that promise, plus of course interest. Also, banks lend money in ways that they would not otherwise do were it not for the government securing the loan. The health-reason subgroups are ubiquitous and massively interwoven. Medical research is highly supported by stolen funds and minimally supported by for-profit businesses. The “right to medical care” is socially established, and is supported by various statutory means, mainly The Golden Rule (he who gives out the gold makes the rules) whereby the government short-circuits price competition by fiat declaration of what they will pay (hint: they are not skinflints). We are at the point where we almost have the British NHS scheme. Elon is clueless about where the money is going, but he is not stupid enough to take on any of the really-big conduits for government threft.

The criteria which govern federal payments are always and by definition political, whereby they are also by definition subjective. “Theft” is not impossible to prove, but the word does not mean what you think it does. When Smith Inc. receives a grant of $5M to develop a product that will benefit America, that is theft – of $5M – in the sense that you mean. The terms of the grant allow some uses and disallow others. There is an accouting requirement. If Smith (CEO) diverts $1M to his personal Swiss bank account for his personal use, that is theft in the statutory sense, it is a crime and will be prosecuted. Your claim that “rabbit incompetence is always an alternate explanation” is sorta true in the sense that you can always say such stuff, but that is true of plain old breaking and entering – you can always offer the alternative explanation that the thief thought he was in his own house”. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that because of the size of the federal bureaucracy, nobody is going to bother to check up on possible mis-uses of federal funds, which is universal and not related to non-profit status.

So we are back to the question of who should be immunized against government theft a.k.a. taxation. A very popular solution is “Eat the rich”, impose a 99% tax on income over $1M, and no tax below that. This achieves The Greater Good, because (1) it continues to spew out benefits that benefit Those Most Deserving, (2) it eliminates most of the burden on US people and (3) it only burdens a small minority. A simple equation, Another solution, not at all popular, is “Equitable Taxation” where everybody pays exactly the same percentage of their income, no write-offs or deductions, Elon Musk and the homeless bum will both pay the same rate, though Musk will probably pay more actual money because he makes more. The rate would be about 10%. Which non-solution is the “best” non-solution? None of the above.

The only solution is to completely stop government spending, which ends the justification for government theft, and eliminates the arcane practice of “tax write-offs”. No more need to save receipts to document business expenses, ‘cuz they aren’t gonna be taking your money in the first place. Then there will not be any need for another government bureaucracy to determine whether a donation that you make is “100% your money”. The non-profit, for-profit, and ordinary citizen should be taxed the same exact way: not at all.

[Jon C]

37 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

To figure out what the “main tool” is, you have to first find the main source of theft. That would be old people, banks, hospitals and insurance companies, which accounts for 2/3 of theft. We can partition this into the “principal and interest” and “health” subgroups. Because the government spends more than it actually steals, it has to borrow money with the promise to steal more in the future, and banks are (so far) willing to lend the government on the basis of that promise, plus of course interest. Also, banks lend money in ways that they would not otherwise do were it not for the government securing the loan. The health-reason subgroups are ubiquitous and massively interwoven. Medical research is highly supported by stolen funds and minimally supported by for-profit businesses.

Does “old people are thieves” just refer to Social Security? If so, do you disagree with the argument Rand (and ARI) have given about why it was kosher for her to collect SS? And is a bank a thief if it lends money to thieves? I’m not sure I see how. 
 

Do you have evidence supporting your last sentence about funding? The information I found does not support it; see page six of https://www.researchamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ResearchAmerica-Investment-Report.Final_.January-2022-1.pdf 

37 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

The criteria which govern federal payments are always and by definition political, whereby they are also by definition subjective.

Would this statement also apply to federal payments to an arms manufacturer? It’s my understanding that the military is a justified function of government, so it’s interesting to say that there could be no objective way for the government to acquire or pay for the weapons needed to wage (defensive) wars. 

37 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

The only solution is to completely stop government spending[…]

So anarchy? I think Rand had some choice words about that. 

Edited May 26 by Jon C

[DavidOdden]

I am referring to the redefinition of “theft” assumed by stansfield123. It starts from the libertarian premise that “Taxation is theft”, which is different from the stance that force is immoral. From the initial stance, one easily transitions to the position that benefiting from theft by others is itself theft, and that requesting such benefits constitutes theft. This is necessary to make sense of the claim that “nonprofits are the main tool people use to steal taxpayer money”, which is false even granting the erroneous theft premises. For every set of false premises, you can reducere them ad absurdum.

Theft by old people (like myself) is split between Social Security and Medicare. They are roughly neck-and-neck, with SS leading by about 7%.

The present discussion is not about what proper government should be, it is about what is the best improper government. The central question here is whether §112209 has a “good” effect or a “bad” effect. Slate proffers rhetoric suggesting that it is a net-bad move, I dispute the claim. Then we get a distracting side-show about non-profits as intrinsic agents of evil. Let’s get back to the central question: should a tax break be available to an organization that functions as a pass-through to a terrorist organization. The initial post distracts us somewhat from the ideologically-pure observation that there should be no taxes. It has been argues that “Taxes are evil, nobody should be taxed, but they are, so shouldn’t everybody be granted an exemption from taxes? Of course, but that is not the world that we live in”. It is unnecessary in an Objectivist forum to mechanically re-assert that support of government function should be voluntary.

[necrovore]

[Deleted]

Edited May 26 by necrovore

[stansfield123]

I think it can be guessed from context, but, for the sake of precision, I am using the word "theft" above in the sense it is used in American law.

In American law, taxation isn't theft, and spending and receiving taxpayer money with congressional authorization also isn't theft. But an unelected bureaucrat pocketing taxpayer money, or diverting it to his associates to be pocketed by them, is.

It's this kind of theft Elon uncovered in his audit, not taxation. We don't need an audit to learn about taxation, or about where those taxes are intended to be spent by Congress. We just need it to learn about where they are often diverted by corrupt officials.

And yes, differentiating between taxation and this kind of theft, and opposing this kind of theft specifically, is an important stance to take for everyone who wishes to live a good life on Earth. A state funded through taxation can still run very well, and produce a very good outcome for the people it governs. But, to do that, it must conform to a set of principles. Not Ayn Rand's principles, but the political principles which govern western democracies. They are different from Ayn Rand's principles, but they are, nonetheless, plenty good enough to produce the unprecedented prosperity and peace westerners enjoy.

Just because a rational, selfish person read Ayn Rand and liked her political ideas, doesn't mean that person should suddenly refuse to help keep the beautiful country he was lucky enough to be born into from being overtaken by savages, until and unless that country fully adopts Rand's ideals. That would be a silly attitude to take.

There is absolutely no contradiction between agreeing with Rand's political ideas, but also, at the same time, liking and defending the western political principles upon which our imperfect but very nice countries are built. However, to support these western political principles, one must use the vocabulary the people who came up with these principles use. If American legal scholars define theft as something other than taxation, and we go around insisting that the word "theft" must always be used to include taxation ... well then that makes it impossible to stand up for American law. To defend it, and to explain to people that American law is a good thing. Not perfect, but good. Worth defending.

Don't you agree? Do you think you can make an argument in favor of weeding out corruption from government, without using the word "theft" the way that government's laws use it? Do you think you could avoid sounding like a lunatic if you insisted that the only possible way to fight corruption and theft is by abolishing taxation first? That nothing else will work?

Doesn't that notion clearly fly in the face of the reality around us? Isn't it obvious that nations successfully weed out corruption, and build prosperity, without abolishing taxation?

[Jon C]

4 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

It's this kind of theft Elon uncovered in his audit

And yet zero criminal charges have been filed against anyone, hmm?

[DavidOdden]

I did not assume you were referring to actual criminal theft in your posture, because it would have been stunningly far-fetched to think that you seriously believed that nonprofits are actually substantially involved in criminal thefts of government property. But, thanks for the clarification. Now you can provide us the proof of your claim. That will also allow us to see whether you grasp the concept of “proof”., or even “probable”. Hint: fill-in-the-blank expressions like “Musk claims__” or “Trump accuses__” are not even evidence of “the possible”. How do you propose to support the claim “the main tool”?

[stansfield123]

27 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Now you can provide us the proof of your claim.

I won't be doing that. My purpose on this site isn't to convince you of anything, let alone prove anything to you. It's merely to have conversations with willing, well intentioned partners.

You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions, which are based on the totality of my knowledge, and will continue to be provided as is. Without any accompanying evidence aside from occasional arguments one might employ in natural conversation. Nothing more than that.

You're not welcome to insist that I prove my conclusions to you. If you wish to be a partner in conversation, accept that I owe you no proof, I merely owe you my honest opinions. And you're welcome to state yours. I won't be asking for you to prove them either. I understand that that would be a difficult and taxing endeavor, especially once you consider that even when someone goes to the bother to do all that work, the information provided has a tendency to fall on deaf ears in an online forum.

If I had a desire to be a research analyst or worse, a lawyer, it wouldn't be for free, and it wouldn't be on this forum.

 

 

Edited May 27 by stansfield123

[DavidOdden]

You're not welcome to set conditions on my responses, or to deny that you owe this forum (not just me) proof of your claims. My purpose on this site is to find and discuss the truth and to evaluate alternatives, it is not to enable your emotionalist agenda. So apparently we have massively simplified the problem.

[necrovore]

I asked Grok, "Can you give some examples of theft of taxpayer funds that was uncovered by DOGE?" and got the following response:

Quote

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a proposed initiative led by figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under the Trump administration, has been credited with uncovering instances of alleged misuse or theft of taxpayer funds, though specific, verified examples from official DOGE reports are limited in the available data. Most references come from posts on X or news articles, which should be treated as inconclusive without primary source confirmation. Here are some examples based on claims circulating on X, with the caveat that these require further substantiation:

• Untraceable Payments: DOGE reportedly revealed $5 trillion in untraceable federal payments with no records of their destination, indicating a significant budget discrepancy. This claim suggests systemic issues in federal accounting but lacks detailed evidence or specific instances of theft.

   

  
• Social Security Fraud: Allegations surfaced that DOGE uncovered $72 billion in fraudulent checks issued by the Social Security Administration, leading to the resignation of its head to avoid dismissal. Again, this is a high-level claim without granular details or official confirmation.

   

  
• Department of Education Misuse: DOGE allegedly exposed $4.6 million spent on coordinating Zoom and in-person meetings, $3 million on a report proving prior reports were ignored, and $1.4 million to observe mailing and clerical tasks within the Department of Education. These are cited as examples of wasteful spending, though not necessarily theft.

   

  
• Fraudulent Transfers to a Pro-Terrorist Group: One post claims DOGE found $50 million in unaudited taxpayer funds transferred in a single month to a group disguised as a climate change organization but allegedly supporting terrorism. This is a serious allegation but lacks corroboration from official sources.

   

  
• EPA Fraud and Questionable Contracts: DOGE is said to have stopped $287 million in fraud within the Environmental Protection Agency and exposed $40 billion in questionable contracts, alongside recovering $105 billion through oversight efforts. These figures are broad and lack specific breakdowns of the fraud or theft involved.

   

  
• Misplaced Funds Under Biden Administration: Reports claim DOGE uncovered $1.9 billion in taxpayer money "misplaced" during the Biden administration, though details on whether this was theft, fraud, or mismanagement are unclear.

   

  

   

  
• General Fraud Recovery: Another claim states DOGE’s efforts led to recovering nearly $400 million stolen by fraudsters, though specific cases or perpetrators are not detailed.

   

  

Important Notes:

• These examples primarily stem from X posts and lack primary source documentation (e.g., official DOGE or GAO reports). They should be treated as unverified until substantiated by credible, official sources.
• The term "theft" in these contexts often blends with "fraud," "waste," or "improper payments," which may not always indicate intentional criminal activity but could reflect mismanagement or errors. For instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported $236 billion in improper payments in FY 2023, with significant issues in programs like Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, but these are not directly tied to DOGE.

   
• DOGE’s activities, as described, focus on identifying systemic inefficiencies, but concrete, verified cases of theft (e.g., embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 666) are not detailed in the provided data.

   
• For authoritative information, check official government sources like oversight.gov or paymentaccuracy.gov, as X posts alone are insufficient for factual confirmation.

If you want me to dig deeper into any specific claim or search for more recent, verified DOGE findings, let me know!

So Grok thinks it's inconclusive, and that's fair, but I wouldn't say there's nothing there.

I will add that the government often doesn't want to let suspects know that they are being investigated, and therefore tends to be tight-lipped about such things until they make an actual arrest. On the other hand, there is no way of knowing whether they will ever make any arrests, even of guilty people.

As for the standards of who has to prove what, I go back to OPAR, where Peikoff writes things like "the evidence is clear and abundant," but does not cite any of it, and so some people are going to claim that he doesn't actually have any evidence, when in actuality, the evidence really is clear and abundant and is available to anybody who cares to look... there can be cases where there are 2,000 pieces of evidence and picking, like, five of them, would draw too much attention to just those five, and also those five by themselves might not be enough for proof, and it's even possible that flaws might be found in 20% of the 2,000 pieces of evidence, while the remaining 1,600 are still more than enough to prove the case.

Signal versus noise. How many notes does it take to identify a tune? If some fraction of the notes is wrong, can you still identify the tune? The standards of proof for deductive arguments are not the same as the ones for inductive arguments.

Besides, I think something is wrong with telling someone that it's not enough for evidence to exist, that they have to present it -- in particular it sounds like an ad hominem or some such thing. I care more about the truth than about the quality of any particular person's reasoning.

If an argument "doesn't hold up in court," that could be an indictment of the argument -- but it could also be an indictment of the court, especially if the argument is correct.

Edited May 27 by necrovore

[Jon C]

56 minutes ago, necrovore said:

I asked Grok, "Can you give some examples of theft of taxpayer funds that was uncovered by DOGE?" and got the following response:

So Grok thinks it's inconclusive, and that's fair, but I wouldn't say there's nothing there.

I will add that the government often doesn't want to let suspects know that they are being investigated, and therefore tends to be tight-lipped about such things until they make an actual arrest. On the other hand, there is no way of knowing whether they will ever make any arrests, even of guilty people.

As for the standards of who has to prove what, I go back to OPAR, where Peikoff writes things like "the evidence is clear and abundant," but does not cite any of it, and so some people are going to claim that he doesn't actually have any evidence, when in actuality, the evidence really is clear and abundant and is available to anybody who cares to look... there can be cases where there are 2,000 pieces of evidence and picking, like, five of them, would draw too much attention to just those five, and also those five by themselves might not be enough for proof, and it's even possible that flaws might be found in 20% of the 2,000 pieces of evidence, while the remaining 1,600 are still more than enough to prove the case.

Signal versus noise. How many notes does it take to identify a tune? If some fraction of the notes is wrong, can you still identify the tune? The standards of proof for deductive arguments are not the same as the ones for inductive arguments.

Besides, I think something is wrong with telling someone that it's not enough for evidence to exist, that they have to present it -- in particular it sounds like an ad hominem or some such thing. I care more about the truth than about the quality of any particular person's reasoning.

If an argument "doesn't hold up in court," that could be an indictment of the argument -- but it could also be an indictment of the court, especially if the argument is correct.

I think this is basically fine, as written. But here’s a couple questions for you, if you’re willing to entertain them.

The administration surely knows that the assertions Elon’s made (about finding fraud/theft) would be more credible if they could point to specific people facing specific charges (this is one reason they don’t just talk about illegal immigrants abstractly but refer heavily to specific instances of crime victims, etc.). So they certainly have an incentive to pursue criminal investigations, *and* to make them public as quickly as they can without compromising their integrity (I’m assuming for the purposes of my question that they care about having them done correctly, which may or may not be giving them too much credit). So here’s my first question: how much time would need to pass (if any), without any such indictments, for you to have any concerns about the broad credibility of Elon’s assertions? To put it another way, what epistemological defense do you have against a situation in which Elon was simply flooding the zone with nothing but noise? And to be clear, the assertion of his isn’t “the govt is wasteful” or even “fraud/waste/abuse exist” but that Elon’s efforts specifically identified a lot of it and helped stop it. 

The second question is more mundane. If I’m having a conversation in which specific factual claims are being made, what is the level of obligation that I have to support my assertions with references to some type of evidence? I’m sure the answer may be “it depends on context” but I’d be happy to hear your thoughts. 

[necrovore]

12 minutes ago, Jon C said:

So here’s my first question: how much time would need to pass (if any), without any such indictments, for you to have any concerns about the broad credibility of Elon’s assertions? To put it another way, what epistemological defense do you have against a situation in which Elon was simply flooding the zone with nothing but noise? And to be clear, the assertion of his isn’t “the govt is wasteful” or even “fraud/waste/abuse exist” but that Elon’s efforts specifically identified a lot of it and helped stop it.

This is tough because there can be other reasons besides "lack of evidence" for a lack of indictments. For example, if hundreds of people are engaged in the same crime, prosecuting just one of them may cause the others to take measures to protect themselves... but prosecuting all of them simultaneously is more difficult and requires more preparation. For another example, when you have "systemic corruption" that usually means that people in positions of power will use their power to defend each other. Is there a risk that a case prosecuting a corrupt official will be heard by a corrupt judge? And how would you deal with such a risk?

16 minutes ago, Jon C said:

The second question is more mundane. If I’m having a conversation in which specific factual claims are being made, what is the level of obligation that I have to support my assertions with references to some type of evidence? I’m sure the answer may be “it depends on context” but I’d be happy to hear your thoughts.

In general, there is no obligation; you don't even have to use complete sentences. But people might not listen to you.

If you are trying to persuade rational people of something, that is a more specific scenario, and then you can say that adherence to rational standards will make your argument more persuasive to rational people.

Rationality, however, consists of more than deduction. There is also a matter of experience and a matter of generalizing from experience (i.e., induction). Experience is how we grasp reality. If your argument rests on experience, it might be incomprehensible to people who haven't had that experience.

There is not much you can do about this. You can't give people experience.

If you want to argue that Car A is more difficult to drive than Car B, how would you "prove" that to someone who has never driven a car? You would probably have to teach them to drive and then have them try driving each car! In some cases that might not be possible.

And yet the difficulty involved in proving such a statement does not mean that the statement is arbitrary or false or subjective. It would be easy to prove it to someone who can drive; just have them drive both cars and see for themselves...

The difficulty of proving such statements, though, does show why it's better to allow people to make their own decisions than to have them made "correctly" by highly educated bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who have never driven either car.

Unfortunately even the Republicans have failed to understand this.

[Jon C]

35 minutes ago, necrovore said:

This is tough because there can be other reasons besides "lack of evidence" for a lack of indictments. For example, if hundreds of people are engaged in the same crime, prosecuting just one of them may cause the others to take measures to protect themselves... but prosecuting all of them simultaneously is more difficult and requires more preparation. For another example, when you have "systemic corruption" that usually means that people in positions of power will use their power to defend each other. Is there a risk that a case prosecuting a corrupt official will be heard by a corrupt judge? And how would you deal with such a risk?

I think this is all fair enough as far as general statements go. One point I’d make is that Elon has asserted a significant number of separate instances of fraud (the social security fraud claim in your list above is relevant here), so it’s highly unlikely that *all* these instances could be perpetrated solely by well-connected and powerful people, so if the admin wanted to go after “low-hanging fruit” it would seem like that should be viable. This would even seem a decent potential longer-term strategy, since successfully prosecuting some people would add credibility to broadening investigations, and also take space away from any corrupt actors to maneuver without being noticed and identified. 

As for your other concern, can you think of any examples of this admin not taking a step because it was afraid of being hampered by an uncooperative judge? In any case we surely don’t deal with the risk of a potential corrupt judge somewhere by refusing to prosecute anyone anywhere.

It’s reasonable if you don’t want to give a particular number in response to my original first question because of your above misgivings. But say the year is 2028 and there have still been *zero* prosecutions in connection with Elon’s alleged findings. Would you then be at all concerned about their credibility? Or to make it worse, suppose that by 2028 there had still been no specific supporting evidence (no primary source confirmation) made public? If the answer is no, what would be an example of a conceivable “red flag” for you?  

 

I don’t think I have major objections with your answer to my second question. Surely the kind of fact being asserted is pretty relevant as well; if I claim that “X said Y on video, I’ve seen it” and I refuse to provide a link upon request, that would suggest I’m either lying or totally uninvested in the conversation, while if I claim “Napoleon shouldn’t have invaded Russia” then there’s some good reasons why it might be infeasible or a waste of time to try to provide any supporting evidence.

But in particular, I think if a person makes a very concrete assertion that *should* be easy for them to at least partially substantiate (like “nonprofits are the main tool people use to steal taxpayer money” to pick an example at random), then they insult the intelligence of their audience if they not only refuse to provide evidence but act indignant at the idea that they should. 

[necrovore]

There is somebody on X named "Data Republican" who has large volumes of information about non-profits and how they are spending their money, and has shared some of that information, so I wouldn't say that the claims are unsubstantiated.

There may also be many cases where people are spending the money in ways that are horrible and disgusting and yet may not be technically illegal. In such cases, the courts wouldn't be able to do anything, and it would be up to Congress to discontinue the funding (or to be more careful when specifying how it may and may not be used).

[Jon C]

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

There is somebody on X named "Data Republican" who has large volumes of information about non-profits and how they are spending their money, and has shared some of that information, so I wouldn't say that the claims are unsubstantiated.

There may also be many cases where people are spending the money in ways that are horrible and disgusting and yet may not be technically illegal. In such cases, the courts wouldn't be able to do anything, and it would be up to Congress to discontinue the funding (or to be more careful when specifying how it may and may not be used).

What is the relationship of DataRepublican’s posts and Elon’s claim that he and DOGE found and thwarted various instances of fraud? 

No disagreement from me for your second paragraph. 

[necrovore]

I should say more specifically that the "large volumes of information" that DataRepublican has, consist of publicly available data (such as from USASpending) which often was not cross-referenced, so that sources and destinations of funding were "published" but not widely known. DataRepublican was able to run analyses on these data and make the connections that otherwise would have been lost in the crowd, so to speak.

Usually DataRepublican would be able to find specific instances of questionable spending, and post about them online; Musk and DOGE would then cite them and suggest that there are more such instances.

Edited May 28 by necrovore

[stansfield123]

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

it would be up to Congress to discontinue the funding (or to be more careful when specifying how it may and may not be used).

That's a logistical impossibility, due to the size of the federal government. At this level, the specifics can only be decided by unelected and mostly unaccountable bureaucrats. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's why, in this case, the only solution is a ban or serious limit on such funding at the federal level. As for publicly traded corporations giving money away (to anyone), that should be illegal on principle. It's not their money.

Please keep in mind that I am making REALISTIC suggestions here, not particularly principled ones. These would be political compromises. Government funding for charities and activists wouldn't be eliminated, it would just be moved down to the state level. And grants for scientific research would obviously be exempted at the federal level as well. You can't defund science, there's no political will for that.

When it comes to corporations, there's plenty of political support for banning corporate activism, so that's easily doable.

[Jon C]

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

That's a logistical impossibility, due to the size of the federal government. At this level, the specifics can only be decided by unelected and mostly unaccountable bureaucrats. That's just the nature of the beast.

Why is it that when Republicans are fully in charge of the federal govt, all of a sudden doing anything by the books is impossible? Congress can create departments and it can eliminate them. Trump’s effort to gut the department of Ed. by fiat was rightly blocked by a judge because its beyond his authority. Well, he’s supposed to be such a brilliant dealmaker, and every republican lawmaker is absolutely terrified of his scorn, so why doesn’t he tell them to do it, repeatedly and publicly? Is it because he’s incompetent and prefers handing down flashy edicts to actually accomplishing anything of substance? Nah, couldn’t be. 

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

That's why, in this case, the only solution is a ban or serious limit on such funding at the federal level. As for publicly traded corporations giving money away (to anyone), that should be illegal on principle. It's not their money.

Congress gets to decide how tax money is spent, so you’re either calling for a congressional act (contradicting your first sentence) or you want trump to ignore the constitution and behave like a king. I know you want the latter so why not be a man and admit it? 

As for publicly traded companies, it’s true that they have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. But there’s nothing improper about having a shareholder meeting and saying “we are thinking that a public donation to X will be really good PR for us, how do all present vote?” If I and a bunch of other investors think it’s a wise move, that’s our business, and you can disinvest from the company if you disagree. Corporations don’t “give money away,” they always get (or expect to) something of value in return. 

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Please keep in mind that I am making REALISTIC suggestions here, not particularly principled ones.

Don’t worry, nobody here thinks you’re principled. 

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Government funding for charities and activists wouldn't be eliminated, it would just be moved down to the state level.

Why on earth would this be preferable to anyone? 

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

And grants for scientific research would obviously be exempted at the federal level as well. You can't defund science, there's no political will for that.

So…are you saying you disapprove of Trump trying to do exactly that, or are you just telling bald-faces lies? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01397-1

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

When it comes to corporations, there's plenty of political support for banning corporate activism, so that's easily doable.

Yeah the first amendment should only apply to popularly endorsed speech. Very rational. Much freedom.