U.S. Budget Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 322
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
”… 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. …”

 
”… 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. …”

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.
 
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.
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. …”
 
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. …”
That was my recollection as well. I think Bill cleaned house when he was elected.

Cuts are needed for sure. I just question whether or not Trump is qualified to understand the impacts of his cuts.
 
”… 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 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
 
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 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.
 

Chatgpt​

Estimates on Privatization & Outsourcing

  1. Federal Contractor Workforce Growth
    • In the early 1990s, the number of federal contractors was estimated at around 4 million.
    • By the mid-2000s, it had grown to over 7.5 million, more than triple the size of the direct federal workforce (~2 million).
    • Today, estimates suggest millions of jobs are handled by contractors, though exact figures vary by agency and sector.
  2. Government-Wide Impact
    • The Department of Defense (DoD) has been the largest source of outsourcing, with hundreds of thousands of positions now performed by private military contractors (e.g., logistics, IT, and even security).
    • Other agencies like the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and NASA also outsource significant functions.
  3. Postal Service & Infrastructure
    • The U.S. Postal Service, once a dominant employer, has outsourced many logistics and mail-handling tasks to private delivery firms like FedEx and UPS.
    • Federal infrastructure projects (e.g., road construction, IT services) are increasingly contracted out to private firms.
  4. Healthcare & Social Services
    • The government contracts many healthcare-related services through Medicare and Medicaid programs, where private companies manage claims and patient services.
    • The privatization of prison systems also falls under this trend, with private firms running many correctional facilities.

Why This Happened

  • Cost Savings – Contractors are often seen as cheaper since they don’t receive government pensions or benefits.
  • Flexibility – It allows agencies to scale up or down more easily based on needs.
  • Political & Policy Shifts – Many administrations (especially since the Reagan era) have pushed for smaller direct government employment.
 
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.
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.

I do think Trump wants to do what he wants to do and probably realizes that getting his agenda through a very tight Congress is going to be difficult. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which political side you're on, this is how the system is designed to work. Yep, he's pushing the boundaries of Executive power. Maybe this will bring about some positive changes in that area, as well.

Like Obama said... "where Congress won't act, I will."
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top