- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ article from Musk/Ramaswamy on DOGE plan to reform government
Posted on 11/21/24 at 5:37 am to CharlesLSU
Posted on 11/21/24 at 5:37 am to CharlesLSU
quote:Discussion is, those good people will get a two-year severance, or two years credit toward early retirement, with all benefits. Not exactly draconian.
I’m not gonna celebrate a lot of good people losing jobs
A side consideration is also the impact 200K Fed employed voters have on Virginia politics
2
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:15 am to NC_Tigah
The core problem is that if the goal is to renew the 2017 tax cuts and not increase deficits as it did then deeper cuts than active employee payroll needs to be considered. I’ve heard food stamps and Medicaid being a possible target to work towards making those cuts. All I’d say to that is I suspect that will hurt rural red counties more than most on here recognize. Medicaid isn’t only for the poor, it is also how elderly care is funded for many. Probably can kiss that regional medical center with nursing home goodbye. Additionally groceries other than walmart depend on that food stamp business to keep the lights on. I hear things like that and think “that will kill my hometown before we can see the fruits of US industrial renewal”
This post was edited on 11/21/24 at 7:17 am
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:18 am to Barneyrb
quote:\It should be half of what it is, but I’m sure it would still be the largest employer.
The largest single employer in the USA is the Federal Government and it shouldn't be.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:18 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Oh so you mean the group that wants to trim the federal govt isn’t a federal program? You are truly insightful
Cool way to skirt conflict of interests and other ethical issues right. Trump's pretty crafty
Or, its past time to stop creating more government.
Typical frame of mind from statists like you. We need to expand the government to tell us how to shrink the government.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:19 am to Diego Ricardo
You are correct that slashing Medicaid, disability, and other "poor people" welfare will absolutely gut Trump country in the USA.
I'm not advocating for eliminating cuts in spending in these areas, but the reductions have to be gradual and over time. Federal money keeps rural America alive. Cutting it off would kill it for good. You cut it too fast and they'll just vote DEM in 26/28 and give President Shapiro or Whitmer a supermajority of Congress.
I'm not advocating for eliminating cuts in spending in these areas, but the reductions have to be gradual and over time. Federal money keeps rural America alive. Cutting it off would kill it for good. You cut it too fast and they'll just vote DEM in 26/28 and give President Shapiro or Whitmer a supermajority of Congress.
This post was edited on 11/21/24 at 7:20 am
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:22 am to GeneralLee
I volunteered yesterday. But I only meet one of the three requirements.
1. Would work for free CHECK
2. High IQ
3. Would work 80 hour per week.
1. Would work for free CHECK
2. High IQ
3. Would work 80 hour per week.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
That’s the rub: defense, Medicare, and social security are the big line items yet people like national security and the social safety net for the elderly. I fear that most of everything else is trimming around the edges but acting like you just sculpted something from granite.
This post was edited on 11/21/24 at 7:24 am
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:25 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
defense, Medicare, and social security are the big line items yet people like national security and the social safety net for the elderly.
Yeah I've said for a long time this DOGE stuff is a nothing burger in the big picture of spending, because the only areas we can cut to make a difference are:
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Military
Some ACA benefits
Anything else is too small to keep up with the interest payments on our current debt.
In Trump's Agenda 47 he specifically mentions spending more for Medicare/SS and the Military, too.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
I know people on here like Elon and Vivek. I am lukewarm on each and in particular there has been a notable degradation in Elon’s focus on the main thing and instead an obsession with celebrity that seems to be hurting his businesses.
I’m not a died in wool Trump fanboy but I think the DOGE move was shrewd. These two were staunch allies and likely moved the needle in his favor in some battleground state suburbs where successful white collar businessmen hold a bit more sway. However, they clearly do not need to be endowed with real executive authority. Being essentially a think tank stood up by Trump is ideal. The Heritage Foundation publishes some whackadoodle stuff on occasion but no GOP executive is on the hook to heed every policy item promoted by that think tank.
I’m not a died in wool Trump fanboy but I think the DOGE move was shrewd. These two were staunch allies and likely moved the needle in his favor in some battleground state suburbs where successful white collar businessmen hold a bit more sway. However, they clearly do not need to be endowed with real executive authority. Being essentially a think tank stood up by Trump is ideal. The Heritage Foundation publishes some whackadoodle stuff on occasion but no GOP executive is on the hook to heed every policy item promoted by that think tank.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:45 am to gaetti15
quote:
It'll be interesting to see what they recommend and how long it takes to actually get enacted
I think they said they won't even have recommendations until 2 years.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 7:48 am to Westbank111
quote:
weekly reports from dept. heads on what they accomplished.
PLUS - a written definition of what EVERY position in the said department PRODUCES that can be OBSERVED by an interested taxpayer.
edit - yes, there is some 'grunt work' in every task - but those must have supervisors who are responsible for some tangible PRODUCT or ACHIEVEMENT - and there must be a PLAN in place for the accomplishment of that achievement or production of that product.
This should ALSO be a documented and reviewable product for every such assignment.
Treat this like a damned JOB instead of a RETIREMENT PLAN and PROPAGANDA support organization.
This post was edited on 11/21/24 at 7:51 am
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:08 am to Decatur
quote:
pretty misleading, yes?
misleading??
how would you rate calling the killing of a newborn healthy baby = "women's health care" <= because THIS is the ONLY solid plank in the Democrat platform.
or - all the millions of outright lies and smears based on the overriding issue of "systemic racism" < a term that has NEVER been defined.
or - calling the removal of a sitting POTUS to be replaced with an ARBITRARY candidate who has NEVER won a single vote to be "saving Democracy" - ESPECIALLY since the anti-democracy villain to be defeated is the known POPULAR leader in the entire USA.
==== to see some DEMOCRAT nitwit squall over the use of 'misleading' verbiage is too funny to be believed.
good work on reestablishing yourself as the prime exemplar for the vacuum of logic, truth, integrity, character of the entire democrat CULT.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:15 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:in some (many?) cases it will be by undoing/removing EOs...
Yay. More EOs!
The logic is many existing EOs even exist because congress abdicated its authority and passed it to these agencies, which allowed the executive to issue an EO to do X & Y.
The Chevron decision restricted (not eliminated) that abdicated authority. So if the EO is removed, the 3 letter agency no longer has the authority to continue with X or Y without congress. In the past they could continue on under their own authority even if no EO existed.
With Chevron in place and then a removal of the EO, it "resets" it- thereby removing many of these programs.
In some cases there is no EO to undo and they will simply issue one to stop. If they defy it or claim the EO can't stop them- Chevron knocks on the door.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A side consideration is also the impact 200K Fed employed voters have on Virginia politics
Yes but........if these people lose their jobs and have to find new ones where do you think they will find them? Georgia, NC, Arizona? If you look there is a correlation between swing states and job growth.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:19 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
I think they said they won't even have recommendations until 2 years.
Well that is inefficient with midterms in 2 years.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:21 am to I20goon
quote:
in some (many?) cases it will be by undoing/removing EOs...
That still requires EOs, and almost assuredly following the APA.
Again, Trump lost the DACA reversal for this specific reason.
quote:
The logic is many existing EOs even exist because congress abdicated its authority and passed it to these agencies, which allowed the executive to issue an EO to do X & Y.
Which is legal, and has been basically since our democratic republic was formed.
quote:
The Chevron decision restricted (not eliminated) that abdicated authority.
Which will hurt the executive issuing the very EOs you're discussing.
quote:
So if the EO is removed, the 3 letter agency no longer has the authority to continue with X or Y without congress.
This is always true and has nothing to do with Chevron (other than the currently-neutered ability of the executive to do this unilaterally).
quote:
In some cases there is no EO to undo and they will simply issue one to stop. If they defy it or claim the EO can't stop them- Chevron knocks on the door.
This is wrong.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In some cases there is no EO to undo and they will simply issue one to stop. If they defy it or claim the EO can't stop them- Chevron knocks on the door.
quote:so you are saying if an agency, an executive branch agency, has started a program under it's own [extended] authority and if ordered to discontinue the program at which time the agency claims it is congressionally authorized [by extended authority] and refuses that the executive branch can not subject that extended authority claim per Chevron?
This is wrong.
Of course they can. It will require the executive suing it's own department, but that will be quite common with the "resistance"
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:36 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Layoffs happen all the time.
But not on the scale this board is proposing. It would be political suicide to fire say 3-5 million people. I don't care how much "the people want it". Trump and Elon may not be affected by the backlash but people like JD won't sit back and let that happen. That would put a major dent in his chances of ever becoming President.
And if a lot of people start getting fired outside of DC, Senators and Congressmen will have a major issue with that.
On another note I worry that this may turn into a way to funnel money to contractors. If the "job still needs to be done" and the gov doesn't have employees to do it then they will look outside of the gov for help. The contractors would be able to hire the gov employees that were let go keeping employment numbers up but........the cost to the taxpayer doesn't change.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:43 am to I20goon
quote:
so you are saying if an agency, an executive branch agency, has started a program under it's own [extended] authority and if ordered to discontinue the program at which time the agency claims it is congressionally authorized [by extended authority] and refuses that the executive branch can not subject that extended authority claim per Chevron?
Chevron has literally very little to do with this.
And Chevron limits the power of the interpretation by the executive to justify the action. So, in your hypothetical, the executive branch's interpretation of how/why it can "order to discontinue the program" is gutted by removing Chevron. There would be no deference to this executive-based interpretation by the court when analyzing their ability to act.
A much more applicable recent USSC ruling is this one
quote:
In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion.
quote:
Roberts' opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation for its action.' "
In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply declared DACA illegal and unconstitutional. "Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch," he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be rescinded because he said it was unlawful from the start.
But, as Roberts observed, the attorney general offered no detailed justifications for canceling DACA. Nor did the acting secretary of homeland security at the time, Elaine Duke, who put out a memo announcing the rescission of DACA that relied entirely on Sessions' opinion that the program was unlawful.
That seems to be the paradigm you're describing.
An executive branch agency (DHS) started a program (DACA) under its own authority. LINK
This agency was ordered to discontinue the program by the President/DOJ LINK
quote:
President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months.
Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department
Trump lost this one because his admin didn't follow the APA. They can't just order these agencies to act, even if it's removing prior executive action.
Trump's admin had the advantage of Chevron deference in this case and still lost. The executive's ability to do so in the future is made even more difficult by repealing Chevron.
There are rules in place that the executive has to follow.
Posted on 11/21/24 at 8:57 am to staylor226
quote:
a pension making 75% of their income during retirement.
The current version of the federal pension is closer to 25%.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News