╌>

About that federal worker buyout thing...

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  dig  •  one week ago  •  89 comments

About that federal worker buyout thing...

In case you haven't heard:

Trump administration offers federal workers payouts for resignations in move mirroring Elon Musk's memo at Twitter

Funny how similar it sounds to Curtis Yarvin's R.A.G.E. – Retire All Government Employees. A step in "deleting" the government so a dictator can take over.

Curtis Yarvin is an anti-democracy douchebag who wants the U.S. to become a dictatorship, like a corporation with a CEO.

Apparently, Yarvin is popular among tech billionaires (Trump's new boot lickers), including Peter Thiel, who basically financed JD Vance's entire career.

Rachel Maddow discussed this whole thing about Yarvin, Thiel, and Vance on Tuesday night, but I can't find a video of that segment.

I did, however, find a segment from a few months ago discussing much of the same thing...

***

***

For more, here's an article from last summer:

JD Vance’s radical plan to build a government of Trump loyalists

“Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”

***

Let's recap...

  • Vance is a Silicon Valley tech billionaire's pet project
  • Trump has recently surrounded himself with tech billionaires
  • Vance thinks we are a late-stage republic (like Rome right before it became a permanent dictatorship)
  • Vance has referred to Yarvin as someone with ideas he finds interesting
  • Yarvin wants to get rid of our republic and replace it with a dictatorship
  • Trump would obviously love to be a dictator (for life even)
  • Yarvin has suggested a way to begin – R.A.G.E. (retire all government employees)
  • Trump initiates a federal worker resignation program

What the actual F**K?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Dig
Professor Participates
1  author  Dig    one week ago

And we're only in Trump's second week.

You know damn well he never wants to leave power again.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dig @1    one week ago
"Trump has recently surrounded himself with tech billionaires"

The ones who are sucking up to him are absolutely disgusting, and if they're going to take big personal hits because of DeepSeek, they damn well deserve it.  Of course, Zuckerberg didn't need to dance with Trump for him to be a bastard, he already accomplished that in college. 

"You know damn well he never wants to leave power again."

There was a movie about Nixon in which he questioned whether it was possible to get a third term.  It sure as hell wouldn't surprise me if Trump were to take a shot at it. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
1.1.1  author  Dig  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    one week ago

A Republican House member actually submitted a proposal for a third Trump term last week.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dig @1.1.1    one week ago

Why does that NOT surprise me?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Dig @1    7 hours ago
You know damn well he never wants to leave power again.

he's got to survive the next 1442 days first ...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.1  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 hours ago

With the plethora of people who Trump is currently ruining their livelihoods and lives, one would think that there would be a long line of folk planning his immediate demise.

Seriously pissing off thousands of gun toting FBI agents would not seem to be conducive to one's continued health.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.1    3 hours ago

I'm waiting for him to piss off the military so I can pick up a few stingers, RPG's, and man-pads real cheap ... /s

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one week ago

IMO, there is no doubt that Trump wants and 3rd and 4th term and is setting things up to accomplish that goal. Sadly, we have millions of Americans that think it’s a great idea and willing follow the Pied Piper of Diaster down the primrose path to destruction. 

The ‘’Tech bros’’ have taken their place as the palace guard. Perhaps we are seeing the end of era as American sinks into the slime of Trumpism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one week ago

Good article.  I have read a couple long articles about Yarvin and the tech magnates acceptance of his ideas.  Yarvin promotes the idea of an unelected "CEO" running the country, sort of like a businessman -king.  The purpose would be to avoid the messy complications of checks and balances, need for bipartisan collaboration , and well, elections. 

The tech magnates may be drooling at the thought. Which one of them would win the fight?   The Trump administration may serve the function of greasing the skids for this. 

Of course this could never happen. The richest people in the world couldnt get their way, could they? 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.1  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 days ago
Of course this could never happen. The richest people in the world couldnt get their way, could they? 

Couldn't? Heck, they already have.

(Its just that most of them are smart enought to keep quiet about it...)

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4  Hal A. Lujah    one week ago

Oligarchy 101.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1  evilone  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    one week ago

Right out of the Project 2025 handbook - remove as many federal workers as possible and hire new ones faithful to the Emperor. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    one week ago

Bill Clinton did the same thing, 

why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.1  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one week ago
why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?

They don't want the competition for the welfare dollars.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.1.1  CB  replied to  George @5.1    20 hours ago

I guess it depends on where one is 'standing' and oriented to matter, eh George? By the way, one distinction should be considered if Trump 'loyalists' take the positions held by neutral federal workings: Lack of job security of any kind. That is, they will not be offered the same or similar provisions to keep their jobs.

Hell of a way to run a perpetual system. . . installing new models of government every several years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one week ago

Why do all these tech bros, and your vice president, love a guy who is literally calling for America to be run as an authoritarian country? 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one week ago

Whatabout is like an unconscious reflex with you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3    2 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.1    2 days ago
REMOVED FOR CONTEXT
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.1    2 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 days ago
why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?

Because most taxpayer money is spent with the primary purpose of making people feel better with very little regard to what it actually achieves.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4    2 days ago
Because most taxpayer money is spent with the primary purpose of making people feel better with very little regard to what it actually achieves.

Pretty sure Trump is already trying to figure out how to get all this money that he is "saving" into his own pockets.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.4.2  George  replied to  Ozzwald @5.4.1    2 days ago

Another ignorant comment, with the exception of carter trump is the only president not to get richer after being president.

Donald Trump's Net Worth Fell by a Third During His Presidency, Forbes Says - Newsweek

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.4.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  George @5.4.2    2 days ago
trump is the only president not to get richer after being president.

The only reason Trump looked poorer than when he went into 2016 is because he was drastically overinflating his own worth which he's been doing for years. After becoming President, it became more difficult to just pull numbers out of his ass and present them as facts.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.4.5  George  replied to  Ozzwald @5.4.4    2 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.4.6  Ozzwald  replied to  George @5.4.5    yesterday
I give you a respectable website like Forbes and you respond with that, no wonder your comments are ignorant talking points.

And I gave you 6 respectable websites.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.7  Jack_TX  replied to  George @5.4.2    yesterday
Another ignorant comment

You are posting on a seed whose primary point is that offering federal employees an early retirement package constitutes the end of democracy.

[deleted] You [] may struggle to find people who understand the difference millions and billions, much less the difference between personal net worth and ordinary business income. Use of the term EBITDA may be considered racist.

Just reminding you to manage expectations.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.4.8  George  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.7    yesterday

[]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.9  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4    20 hours ago

What exactly should money do for the living besides make them feel good (asking for a friend)?  As 'it' clearly won't help anybody feel anything once they are dead. Oh, and yeah, feeling good is a thing to be achieved. (Chuckles.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.10  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.7    20 hours ago

Jack_Tx, there is a saying: All money is not GOOD money. Breaking a properly working civil service system and installing placeholders, boobs, rocks, and ninnies - all wearing the stamp: "loyalists' is not the proper way to run a civil servant which is dedicated to "we the people" —nor merely; 'us the conservatives.' BTW, these so-called new employees would come with no contracts that reflect permanence of any kind they could be and would be removed on a whim. Or, at the "pleasure of the President."

Removed (fired) in several years or less - four years at best. It would not take long to stress out the federal civil service system (and the public too) with staffing turnovers if one thinks deeply about this.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.11  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.9    14 hours ago
What exactly should money do for the living besides make them feel good (asking for a friend)?

If we're spending government money to solve a problem, it should actually help solve the problem.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.12  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.10    14 hours ago
a properly working civil service system

If you find one of those, do let us all know.

and installing placeholders, boobs, rocks, and ninnies - all wearing the stamp: "loyalists'

I don't think you understand how early retirement incentives work.   The idea is specifically to not replace them.

BTW, these so-called new employees

Again, you don't make the organization smaller if you replace the people you buy out.  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.4.13  author  Dig  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.7    10 hours ago
You are posting on a seed whose primary point is that offering federal employees an early retirement package constitutes the end of democracy.

You're leaving out quite a bit there.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.14  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.11    6 hours ago

Of course, we are agreed on that. It's a given

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.15  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    6 hours ago

There will be replacements. . . because the civil service system is not a 'charity system.'  That bloat MAGA is imagining. . .is the needs of 350 plus million people being met (more or less) across 50 states! Don't let cynicism cause one to forget that. Because when lack and lagging to get results returns to the system. . . buckle up, buttercups (the saying goes.)

Now then when the replacements start. . . .  There will be a tangible problem: Trump is swearing and vetting people to himself, his whims, and MAGA interests. That can not stand in the civil service system.

Here's why. 

1. It is impractical to change out the federal civil service system every time a new president takes office. It is impractical to the staffing and even worse for the millions of recipients being served. 

2. Civil servants have to be neutral parties (from all 'walks' of life) not administrative flunkies, lackies, or loyalists to the 'top' federal official. That is, politics (its likes and dislikes) can not be the Determinator of whom will be served or not served, treated or not treated, paid or not paid, in a system where EVERYBODY is participants.

(Surely MAGAs do not wish for a democrat president to come in an treat them the government the way that they are treating it now. Therefore, it is in the interest of THE COUNTRY to leave the civil service out of party politics and national 'quarreling.')

Best to STOP this now, before we (all) unmake our national 'bed.'  Even now as we are tearing our systems down (imagining them being 'saved,' our enemies are seeing opportunity to complete making their 'beds' and making off with our status and position in the world.

NOTE: All that being said I realize that our nation has its economic problems and that RESULTS are needed. Messing around with the people serving to fix those problems is not the solution. Ironically, it is congress'  (all parties there) duty and responsibility to write policy and law that can resolve the 'ails' of this nation's financial circumstances.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Dig @5.4.13    5 hours ago
You're leaving out quite a bit there.

Well let's use your own words, shall we?

Funny how similar it sounds to Curtis Yarvin's R.A.G.E. – Retire All Government Employees. A step in "deleting" the government so a dictator can take over. Curtis Yarvin   is an anti-democracy douchebag who wants the U.S. to become a dictatorship , like a corporation with a CEO.

Then you have that series of bullet points where you lay out that Trump and Vance want to establish a permanent dictatorship.  

  • Vance thinks we are a late-stage republic (like Rome right before it became a permanent dictatorship )
  • Vance has referred to Yarvin as someone with ideas he finds interesting
  • Yarvin wants to get rid of our republic and replace it with a dictatorshi p
  • Trump would obviously love to be a dictator (for life even)

So if that's not your primary point, please clarify.

Because as a primary point, it's insane.  Do you hear yourself?   

It makes a diatribe from Marjorie Taylor Greene look brilliant in comparison.  It's primary value is to prove that there is no limit to the level of batshit nonsense liberals will believe when it comes to Donald Trump.  At this point, I will not be surprised if we soon have a Rachel Maddow video accusing Trump of attempting to bring back Baal worship so he can sacrifice all the babies and eat them.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.4.17  George  replied to  Ozzwald @5.4.6    5 hours ago

Where 3 said the same thing, an international business made money internationally, it's almost like you are trying to post stupid comments, FORBES who tracks the wealth of Billionaires says trump lost wealth as president, unlike democrat pieces of shit who only care about turning a profit. with the exception of President Carter of course.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.18  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.15    5 hours ago
There will be replacements. . .

I don't think that's the plan.  That's not how buyouts work.

because the civil service system is not a 'charity system.'

I think their view would be that it is, in fact, a charity system for the benefit of the employees who don't work very hard.

Now then when the replacements start.

We'll agree to see this differently.

There will be a tangible problem: Trump is swearing and vetting people to himself, his whims, and MAGA interests.

I think this would be immensely difficult to accomplish over a large number hires.  It's one thing to appoint leadership who are loyal to him, and indeed that's the expectation of any president.  But there are over 3 million civil servants.  Even a tiny fraction.... say 30,000 people... would represent a group far too large to accommodate ideological enforcement in any meaningful sense.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.4.19  Ozzwald  replied to  George @5.4.17    3 hours ago
FORBES who tracks the wealth of Billionaires says trump lost wealth as president

If you'd have looked, you'd have seen that I also posted a FORBES article showing how Trump made millions and billions as POTUS.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.20  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.18    3 hours ago
I think their view would be that it is, in fact, a charity system for the benefit of the employees who don't work very hard.

Spoken like a skeptic making assumptions about how hard a government 'servant' works, functions, conducts the affairs of state. I can imagine it gets real hard to work trying to keep up with congressional laws that intertwine, laws which often written across multiple political worldviews or 'competing' political conscience states of interests. Properly so, the art of compromise likely means somebody at all time is relatively unhappy (but should not be . . .. ) with the output of those workers who work in a secure job; and, do it because the jobs must (have necessity) to be done!

We should all work hard to understand and commiserate with the job of governing a DIVERSE, and independent minded people! (Tried 'herding cats' any time in life? Just imagine it as a daily 'duty' one can not get out of doing.)

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.4.21  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.16    3 hours ago
It's primary value is to prove that there is no limit to the level of batshit nonsense liberals will believe when it comes to Donald Trump.

Can you tell US All Trumps limit ?

Can you honestly not say, that fckd up piece of shit has not exceeded EVERYONES expectations of where he would, and most certainly should, be at this point in time, cause the spree of crime wave waving whilst not wavering at US, from of all places, an oval office, whenn he should rightfully be in prison, is example ample, that the Orange clown, enabled by the disgusting GOP is out of their control, and the severe damage, and oh there will be to this democracy, falls on those too busy to hear and see the truth they deny, that the lies they did buy, and or felt indifferent too, cause they said to themselves , whats the worst he can do, are slowly coming to terms with what they have done trying to make liberals become un-done, asz the asses who voted in mass to elect this pathetic pos potUS is the limit pushin fcxd up in the head old fool surrounded by cultivated in his kult following the immature a dolt and enabling a no saveing face while disabling so much, without rhyme or reason , just to show everything is in hunted season, is the main reason the Republicans nand this too lazy to think, and or care,. should reflect about that which actions, or inactions brought US A ll here. The fact  that our forefathers' could never see their great vision being entrusted to a populace without the thoughts and vision to see, what electing a criminal that has outdone anyother when it comes to be given a pass has been this ass, is, has, and plans to do in our immediately darkened future is exclamation pointed out by your , see how they are so upset about nothing reqally, and too touchy feely are the Dems and the libs, cause neither You, or any other on this forum that I can recall, predicted that this Dick tater tot boy toy foir Elon his mandate, would or could ever recessitate from the depths of where he placed himself. It seems wealth and playing to the worst emotions via oceans of LIES and telling insecure people that wantred and needed those lies to justify their ongoing demise, and to give them a place to put the blame that should be squarely on their shoulder's, on anyone but they. And if you truly can't see this, okay, but don't try and blow smoke up Elons ass,   Trump will choke, like the chicken shit he is, this country has become pathetically great again, just can't wait for all this winning to end, cause don't you think, don't you, no really, don't you think ? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.22  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.18    3 hours ago

The man is vetting people with his ideology. Each of his replacements (when the time draws near) will be given a script to read and 'uphold' as he is doing right now through using scripts to determine whomsoever he purges! It's undeniable. That Trump will have his 'lieutenants' - take the time - to upbraid with consequences any 'head' of a department who is not strictly abiding his demands of complete and utter following of the 'Captain' of the ship of state! As as we all are aware a free and independent people can not abide STRICT GOVERNANCE from an iron fist! The heavy 'hand' of the state will demolish as much good as it does bad! It's the nature of 'dominators' to injure, damage, and/or destroy what they can not control.

Indeed his new AG is 'attacking' federal employees and even state officials will be investigated (on the whims) for Trump's sake and his refusal to accept that regular citizens indicted him, rank and file juries indicted him, and judges sentenced him based on facts in a court setting. Not his whims about what he values as morally right and in his best interests

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.4.23  Igknorantzruls  replied to  CB @5.4.22    3 hours ago
Not his whims about what he values as morally right and in his best interests

he values only whims with a p, as in himself and powere with wealth, asz hes not exactly stealthy  nor mentally healthy, and his cult de as directly follow, the stump so fckn hollow, it grinds to a halt to keep abreast of the the halter top of our lowered country, tis of he

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.4.24  CB  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.4.23    3 hours ago

The one thread which runs throughout the life (as we know it) of Donald Trump, the man and the myth, is he is a DOMINATOR. It strikes me that all his life he has strived to be LISTENED TO AND OBEYED in private and professional life. Now he sits at the top of a political party heading the world's most powerful nation. . . in time, he will arrive at a point where his supporters will have quenched their appetites for REFORMATION of government systems. . . but what if President Trump has not met his goals. . . the DOMINATOR will press on with reformation. His surrogates and supporters will then realize they have unleashed a 'beast' not willing to be controlled (by them) and by then will have accomplished EVERYTHING it must do to 'hold' its own LEASH IN HIS OWN POWER! 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.4.25  Igknorantzruls  replied to  CB @5.4.24    3 hours ago

i don't believe even his cult will allow this, as some are more convinced than others about his all powerful powers

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.26  Jack_TX  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.4.21    an hour ago
Can you tell US All Trumps limit ?

I think the US Constitution does a wonderful job of that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.4.27  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.22    an hour ago
The man is vetting people with his ideology.

His ideology was elected.  Biden vetted people with his ideology when he was elected.  Every president does.

They do not, however, hire mid level civil servants.  

That Trump will have his 'lieutenants' - take the time - to upbraid with consequences any 'head' of a department who is not strictly abiding his demands of complete and utter following of the 'Captain' of the ship of state!

You are simultaneously claiming that a) this is possible AND b) Trump will be the first president to be able to do it.  This is just nonsense, CB.  You give him far too much credit.

As as we all are aware a free and independent people can not abide STRICT GOVERNANCE from an iron fist!

Just for a moment, stop thinking about this from the perspective of the person who has something to fear.  Instead, think of this from the perspective of the person who pays these people. 

If you pay a plumber to come to your home, you expect to be able to enforce accountability in that relationship.  You expect him to fix the problem you've identified in a timely fashion.  If he starts doing something else, you would expect to hold him accountable for what you have hired him for.  

To the extent you pay taxes, these people work for you, and you have every right to expect them to be held to standards.

Finally, think about how you would feel if President Biden or President Obama were initiating this action.  I suspect your objections would be exceedingly minimal.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
PhD Guide
5.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    yesterday
why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?

Many don't want people to find out what taxpayers have been spending money on, they might be voted out

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.5.1  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.5    20 hours ago

Perhaps that comment fails to realize there are issues and matters worth spending money on that are not part of the conservative (or libertarian-conservative) agendas. Of course, not all (or any) of the liberal agenda is morally right to conservatives, and that is OKAY, because not all (but some) of the conservative agenda is morally right to liberals. We live together, nevertheless.  Of course there will be funds found to be better managed, it is the nature of trillions of dollars to be constantly fought over and 'gained.' That is something of a given.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
PhD Guide
5.5.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @5.5.1    6 hours ago
Perhaps that comment fails to realize there are issues and matters worth spending money on that are not part of the conservative (or libertarian-conservative) agendas.

If that is true the liberals that are OK with the questionable spending should make their case to the American people as to why they think their tax payer dollars should be spent on it instead of fighting the bringing it out to ight.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.5.3  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.5.2    5 hours ago

That comment misses (moreso "dismisses") the point that the case has been made for helping "we the people" already as when the policies are put in place. That perpetual 'cynics' can not accept any rationale other than their own. . . is a matter of its own.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.5.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.5.2    5 hours ago
If that is true the liberals that are OK with the questionable spending should make their case to the American people as to why they think their tax payer dollars should be spent on it instead of fighting the bringing it out to ight.

They don't see it as questionable spending.

They see it as money spent to support the collective morality of a nation.

To a certain extent, they're not wrong.  For example, Americans generally are not a people who believe it's acceptable to sit by and let children go hungry or without shelter.  Generally, we believe all Americans should have the same basic opportunities.  We believe our nation must be sovereign and the rights we enjoy must be protected.  So we spend money on things like schools and food stamps and housing and stealth fighter jets. 

All of that is to put our money where our mouth is with regard to what we value collectively.

Now.... to certain extent, they're also full of shit  I don't doubt for a moment you can name a dozen things on which we spend big money that do not reflect our collective values at all.  The major problem here is when we have people who believe something the rest of us don't, and then assume the attitude "well if you were a better person you would agree with me, so we need to spend the money anyway".

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
PhD Guide
5.5.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jack_TX @5.5.4    4 hours ago
"well if you were a better person you would agree with me, so we need to spend the money anyway".

Which is exactly what you can do after decades of minimum oversight.  Of course if the party in power agrees with that they will be fine with the expenditures.  Which again begs the question if you are OK with the expenditures it might make more sense to defend that instead of all the time and energy complaining about the reason it was exposed.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.5.6  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.5.4    3 hours ago

Actually, I agreed with this. It is 'impossible' to put the money back in the bank (so to speak); as to who did what-when that got us into this 'mess' we are ALL in as a community. But, I do recognize an open-ness to discuss the issue without farther retreating into a talking point (no slight intended—really). 

We are a nation with two POWERFUL worldviews:  liberal-progressive and conservative-libertarian trying to best each other in political warfare. The case now being: the ends justify the means

The problem for us COMBINED is this: As far as we know, neither side is going away completely politically. . . and neither can we go on careening, caving, stumbling around, and falling politically through our future generations. . . expecting the world to not see us doing so and getting its collective interactions 'together' to boost the U.S. out of its vantage point (sitting at the top of nations).  We are/was(?) the envy of the world. As the nation of where immigrants could go, strive, and help lift their own brethren/kin back "home" to have some dignity in their dire political straits, respectively.

Now we are mired in tugs of war, attempting to remember and relive our 'glorious' past. But, as anybody who knows could explain. . . we can't return to our 'womb' or to our 'youth' as a nation. The future does not allow it. What we have learned, or should have learned has gotten us to the here and now. . . and we must go forward. . . come hell or high water. The past must remain in the past! It is the law of things.

What to do? 

We have three (or is it two and half) federal systems that are supposed to guide and balance the ship of state. What our leaders (all of them) have done is lay down on their duties and responsibilities and not done the HARDEST WORK OF ALL to reduce our national debt; listen to EACH OTHER's PERSPECTIVES; garner COMPROMISE from the ideas that are workable, interchangeable, and connectable to bring us (all of us) to a straight path—inclusive of the whole.

It is time to do just that. Or we will politically 'die' as a world leader and become one of the mediocre nations of the world. Leaving its children to see its 'glorious days' in the pages of history writers and fantasy novels..

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.5.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.5.5    2 hours ago
Which again begs the question if you are OK with the expenditures it might make more sense to defend that instead of all the time and energy complaining about the reason it was exposed.

OK.... Yeah.... 

But you know as well as I do that's not how these folks operate.  They won't admit it, but they absolutely know that 98% of Americans have negative amounts of interest in spending $30million for some bullshit like gender studies in Pakistan.  But if we stop spending that money, they have to feel bad about it, and they don't want to feel bad.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.6  author  Dig  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    10 hours ago
Bill Clinton did the same thing, 

We'll see. 

why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?

Is right wing media on a "progressive" kick now? All of a sudden I'm seeing that word used a lot here instead of the standard catch-all "leftist," and every bit as loosely.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6  Nerm_L    3 days ago

Trump's buyout of Fed employees isn't that different from Clinton's buyout.  Clinton really did reduce the size of he Federal civilian workforce by 250,000 employees using buyouts and RIFs.  Clinton really did replace civil servants with private contractors.

Clinton's Reinventing Government initiative was how he avoided obstacles to establishing his version of a rule based global order.  The tech oligarchs weren't as powerful back then so few really paid attention.  Clinton set the precedent for what Elon Musk (through Trump) wants to do.

Trump 2.0 is looking more like the Clinton administration.  Clinton's goal was to build a global order on the backs of US taxpayers.  Trump's goal is to tear down what Clinton created.  The methods employed by both are very similar.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    yesterday

Something you should consider (I am just including a quote and a link so that you see this from a third party and realize that there are many more references you can Google since this is a very common phenomenon in the private sector):

  • A company-wide buyout offer can lead to critical employees leaving the company. The departure of those key employees can cause serious skill-drain and corresponding loss in productivity/revenue.  As a result, the buyout may be entirely counterproductive.
  • The company may be left with the worst performing employees. A company’s highest performing (and most marketable ) employees are typically confident that they can go back into the marketplace and find new employment.  So, they are more inclined to take the buyout.  Conversely, poor performing employees (particularly those who have become comfortable due to lack of supervisory oversight), tend not to elect .
  • A voluntary buyout is not precise enough. It is rare that the effects of a voluntary buy-out are spread evenly across all departments.  A voluntary buy-out risks that the employees who elect to participate are concentrated in a limited number of departments, causing imbalance in the workforce.  For example, let’s say a company’s IT department is lean, and because of that leanness the employees are disgruntled.  In a buyout, all the IT employees elect, leaving no one in the IT department.  At the same time, the marketing department is bloated, and because of the excess headcount work demand is low. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.1    yesterday
A voluntary buyout is not precise enough.

No. 

But it may be the best of the available options.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.2    yesterday

I doubt that.   A voluntary buyout leaves all decisions in the hands of the employees.

If the objective is to simply reduce headcount with no regard whatsoever to quality of the remaining staff, retained expertise of the remaining staff, ensuring all important departments are adequately staffed, etc. then this is a fine way to accomplish it.

I doubt that you would consider anything like this if you were in charge.   Rather, I strongly suspect you would seek to identify jobs that are obsolete or overstaffed and seek to encourage the most talented employees to stay (including reassignments) while encouraging the deadbeats to leave.

If there is no alternative (for whatever reason) but to leave this all in the hands of the employees then I would not engage in this initiative.   And if this truly is all they can do, then DOGE might as well shut down.   Hatchet jobs designed to get quick results regardless of quality and side-effects is a horrible way to operate given the methods, expertise, and technology available today to properly reengineer and reimplement processes (and redeploy staff).

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    22 hours ago
I doubt that you would consider anything like this if you were in charge.

It would not be my preferred option.   That does not mean it would not be the best available.

We don't know the nature of the employee contracts or the extent of union involvement. 

There is also the absolute certainty with involuntary terminations that Trump opponents will scream that they're all politically motivated and that he's "taking revenge" on somebody for something.  We're already on a seed where the premise is that voluntary buyouts represent the end of democracy.  The insanity of that idea is staggering, but people have jumped on the bandwagon nonetheless.  Offering a buyout is more palatable politically.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.4    21 hours ago
Offering a buyout is more palatable politically.

Yes, but the results are not controlled.   Wisdom tells us that uncontrolled circumstances yield suboptimal (if not terrible) results.   Not a smart move by any measure.

That is why I would push for a sensible approach that (albeit very hard work and no quick and dirty results) allows an understanding of jobs that are wasteful / redundant / obsolete and mark them to be removed.   Then identify valuable employees who would be displaced by eliminated positions and encourage them to stay with a raise and a new position.   The other displaced employees would not be encouraged to stay.   Many ways to handle that and likely there are one or two methods that would work even in government.

But this is all predicated on doing the hard work of understanding the processes of government in the areas of focus.   Not quick and dirty, not something that Trump or Musk would likely be interested in.   They no doubt want quick actions that can be spun as great accomplishments.

Yet another Trump initiative that seems doomed to fail (but will be spun and the spin will be believed).

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    14 hours ago
Yes, but the results are not controlled.   Wisdom tells us that uncontrolled circumstances yield suboptimal (if not terrible) results.   Not a smart move by any measure.

There is a saying... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  

Many ways to handle that and likely there are one or two methods that would work even in government.

And yet nobody has ever seemed to accomplish it.  Hmmmmm.

But this is all predicated on doing the hard work of understanding the processes of government in the areas of focus.

It also assumes these government employees who know they're possibly going to be eliminated will efficiently help educate outsiders on their legendarily inefficient processes.  Trump & Co. only have 4 years.  What you're describing would undoubtedly take longer than that.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
6.1.7  author  Dig  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    10 hours ago

Do you believe that 87,000 extra IRS agents thing, Greg? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.6    7 hours ago
There is a saying... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  

I am pretty sure I made it clear why I believe that this is not even 'good'.    I did not state nor imply that perfection is the goal.

And yet nobody has ever seemed to accomplish it.  Hmmmmm.

Largely because Congress is more concerned with passing legislation that gains political points and increases partisan power rather than initiating and funding the hard work of cleaning up the layers of historical waste in operations.   The lack of a profit motive is key here.

It also assumes these government employees who know they're possibly going to be eliminated will efficiently help educate outsiders on their legendarily inefficient processes. 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, Jack.

Trump & Co. only have 4 years.  What you're describing would undoubtedly take longer than that.

That is fundamental to my point.   They are concerned about scoring points rather than getting good results.   As I noted, the results will be bad but they will spin them as good and many will believe them.   That is all that matters to Trump.   ("They no doubt want quick actions that can be spun as great accomplishments.")

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    5 hours ago
I am pretty sure I made it clear why I believe that this is not even 'good'.

Well I think we'll agree to see that differently, then.  

Largely because Congress is more concerned with passing legislation that gains political points and increases partisan power rather than initiating and funding the hard work of cleaning up the layers of historical waste in operations.   The lack of a profit motive is key here.

"Profit" in the traditional business sense, I agree.  But if you'll allow a looser use of the word, politicians deal in the currency of political favor, and define "profit" or "loss" in that currency.  So yeah, you're exactly right about political points.  There are lots of votes to be gained by appearing to "do something", which is most easily done by spending big dollars and creating more government.

Undoubtedly the political "profit" motive is at work here.  Trump & Co will gain points from reducing the size of government and appearing to make it more efficient.  I think we all know that we can make the government smaller, but we'll never make it more efficient.

That said, I'm generally in favor of reducing the size.  If we're going to have a terribly inefficient bureaucracy, there seems little reason to overpay for it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.9    4 hours ago
Well I think we'll agree to see that differently, then.  

You think that these buyouts are 'good'?   I thought you were arguing that they may not have much choice; not that you personally thought this was a sensible initiative.   I noted that it would be better to NOT to do anything than to encourage a talent drain (which will be the result).   

Trump & Co will gain points from reducing the size of government and appearing to make it more efficient.

You are making the same point I have made and just reiterated:  "They are concerned about scoring points rather than getting good results.   As I noted, the results will be bad but they will spin them as good and many will believe them.   That is all that matters to Trump. "

That said, I'm generally in favor of reducing the size.  

I am too — very much so!   But I am not in favor of reducing the size in a manner that loses more talent and retains more deadbeats.   Mere buyouts are not 'good'.

Further, I am not in favor of reducing the size by cutting good functions.   To avoid that one needs to understand the processes and not simply look at macro factors from the perspective of an organization chart or financial report.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.10    3 hours ago
You think that these buyouts are 'good'? 

I think they are probably the best available option.

I noted that it would be better to NOT to do anything than to encourage a talent drain (which will be the result).

Interesting use of the word "talent", but OK.  Yeah, I understood you.  Again, we see it differently.  I think reducing the size and expense is worth the risk of losing "talent".  

You are making the same point I have made and just reiterated

Yeah.  We agree.

I am too — very much so!   But I am not in favor of reducing the size in a manner that loses more talent and retains more deadbeats.   Mere buyouts are not 'good'. 

I think this is where we see it differently.  I'm willing to take the risk of losing "talent".  

It's the federal government.  Talented, motivated people don't tend to stick around anyway.  They're generally not interested in working where seniority is rewarded over quality and actual achievement.  We're not going to be able to change that culture, so I think the idea that we can retain talented people is overly optimistic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.11    3 hours ago
I think they are probably the best available option.

I know what you stated before; I asked if you thought this was a 'good' option.    Should I assume that you think it is worth doing?

Interesting use of the word "talent", but OK. 

It is a common term — especially in your field.   What bothers you about it?   Talent refers to skills and knowledge.   I used it to emphasize, with brevity, that there are government employees who have skills, knowledge, expertise, (... supply your own terms), etc. that is valuable and would be something we prefer to NOT lose.

I'm willing to take the risk of losing "talent".  

Okay, then you must think this is worth doing.   Do you then believe that most of the people leaving will be those who are expendable / low-value and that those with the desirable skills, knowledge, ... would tend to stay?   That is, do you believe those who are most marketable will tend to stay and those hiding in lower-value jobs and doing the minimum will tend to leave?   Generally, it is the opposite that occurs.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    2 hours ago
Should I assume that you think it is worth doing?

Yeah, I think so. 

Do you then believe that most of the people leaving will be those who are expendable / low-value and that those with the desirable skills, knowledge, ... would tend to stay?

Not at all. I don't dispute your assertions on that front.

But that's not the question I believe is most relevant.

The question I'm asking is, "What level of quality reduction will we see with regard to government services, and will the lives of most Americans be affected in a tangible way that they will actually recognize?"  

I don't believe most of us are going to notice a decline in the quality of services we get for the money we spend.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.13    2 hours ago
I don't believe most of us are going to notice a decline in the quality of services we get for the money we spend.  

That is a different question.

We were talking about the way to achieve good results given the stated goal (efficiency ... although the goal should be effectiveness), not about the ultimate effect realized by most people.

But if the effect really would not be felt then why do anything at all?   I suggested that rather than engage in quick & dirty, sub-optimal hacks that we should not do anything and instead work towards getting authorization to analyze the processes and start working smart.

Obviously this will not occur since both Trump and Musk want quick results that can be spun into great successes (regardless of reality).

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    an hour ago
That is a different question.

I consider it the most important.

We were talking about the way to achieve good results given the stated goal (efficiency

Well.... I suppose one could consider the concept of "they still suck but now it costs less" as a type of efficiency improvement.

But if the effect really would not be felt then why do anything at all?

Reduce the costs.

Obviously this will not occur since both Trump and Musk want quick results

I have very low confidence that it would happen no matter what.  I think you could spend 20 years analyzing the processes and at the end of that time all you would have to show for it is an additional department of 50,000 civil servants dedicated to analyzing other civil servants.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.15    59 minutes ago
Reduce the costs.

If they can reduce the costs and not reduce the quality then do so.   I do not expect quick & dirty hatchet cuts to accomplish that.   Indeed, I expect them to introduce more unnecessary chaos and probably end up costing more money to ultimately recover from the mess.

I think you could spend 20 years analyzing the processes and at the end of that time all you would have to show for it is an additional department of 50,000 civil servants dedicated to analyzing other civil servants.

In the federal government, I agree with you.   I have been speaking in terms of practical management practices.   The idea that Congress would fund something like this where they get no real credit is unlikely.  The idea that someone would champion this and fight through all the politics to make the kind of changes that should be made (cross department process reengineering and redeployment) is unlikely.

The best we could do, really, is provide specific direction (doable goals) to GAO, provide them funding, give them appropriate authorization, and have them basically increase the volume on what they have been doing for years.    They are the appropriate Program Management Office and likely the best extent center of expertise in the federal government.

And this is what I have suggested.   It is not flashy, is hard work, will not produce staggering changes, but it could continue with incremental / evolutionary positive changes to operational systems across federal departments.    Much better than literally doing nothing or hacking for show.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
6.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    15 minutes ago
If they can reduce the costs and not reduce the quality then do so.

That's what I've been saying.  

You'll remember me posing the question, "What level of quality reduction will we see with regard to government services, and will the lives of most Americans be affected in a tangible way that they will actually recognize?"

I suspect we won't see a difference.

In the federal government, I agree with you.   I have been speaking in terms of practical management practices. 

Exactly, right? Best practices in almost any other organization don't hold in federal government.  I think that's the issue in a nutshell.

You make the point that voluntary buy outs are generally a poor way to make an organization more efficient.  You lay out why that is in a perfectly logical framework.  And you are 100% correct in almost any other organization. 

But when the federal government is involved, logic, efficiency, and the basic laws of organizational management all go straight in the trash can.  And we're talking about the nation's largest employer, BTW.  

So when we talk about "not reduce the quality", the sarcastic question that springs to mind is "CAN you reduce the quality?  We weren't aware that was possible."

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7  Trout Giggles    3 days ago

Do you people really want a dictatorship? You know what happens under a dictatorship don't you? No more free speech, no more freedom of religion, give up your guns and welcome to search and seizures for any reason at any time with no warrants

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    3 days ago

I don't know how the country is going to survive with a pathological liar like Trump in office in power. He said today usaid sent 100 million dollars wortth of condoms to Hamas.   That's twice the figure that  the original lie from Fox News told.  Trump just added 50 million to the sum in order to make it sound more serious or better for his position.  There's literally nothing this guy won't lie  about. I don't know how the country is going to survive 4 years of this. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    2 days ago

I don't think militant Muslims believe in birth control or STD prevention

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    2 days ago
I don't know how the country is going to survive with a pathological liar like Trump in office in power.

Only reason we survived the last time was Trump's overwhelming ignorance.  He has people this time writing up the steps he will take (in multicolored crayons with big pictures).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    2 days ago
Do you people really want a dictatorship?

They do.

They somehow imagine that all the ugliness that always accompanies fascist dictatorships will only fall on "others". Not on them.

That's stupid, of course... but hey!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2.1  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2    2 days ago

original

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JBB @7.2.1    2 days ago

Exactly 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    yesterday

I don't think you really believe that. Congress and SCOTUS won't allow it. 

If the Democrats EVER want to regain power and influence, they are going to have to get over this hysteria about Trump and Musk and rebuild their brand. The way things are going right now, they (collectively) don't appear to be capable of doing this.

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Participates
7.4  goose is back  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    yesterday
Do you people really want a dictatorship?

Are we talking about the Biden Administration or Trump?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
7.5  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    20 hours ago

They perceive a conservative "utopia"—a world where they would be RESPECTED. Somehow imagining poor whites were RESPECTED by robber barons who 'lorded' over them and watched the rank and file fall into disrepair (and live in tenements stacked on top of each other). Oh, and remember the 'howl' when a president under took to put lights in houses. . . and just remember back then the country was littered with shacks which could not be properly kept. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
8  author  Dig    10 hours ago

UPDATE...

National security services were originally exempt from the buyouts, but no more. The CIA is now included.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dig @8    10 hours ago

Well, there goes trmp's daily security briefing...which he never read anyway

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
8.1.1  author  Dig  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    10 hours ago

I remember they tried using lots of pictures because he wouldn't read. 

Maybe they just need a cartoonist. Probably still wouldn't work.

 
 

Who is online

JBB
Jack_TX
GregTx
Thomas


37 visitors