Callatoroy
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,658
Really? That is pretty bold.Personally I am withdrawing my pension funds and putting them in Crypto
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? That is pretty bold.Personally I am withdrawing my pension funds and putting them in Crypto
When was the last time the federal government had a massive layoff? Do they usually manage cost cutting through attrition? I have no clue.”… White House officials are eyeing cuts to agency budgets of between 30 and 40 percent, on average, across the government — centered on significant staff reductions, according to two other people briefed on internal conversations, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to recount private deliberations.
That target would vary greatly, and it’s expected to exempt agencies favored by President Donald Trump, such as the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on that figure. The people cautioned those plans are not yet finalized and could change. …”
Clinton Administration cut about 350,000 jobs under a government restructuring law they passed through Congress in the early ‘90s. Some layoffs and a lot via attrition.When was the last time the federal government had a massive layoff? Do they usually manage cost cutting through attrition? I have no clue.
Google tells me in 1990 we had 3.4m federal employees and now we have 2.4m. That seems like we are really driving the productivity you would expect.
Pay judges to retire early?Is that a typo? What the fuck does the Judiciary Committee need $110B for?
That was my recollection as well. I think Bill cleaned house when he was elected.Clinton Administration cut about 350,000 jobs under a government restructuring law they passed through Congress in the early ‘90s. Some layoffs and a lot via attrition.
“… The Clinton administration reduced the size of the workforce by 377,000 civil servants in its “Reinventing Government” strategy, resulting at the time in the smallest federal workforce in 40 years. The cuts partly came through layoffs, though; attrition also played a big role. …”
I stopped voting Republican after W's first term, when it became clear that Congress, as a whole, simply doesn't care about financial responsibility. This may be messy and some moves may need to be rolled back, but at least we have a President and, presumably, enough of Congress to finally reign in spending.”… White House officials are eyeing cuts to agency budgets of between 30 and 40 percent, on average, across the government — centered on significant staff reductions, according to two other people briefed on internal conversations, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to recount private deliberations.
That target would vary greatly, and it’s expected to exempt agencies favored by President Donald Trump, such as the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on that figure. The people cautioned those plans are not yet finalized and could change. …”
I don't understand. What does the Jaguar refer to?
People voting for the leopard eating faces party getting surprised when leopard eats faces.I don't understand. What does the Jaguar refer to?
ROFL I'm a dumbass. Carry on!I don't understand. What does the Jaguar refer to?
You think Trump cares about spending? hahaha. The only reason there is a DOGE and the only reason we are going through this spending cut Kabuki theater is because they know Trump can't get his unpopular tax cuts passed through the GOP's thin margins in the House without major spending cuts. So, you can thank hardliners for this masquerade. The net result though will be an unpaid tax cut for corporations and top earners in this country. There isn't enough to spending to cut to fund these tax cuts unless they start slashing Medicare and Defense and there is zero chance that happens regardless of positioning on Medicaid programs.I stopped voting Republican after W's first term, when it became clear that Congress, as a whole, simply doesn't care about financial responsibility. This may be messy and some moves may need to be rolled back, but at least we have a President and, presumably, enough of Congress to finally reign in spending.
Bill Clinton had his own version of DOGE that aimed to streamline processes and cut spending. He also, admittedly, raised capital gains taxes a little too much, but at least he, like Trump, seemed to legitimately give a crap about being responsible.
A lot of presidents have given tax cuts or proposed spending increases without having a sure-fire way to balance the financials. Harris flat-out lied about her plans to tax unrealized capital gains to give the illusion that she was going to have a balanced budget. But, again, this is the first President since Clinton to actually try to scale down the size, scope and spending of the federal government. Even if it's for some of the wrong reasons, at least he's doing it.You think Trump cares about spending? hahaha. The only reason there is a DOGE and the only reason we are going through this spending cut Kabuki theater is because they know Trump can't get his unpopular tax cuts passed through the GOP's thin margins in the House without major spending cuts. So, you can thank hardliners for this masquerade. The net result though will be an unpaid tax cut for corporations and top earners in this country. There isn't enough to spending to cut to fund these tax cuts unless they start slashing Medicare and Defense and there is zero chance that happens regardless of positioning on Medicaid programs.
You think a guy who has filed multiple bankruptcies in his life, bankrupted multiple casinos, stolen from charities, stiffed countless workers and contractors through the years, and had more failed business ventures that you can count on two hands....."legitimately gives a crap about being responsible"? I'm not even being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. That's what you actually think?I stopped voting Republican after W's first term, when it became clear that Congress, as a whole, simply doesn't care about financial responsibility. This may be messy and some moves may need to be rolled back, but at least we have a President and, presumably, enough of Congress to finally reign in spending.
Bill Clinton had his own version of DOGE that aimed to streamline processes and cut spending. He also, admittedly, raised capital gains taxes a little too much but at least he, like Trump, seemed to legitimately give a crap about being responsible.
I can at least understand that perspective even if I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I get the need to reduce as much wasteful government spending as is possible. I support it, in fact. What I don't support is giving a coked-up dude with Aspberger's a chainsaw and allowing him to indiscriminately massacre the entire federal government within a matter of weeks. That's wildly irresponsible and is going to have real-world negative impacts on every single one of us regardless of our political views.A lot of presidents have given tax cuts or proposed spending increases without having a sure-fire way to balance the financials. Harris flat-out lied about her plans to tax unrealized capital gains to give the illusion that she was going to have a balanced budget. But, again, this is the first President since Clinton to actually try to scale down the size, scope and spending of the federal government. Even if it's for some of the wrong reasons, at least he's doing it.
So you are ok with gutting services that help those who need it the most in order to give political cover to pass a huge tax cut that will go to the wealthiest in the country because it will shrink the size of government? Even though it won't do anything to fix the deficit and potentially will make it worse? The whole point of shrinking the government is to fix the deficit/debt situation we have, not to shift the burden of running deficits onto those who need the most help. I would be ok with the whole DOGE exercise, even if I think it's a stupid way to go about it, if Trump wasn't simultaneously trying to pass a tax cut for people (like me) who don't even need it and thereby doing nothing to fix the fiscal situation.A lot of presidents have given tax cuts or proposed spending increases without having a sure-fire way to balance the financials. Harris flat-out lied about her plans to tax unrealized capital gains to give the illusion that she was going to have a balanced budget. But, again, this is the first President since Clinton to actually try to scale down the size, scope and spending of the federal government. Even if it's for some of the wrong reasons, at least he's doing it.
I don't know what's going on in Trump's mind and, even if he's doing the right thing for the wrong reason, at least he's doing the right thing.You think a guy who has filed multiple bankruptcies in his life, bankrupted multiple casinos, stolen from charities, stiffed countless workers and contractors through the years, and had more failed business ventures that you can count on two hands....."legitimately gives a crap about being responsible"? I'm not even being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. That's what you actually think?
Trump is doing all of this because he's too weak to govern as a president, so he's trying to rule by decree like a king. Even with full Republican control of Congress, he quite literally can't get any legislation passed because it's so unpopular even among mainstream Republicans.
The Clinton restructure was not really at all like DOGE wilding through government and slashing payrolls with no plan other than cut jobs. Under Clinton, Congress passed a bill working with the Clinton Admin and thought was put into where to cut and a lot of it was done over time via attrition. Employee rights were respected.A lot of presidents have given tax cuts or proposed spending increases without having a sure-fire way to balance the financials. Harris flat-out lied about her plans to tax unrealized capital gains to give the illusion that she was going to have a balanced budget. But, again, this is the first President since Clinton to actually try to scale down the size, scope and spending of the federal government. Even if it's for some of the wrong reasons, at least he's doing it.
Zen's response is precisely the outcome RWM mis/dis, as feed by grifters and oligarchs, desires. They have cultivated a blatantly obvious con, with a blatantly bad faith message/cudgel (i.e. gov bad, debt bad), all the while they raid public coffers and feed the masses the decades-old, debunked lie that is trickle down economics.I can at least understand that perspective even if I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I get the need to reduce as much wasteful government spending as is possible. I support it, in fact. What I don't support is giving a coked-up dude with Aspberger's a chainsaw and allowing him to indiscriminately massacre the entire federal government within a matter of weeks. That's wildly irresponsible and is going to have real-world negative impacts on every single one of us regardless of our political views.