Blah blah blah 2

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Too bad that is your opinion which isn’t based on facts or laws but rather a feeling …

It is based on the Constitution which does not give Congress the power to delegate its powers and responsibilities. It can establish agencies to investigate, advise, and recommend. But it cannot delegate its power to them to legislate or regulate.

Also DOGE aims to target staffers who are not in DEI roles and employees who work in offices established by law to ensure equal rights, internal DOGE documents show.

Those pesky laws

Pesky laws that delegate the congressional power of creating law to unelected agencies other than Congress itself, are constitutionally illegitimate.

[piemma]

Good to see you back.

[Got Stripers]

If Only.

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I am asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
*Congressional Reform Act of 2019*
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 7/1/19. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Pesky laws that delegate the congressional power of creating law to unelected agencies other than Congress itself, are constitutionally illegitimate.

Again your argument isn’t based on on facts or current laws

It’s emotional..

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So the convicted Felon posted today on the social media site he owns

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.
2.03k ReTruths 8.03k Likes
2/15/25, 11:53

I would expect that he who posts this should expect it to show up in briefs challenging what he does.

We are at the point where we find out shortly if The United States are governed by the rule of law or Musk and Trump.
I’ll leave the question of who holds presidential power, the man who ran or the man who bought it to history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So using his logic. An assassin. Could not be charged …. For saving the nation. From him. Ya ok

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So using his logic. An assassin. Could not be charged …. For saving the nation. From him. Ya ok

That could happen with the rule of FFOTUS
I think we should stick with rule of law
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If Only.

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I am asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
*Congressional Reform Act of 2019*
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 7/1/19. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

That would work.

I would propose term limits for house, senate and courts.
No separate benefit system for elected officials.
That emoluments be enforced.
That a corporation is not a person.
A limit of 8x minimum wage for political contributions.
Sunset provisions in all legislation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again your argument isn’t based on on facts or current laws

It’s emotional..

The doctrine of nondelegation is not emotional. It is based on separation of powers in constitutional governments. It is a long standing principle pre-dating our own Constitution.

Per Wikipedia:
"The doctrine of nondelegation (or non-delegation principle) is a theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. The non-delegation doctrine stands for the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations."

It was not significantly questioned until the FDR administration appointed enough Progressive SCOTUS judges to allow a so-called "implied" power of Congress to delegate power to agencies other than Congress itself so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to do so.

Well, of course, "intelligible principle" can be totally subjective, or, as you say, even emotional in derivation.

The FDR administration ravaged the Constitution, as admitted by one of FDR's Braintrust members Rex Tugwell, and basically reduced it to a matter of opinion.

There are currently suggestions that the nondelegation doctrine may be revisited in SCOTUS.

That would be nice, especially if we have enough "originalist" oriented opinions on it. I wouldn't bank on it.

But my contention is not based on "emotion." Not that emotion would not, or should not, be part of the equation.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The doctrine of nondelegation is not emotional. It is based on separation of powers in constitutional governments. It is a long standing principle pre-dating our own Constitution.

Per Wikipedia:
"The doctrine of nondelegation (or non-delegation principle) is a theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. The non-delegation doctrine stands for the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations."

It was not significantly questioned until the FDR administration appointed enough Progressive SCOTUS judges to allow a so-called "implied" power of Congress to delegate power to agencies other than Congress itself so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to do so.

Well, of course, "intelligible principle" can be totally subjective, or, as you say, even emotional in derivation.

The FDR administration ravaged the Constitution, as admitted by one of FDR's Braintrust members Rex Tugwell, and basically reduced it to a matter of opinion.

There are currently suggestions that the nondelegation doctrine may be revisited in SCOTUS.

That would be nice, especially if we have enough "originalist" oriented opinions on it. I wouldn't bank on it.

But my contention is not based on "emotion." Not that emotion would not, or should not, be part of the equation.

I forgot you believe in Originalism that’s like being a flat earth believer

It’s just an excuse to avoid the truth of the reality we actually live in.

Not 13 colonies and it. 2.5 million people and but 50 states and there. 334.9 million citizens. (2023)

But we’ve had this discussion before. Let’s move on.. and i actually I would rather have this conversation in person.. because I honestly can’t compete with your writing skills. And that’s not being sarcastic.. it’s a compliment

[Rmarsh]

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

[Pete F.]

The wealthiest vandal in the world is hard at work

What happened is NNSA OST Nuclear Materials Courier team was terminated while transporting a physics package. They are stranded with it and no one to call so they are trying to make the best of it by improvising a secure location and standing watch.
This is all 100% the work of Musk he is wrecking the US with no one watching over his shoulder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The wealthiest vandal in the world is hard at work

What happened is NNSA OST Nuclear Materials Courier team was terminated while transporting a physics package. They are stranded with it and no one to call so they are trying to make the best of it by improvising a secure location and standing watch.
This is all 100% the work of Musk he is wrecking the US with no one watching over his shoulder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what.....I know its a long drive for you....but others cant use that excuse.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

Probably this person

Donald J. Trump Hello Sir. I am one of the probationary employees terminated by the Doge at 9:00pm last night; February 14th. I voted for you, Sir, three times, and I still support you. I was encouraged by the DOGE to see they were getting rid of wasteful government spending; I support that too. My termination letter said I was being let go for performance reasons. I know that's not true; I am an excellent employee. I've been with the Federal government for almost 16 years. Sixteen years in June. I had started my career with USDA, transferred to DHS, and recently came back to USDA because it's such a great Agency to work for. Surely that must count for something in your eyes. I'm loyal and I firmly believe that the work I do as a USDA APHIS PPQ employee is vital and important. My boss, his boss, the managers in neighboring states, all agree I'm doing an excellent job and that I'm a great asset to the team. I'm the only
in the State of Kentucky and my work here is valued and honorable. Each time I voted for you, it was because I knew you'd make things right and you'd fix the wrongs. I'm counting on you now to make this right too. I'm pleading with you to reinstate my employment and give me my job back. Please, Mr. President. Thank You
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I forgot you believe in Originalism that’s like being a flat earth believer

That's interesting. But I don't see the connection.
Could you point it out for me?

It’s just an excuse to avoid the truth of the reality we actually live in.

Whatever you envision the reality we actually live in to be, how have I lied (avoided the truth) about the nondelegation doctrine, or about the fact that creating hundreds of unelected government agencies with plenary power over the people is being fascistic? How is that all an "excuse"?

Not 13 colonies and it. 2.5 million people and but 50 states and there. 334.9 million citizens. (2023)

Did the "truth" of the nondelegation doctrine embedded in the Constitution become a lie with the addition of every new state? Or with the addition of every new citizen? Do statehood and the elements of humanity change in their basic nature as they become more numerous? Should we write a new Constitution or create a different form of government every time the population grows?

The "truth of the reality we live in" constantly changes in some way on a daily basis. One day a man is a man. The next day a man is a woman. The next day that's bunk. Is there no constant? Just total constant change? How is it possible to even have a state, a defined government, a defined human being, under such conditions?

So far, as I can see, humans have not gone through some basic evolutionary change since the time of the 13 colonies. Sure, there are the superficial surface changes in standards of living, cultural shifts, boundary changes, and so forth. But basic humanity, its physical and even metaphysical needs are pretty much the same, just different names and places. But the basic needs to be nourished, to be loved, to have fellowship, to procreate, to have family, and to have a personal amount of freedom and autonomy within a predictable, stable, society in which to flourish remain a constant.

And, as far as I can see, the original US Constitution still remains as one of the most viable governmental systems in which to achieve those basic needs.

But we’ve had this discussion before. Let’s move on..

"Let's move on" . . . to where? I hear that mantra, quite often . . . and it usually seems to be an "excuse" to escape from the "truth of the reality we live in" . . . into an undefined relief from the reality of a monotonous unbending "constitution" or other, or to justify the legal machinations of a preferred political party . . . Constitution, human nature, individual freedom, be damned . . .


and i actually I would rather have this conversation in person.. because I honestly can’t compete with your writing skills. And that’s not being sarcastic.. it’s a compliment

I mentioned, before, in the old political forum, that you had improved in your writing skills. You have taken it a notch up in those since then.

And I don't consider this a competition. That's why I hate debates where the goal is more to win than to convince and to arrive at some truth.

[Pete F.]

Imagine if Barack Obama or Joe Biden said they were above the law.

Imagine if Obama or Biden were pocketing tens of millions of dollars while they were in office.

Imagine if Obama or Biden pardoned people who violently attacked the Capitol to prevent a Republican from taking office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I mentioned, before, in the old political forum, that you had improved in your writing skills. You have taken it a notch up in those since then.

Up a notch from fifth grade level?
When he gets stuck he falls back to hitler comparisons.

[Pete F.]

Napoleon-"He who saves his country, violates no law."
- Hitler– “The good of the state stands above the law.”
- Mussolini– “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
- Francisco Franco– “I am responsible only to God and to history.”

History buffs will know that every authoritarian leader eventually converges on some version of: "I *am* the state. I can not break the law, I am the law, the law is instantiated in me."

Our march to authoritarianism so far has been excruciatingly by-the-book. Hitting every beat. No surprises.

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.
Donald Trump convicted Felon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Meanwhile in Russia: Sergey Mikheyev says that in light of the Trump administration's express intent to abandon NATO allies in case they intervene in Ukraine, Russia should strike Brussels, London and Paris. Vladimir Solovyov wholeheartedly agrees.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Probably this person

Donald J. Trump Hello Sir. I am one of the probationary employees terminated by the Doge at 9:00pm last night; February 14th. I voted for you, Sir, three times, and I still support you. I was encouraged by the DOGE to see they were getting rid of wasteful government spending; I support that too. My termination letter said I was being let go for performance reasons. I know that's not true; I am an excellent employee. I've been with the Federal government for almost 16 years. Sixteen years in June. I had started my career with USDA, transferred to DHS, and recently came back to USDA because it's such a great Agency to work for. Surely that must count for something in your eyes. I'm loyal and I firmly believe that the work I do as a USDA APHIS PPQ employee is vital and important. My boss, his boss, the managers in neighboring states, all agree I'm doing an excellent job and that I'm a great asset to the team. I'm the only
in the State of Kentucky and my work here is valued and honorable. Each time I voted for you, it was because I knew you'd make things right and you'd fix the wrongs. I'm counting on you now to make this right too. I'm pleading with you to reinstate my employment and give me my job back. Please, Mr. President. Thank You
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He should protest....or just go look for an honest job.

Any protests in your local? The one down here might be cancelled do to safety concerns. Sidewalks could be slippery.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No doubt mistakes will be made. And corrected. And it is not only unconstitutional to give plenary power to these agencies, it is fascistic.

Ok Elon, maybe you can make another fake twitter poll so the hackers and bots and will proclaim their verdict.

250 years of unconstitutional actions have led to a situation so dire that it can only rightly be corrected through radical, mostly illegal and insanely irresponsible unconstitutional action. WTF?

For a time I actually thought Reagan Republicans would make a come back. Remember the shining city on a hill inclusive of everyone to be lifted up? Hell, old Ronny was the first DEI president!

“Accidentally” firing the people who keep our nuclear arsenal safe isn’t an “oops” it’s just another example of how they couldn’t give a crap about average Americans. Just like cutting the CDC while we’re on the brink of another outbreak or illegally eliminating USAid which keeps our troops out of harms way is equally illegal and dumb.

But no, let’s weaken our alliances, withdraw our influence and coddle authoritarians and dictators. While we’re at it flaunt the rule of law, suppress the media and eliminate government oversight.

This is all very “Constitutional” and by your reading just what the Founding Fathers envisioned, except it’s what they hoped would never come to be.

Give me a break.

[Pete F.]

As Vance 'lectures' Europe on free speech, it is good to be reminded that the United States ranks 55 (!) on the World Press Freedom Index.

The top 10 countries are ALL in Europe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

So we went from hate and insults spewing from Marsh, to a midwest troll who apparently missed using is colored words of wisdom and propensity to put us to sleep with his rambling posts.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

He should protest....or just go look for an honest job.

Any protests in your local? The one down here might be cancelled do to safety concerns. Sidewalks could be slippery.

This #^&#^&#^&#^& doesn’t happen in France and I’ll tell you why: the rich went too far once and they cut all their heads off and now, when those in power #^&#^&#^&#^& workers over, the French stop working. Don’t forget your real power Americans. They don’t let you have unions for a reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

Seeing you’re an expert on being a sackless hypocrite.. I am sure you’ll let us know

Man you get easily triggered when other Americans exercise their constitutional rights?

Why is that ..

[wdmso]

Scholz blasts Vance’s support for Germany’s far right
Some see the Trump administration actively promoting political extremism in the West.

Scholz the actual elected leader of Germany. And Vance the VP Alf the United State did try to meet with him…

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seeing you’re an expert on being a sackless hypocrite.. I am sure you’ll let us know

Man you get easily triggered when other Americans exercise their constitutional rights?

Why is that ..

You are pathetically confused and continue to ASS ume.

I laugh at your nonsense when you try so hard to be smart.

Are you going to the protest? Im guessing no.

Or just blowing smoke again.? Im guessing again... yes.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why is that ..

Simple he is a go down with the ship cult member. He is ok with nuclear material and secrets being mishandled. He is ok with funding and a long standing partnership with NIH stopping, no matter that they could be working on something that could save the lives of tens of thousands of Americans. He is ok with cuts and layoffs which will make care and assistance for our veterans even harder than it already is. Apparently he is ok with the ethnic cleansing proposed for the Palestinians. Not to mention he is ok with a billionaire attempting to steel the power of the purse and in the process making himself money. He can’t contribute any argument for these positions, which are just the tip of the iceberg, a mini me Trump cult member to the end.

[Got Stripers]

Very good oped.

After World War II, the vast majority of Americans—Democrats and Republicans alike—agreed that the federal government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. But not everyone was on board. Some big businessmen hated regulations and the taxes necessary for social welfare programs and infrastructure, and racists and religious traditionalists who opposed women’s rights wanted to tear that “liberal consensus” apart.
They had no luck convincing voters to abandon the government that was overseeing unprecedented prosperity until the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision permitted them to turn back to an old American trope. That ruling, which declared segregation in the public schools unconstitutional, enabled opponents of the liberal consensus to resurrect the post–Civil War argument of former Confederates that a government protecting Black rights was simply redistributing wealth from hardworking white taxpayers to undeserving Black Americans.
That argument began to take hold, and in 1980, Republican president Ronald Reagan rode it to the White House with the story of the “welfare queen,” identified as a Cadillac-driving, unemployed moocher from Chicago’s South Side (to signal that the woman was Black). “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands,” Reagan claimed. “And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” The woman was real, but not typical—she was a dangerous criminal rather than a representative welfare recipient—but the story illustrated perfectly the idea that government involvement in the economy bled individual enterprise and handed tax dollars to undeserving
Black Americans.
Republicans expanded that trope to denigrate all “liberals” of both parties, who supported an active government, claiming they were all wasting government monies. Deregulation and tax cuts meant that between 1981, when Reagan took office, and 2021, when Democratic president Joe Biden did, about $50 trillion moved from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. But rather than convincing Republican voters to return to a robust system of business regulation and restoring taxes on the wealthy and corporations, that transfer of wealth seemed to make them hate the government even more, as they apparently were convinced it benefited only nonwhite Americans and women.
That hatred has led to a skewed idea of the actions and the size of the federal government. For example, Americans think the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid because they think it spends about 25% of the federal budget on such aid while they say it should only spend about 10%. In fact, it spends only about 1% on foreign aid. Similarly, while right-wing leaders insist that the government is bloated, in fact, as Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution noted last month, the U.S. population has grown by about 68% in the last 50 years while the size of the federal government’s workforce has actually shrunk.
What has happened is that federal spending has expanded by five times as the U.S. has turned both to technology and to federal contractors, who outnumber federal workers by more than two to one. Those contractors are concentrated in the Department of Defense. At the same time, budget deficits have been driven by tax cuts under Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump as well as the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Treasury actually ran a surplus when Democratic president Bill Clinton was in office in the 1990s.
When asked, Americans say they don’t actually want to get rid of government programs. A late January poll from the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research—a gold-standard pollster for public attitudes—found that only about 29% of Americans wanted to see the elimination of a large number of federal jobs, with 40% opposed (29% had no opinion). Instead, 67% of adults believed the U.S. is spending too little on Social Security, 65% thought it was spending too little on education, 62% thought there is too little aid for the poor, 61% thought there is too little spending on Medicare, and 55% thought there is too little spending on Medicaid. Fifty-one percent thought the U.S. should spend more on border security.
Nonetheless, Trump is echoing forty years of Republican rhetoric when he claims to have a “mandate” to slash government and to purge it of the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that hold the playing field level for Black Americans, women, people of color, and ethnic, religious, and gender minorities.
On February 11, Trump signed an executive order putting billionaire Elon Musk in charge of “large-scale reductions in force,” and yesterday, Musk and his allies began purging the federal government of career employees, beginning with employees still in their probationary period, typically those with less than a year in the job. The Department of Veterans Affairs lost 1,000 people, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau lost more than 100 people, the U.S. Department of Agriculture lost more than 2,400, the U.S. Forest Service lost more than 3,000, the Environmental Protection Agency lost 400, the Small Business Administration lost more than 100, and the Interior Department lost 2,300, including workers at national parks. The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to lose nearly all of its 5,200 workers in their probationary period, including 1,300 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—10% of its workforce—while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lost 1,500. “I am heartbroken, more than anything, for the future of science in this country as we gut this institution that has for so long been intentionally shielded as much as possible from politics,” an NIH employee told Will Stone, Pien Huang, and Rob Stein of NPR.
Five government employees’ unions have sued, saying the mass firings violate the formal procedures for reductions in force. Employees say they were already understaffed and there is no way they will be able to keep up the level of their performance under the cuts. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) points out that rather than saving money, “it is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars to fire employees the department just invested months into recruiting, vetting and training.”
On Reddit, federal employees shared their experience. One wrote: “The thing that I can’t get over is that the actual richest man in the world directed my f*cking firing. I make $50K a year and work to keep drinking water safe. The richest man in the world decided that was an expense too great for the American taxpayer.”
It certainly appears that those in charge of the firings didn’t know what they were doing: on Thursday they fired more than 300 workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration, apparently not aware that they were the people who oversee the nation’s nuclear weapons. Today, Peter Alexander and Alexandra Marquez of NBC News reported that officials are now trying to rehire them but can’t figure out how to reach them because the workers lost access to their work email when they were fired.
The firings of federal employees come after the Trump administration instituted a “freeze” on federal spending. This impoundment of funds is illegal—the Constitution, Congress, and the courts have all established that once Congress has established a program, the president must implement it. But the truth is that Congress implemented these programs for a reason, and members would not kill them because they recognize they are important for all Americans.
Now MAGA voters are now discovering that much of what billionaire Elon Musk is cutting as “waste, fraud, and corruption” is programs that benefit them, often more than they benefit Democratic-dominated states. Dramatically, farmers, who backed Trump by a margin of three to one, are badly hit by the freeze on funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for conservation of land, soil, and water. “This isn’t just hippie-dippy stuff,” Wisconsin cattle, pig, and poultry farmer Aaron Pape told Linda Qiu and Julie Creswell of the New York Times. “This is affecting mainstream farmers.”
Similarly, the shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is a blow to the agricultural sector: USAID buys about $2 billion in agricultural products from U.S. farmers every year. It has also supported funding for research at state universities like the University of Tennessee, the University of Missouri, and the University of Louisiana.
Cuts to indirect spending in grants from the National Institutes of Health will also hit hard across the country, and states where Trump won more than 55% of the 2024 vote are no exception. Former college president Michael Nietzel noted in Forbes that Texas stands to lose more than $300 million; Ohio, more than $170 million; and Tennessee, Missouri, and Florida, more than $130 million apiece. These losses will cause thousands of layoffs and, as the Association of American Medical Colleges said, “diminish the nation’s research capacity, slow scientific progress and deprive patients, families and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics and preventive interventions.”
Trump said Wednesday he wanted to shutter the Department of Education immediately, calling it “a big con job.” That Department provides grants for schools in low-income communities as well as money for educating students with special needs: eight of the ten states receiving the most federal money for their K–12 schools are dominated by Republicans.
Trump has called the Federal Emergency Management Agency a “disaster” and said states should handle natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and tornadoes on their own. But states do not have the resilience they need for such short-term emergencies. Once again, while all states receive FEMA money, Republican-dominated states get slightly more of that money than Democratic-dominated states do.
Before the 2024 election, Aaron Zitner, Jon Kamp, and Brian McGill of the Wall Street Journal noted that by 2022, 53% of the counties in the U.S. received at least a quarter of their income from government programs—primarily through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those counties heavily support Republicans, including Trump.
On Friday the Republican-dominated House Budget Committee presented its budget proposal to the House. It calls for adding $4.5 trillion to the budget deficit in order to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. It also calls for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and supplemental nutrition programs. Budget Committee chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX) said: “The era of wasteful, woke, and weaponized government is over.”
For forty years, Republican politicians could win elections by insisting that government spending redistributed wealth from hardworking taxpayers to the undeserving because they did not entirely purge the federal programs that their own voters liked. Now Trump, Musk, and the Republicans are purging funds for cancer research, family farms, national parks, food, nuclear security, and medical care—all programs his supporters care about—and threatening to throw the country into an economic tailspin that will badly hurt Republican-dominated states.
A January AP/NORC poll found that only 12% of U.S. adults thought it would be good for billionaires to advise presidents, while 60% thought it would be bad.
Forty years of ideology is under pressure now from reality, and the outcome remains uncertain.

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Very good oped.

After World War II, the vast majority of Americans—Democrats and Republicans alike—agreed that the federal government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. But not everyone was on board. Some big businessmen hated regulations and the taxes necessary for social welfare programs and infrastructure, and racists and religious traditionalists who opposed women’s rights wanted to tear that “liberal consensus” apart.
They had no luck convincing voters to abandon the government that was overseeing unprecedented prosperity until the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision permitted them to turn back to an old American trope. That ruling, which declared segregation in the public schools unconstitutional, enabled opponents of the liberal consensus to resurrect the post–Civil War argument of former Confederates that a government protecting Black rights was simply redistributing wealth from hardworking white taxpayers to undeserving Black Americans.
That argument began to take hold, and in 1980, Republican president Ronald Reagan rode it to the White House with the story of the “welfare queen,” identified as a Cadillac-driving, unemployed moocher from Chicago’s South Side (to signal that the woman was Black). “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands,” Reagan claimed. “And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” The woman was real, but not typical—she was a dangerous criminal rather than a representative welfare recipient—but the story illustrated perfectly the idea that government involvement in the economy bled individual enterprise and handed tax dollars to undeserving
Black Americans.
Republicans expanded that trope to denigrate all “liberals” of both parties, who supported an active government, claiming they were all wasting government monies. Deregulation and tax cuts meant that between 1981, when Reagan took office, and 2021, when Democratic president Joe Biden did, about $50 trillion moved from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. But rather than convincing Republican voters to return to a robust system of business regulation and restoring taxes on the wealthy and corporations, that transfer of wealth seemed to make them hate the government even more, as they apparently were convinced it benefited only nonwhite Americans and women.
That hatred has led to a skewed idea of the actions and the size of the federal government. For example, Americans think the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid because they think it spends about 25% of the federal budget on such aid while they say it should only spend about 10%. In fact, it spends only about 1% on foreign aid. Similarly, while right-wing leaders insist that the government is bloated, in fact, as Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution noted last month, the U.S. population has grown by about 68% in the last 50 years while the size of the federal government’s workforce has actually shrunk.
What has happened is that federal spending has expanded by five times as the U.S. has turned both to technology and to federal contractors, who outnumber federal workers by more than two to one. Those contractors are concentrated in the Department of Defense. At the same time, budget deficits have been driven by tax cuts under Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump as well as the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Treasury actually ran a surplus when Democratic president Bill Clinton was in office in the 1990s.
When asked, Americans say they don’t actually want to get rid of government programs. A late January poll from the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research—a gold-standard pollster for public attitudes—found that only about 29% of Americans wanted to see the elimination of a large number of federal jobs, with 40% opposed (29% had no opinion). Instead, 67% of adults believed the U.S. is spending too little on Social Security, 65% thought it was spending too little on education, 62% thought there is too little aid for the poor, 61% thought there is too little spending on Medicare, and 55% thought there is too little spending on Medicaid. Fifty-one percent thought the U.S. should spend more on border security.
Nonetheless, Trump is echoing forty years of Republican rhetoric when he claims to have a “mandate” to slash government and to purge it of the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that hold the playing field level for Black Americans, women, people of color, and ethnic, religious, and gender minorities.
On February 11, Trump signed an executive order putting billionaire Elon Musk in charge of “large-scale reductions in force,” and yesterday, Musk and his allies began purging the federal government of career employees, beginning with employees still in their probationary period, typically those with less than a year in the job. The Department of Veterans Affairs lost 1,000 people, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau lost more than 100 people, the U.S. Department of Agriculture lost more than 2,400, the U.S. Forest Service lost more than 3,000, the Environmental Protection Agency lost 400, the Small Business Administration lost more than 100, and the Interior Department lost 2,300, including workers at national parks. The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to lose nearly all of its 5,200 workers in their probationary period, including 1,300 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—10% of its workforce—while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lost 1,500. “I am heartbroken, more than anything, for the future of science in this country as we gut this institution that has for so long been intentionally shielded as much as possible from politics,” an NIH employee told Will Stone, Pien Huang, and Rob Stein of NPR.
Five government employees’ unions have sued, saying the mass firings violate the formal procedures for reductions in force. Employees say they were already understaffed and there is no way they will be able to keep up the level of their performance under the cuts. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) points out that rather than saving money, “it is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars to fire employees the department just invested months into recruiting, vetting and training.”
On Reddit, federal employees shared their experience. One wrote: “The thing that I can’t get over is that the actual richest man in the world directed my f*cking firing. I make $50K a year and work to keep drinking water safe. The richest man in the world decided that was an expense too great for the American taxpayer.”
It certainly appears that those in charge of the firings didn’t know what they were doing: on Thursday they fired more than 300 workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration, apparently not aware that they were the people who oversee the nation’s nuclear weapons. Today, Peter Alexander and Alexandra Marquez of NBC News reported that officials are now trying to rehire them but can’t figure out how to reach them because the workers lost access to their work email when they were fired.
The firings of federal employees come after the Trump administration instituted a “freeze” on federal spending. This impoundment of funds is illegal—the Constitution, Congress, and the courts have all established that once Congress has established a program, the president must implement it. But the truth is that Congress implemented these programs for a reason, and members would not kill them because they recognize they are important for all Americans.
Now MAGA voters are now discovering that much of what billionaire Elon Musk is cutting as “waste, fraud, and corruption” is programs that benefit them, often more than they benefit Democratic-dominated states. Dramatically, farmers, who backed Trump by a margin of three to one, are badly hit by the freeze on funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for conservation of land, soil, and water. “This isn’t just hippie-dippy stuff,” Wisconsin cattle, pig, and poultry farmer Aaron Pape told Linda Qiu and Julie Creswell of the New York Times. “This is affecting mainstream farmers.”
Similarly, the shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is a blow to the agricultural sector: USAID buys about $2 billion in agricultural products from U.S. farmers every year. It has also supported funding for research at state universities like the University of Tennessee, the University of Missouri, and the University of Louisiana.
Cuts to indirect spending in grants from the National Institutes of Health will also hit hard across the country, and states where Trump won more than 55% of the 2024 vote are no exception. Former college president Michael Nietzel noted in Forbes that Texas stands to lose more than $300 million; Ohio, more than $170 million; and Tennessee, Missouri, and Florida, more than $130 million apiece. These losses will cause thousands of layoffs and, as the Association of American Medical Colleges said, “diminish the nation’s research capacity, slow scientific progress and deprive patients, families and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics and preventive interventions.”
Trump said Wednesday he wanted to shutter the Department of Education immediately, calling it “a big con job.” That Department provides grants for schools in low-income communities as well as money for educating students with special needs: eight of the ten states receiving the most federal money for their K–12 schools are dominated by Republicans.
Trump has called the Federal Emergency Management Agency a “disaster” and said states should handle natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and tornadoes on their own. But states do not have the resilience they need for such short-term emergencies. Once again, while all states receive FEMA money, Republican-dominated states get slightly more of that money than Democratic-dominated states do.
Before the 2024 election, Aaron Zitner, Jon Kamp, and Brian McGill of the Wall Street Journal noted that by 2022, 53% of the counties in the U.S. received at least a quarter of their income from government programs—primarily through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those counties heavily support Republicans, including Trump.
On Friday the Republican-dominated House Budget Committee presented its budget proposal to the House. It calls for adding $4.5 trillion to the budget deficit in order to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. It also calls for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and supplemental nutrition programs. Budget Committee chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX) said: “The era of wasteful, woke, and weaponized government is over.”
For forty years, Republican politicians could win elections by insisting that government spending redistributed wealth from hardworking taxpayers to the undeserving because they did not entirely purge the federal programs that their own voters liked. Now Trump, Musk, and the Republicans are purging funds for cancer research, family farms, national parks, food, nuclear security, and medical care—all programs his supporters care about—and threatening to throw the country into an economic tailspin that will badly hurt Republican-dominated states.
A January AP/NORC poll found that only 12% of U.S. adults thought it would be good for billionaires to advise presidents, while 60% thought it would be bad.
Forty years of ideology is under pressure now from reality, and the outcome remains uncertain.

So much uncertainty...........fight or flight......you making plans? Or busy with cut and pasting BS?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

So much uncertainty...........fight or flight......you making plans? Or busy with cut and pasting BS?

To much to read, I understand reason and facts are NOT your strong suit, but it's ok I fully understand, I just hope you have plans to address the anger it's not healthy.