@Ponderable saidJust a thought. Govt employees dont really 'produce' anything to make our economy grow. So, they leave that job, with huge payout, and get a job in the private sector, where their work contributes to our economy. Too simple. No wonder Trump is not bothered that they will be leaving govt employment. Some people, even on this Forum, are dependent on the governement, so naturally are upset with this Trump move.
So about 2 million people working in the public service got the mail to take a buyout.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/opm-implementing-musks-doge-plans-sends-federal-workers/story
I just send the first link in a search for the source. To just kick out people is to destrioy structures.
We could make an example out of the Department of Eductation if you want to.
1 edit
@Ponderable said"No, it should be first shown that this is the case?" Where in the hell does it say that? If I don't like a guy's haircut who works for my corporation, I can fire him without one word of why. And I don't lilke certain haircuts on my premises. You are wrong on that.
be assured that you r question are not too simple.
Does the USA have/owe a duty to employ these people if they are no longer needed, or if they are not performing their jobs satisfactorily?
No. It should be shown first that this is the case.
So if a structure is superfluous then the people are not longer needed, the agency can be outphsed in a correct way. So if t ...[text shortened]... r not. It is the US congress which established the organization. Why is the congress not even asked?
Your next paragraph says that '..congress should also have a say in the removal"
So, where does it say THAT?
Next you say 'the barest standards are not met". So if I and my board of a corporation with 500 employees, and decide on Tuesday that we can be more efficient if we reduce our staff by 100 people, to a staff of 400.......Are you actually saying that we have to show cause? To whom? Our cause? The standards of the corporation? Whose standards?
Are you saying that we cannot decide to fire people that we no longer need? Unbelievable. Please start a new thread on that one. Unbelievable. This is the joy that I find on the Forum. Unbelievable.
Why is the congress not asked? Please restate this. You want congress to start running the nit pick of a government? 'Trump says...We have 100 people that we dont need, and we need your permission to fire them. I guess you will have to look at each employee separately to determine if we can fire them. If we cannot fire them, what are we to do with them? Do we have to keep paying them?"
UN F'n Believable. You take the cake, my man. Allow me to run this one by my coffee buddies tomorrow!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy can't you get it through your thick skull that it is not up to Trump/Musk to decide how many workers the US government has?
"No, it should be first shown that this is the case?" Where in the hell does it say that? If I don't like a guy's haircut who works for my corporation, I can fire him without one word of why. And I don't lilke certain haircuts on my premises. You are wrong on that.
Your next paragraph says that '..congress should also have a say in the removal"
So, where does it ...[text shortened]... Believable. You take the cake, my man. Allow me to run this one by my coffee buddies tomorrow!!!
There's this thing called "Congress" that has that power.
@no1marauder saidnot over the executive branch
Why can't you get it through your thick skull that it is not up to Trump/Musk to decide how many workers the US government has?
There's this thing called "Congress" that has that power.
@no1marauder saidYou are being propagandized.
How can I? You gave no link or information supporting any idea that there wasn't a legitimate purpose for the spending.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/revealed-politico-received-huge-amounts-taxpayer-money-usaid/
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/02/05/new-massive-media-scandal-as-usaid-funding-for-politico-revealed-and-it-gets-worse-from-there-n2185236
All Musk did was look at spending. Oh the horror that people are finding out where our tax money is going. Hiding that is the horror and you keep following the propaganda instead.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou're misinformed; while the President has a certain amount of authority to hire and fire those not covered by civil service protections, he cannot unilaterally reduce Congressionally mandated funding for agencies by removing and not replacing staff.
not over the executive branch
@Metal-Brain saidhttps://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/media/politico-usaid-subscription-government/index.html
You are being propagandized.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/revealed-politico-received-huge-amounts-taxpayer-money-usaid/
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/02/05/new-massive-media-scandal-as-usaid-funding-for-politico-revealed-and-it-gets-worse-from-there-n2185236
All Musk did was look at spending. Oh the horror that people are finding out where our tax money is going. Hiding that is the horror and you keep following the propaganda instead.
@no1marauder saidYes, it is a good question. Won't it be weird if the Congress, in the light of all that Trump is doing to save us (hopefully) $2T , would say, no, DOGE cannot do this, we will just continue to allow the waste....which of course, is what YOU want to happen.
Why can't you get it through your thick skull that it is not up to Trump/Musk to decide how many workers the US government has?
There's this thing called "Congress" that has that power.
You weave a most peculiar web.
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-02-05/canadian-government-also-subsidizing-politico
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/media/politico-usaid-subscription-government/index.html
@AverageJoe1 saidMaybe what the richest man in the world, who has zero experience in government operations, thinks is "waste" won't be in accordance with the views of the People's elected representatives.
Yes, it is a good question. Won't it be weird if the Congress, in the light of all that Trump is doing to save us (hopefully) $2T , would say, no, DOGE cannot do this, we will just continue to allow the waste....which of course, is what YOU want to happen.
You weave a most peculiar web.
@Metal-Brain saidHow is buying a product a private company sells at the normal market price a "subsidy"?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-02-05/canadian-government-also-subsidizing-politico
@no1marauder saidHe already did.
You're misinformed; while the President has a certain amount of authority to hire and fire those not covered by civil service protections, he cannot unilaterally reduce Congressionally mandated funding for agencies by removing and not replacing staff.
The State Department announced on Feb. 3 that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was acting administrator of USAID, and Rubio wrote that a "review and potential reorganization" of USAID was underway.
USAID still exists....under Rubio.
@no1marauder saidhttps://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/?sort=score+desc&search_text=politico%2C+llc&page=1
How is buying a product a private company sells at the normal market price a "subsidy"?
@Metal-Brain saidJust answer the question.
https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/?sort=score+desc&search_text=politico%2C+llc&page=1
@AverageJoe1 saidWell that is the main error: They don't produce, but they keep up the necessary infrastructure.
Just a thought. Govt employees dont really 'produce' anything to make our economy grow. So, they leave that job, with huge payout, and get a job in the private sector, where their work contributes to our economy. Too simple. No wonder Trump is not bothered that they will be leaving govt employment. Some people, even on this Forum, are dependent on the governement, so naturally are upset with this Trump move.
Would you abandon the military, which also produces nothing?
That would be large amounts of money being freed.