Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unleashes

[canpakes]

Perhaps when you went bonkers over TDS? Perhaps take a look at the unaccounted for payments the treasury made as claimed by DOGE. Pretty scary and needs to be investigated.

Nothing in that story or the linked tweet from it claim that any of the payments are ‘unaccounted for’, nor were any details subsequently provided as to what the payments were, or to whom.

They are claimed to be missing a tracking code. That doesn’t mean that they were not able to actually be reconciled. Note the use of the word, ‘almost’, the one detail that is included.

Words mean things, at least to most people who aren’t lackeys of the current Administration.

[Dr Exiled]

Perhaps when you went bonkers over TDS? Perhaps take a look at the unaccounted for payments the treasury made as claimed by DOGE. Pretty scary and needs to be investigated.

Nothing in that story or the linked tweet from it claim that any of the payments are ‘unaccounted for’, nor were any details subsequently provided as to what the payments were, or to whom.

They are claimed to be missing a tracking code. That doesn’t mean that they were not able to actually be reconciled. Note the use of the word, ‘almost’, the one detail that is included.

Words mean things, at least to most people who aren’t lackeys of the current Administration.

The payments ($4.7 Trillion) are missing the tracking code and so they don't know where the payments went. The claim is that they are "untraceable" because of the missing code. Here is the definition from Cambridge of "unaccounted for" - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ounted-for

Take a look at the second part of the definition and the synonyms below and let me know if there is any congruence between "unaccounted for" and "untraceable." I think others will find congruence.

I'll help. If payments cannot be traced due to a lack of a specific code, how can one account for where they went? Payments could have gone to Hunter's hooker parties for all we know or they could have gone to legitimate places (just think of the last one so your TDS can stay within limits).

Even so, I await the word order/sentence structure/punctuation police. TDS infects the mind to where it forces one to look at where commas are placed, hoping for a quick score. It twists words around in the mind to justify the TDS regardless of reality. TDS loves to accuse while claiming the accused is the one accusing in a miss mash of nonsense that makes conversation impossible.

Snap out of it please.

Now, wouldn't you want to have a better accounting system where we could immediately know where each dollar is spent? Isn't correcting the system a good thing? Is the fact that the code was missing for who knows how long make fraud, gulp, a possibility? Or Trump bad, all bad? Doesn't this discovery deserve more scrutiny and investigation?

[canpakes]

Nothing in that story or the linked tweet from it claim that any of the payments are ‘unaccounted for’, nor were any details subsequently provided as to what the payments were, or to whom.

They are claimed to be missing a tracking code. That doesn’t mean that they were not able to actually be reconciled. Note the use of the word, ‘almost’, the one detail that is included.

Words mean things, at least to most people who aren’t lackeys of the current Administration.

The payments ($4.7 Trillion) are missing the tracking code and so they don't know where the payments went. The claim is that they are "untraceable" because of the missing code. Here is the definition from Cambridge of "unaccounted for" - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ounted-for

Take a look at the second part of the definition and the synonyms below and let me know if there is any congruence between "unaccounted for" and "untraceable." I think others will find congruence.

I'll help. If payments cannot be traced due to a lack of a specific code, how can one account for where they went? Payments could have gone to Hunter's hooker parties for all we know or they could have gone to legitimate places (just think of the last one so your TDS can stay within limits).

Even so, I await the word order/sentence structure/punctuation police. TDS infects the mind to where it forces one to look at where commas are placed, hoping for a quick score. It twists words around in the mind to justify the TDS regardless of reality. TDS loves to accuse while claiming the accused is the one accusing in a miss mash of nonsense that makes conversation impossible.

Snap out of it please.

Good Doctor: I will quote from your original news source:

“In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost impossible,” read an X post from DOGE.

Reread that again, if you must.

There is no need to “await the word order/sentence structure/punctuation police”. Nowhere does it say that anyone doesn’t know where payments went. The only claim here is that payments are ALMOST ‘untraceable’ if the code isn’t added. Not that they are actually missing. You are literally adding words and changing the meaning of the original report, which I figure is phrased in the interesting way that it is to fool some people into reading into it something that is NOT said.

Now, wouldn't you want to have a better accounting system where we could immediately know where each dollar is spent? Isn't correcting the system a good thing? Is the fact that the code was missing for who knows how long make fraud, gulp, a possibility? Or Trump bad, all bad?

Sounds like adding the code to every transaction is a good thing. A sloppy procedure (or one deemed unnecessary for these particular payments for reasons that have not been provided) has been rectified. Mission accomplished! And the only thing ‘bad’ here seems to be your manipulation of the language - or your acquiescence to manipulation of it by others.

Doesn't this discovery deserve more scrutiny and investigation?

Do you consider it strange that no example of fraudulent payment activity from ALMOST untraceable payments was provided?

Maybe because there was no actual fraud there?

[Gadianton]

The TAS is already recorded on the certified funding document, which is linked to the order form; there are several documents that are all linked during the process of procurement. It would be impossible to complete the order without the TAS. It's optional on the AUB because it exists elsewhere, perhaps the G-invoicing order in some situations. Maybe it's nice to have the TAS in a second place to prevent mistakes. But it is no challenge whatsoever to find where the payment went for any given order. Is it suspicious that Musk calls that out and doesn't also call out the optional BETC code? What about the optional CAGE field? Wouldn't it be more secure to make these fields mandatory also?

It may be true that when running a massive database query using the initial order form that finding funding destination for hundreds of thousands of transactions is much quicker than linking from the order form to the destination through other forms. Nobody likely anticipated this use case, then again, it's possible he doesn't know enough to perform the query in an efficient way. It's possible that somebody outside his private little gang has some skills with the government's databases that he doesn't.

[Kishkumen]

Wait, so you are telling me that the spokesperson for the Trump administration holds up a piece of paper and claims the $57,000 dollars were misspent--a minuscule fraction of the budget--and in your mind that validates DOGE?

I am worried about you, Exiled. When did you lose your marbles?

Perhaps when you went bonkers over TDS? Perhaps take a look at the unaccounted for payments the treasury made as claimed by DOGE. Pretty scary and needs to be investigated. https://nypost.com/2025/02/17/us-news/d ... ical-code/ DOGE is more than what Leavitt has shown, but you know that, and are disingenuously making the above comment and for some reason have a hard time admitting that our government, democrats and republicans, have perhaps defrauded us????? However, bury your head in the sand and moan because Hitler came back? Maybe your anti-Trump team's propaganda is suspect? If Trump wanted clean air and clean water, would you automatically oppose it? I hope not. I worry about your rationality and have since covid. Maybe your fears are overcoming you?

It’s almost like you don’t know that there are already audits done in the government. It is the Pentagon that notoriously fails them. But let’s trust the guy whose biggest aspiration is to be even more ridiculously wealthy than he is already. The one who supports far-right politics. He is the influence of integrity and selflessness that is needed to correct our system! LOL!!!

[canpakes]

An update on the ongoing saga of DOGE, and its intrusion into Social Security in search of claimed ‘massive fraud’ …

DOGE went looking for phone fraud at SSA — and found almost none

By NATALIE ALMS MAY 15, 2025

Since SSA installed new anti-fraud checks on claims made over the phone, only two claims out of over 110,000 were found to likely be fraudulent, according to internal documents obtained by Nextgov/FCW.

After installing anti-fraud checks for benefit claims made over the phone early last month, the Social Security Administration is considering walking back the policy after finding only two cases that had a high probability of being fraudulent.

The anti-fraud tool set up last month after weeks of changes to the agency’s telephone policies has slowed retirement claim processing by 25% and led to a "degradation of public service,” according to an internal May document obtained by Nextgov/FCW that examined potentially cutting the anti-fraud tool for phone claims.

Under the new policy, the agency found that only two benefit claims out of over 110,000 had a high probability of being fraudulent — and they aren’t guaranteed to be so. Less than 1% of claims were flagged as even potentially fraudulent at all.

“No significant fraud has been detected from the flagged cases,” the internal document said.

The attention to fraud, however, did cause delays, as SSA changed its phone procedures to add the checks on the backend.

The lags stem from the three-day hold placed on telephone claims in order to run the antifraud claims, a move that “delays payments and benefits to customers, despite an extremely low risk of fraud,” as the document noted.

When SSA put the policy in place in early April, the agency said it would require people deemed suspicious to go in-person to an office to prove their identity.

Initially, the anti-fraud algorithm was being run against all phone claims, but SSA later narrowed it only to retirement, survivors and auxiliary claims — not disability claims — after internal pushback, two employees told Nextgov/FCW. SSA uses Transunion and PinDrop for anti-fraud detection on its phone calls, according to one employee.

SSA’s leadership is now considering changing the policy, especially the three-day hold, and potentially making changes around identity proofing writ large, one agency employee told Nextgov/FCW. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
…

Full story at: https://www.nextgov.com/digital-governm ... ne/405346/