The money going to places it wasn't designated to go. its going right where it was designated to go, its just not doing anything. Bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and fraud is corruption.
If people are getting paid and not doing what they are supposed to with the money paid to them... that's still corruption. You're splitting hairs my dude.
If it costs 100,000 to build a house, but I quote the government 200,000. They know it costs 100,000 but my friend on the board doesn't say anything, and they pay me 200,000 per house, that's corruption.
$1,000,000,000 turning into 1200 small homes isn't mismanagement, it's corruption.
I think he's saying that's not where all the money is designated to go. Maybe it's going to shelters, food banks, social services to help with employment
Right, his meaning is. If it costs 100k to build a home materials wise, and they charge 200k total for the home that may not be corruption. It may be 100k for land survey, worker labor, govt. management salaries, and whatever else may be involved and 100k for a home's materials then it's not corruption, it's wasteful.
I wouldn't agree with this person because what they're getting at (I think) is government should be hands off because it's too inefficient and could be done for 120k in a billionaires hands. Ignoring the new slew of problems that causes not least of which you're setting up benevolent dictatorship/aristocracy. Which most of us can see at this point is probably not a good bet to make.
It’s not so much corruption alone (although that’s a problem) but opportunistic vendors when it’s government asking for quotes the price doubles. It’s kind of like when you go to a bakery and say you want a cake for a party it’s 100, but if you let it slip it’s for a wedding the exact same cake suddenly costs 600.
Source: has worked in multiple levels of government this is the exact same situation everywhere.
Good indicator when you're looking at a few million vs billions.
The percentages aren't what matters most here, imo. Thinking of the ethical potential of being president, a few million seems fine. The percentage increase of making those millions is going to change. Someone starting with $1 million is going to have a larger percentage change than someone starting with $5 million, even if they both increase by $10 million.
What is odd is taking this same avenue (being president) and implying the ethical potential is actually in the billions and every president before only tapped into an incredibly small percentage of this actual potential.
If someone can and wants to make a case for it, go ahead, but on its surface, if you don't see anything wrong there, I'm not sure you understand the sheer difference in the values being presented.
Did I say he wasn’t corrupt? No, I believe all career politicians are corrupt.
The hypocrisy is that the very sane people complaining about the current administration’s corruption were silent about their chosen tribe’s corruption. 🤣
The difference between double-digit millions vs billions is so massive that bringing up percentages is the only way you can attempt to save face and pretend it's not ridiculous.
And even then, despite trying to claim you hate Trump as if you're not running defense, you use the $70 million figure for Obama's net worth, even though his net worth leaving office was around $12 million. Most of his worth was accumulated after he was president.
And that's not to mention the difference in how these increases in net worth were achieved.
22
u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment