About that federal worker buyout thing...
In case you haven't heard:
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
***
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
Who is online
151 visitors
And we're only in Trump's second week.
You know damn well he never wants to leave power again.
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.
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.
A Republican House member actually submitted a proposal for a third Trump term last week.
Why does that NOT surprise me?
he's got to survive the next 1442 days first ...
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.
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
Trump has already pissed off the military at every level. The oath says to defend the US against all enemies both foreign and Domestic. Trump and Musk are both.
it's the felon and elon show now ...
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.
I know what that slime will consist of and plan on being a major contributor ...
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?
Couldn't? Heck, they already have.
(Its just that most of them are smart enought to keep quiet about it...)
Oligarchy 101.
Right out of the Project 2025 handbook - remove as many federal workers as possible and hire new ones faithful to the Emperor.
Bill Clinton did the same thing,
why do progressives hate saving taxpayer money?
They don't want the competition for the welfare dollars.
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.
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?
Whatabout is like an unconscious reflex with you.
[✘]
[✘]
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.
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
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.
Back at you...
Trump’s Business Hauled In $2.4 Billion During Four Years He Served As President
Trump made up to $160 million from foreign countries as president
New Congressional Report: Trump Businesses Received $7.8 Million from Foreign Governments During His Presidency
Donald J. Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency
Trump business got at least $7.8 million in foreign payments during presidency -report
Trump has reported earning an estimated $2.3 billion since announcing presidential run
Or in simple language:
Trump: I have lost so much money while being President. I sacrificed so much while being the best President in history. Now I need your help if you want me to run again.
MAGA: Please tell us how to give you all our money./
[✘]
And I gave you 6 respectable websites.
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.
[✘]
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.)
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.
If we're spending government money to solve a problem, it should actually help solve the problem.
If you find one of those, do let us all know.
I don't think you understand how early retirement incentives work. The idea is specifically to not replace them.
Again, you don't make the organization smaller if you replace the people you buy out.
You're leaving out quite a bit there.
Of course, we are agreed on that. It's a given.
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.
Well let's use your own words, shall we?
Then you have that series of bullet points where you lay out that Trump and Vance want to establish a permanent dictatorship.
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.
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.
I don't think that's the plan. That's not how buyouts work.
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.
We'll agree to see this differently.
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.
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.
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.)
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 ?
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!
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
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!
i don't believe even his cult will allow this, as some are more convinced than others about his all powerful powers
I think the US Constitution does a wonderful job of that.
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.
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.
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.
I said you left a lot out, and you did.
Right, because a series of publicly available factual observations concluded with a question of WTF is looney tunes compared to completely imaginary things like Jewish space lasers.
Woven together into an utterly batshit conspiracy theory....
You left that part out.
Whereas your "end of democracy" insanity isn't also completely imaginary. Not at all...... No no... that's totally real and not completely made up in any way.....*eyeroll*
Roll your eyes all you want.
Trump is a tyrant who already tried to subvert the Republic once, and is presently engaged in cementing his above-the-law status by punishing people who dared to investigate or prosecute him and his brown shirts who attacked the Capitol.
If you think it's crazy for anyone to have noticed that Trump is an egomaniacal authoritarian who wants dictatorial powers, then that's a failure on your part, not mine.
Then when/if any of them stand up to him inside the 'house' we will see and know!
Surely we can agree that one can have a morality right and wrong (see "seedy people/underworld) that is not good for society, right? Using the aforementioned as comparison: ideologies - one can be positive and good for the country and another can be negative and bad for this country. Whataboutisms can not work in in every scenario/set of circumstances.
Actually, watching Trump 'work' and now he has brought in the 'cadre' . . . Jack_Tx, perhaps 'somebody' does not give Trump enough credit! The time is NOW to take this man seriously. Before 'somebody' we know is injured, fired, career-ruined, down the line somewhere and it impacts 'us' personally and professionally.
And that is where presumption is ending up WRONG. Given the SAME SET OF CONCERNS, see 5.4.32 above, it would easily be determined that a MORAL WRONG would be occurring not a moral good and OBJECTION would be immediate. There is no justification for trying to DEMONIZE (labeling people morally wrong) decent workers—taking professional people out of their jobs and careers . . . with some 'aspiration' that a few 'crumbs' of paychecks to 'get them by' will do. . .while they look for imagined work that may never come or be sufficient to what they have now. Also, there is an IMPORTANT ANGLE missing here by Trump (and 'company'): federal workers work for the cover and especially continue to do so because they have an UNCTION to serve their country even when the pay won't make them rich.
Of course, 'nobody' should begrudge civil servants doing the work private sector workers would not want to do to do - because it is 'small' and civic-minded and won't make one wealthy. . .just because its continual.
BTW, let's have a discussion about what type of work civil servants perform on behalf of this nation. One may recall that Tesla got it 'power' from the grants provide by these very men and women its CEO is threatening to fire and cast out into a 'wilderness' to wander financially and with only a questionable agreement to may them in the future.
Many don't want people to find out what taxpayers have been spending money on, they might be voted out
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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..
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.
We'll see.
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.
Remind me again when Bill Clinton wanted to disband USAID, OSHA and NOAA?
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.
The Impressive Number of Federal Workers Who Have Taken Trump's Buyout Option .
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):
No.
But it may be the best of the available options.
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).
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.
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).
There is a saying... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
And yet nobody has ever seemed to accomplish it. Hmmmmm.
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.
Do you believe that 87,000 extra IRS agents thing, Greg?
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.
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.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, Jack.
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.")
Well I think we'll agree to see that differently, then.
"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.
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).
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. "
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.
I think they are probably the best available option.
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".
Yeah. We agree.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah, I think so.
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.
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).
I consider it the most important.
Well.... I suppose one could consider the concept of "they still suck but now it costs less" as a type of efficiency improvement.
Reduce the costs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
And of course anyone would sign up for that. Just like anyone would support going to a new cellular supplier if it gives the same service for a lower price.
Do you believe that they literally will be able to reduce costs without affecting quality with coarse hacking of departments? That is quite a magic act. They can eliminate redundant / pointless departments that nobody else depends upon. That would be low-hanging fruit and might be suitable for coarse grain hacks. I have no idea how much of that exists. I expect that much of the waste is commingled with valuable functions. Untangling this mess is the first step of doing the job right. What I have been saying is that Trump / Musk will likely not do that.
Even though I hold little hope that the federal government would support a serious (and thus hard work) initiative, I do believe it is possible to do.
Similarly with buyouts, that practice as stated is so bad that there are plenty of ways to get better results. I totally reject the belief that this is the best the federal government can do.
I think quality is already so low that any reduction will be negligible.
It would be in any other organization. But keep in mind, we've lived through government shutdowns where most of us didn't see any drop in the quality of our lives. Obviously that situation would be untenable on a permanent basis, but it speaks to the low level of work actually being done.
You appear to have a level of optimism regarding the US Govt that I simply cannot bring myself to endorse.
Might be a bit too pessimistic.
The immediate negatives of shutdowns is pain to government workers, not so much a direct impact on the quality of all American lives. An extended shutdown, however, would have an effect. Rarely do we have extended disruptions and thus rarely is the effect directly felt. Thus gauging on the immediate impact on the public is not very realistic.
Let's try this. What if the FAA drops in effectiveness? Or if the US Treasury starts failing to make timely payments? Even relatively minor things like the Federal government falling behind on passports, etc. would be disruptive.
My view is hardly optimistic (hard to imagine how you could pen that after reading what I have been writing), but it might look that way to someone who is substantially more pessimistic.
It appears that we may have a glimpse into what motivates Musk intentions to takeover and control the 'systems' of the federal government.
I suspect that not all of these items are accurately presented. That is, I suspect some (if not many) are described in a wasteful way when a legitimate purpose is actually there. But I do not know.
So, assuming this is accurate, this is a perfect thing for the Federal government to go after. Eliminate wasteful programs. And especially programs that have expired yet funding continues.
Although I find it easy to believe the federal government can easily waste $1 trillion, I have not verified this list so I am not presenting it as fact.
That statement ignores the fact that the public sector is NOT the private sector (for a reason): Governmental agencies are not profit-driven. The government is not in the business of making a profit. Profit is not the priority/mission of our federal government.
That is, if the government paid its employees private wage scales for there services. . . good it does not. Why? Because government service is meant for the good of the whole country, not just an individual and/or stockholders. Additionally, if the government could be profit-driven, guess what? The government would be required to pay its workers competitive wages. (Some say even 'profit-sharing' would be on the table.)
Evenso, the tone of that comment above continues to diminish and be skeptical of civil servants' collective worth. . . while the 'thrust' of your viewpoint is the same government which can not function PROPERLY with its working model today can somehow function better with less!
Make it make sense, Jack.
Already there has been a fatal error committed by 'amateurs' tampering around in federal system 'resources.' CIA agents it has been reported have been partially outed (and it can not be retrieved apparently) in an unclassified email/letter. Your 'typical' civil servant did not do that! The incoming administration 'mangled' the people outed "for all time."
Easy to believe.
Trump plans to bring this country to its collective 'knees' and declare doing so, "the right prescription" for what ails it. Of course, None of those people in his 'inner circle' putting us all through our. . . 'catharsis' will feel any of it themselves under the 'cover' of protection from the government they are turning inside out. It's time to Wake up and see the 'man' that is going to eat all our lunches if we don't get smart and punch back!
I do not think that is his plan. However I think we are in for plenty of pain because Trump is irresponsible, incompetent yet thinks he is always right. Couple that with a complete lack of empathy as is true for any sociopath and we are in for a difficult four years.
That is what I mean, Trump has not changed from his original intent for this country from 'Day One.' The difference is this time around he has 'put in the time' (done the 'homework' needed) to be better EQUIPPED this time for UNDERMINING the systems of this country. It has been his 'smart' thing to do all along; just needed better positioning to conduct his business. Remember it was intentional to go before the supreme court and 'plead' his case for immunity for (ALL) future presidents with the sub-text being he would be 'back' and maybe not departing after a second term (if he can swing the government away from its mooring and reorient the constitution!
By the way, did you see how 'smooth' Trump and MAGAs lied about Russel Vought, the new head of OMB, who literally told the nation he would get that job thereabouts during the campaign. Even as Donald Trump 'swore' he did not know of Project 2025? Is it any wonder that the 'defenders' and surrogates of Trump (here and in the real world are not surprised by this event? No, because they knew it was lie or should have known from the start.
My hypothesis is that Trump seeks to have fun. He seeks to do whatever pleases him. I see him as impulsive and irresponsible. In short, he is a sociopath who see others as tools to exploit.
On top of that, he is not smart and impossibly stubborn. Hard to think of a worse mix of flaws for someone who has the power of the presidency.
Finally, his great skill is to con people. Apparently he is a successful demagogue as he has hijacked the GoP and most of the electorate.
To wit, I do not think Trump has a plan. I do not believe he knows how to plan. He will do some good things, many bad things, and all will be the extemporaneous results of his whims.
Says the man with 100% pessimism about the buyout.
The quality of America lives is the point of government.
Which is why I said that situation would be "untenable".
I didn't say it was. It's simply more optimistic than mine.
You have a keen grasp of the obvious. However I have not ignored anything.
There are literally millions of nonprofits in this country who have solid organizational practices, motivated employees, and who execute their missions efficiently. Those things are not unique to the for-profit sector.
Yes. Intentionally so. Well spotted.
It makes perfect sense if you actually read the comments. I do NOT think government will function better with less. I have said this repeatedly. I think it will probably perform every so slightly worse. I think it's so bad already that we won't notice the difference.
If it's going to suck, it shouldn't be expensive. If it's going to be expensive, it shouldn't suck.
We are talking about gaining efficiency, not about the buyout. The buyout, best we can tell, does not have any element of control. In those circumstances, the more marketable (most talented) employees tend to leave and the others (especially the deadbeat) continue to hide in the jobs. Further, we could lose the core of a department while other departments (especially those of low value) might not lose any employees. In all, lack of control is not good so bad results are easily predicted.
It really surprises me that you seem to disagree.
Explain how a government shutdown is good for the quality of the American people.
The government (service "centers" for all) is not a common Non-profit. First, get the description and concept of '"government" correct before attempting to complain about its procedures and efficiencies.
Our government is constitutional, federal and state organizations, intended to do the 'bidding' ands serving of the people they serve nationally and in states. Non-profits and other types of agencies are not comparable to it. Indeed, such non-profits, answer (and are oversighted by) to the federal and state governmental systems.
Well, that makes even less sense when one considers its implications and implementation. As no community can permanently exist without laws, rules, policies, inducements, and enforcements.
Furthermore, it is not the duty of CIVIL SERVANTS to 'make' our government wholly efficient. . . they are the 'workabees' droning away in the background. . . . Doing what they can and must do for the good of ALL OF US according to departmental directives.
The power to effectuate efficiencies resides in other areas of the GOVERNMENT itself (not outsider 'disruptors' who initiate actions to tear out whole sections willy-nilly of the workforce and agencies). Look to those leaders (and fire them)!
Explain to us how chaos and disruptions or even 'tomfoolery' in our national data systems does not suck. And, courts are looking to enter into this to prove just that! We have been told REPEATEDLY (to use your word) that people without proper authorization should not have access to our personal data (hell, we PAY private companies ("LIFELOCK" VPNs, etceteras) to hide us from data "predators") and now it is turned over a private citizen and his 'team' of unidentified techies without any reservations?
Make it make sense, Jack!
We've been talking about the buyout the whole time.
It surprises me that you still don't acknowledge I haven't disputed any of those assertions. Please cite where I have disagreed with any of that.
In an ideal world, we would choose another option. We don't live in an ideal world.
We're dealing with an extremely heavily entrenched set of employees with possibly the strongest union still in existence. We're talking about 3 million people who operate in a workplace culture and structure that embraces mediocrity while discouraging excellence. Everything about their system is designed to protect low performing employees, and Democrats are lined up ready to scream from every microphone that any involuntary termination is political.
The idea that we have any realistic hope of reducing the size of the civil service based on eliminating low performers is a fantasy to make JK Rowling proud.
So their realistic options are either buy people out or wage a decades long battle they have no hope of winning. The buyout is the least bad option.
We're not talking about reducing the size of Congress or eliminating police officers.
Hence the need for the new directives and reorganization. The phrase is "worker-bees", BTW.
And you see how well those people have done. Bureaucracies never intentionally reduce their own size.
I just said it does suck. Kindly follow along.
It makes perfect sense, CB. You just don't like it.
Included is a political party in congress that is not protecting the 'whole' of the people for its own political sake and 'glorification.' Sitting on its hands while it's constitutional authority is being usurped by an executive is retributive and disrespectful to the public congress is sworn to serve. And, lawlessness is the means used to achieve an end by this president. Incidentally, what is good for the goose can be tested and tried by the gander: In two years, the congress in democratic party control could prepare (now) and mount any number of challenges to the constitutional authority of the president (and force that office to go to court) and see how that process plays out over time.
Please, spare the pettiness, if we're going to be serious!
Please do not chop up meaning in discussions to suit your own retorts, its is too time-consuming and does not deal with the point or any question put forward!
Deal with the entirety (meaning in) of the quote above, Jack! Or, just leave it on the table open and unremarked.
Clearly. But that does not mean we pick such a bad option. Instead of blanket buyouts with no control, they should at least impose limits on each individual functional area so that we do not see some area largely gutted of their talent while others barely move. For example, no individual department (writ small) can lose more than 20% of its staff. That still is coarse and does not mitigate the most talented and thus most marketable employees from leaving, but it at least mitigates departments from being gutted.
If the objective is to make government more efficient (effective, really) then the plan should be established to realistically accomplish that. If the job is too hard or seems impossible, then do nothing with employees and instead focus on processes. It is better to leave things alone with employees than to make things worse.
But, of course, doing the right job is not of interest to Trump. Trump wants short-term events that he can spin. It does not matter if he accomplishes something positive as long as he can spin it as such.
There is that extreme pessimism again. The ONLY act per you is a blanket buy-out. No possible way that any other approach will work. It is rarely a good idea to say that there is only one possible way to accomplish a goal.
If DOGE truly did the job right, they would be redesigning processes and people would be reassigned as a necessary consequence. This opens up the opportunity to properly place low-performers and to enable good performers more opportunities for advancement.
The least bad option, assuming you are 100% correct (for the sake of argument), is then to do nothing with the employees. Focus instead on processes.
DOGE has already shown its hand: It has rehired a 'known quantity' as a PROVEN racist IN HIS OWN WORDS is back in his 'fold'- with this president assenting to the reinstatement.
What do we expect people to understand about that?
So qualification (for good service, character, reputation) is not what this understanding of self-labeled "efficiency" is. This is takeover and control of government for elusive purposes (and surrogates, shrills, and supporters wielding "pocket" talking-points fanning out online know this). 'Everything' happening before our eyes has been denied at one time or other by the "faithless" MAGAs.
We must (and do) watch what they do and must not fall for the rope-a-dope of their mealy-mouthed words. (Which I see are being called out against by many here.)
Oh the irony (would be laughable if it was not so serious), of MAGA releasing racists and felonious riotes (scotch free) while demonizing civil servants who do not have blemish on their records, beyond just political dislike of their official duties of record.
Oh the irony (would be laughable if it was not so serious), of MAGA engaging in 'CANCEL CULTURE' all the while calling themselves victims of the same.
Oh the irony (would be laugh—) oh don't let me get started on the Evangelicals and their LYING, shameless, and deceptive butts!
Oh the irony would be "yada, yada, yada") of MAGA millionaires attempting to tell working 'stiffs' how much economic pain and suffering they can withstand. . .promising them riches and fame that is aspirational but realistically not going to materialize. Particularly since at ever stage these workers will encounter the same billionaires pushing to keep them non-competitive as possible as relates to their potential replacement at the top. For example, Trump no doubt wants to "be" Musk financially and by comparison Musk wants to keep ahead of the billionaire pack closing in on his status and fame (at #1).
Realistically, the masses of the "get rich or die trying" mob - will die trying! Worse, in the republican economic structure they will die impoverished with no hope of assistance. Due to the believe (lie) that they are self-reliant and independent members of a COMMUNITY. The very definition of community is people living and interacting together for a 'common' set of goals (ideally).
That is your (exceedingly biased) opinion.
How? Be specific. Cite examples.
That is the beauty of the system.
Says the man who routinely replies to one post with three or more. Seriously. Check the log in your own eye.
Do we know that isn't happening, or are we just assuming the worst again? I haven't seen the particulars. It's also worth considering that clerical people can be transferred from one department to another.
It is literally easier, cheaper and quicker to go to Mars. You are living in the land of idealism again. In the real world, they have 18 months to get done whatever they can. Congress will probably flip at the midterms, and then everything will grind to its usual halt.
So does every politician that has ever lived. Or did you think the Affordable Care Act was well thought out?
The term you're looking for is "realism". Or alternatively, "pragmatism".
Stop misrepresenting me. Seriously. It's not that hard. You're an educated guy. Take the time to read carefully, and stop assuming I meant something I didn't say. I already have CB for that.
They are less than 3 weeks in. We have zero idea what this will look like 6 months from now. Musk and Vivek run multiple businesses. They understand process and its importance.
It inconsequential how many comments are used to reply. Don't bother with quantitative 'counting.' Deal with substance and context - not trivialities or deflections (such as 6.1.45 is). Substance is rarely a waste of qualitative time.
As I have made clear, I am talking about what usually happens during buyouts. The only information thus far is that a buyout is offered with no other conditions. So I am going by what is currently known.
And again you exaggerate what I write to a ridiculous point and then criticize your invention.
And again you make excuses for Trump. Anyone who engages in an initiative and foregoes good results for something to spin is wrong. Trump is wrong.
No, you are clearly being overly pessimistic.
You have repeatedly stated that this might be their only choice. And you keep arguing against my suggestion that this is NOT their only choice. If that is not what you meant then write something else. Accusing me of misrepresenting you when I am going by your repeated words is dishonest as hell.
Show me any indication that Musk is trying to understand the government processes to untangle and re-engineer as opposed to making quick & dirty organization-level hacks and employment hack cuts.
Musk is known for bold moves and quick results. He is not the meticulous type and his actions thus far do not indicate he has changed.
It gets even worse, Musk and Trump (the sitting president even) have reinforced a bad decision by taking down a good decision: removal of a PROVEN RACIST whom was fired and reinstated to access the systems of hundreds of millions NON-RACISTS in our society. A "clear and present" danger ("menace") to society.
Evidence this about injuring and harming we the people and not listening to we the people, unless we are subservient to MAGA's Cause.
Signifying what? A return to the status quo? Return to 'civility' in governance? Good people returned to their stations? "Mission accomplished" - by any means necessary (be it hook or crook)? And why should 'by crook' be allowed to stand? Why do harm to innocent people to get to Mars? Such conduct can never properly be considered morally right! Why should the American president and his team be accepted for mistreating and abuse of the citizens they are sworn to serve and constitutionally protect - just for deep(er) space exploration (Mars edition)?
What right is it of the America president to challenge the legality of this nation's constitution?
Is there no other way to 'wing it' to Mars than to make up a pretext to take food out of the mouths of citizens and to drive them out into the 'wilderness of indecision and despair?' Billionaires removing working people into non-working status without proper cause or deficiency through misapplication of labeling them is "cancel culture' and any MAGA will tel you that is morally wrong.
And as I have made clear, this isn't a usual buyout..
It's not an exaggeration. We've actually put stuff on Mars.
And again you attack anyone who dares state the blatantly obvious flaws in your reasoning.
Yes. We get it. Trump is terrible. Even when he's only doing what everybody else does.
Right. Clearly. Because it's obviously been done so many times before, it would be incredibly pessimistic to think it can't happen again. Oh... wait...
Well maybe you're just the first person to ever think of it. Oh.... wait.....
I have said "least bad option". Or, alternatively, "best available option". I'm not exactly sure how you get "only" from that.
What does that have to do with what any of this will look like in 6 months?
Yes. And the US Govt is legendary for exactly the opposite.
I don't think they has any chance in hell at actual reform in the civil service. The best they will likely to be able to do is reduce the head count a little, shut down some programs, and find a few hundred line items of ridiculous expenditures we can stop.
When all is said and done, more will be said than done.
I really do not care how you wish to characterize this buyout. I am talking about the method used. The labels are irrelevant; the methods are what matter.
And again you make shit up. You have not identified flaws in my reasoning. Your big point is that this might be the only way they could execute the buyout. You throwing up your hands and defeatistly claiming there might not be any other choice is not identifying a flaw in my reasoning.
Further, we now know that Musk is doing this another way. Instead of a completely volunteer buyout (based on what we knew at the time) it turns out that there is some attempt to control this. They are using college graduates rather than the local management (stupid) to distinguish the more valuable from least valuable employees. At least it is not complete lack of control. So .... another way.
And yet again you exaggerate and thus totally misrepresent my position on Trump by claiming I will never support anything he does. Yet in this forum, I have already stated several of his ideas that I do support and certain principles of his that I support. So your characterization is wrong; you do not understand my position.
You also write language like this:
Kinda says there is no other option given we do not live in an ideal world. I have not seen you even offer another option. If there might be another option, offer one. Provide something of value to the discussion.
If Musk were doing this right by modern standards he would do something like establish a Program Management Office in the GAO which will (among other functions) administer the execution of myriad initiatives. The initiatives will be determined based on a competent analysis of target processes of the federal government. And since all of this would take years to see results, Musk (and Trump) would not have any hard accomplishments to spin. Because of that, they are doing things that will give them something to spin in a short timeframe. Even if it is mostly bullshit. Even if the actual results are net damage.
Correct. I have made the same claim; never even hinted otherwise.
Correct. So my position is if we are not going to accomplish valuable results, then spend our time doing something else that might indeed be valuable. I would suggest they spend more time identifying wasteful spending. That can be eliminated far easier than improving the effectiveness of government operations.
Bringing this ⇡ back to compare it to recent news:
Seems Trump has an alternate method to the buyout. The more conventional route of eliminating poor performing employees. While it may fail like many of his other initiatives, this at least does not encourage the better employees (the more marketable ones) to leave and thus further lower the average quality of federal workers.
This is all so one-sided anyway, I just have to state. An 'effed' up elected congress, 'hostile' and 'warlike' unto itself and its workforce, a 'retributive' president who is a felon, and a cabinet full of hand-picked 'hatchet men and women' unsympathetic to those serving them. . . . The saying, 'lunatics' and I am trying to be fair and gracious here are in charge of and pointing fingers at the 'asylum.' Really, is it really the unelected officials that are the real problems here?
The crux of the problem is an elected official - Trump.
A cessation of change.
When did that exist, exactly? How did Alexander Hamilton die again?
Who have they abused, exactly?
The same right as Biden, Obama, W, Clinton, or any other president who has had their actions halted by the courts. Or have you forgotten how that happened to every one of those presidents?
Wow. Heavy on the melodrama to day, eh CB?
Out of curiosity, do private sector workers experience this same "wilderness of indecision and despair" when they get laid off? Or are they just made of tougher stuff?
No....the crux of the problem is leftists that refuse to get out of the anger stage and move to the acceptance stage because what the deem the crux of the problem will be president for the next four years.
A stupid notion which of course ignores that Trump continues to cause unnecessary trouble. Whining that critics opine on Trump’s misdeeds is pathetic.
Do you think Trump’s Middle East Riviera push is well-conceived, responsible, humane, or even remotely realistic?
Ironic
"Whining that critics opine on Trump’s misdeeds is pathetic."
Pointing out constant triggering is not whining.
"Do you think Trump’s Middle East Riviera push is well-conceived, responsible, humane, or even remotely realistic? "
No but I think it is hilarious that you (collective you) are having a meltdown over everything Trump says.
Here is a little hint. Look up what Trump ran on and you will see a direct correlation with what he is doing.
Whining over something leftists knew was coming is pathetic.
When, not if, Trump is convicted of illegal activates while in office I'll remind you of this post.
We're to the section of the conversation where you try to exclude 99.9% of reality from the conversation so you can pretend to be right about the remaining .01%
Of course I have. You just won't admit it. Which is why you doggedly ignore the aforementioned 99.9% of reality.
You've favored that approach all along. You must be thrilled.
Please provide evidence of you supporting something Trump has done. I honestly believe if Trump condemned child abuse you would figure out a way to argue for it, and several others on this forum would help you.
It doesn't. Not even close. That's just a comical misinterpretation. You're grasping at strawmen.
Right. Because when you want to reduce the number of civil servants the first thing you should do is hire more civil servants.
There wouldn't be any accomplishments at all, other than increasing the size of the civil service.
Correct.
Once again, we AGREE that these actions will probably reduce the efficacy of the civil service. Which returns us to the question "will anyone actually notice?"
Oh, Lord, he we go again.....
Not yet, but soon enough.
rendering oneself immune from due process to avoid prosecution should also remove one from it's protections. AFAIC, it's a 2 way street.
Are private sector workers called or even considered, "servants"? MAGA is making for horse-assiness and dickishness.
These servants have structured jobs and careers under contractual agreements with our government. Those contracts are being changed, ignored, and ended - helter-skelter with uncertified statements from this president (whom you would think would know how to properly craft termination agreements). Since he 'loves' firing people all his career in the private sector. He is basically trying to get them to voluntarily walk away for the benefit of MAGA conservatives. They should not! Let the processes be 'slow-walked' similar to have Trump's personal legal cases were slow-walked through the system.
Just keep inventing your fantasies, Jack since you clearly have no argument.
I am not thrilled because going after the employees is not the right way to go; but this is at least better than an uncontrolled buyout. And it shows that there are other ways to approach this (which has always been obviously the case). I have described what I believe to be the best practice several times now. If you do not recognize it by now, there is no point explaining modern process re-engineering again.
I know that you have been commenting based more on your stereotype than on what I actually write. To you, if someone is highly critical of Trump that means they are being irrational and emotional. You cannot seem to break free of your simplistic and wrong stereotype to attempt to understand that the frequency of criticism corresponds with the frequency of Trump's bad acts.
I am in favor of his AI initiative (as far as it is defined). I am in favor of deporting criminals (I am against the way he is doing it ... quotas for ICE which are grabbing far more than criminals). I am in favor of reducing the size and power of the government; I hope Trump actually does this effectively but I see no sign of that. I am in favor of going after wasteful spending; this, to me, is where they should be focusing their efforts since it is much easier to identify projects being funded past expiration, pointless projects, unnecessary purchases, etc. than it is to properly reduce government functions and the workforce. I am in favor of negotiating trade agreements based on cause such as over-dependence on trading partners; I am totally against publicly threatening and imposing outrageous tariffs rather than privately engage our trade partners to come to a stable compromise. I support preventing transgendered males from competing in female sports. I support the development of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. I support removal of overreaching regulations; but I am against removing regulations that are designed to promote a cleaner environment. I support balancing the budget; but this is a promise of Trump's wherein he will do the opposite. I support lowering national debt; but Trump will wind up adding to it at a level equal to or greater than the presidents of this millennium. I support ending the war in Ukraine but not if it means forcing Ukraine to essentially give in to Russia. I support ending the Gaza war, I hope (wishful thinking) he pulls this off. I support working to improve the health of the public ... especially in terms of our diet ... but I am against having an eccentric anti-vaxxer be in charge of HHS. I support the DOJ operating for the CotUS and not for the PotUS and to not be misused, but in spite of what Trump claims, he is going to abuse the DOJ in support of his whims.
That should be enough since you have not paid attention to what I write.
Pathetic. First of all, I would like to reduce the size of government but not the way Trump is doing it. I described the approach many times now. And you presume that a Program Management Office involves some massive new hiring that would offset layoffs. That is just ridiculous. It is as if you have no idea what a PMO does and what it takes to staff it and you further presume that the GAO does not have the expertise right now to accomplish this. All sorts of naive assumptions. Just ridiculous.
And there you go again with pure pessimism. Nothing is possible!!. The only way anything gets done, Jack, is for people to not shy away from challenges but to cut through them. Nothing would get done if your attitude was prevalent.
As I have been saying all along, despite moronically absurd accusations to the contrary.
I suspect you're still not going to acknowledge the near complete impracticality of that within the structure of the federal govt, so we'll leave your idealism and my pessimism intact.
I comment based on the body of observable data... your posts.
Yes. We have. You have expressed your support for an ideal course of action. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that will ever work. That's largely because I've worked in union shops and I've worked in the public sector. They don't want to change, and they know all they need to do is work slowly and they will outlast the reformers.
Things are possible. Just not the things you're describing.
You are clinging to this staggering level of idealism. You proclaim your playbook contains the best offense, despite the fact it pretends there will be no defense on the field.
Are they? Your source on that? Citation?
Are they being driven in to labor camps and given only moldy bread and water while their captors force them to build a bridge? What's happening exactly here, CB?
Or are they being offered an early retirement payout that they can choose to accept or not?
I stated upfront that I see no way the federal government would do this. Back when I was talking about the GAO originally and how they have been doing this writ small for decades. The idea that Congress would provide the support and funding to do the real job (i.e. how it will be spun) right is far fetched.
So, again, you invent a fantasy and argue against it.
You exaggerate and use strawman arguments. I say the same damn thing repeatedly and you continue with your bullshit.
A proper course of action. Ideal was not the objective. The objective is to get good results.
It is quite possible for Congress to authorize a PMO within the GAO along with a handful of initiatives. The fact that this does not benefit anyone in Congress personally and thus is unlikely to come to fruition does not mean it is impractical or impossible. Just unlikely, as I have indicated.
And you are again flat out exaggerating (and thus lying about) what I have written. But I have grown to expect that from you.
What citation is needed? Civil servants, of which you state at 6.1.67 ("I've worked in the public sector") should know:
Organizations in the Public and Private Sectors Have Different Employee Hiring and Compensation Structures
The ways in which organizations in the public and private sectors hire and compensate their employees differ. Specifically:
Public sector organizations generally handle personnel issues in accordance with civil service systems. Civil service systems set forth qualification requirements for various positions in public organizations, salary schedules for the positions in public organizations and requirements for employees’ performance reviews. Organizations in the public sector generally must adhere to the requirements of civil service systems in hiring, paying and managing their personnel.
Private sector organizations have more flexibility in hiring, reviewing and paying their employees. Although they must comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other labor laws, private sector organizations generally have greater flexibility in managing, reviewing and paying their employees than public sector organizations have.
Not relevant. They are not being afforded their proper rights to serve their country due to bogus antics by Trump and DOGE:
AFGE Membership Highest in History as Government Workers Join in Droves to Stand Up for Public Service
February 10, 2025
President Trump’s illegal directives keep coming, but federal workers who take the oath to uphold the Constitution are not taking it lying down. Their courage and commitment to public service have led to skyrocketing membership at AFGE. As of this writing, the number of dues-paying members went up rapidly to stand at 321,000, the highest in the union’s history.
Federal workers are joining to have a voice at work and fight efforts to undermine the federal government and democracy.
Here’s a summary of what we did together this week and how you can join us.
Feb. 7: In response to AFGE and allies’ lawsuit , a federal judge paused the Trump administration’s effort to put more than 2,000 employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on administrative leave and to recall overseas USAID employees to the U.S.
Feb. 6: In a victory for government employees, a federal judge suspended the Trump administration’s implementation of its deferred resignation program in response to AFGE and allies’ lawsuit seeking suspension of this illegal program. The judge has set a Monday hearing to hear further arguments.
Feb. 6: A federal judge partially blocked Elon Musk’s access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems in response to a lawsuit filed by AFGE and allies. Two DOGE-connected employees are granted “read only” access to the systems. No one else will get access, including Musk himself.
Feb. 5: AFGE and allies filed a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority to access highly sensitive information systems at the Department of Labor and restructure multiple federal agencies unilaterally.
Feb. 3: AFGE vowed to challenge any efforts to defy signed contracts after the Trump administration told agencies to ignore collective bargaining agreements. AFGE maintains that union contracts are enforceable by law, and the president does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to the agreements
Don't forget ethical consideration when writing others: The federal workers are being offered questionable buyout (not certified properly and sanctioned) from the President/DOGE, and under threat of 'sudden' removal if they do not accept it at some indefinite time in the future.
Missed the reference, I see. Maybe ask Buzz for an explanation.
I dunno, looks like the courts are already deciding what those proper rights are (or are not).
That's how buyouts work. They give everyone an offer so they don't have to let people go who really need the job. They may still need to cut staff after the buyout. Not telling everybody that would be unethical.
OK, so once again you age agreeing with me.
One you have just admitted was unrealistically idealistic.
It is not possible for that action to result in a smaller, more efficient, less expensive government.
More accurately, we both see this aspect the same way. And I have not changed my position.
You are trying real hard to find a way to disagree. What is unrealistic is actually engaging in a process reengineering of the federal government. For the reasons I stated. What is NOT unrealistic is carving out politically suitable portions (typically this is low-hanging fruit that is easily justified) and pursuing initiatives. And I will note again that even that is difficult (not impossible) with our short-term, politically insane Congress.
Correct. That action would focus on smaller initiatives. You have heard the phrase of eating an Elephant one bite at a time. There is nothing unusual about taking this pragmatic approach. What I have stated, and I will yet again have to repeat to you what I have stated, is that Musk (and Trump) are not interested in taking actions that would achieve good results. They want something that they can spin and they want it now. They do not have the patience to do the job right; I see no evidence to the contrary.
What is unethical is civil servants being compelled to leave their careers at the point of a (conservative) political 'gun.' You may remember (or not) that Musk (and Trump) shared a laugh in 2024:
So it strikes me, that this is a definite attempt to do an 'end-run' around and against the federal union system, by getting members to 'remove' themselves for as less financial gain and ligation as possible.
That's what "agree" means.
There are more, but you get the idea.
Any attempt to reengineer the federal govt using the methods you describe is doomed to fail. Are they best practices in other organizations? Yes, generally so. But they are not workable in this instance.
I don't disagree with that at all. That does not change the fact that doing the job "right" as you define it is not possible anyway.
Why? Is it your assertion that we owe them a job?
It's not an end run. It's one of the few acceptable options within that union environment.
I already have the idea. Here you are again pretending that you are rebutting some point I made. Same bullshit tactic. Good grief man, knock it off.
You are simply enumerating why process reengineering of the ENTIRE federal government is unrealistic. Again, I noted that upfront. I also noted that the GAO has been doing this (writ small) for decades. While the entire federal government is far too big, complex, and politically entrenched to be 'fixed' as a single initiative, there is always much easier bites of the elephant that can be taken. Congress could indeed give direction and funding to the GAO to pump up the volume on their efforts. That most definitely is doable. But, as I noted upfront and repeated, it is hard work, takes a long time, and it is difficult for a politician to take credit for it. Ergo, this will not be championed by Trump and Musk.
Again, again, reengineering the ENTIRE federal government was never suggested. Process reengineering initiatives in targeted areas has been going on for decades - facilitated by the GAO. Look, here is a document way back to 1995 and 1997 identifying standards . Here is a recent initiative proposal for the DoD . Plenty of initiatives have taken place over the decades such as this: .
My point is that GAO could be empowered by Congress to do more of the same. NOT the ENTIRE Federal government, but continuing to take bites out of the elephant ... but more directed and at a greater volume.
You cannot seem to stop ignoring what I write and make everything extreme so that you can argue a strawman.
If you would stop redefining what I write that would be helpful. The "job" is not to magically reengineer the ENTIRE Federal government. Attempt to remember that.
And try to remember that since process reengineering has been taking place in the federal government for decades now that it is demonstrably possible. And that increasing this practice with clear direction and funding is an incremental improvement and is not impossible. The problem is that it is not politically expedient ... as I have noted throughout.
Obviously spending more money is "doable". If history teaches us anything, it is that spending more money is the primary skill of the federal government.
The idea that will result in meaningful reengineering of the federal government or even meaningful reductions in cost is ridiculous. It is in line with your previously wildly idealistic theoretical approach that assumes no opposition.
And yet here we are. Do you imagine this statement supports your point?
Could have been. And if they were effective, probably would have been.
You don't think the entire thing needs reengineering?
And try to remember that since process reengineering has been taking place in the federal government for decades now that it is demonstrably possible.
Is the goal to establish some process or is the goal to make government smaller and more efficient?
The objective I stated is not: 'spend money'. It is to target more initiatives and fund them. That is how progress could be made. And of course we can alternatively let the processes degrade and just spend money trying to maintain broken, ineffective processes. Not what I would recommend.
Yes. You presume that these efforts have not made improvements. Why is that? Do you have evidence that compares where we are now (in the areas where we have worked to improve effectiveness) and where we would be in those areas if we had done nothing? No, of course not. All you can do is pessimistically presume that these initiatives were all failures. That does not comport with the reality of such initiatives in the private sector so why would you presume such failure in the public sector?
When the government has engaged in initiatives to modernize ancient computer systems (as an easy to understand example), do you presume that this was a waste of time and money because the federal government as a whole is still a mess? Do you not see the immediate easy advantages that can be gained by taking old COBOL / Fortran / Autocoder batch-oriented systems and replacing them with modern online systems?
Now you ignore one of your key points about politics getting in the way of these initiatives. You are now arguing that initiatives have not grown in number because past initiatives were failures. Have you discarded your point about political barriers and long term results not enthusiastically supported because they do not provide benefit for reelection campaigns? After all, we do agree on politics and time-frames being a key inhibitor.
Of course it does. You are all over the map. I have been talking about practical ways to do the job right. It is not practical to take on the entire Federal government. So no matter how much it is needed, there is no pointing pursuing the impossible (or at least incredibly unlikely). Thus we focus on more manageable slices ... and focus first on the low-hanging fruit.
Half is insane Jack. I am talking about initiatives that are incremental improvements from what has been done. Take the next step from what GAO, et. al. has been allowed to do. Do you think the next step is half of the federal government??
The goal is make the federal government more effective; not the ENTIRE government ALL AT ONCE. This necessarily requires focusing on portions (slices) of the federal government and phasing in new processes and new technology. It necessarily is not a short-term endeavor that fits nicely into a campaign time frame.
So.... spend money. Or do you intend they be funded with something besides money?
Progress is being made. You just don't like the people doing it.
Lack of evidence of said improvements.
You are the one claiming effectiveness. The burden of proof is yours.
For six reasons I've just listed plus several exceedingly obvious others.
Setting aside you failing to grasp the point I've been making all along.... let's examine this thought process of yours.
So.... the politics that have blocked these previous initiatives somehow won't block this new one you're suggesting..... And you don't think that's naive idealism... Riiiiiiight.
Only because you can't follow along.
There is absolutely nothing practical about your suggestion, for the numerous reasons we've discussed.
Okay, Jack, now you have resorted to the truly absurd. Because an initiative will cost money (one must spend money to gain the effectiveness that saves money) you dismiss it. You have run out of objections and now are just throwing out nonsense.
The objective is not: 'spend money'; that is an entirely dishonest misrepresentation. The objective is to incrementally make the government more efficient.
So explain how any initiative is accomplished without funding the initiative.
Yeah, you are truly out of rebuttals.
As noted, how could you possibly know? Since the entire federal government has never been the focus, how can you say that because the government as a whole is ineffective that all of the initiatives designed to improve portions of government have failed?
No, you claimed that there have been no improvement. You have the burden.
Non sequitur. You claim that government initiatives have failed in spite of the fact that process reengineering is successful in the private sector. And clearly you have nothing whatsoever to back that up.
Politics have not blocked previous initiatives. Where do you get this crap? I have stated that politics are indeed an inhibitor to getting things done. Politics gets in the way of long-term initiatives; it does not stop everything. We can take the next step from where we are. Especially if the PotUS is behind it. Which is exactly what I have stated. But, as I noted upfront, Trump will not be behind doing things properly because he wants a quick result that he can spin as a success.
Your 'argument' is now just bullshit and snark.
Just making blanket claims now? Okay, your view is both naive and pessimistic, as I have demonstrated.
Why do I have almost zero confidence that you have any meaningful grasp of what I've said?
Not what I said. Please read carefully.
I can't imagine....
If you decide to be serious, honest and pen a thoughtful comment that is not a repeat of what I have already covered with you, I will respond.
CHEERS!
They have the jobs and are doing them. FIRE CIVIL SERVANTS FOR CAUSE. Do not play the sickening and perverse game of hiding IDEALOGICAL racism, sexism, genderism, ageism, AND OTHERISMs.
The cover is pulled off! All is transparent; but it thinks itself to be hiding in plain sight. DOGE fires and rehires ITS racist-why because it wants ITS racist little adult on the team and Trump is hiring inexperienced cabinet officials with all their baggage because true professionals will not touch the CRAP he wants to sell.
Elon Musk, the world's richest man - let me write this again: THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN says that feeding and aiding the world's hungry people is partially "evil" - this from the one man on Earth who will NEVER EVER know personal hunger again! He is causing good food to rot in its stalls. Fresh Food which can be eaten is 'dying' a rather meaningless 'death.'
—And, to what God does that man bow down ?
And now civil servants should go raggedy in the streets, because a billionaire president has a bug up his butt that they could not bail him out of his alleged court cases and federal crimes?
And, finally, MAGAs - the Shameless Ones! People who can't abide other people having peace and quiet and whom 'get along' to get along . . . continue to rip the heart out of what very "good" Others do and try to advance themselves—how miserable it must be to be just miserable and forgetful of what true humanity is. Well, its MAGAs lost. Others find true happiness in the smallest things, when the 'better things' are denied them. (They have no choice.)
NOTE: I just notice this comment many hours after it was posted. At the end of the day, I do not know if I did it justice, but I do feel I stated something which needs to be stated.
What if we decide we don't need those jobs anymore?
Oh... now it's racist. Ah. Riiiiiiiiight. How did we all know this would get there eventually.
Bit dramatic here, but I guess that's the theme now.
Interesting how you frequently seem to care about people who receive tax dollars but don't often seem to express any care for the people who actually pay most of the taxes.
What you mean, "We"? This is Donald (retributive) Trump who has decided and "you" go along to get along. "We" have not decided, "Crap"!
The rest of your comment is conservative talking points when hit with the reality that racists dwell in the midst of you (see Elon's 'elf' that can't be fired even though he was "racist before it was cool' and yet civil servants "got to go!"
I have to run this morning, will get back with this 'case of denial' of the truth—later.
We. As a nation, through the people we elected to make such decisions and the people they have appointed and hired to advise them.
At one point, the US Govt employed grooms and stableboys at the WH. Somebody was in charge of filling inkwells in the Senate chambers. There were lamplighters to keep the rotunda lit. There was an entire department in charge of procuring whale oil.
Do we still need those jobs? Or did "we" decide they were no longer necessary? Do you imagine those decisions went on some national referendum and everybody voted? That's not how a republic works.
I have no clue as to what the intended point of this is. Employees and jobs can change, needs of the government services can change, technology can limit the size of government. . . however, changing out employees under forced attrition and because (let's put it out there) Trump needs to 'BELIEVE' in the people whom work in government have his professional and PERSONAL interests in the forefront of their service to the nation is not a suitable way to hire or fire civil 'servants.'
You are spending a great deal of your time trying to discuss this without any consideration of Trump's STATED motivations—which includes he does not trust the so-called, 'deep-state' and all that implies to him and MAGAs. However, it is not the job of a NEUTRAL set of systems and workers to be FAVORABLY BIASED to one side or the other of a government of 'WE THE PEOPLE' - with a multiplicity of PROPER group interests.
The biggest issue with the model (being 'stuck' in place) will come about when every four years (or thereabouts) the system flips (MAGA forbid - I know). . .we have political hiring and firing of 'servants.' That is impractical.
And let us dispense with the notion that "We the People" need to be all CONSERVATIVE or all LIBERAL or all WHATEVER. We the People do not have to be so. We have the freedom to live free and be DIVERSE - a known strength and not a weakness. Indeed, being all the same becomes MONOTONOUS in the national stream of consciousness.
It is morally right in a true free nation that the COMMUNITY should rise and fall for all the citizenry. . . and no one or set of groups should thrive and prosper off the LIFEBLOOD of others in the country. That is, compromise is the proper course of action for a nation that uses its people talents and skills correctly to affect the whole!
I often feel that way when you post. Let's clarify.
The current administration believes (as does much of the population) that the US govt is overstaffed, wasteful, inefficient, and frequently negligent. This demonstrates at the very least a casual disregard and at the worst a contempt for private sector employees and the work they have to do in order to earn the tax dollars these employees manage (or mismanage).
Your posts seem to portray govt employees as entitled to their jobs, making any attempt to eliminate jobs an attack of which they are the victims.
My point is that they are not entitled to those jobs, especially when such jobs do not benefit the American people.
That's how layoffs work, CB. Why should govt employees be exempt when private sector workers are not?
If there was evidence that employees were being targeted or eliminate based on their political ideology, I would agree. Do you have concrete evidence to that effect?
Which ones are you referring to specifically?
Do we? Or do we simply have a change in political direction that is rendering certain jobs obsolete?
I've never held such an idea. If you do, then yes, dispense with it immediately.
You understand this is very conservative thinking. This is the justification for dramatically reducing not only the federal workforce, but reducing or eliminated several social programs that redistribute money.
If these people are talented and skillful, they will easily find work in the private sector. They will be in more efficient, more effective organizational systems that will allow greater use of their talents and skills and bring about greater benefit to society as a whole.
Might be referring to Trump's firing of select DoJ workers who worked on Trump cases:
Here's the thing: I have been _____ batting CRAP back and forth, but I am done getting 'full' of it. I am in the process of weening myself off this useless discussion. . . MAGA is not sincere and the lies are a daily norm while it plows ahead with deconstructing life as it could/should be for all the people in this country. There is enough to go 'around' for all, but greed has its "home" in the hearts of many. Have a nice day in "MAGALAND."
We may try this again, but it will be extending itself out less far and in-between.
(By the way, I have NOT 'heard' your last two comments due to . . . a lost of interest.)
It's pathetic. The true is laying all around MAGA feet, because they won't choose to pick it up and let it live in this. This is sickening and stomach-churning to experience, live through, and watch playing itself out. . .the wealthy. . . crying the 'po'-mouth and clamoring to take the food out of the mouths of those whose jobs it is to make the federal government work—suitably and properly. I am sitting here right now, and I used to be a fan of the McMahon family of businesses (WWF/WWE) watching Linda McMahon LYING through her rich-ass teeth about keeping the Department of Education going when she and every republican on the committee KNOWS the open secret that Trump is going to 'drown it' come hell or high water.
There is no reasoning with disingenuous people who will lie to get what they want (to your face). Simply hopeless.
Moreover, if DOGE can have the richest man in the world UNOFFICIALLY having control and our data (which we pay private companies to protect from the public) and MAGA (the so-called 'defenders' of our our, well their privacy anyway) says they trust him with 'it' and yet he can't be brought before the public to explain why we all should give him respect for his activities - both DOGE and Republicans are full of CRAP!
And another thing: These MAGA hearing are a waste of time. Here's why: If you are going to present documents and statements attesting to the facts of what some one has written or stated as their position on matters of the job they wish to hold - and it carries no weigh whatsoever in the JUDGEMENT of the congress; if you have people coming before committee and they repeat rote talking points and STARE CONGRESS DOWN TO ITS FACE; if you have people who take the whole committee so-called, "vetting" process as invalid and ineffectual to change one idea in the heads of those striving with it to represent this nation. . . then: Why the hell have "Advice and consent" performative "dramas" anyway?
If corruption is the game then just dispense with the theatrics and everybody just 'do their own thang' and may the best man, woman, or political party (in the moment) win.
Congress, as a whole, is MORE RIDICULOUS than the administration, because it does not even fight or represent its 'own' branch worth a damn.
The GOP is rubber stamping Trump's nominations. No doubt they will do the same for proposed legislation. We have arguably the worst PotUS in our lifetimes and the intended constitutional check of Congress is nonexistent and the other check, the SCotUS, has already shown its hand.
And worse, there is insufficient backlash from polls.
Courts found evidence of crime and punished Trump for it. And the public (99.99 MAGA) elected him. And, celebrated that they 'did' it.
Republicans in congress have been lying through their teeth all along.
Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are just BSrs 'performing' the wringing of hands and 'worry' but who can be persuaded with ease by the corrupting influences they associate too close with up and down the power structure.
Mitch McConnell, out of power, is now pretending to MATTER with his weak and ineffectual voting 'trend' against liars appearing for congressional "committee" advice and consent. He knows he can't matter because he was the architect of taking down democrats with his deceitful conduct as Majority Leader. Yet, he now wants to ease his pathetic conscience with negligible votes (after he makes sure he is not part of any 'wave' to oust a Trump nominee). What a waste/weaselly thing to 'be' in one's declining years.
Robert Kennedy's own first cousin felt COMPELLED to put herself out there against him in the worse way possible (she told it, nearly 'all' in an expose) to the congress and public. . . and still this abominable man is a cabinet official under the 'JUDGEMENT' of republicans. Who does that? Caroline Kennedy did her service to her country. . . and got politically nowhere and figuratively 'spit' in the face!
It's all such BS.
It is telling how the GOP can 'sit on its damn hands- too feeble to lift/raise' and yet 'get off the same set of hands to vote' when it suits their self-interests alone. . . . (Otherwise they can't be bothered to do so.)
The GOP is deliberately waging political war (this is not 'friendly disagreement about a point or several with the other party) on the democratic party and liberals. . . all while faking smiles and "craps and giggles." Democratic Party politics best chance will be to stop 'smiling' so much and get a set of political brass knuckles of its own out!
The philosophy of the GOP seems to hail back to a time when it was 'buyer beware'. . . as a model for how "true" freedom and prosperity should work in a democracy. (Where no one can trust anybody or have recourse under rule of law. (And so, without standard rules, what you end up with by default is OUTLAWISM.)
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
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.
I don't think militant Muslims believe in birth control or STD prevention
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).
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!
Exactly
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.
Are we talking about the Biden Administration or Trump?
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.
UPDATE...
National security services were originally exempt from the buyouts, but no more. The CIA is now included.
Well, there goes trmp's daily security briefing...which he never read anyway
I remember they tried using lots of pictures because he wouldn't read.
Maybe they just need a cartoonist. Probably still wouldn't work.
Trump Once Again Suggests He Might Try To Run For Third Term In 2028
Have you ever heard of the Constitution?
That is a question asked to Trump, not Dig.
[✘]
This is a comment that should be flagged. Clearly we all understand term limits. You are intentionally misrepresenting our comments to enable your obnoxious comment.
As I noted, Dig is not the one who needs to be reminded of the CotUS, Trump is.
Then flag it.
"As I noted, Dig is not the one who needs to be reminded of the CotUS, Trump is."
Pretty much not concerned about what you noted, nor do you not need to answer for him.
He is the one that asked the question, not Trump, hence why I asked him the question.
What question did Dig ask? He reported on Trump. He did not ask a question nor did he even hint that he is unaware of term limits on the PotUS (something that a normally educated middle school student knows).
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
has trump? has maga?
Not sure who this "maga" you shrill about, but as you can see, I directly stated what the Constitution says about presidential term limits, so at least conservatives have.
If that were actually the case, Trump would not be President of these "United" states me.
This immunized and despised by any non corrupted & manipulated honest true interpretation of the true backboner of this once great nation, that is currently in a freefalling upon impact devastation direction, due to the purposely by design deviation from the set standards and norms that helped build and carry on in the sustentation that has been now impeded, and this was achieved buy the Quarts activation causing the results from a dire election to be the infection as is known as our current direction.
As i pointed out to Jack, who doesn't apparently know, Trump has exceeded our carefully thought out founders plans to thwart one such as Don, the lying fckn con, and it has been pretty dam effective in its role, but Trump has broken that model(and no, not his illegal wife he first banged on the Loilita express way) for he is a lifelong criminal elected by peepholes obscured by the hundreds of millions that flooded his campaign to manipulate the vision of the facts, facts either blurred or somehow turned 180, by propaganda fkn A shady that to this day have proven that the purchase and flood of alternate fax, along with a 'right' wing flappin unSupreme quartz agenda, paved the way for the mental midget miscreant of mystery, to oil and foil the wheels of justice in a league not yet deformed to this extent B 4, cause this has been done to US and a hell of a lot more to change US for the make great purpose of the enrichmeant and deviation played out by and for the oligarchs of this formerly great nation.
As the nay sayers have proven that Johnny come lately is the porta potty rich and snotty gigantic scarlet letter touted on his sweater giant A hole in what used to be the envy of the world, butt now, the current spinnin of and buy the whirleds' biggest turd, the spinning of actual reality with his own Constitution absurd!
And this has him leaving us with the runs, as his dumb down and drown has been the opening of the immaculate misconception via his laxatives, as he has halted the constipation and released a whirled world of unnecessary shit upon this nation, that should wash their hands over such non-feeble and fecal matters, but now can't, cause the contamination of this nation has done splattered,
Splattered over so much without a flush, there is no bowl to punch, no corn and peanuts to crunch, as poll after danced around pole has shown a plan, where there is not a rescue from a little guy in a little boat, only a little guy with a 2025 plan where the Tidy Bowl Man went on vacation, asz we circle the drain because peoples were too lazy to ascertain, the true pain, that we would be exposed to by a second term for a determined in our termination present potUS plan.
Cause he is everything our forefathers would have never wanted to see, as our dumbed down society has proven,
that is what and where we be in
our country tis of he,
as we are stuck and in a shitty groove, but groovy we not be.
Wake up people and 'Christians' supported buy the bought steeple that has the slant, for a steep hill to traverse in a country that can't,
cause in our current universe, our world is spinning down the twisted sewer made grate again, buy the bought and paid for who enabled the election infection, known as this 'man' ,
with a mandate elon plan to supersede with all of the hate planted to grow,
inn the people that can't seem to know . and or say so.
, WTF this POS has done, as exercised daily are the fruits of his labor bowel and foul movement, has his and is his asz this excrement forced out and about does and will continue to implement without a doubt, his will over a party with out, the guts, who threw their hands up like nuitz, bounced off their chin, cause they have again done let the actually enemy from within, take one and all like an i from the team, as sodomized by the Gonorrhea mess of a messiah brought about to dry up the dream,
N
US All pooped out, without any Charmin to be had, for HE has put us in this shitty situation, and so many refuse to see that as bad,
yep, we've been HAD...
and i had to clean this shit off and from my chest, so i used a Stanley Steamer, unlike Trump and Cump., for they went to
Cleveland....
He continues to talk about it. The only way it happens is if he completes his authoritarian dictatorship before this term ends.
And of course that is not going to happen, but it is going to be sickening watching this scoundrel piss all over the law and the CotUS and get by with it in many cases due to Trump-protecting judges like Aileen Cannon.
The douchebags in Congress are actively working to rewrite the CotUS to advance their authoritarian goals. It's a good thing that's not a simple task.
You mean like those that want to abolish the EC every time they lose a presidential election?
or the last democratic administration who claimed they could amend the constitution by tweet?
The SCotUS literally violated the CotUS in their immunity decision:
Always with the whataboutism. Stupid is stupid no matter which populist wing it comes from.
The argument is that the Senate has to convict before a criminal trial can go forward. Which is insane during these hyper partisan times. Perhaps we do need an amendment stating anytime the House votes for impeachment the Senate MUST present all the evidence and hear from all the witnesses before casting a vote to convict.
Not really.
You specifically stated "the douchbags in Congress" Easily mistaken that you meant Democrats....and far more accurate.
That was the argument made by Trump's attorneys. But the SCotUS went one step further and gave the PotUS 100% immunity in perpetuity for anything that is considered a core-constitutional duty and granted the presumption of immunity elsewhere. In addition, they stated that evidence from presidential duties is not admissible in any trial.
None of that is in the CotUS. But most blatantly is the violation I noted which states clearly that a PotUS is NOT above the law and there is nothing in the CotUS that makes special provisions for core constitutional duties, etc.
Pretty much always.
Only way to mistake what I wrote would be if you are partisan populist that ignores context. So... there's that.
I understand your point. Smith had to resubmit charges outlining which action Trump took that should not be considered core-constitutional duties in both his J6th case and his classified docs case.
As we talked about at the time, I expect a future court to correct this error. I also expect a future court to correct the ruling on implied privacy rights that were struck down in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Me too. Especially given the Trump presidency as a prime case in point that shows we cannot trust the electorate to ensure the PotUS is fit for the office ... not even close. Thus the powers of the presidency need to remain limited and special provisions to put the PotUS above the law is dangerous.
After all, what is more dangerous than the most powerful person on the planet having special legal immunity?
So I didn't make a mistake...
What is worse, is when that special most powerful person, is Donald Trump....
or is it Elon Musk for 'men' with tiny mandates ?
Yes, the Supremes sang US a bogus song as they are an activated sleeper installed by the 'right' 'conservative' B a keepers of the cash and spreaders of the rash, that will not ever wash away, as the history will be written, and it won't be swell, but it will show and tell ( hopefully at least with Elon in the wing east going al AI we cant be sure) that when ignorance brought about and got 45 elected, that a part of US , and what this idea was all about, did die.
You should read that clause again if you think if the Trump decision is inconsistent with it.
Is that supposed to persuade someone? You offer no details, no argument, just a presumption that I have only casually glanced at these details.
I have done considerably more than merely glance at a clause:
The text is clear. Simply reading it should be enough. I don't what else you need me to do.
Read the clause and understand its terms. The Court did not contradict it.
And now you give a second post that has zero content. You offer no argument, no facts, just a claim.
Additionally, what is MORE dangerous than the most powerful person on the planet having special legal immunity AND is 'paling' around (joined at the hip) with the world's most wealthiest man?
Gotta admit it, trump is putting more people out of work than Covid did. Winning!!!!!