One of the main reasons they didn’t want Trump, they didn’t want to shake any of this up or start whacking agencies and expenses.

Quote:White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney will this week send a memo to federal agencies instructing them to prepare for future cuts to funding and staff, according to a new report.

The guidance letter, Axios reported on Sunday, was set forth by the executive order President Trump signed last month for “reorganizing the executive branch.”

The order calls to “improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies and agency programs.”

The federal agencies will likely plan to lay off staff, eliminate programs and sell real estate, according to the report. Some agencies could shutter or consolidate.

Axios reported a final proposal of the federal cuts could take until next year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...o-plan-for

Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

link?

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Welfare intended to help families, disintegrated families. Student loans intended to create an educated populace where students succeed, leaves students ignorant and bankrupt. Obamacare intended to make health insurance affordable, but made it unaffordable.

And then they promised that more political centralization, more centralized government, more central planning, more government actuarial systems, more government pushing stuff around will make things better. And so liberals continue to think "rich people" are the problem......

(04-10-2017 02:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Welfare intended to help families, disintegrated families. Student loans intended to create an educated populace where students succeed, leaves students ignorant and bankrupt. Obamacare intended to make health insurance affordable, but made it unaffordable.

And then they promised that more political centralization, more centralized government, more central planning, more government actuarial systems, more government pushing stuff around will make things better. And so liberals continue to think "rich people" are the problem......

First, you're mostly talking about government programs and not government jobs. And secondly, where did I ever say rich people are the problem? I'm only presenting you with the fact that trickle-down economics don't work.

And before you go there, I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending and reducing the government workforce through better structure and processes. My fear is that trump thinks this is the best place to reduce spending by just lopping off workers. He's wrong. The programs will still be there...now they'll probably work a lot less efficiently hurting Americans and allowing for more fraud.

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

Who are these "rich people"?

(04-10-2017 03:15 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

Who are these "rich people"?

Obama's play buddy here is worth 5.1B

(04-10-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  First, you're mostly talking about government programs and not government jobs.

Those government programs needs government jobs to run them.

(04-10-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And secondly, where did I ever say rich people are the problem?

Then I guess I am left wondering why you tied "rich people tax cuts" to agency program and job cuts?

(04-10-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm only presenting you with the fact that trickle-down economics don't work.

And I am presenting to you that an entrenched, entitled, and enormous federal bureaucracy is not going to self-repair.

(04-10-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And before you go there, I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending and reducing the government workforce through better structure and processes.

(04-10-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  My fear is that trump thinks this is the best place to reduce spending by just lopping off workers. He's wrong. The programs will still be there...now they'll probably work a lot less efficiently hurting Americans and allowing for more fraud.

A combination of 1) lopping off workers, and 2) eliminating and/or reducing programs will see the efficiencies. While I don't necessarily want someone to lose their job on a human level, the federal government is too big, too inefficient, and too far removed from it's core Constitutional role to continue as is.

I tied rich people in because I believe Trump is going to try to pay for his upcoming tax cuts by cuts in government services. However, even with that he's going to fall woefully short because there isn't enough money there. This is pretty typical for most Republican administrations.

And he's going to expect jobs in the private sector to appear as a result of the cuts to cover the loss of jobs in government. And we saw last month that this will pretty much stall the economy as 70,000 some jobs a month won't keep up with the monthly need. However, this has never worked. Rich people and Business don't just create jobs because they get a tax cut. They create jobs when they have a product to sell. And you need people with money to buy those products. If you're lopping off those jobs, the demand for services equally diminishes along with hiring.

And we agree on reforms needed in government. But I see this as an "axe" approach instead of a needed "scalpel" approach.

When was the last significant cut in the size of the federal government?

(04-10-2017 03:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  When was the last significant cut in the size of the federal government?

It's been going down ever since the sequester hasn't it?

(04-10-2017 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  When was the last significant cut in the size of the federal government?

It's been going down ever since the sequester hasn't it?

No.

$3.2 trillion in 2011, $3.65 trillion in 2017. That direction is not down.

(04-10-2017 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  When was the last significant cut in the size of the federal government?

It's been going down ever since the sequester hasn't it?

you fell for the classic bait and switch. The amount of year over year increases went down, but it kept going up every year.

(04-10-2017 03:15 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

Who are these "rich people"?

c'mon dummy.....they're "hood" rich

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

Crock of sh!t.

Just like private corporations cut costs from time to time, government has for far tool long avoided any haircuts to spending and personnel.

Typical leftist - government is never bloated or inefficient. As long as the haircuts affect large parts of that bloated cesspool, I'll live with a bit less government.

(04-12-2017 01:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  When was the last significant cut in the size of the federal government?

It's been going down ever since the sequester hasn't it?

No.

$3.2 trillion in 2011, $3.65 trillion in 2017. That direction is not down.

I was just referring to government jobs. I think they've been going down.

(04-12-2017 08:08 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cut government jobs to give rich people tax cuts, in hopes that they'll magnanimously create non-government jobs.

Bless his tiny heart.

Crock of sh!t.

Just like private corporations cut costs from time to time, government has for far tool long avoided any haircuts to spending and personnel.

Typical leftist - government is never bloated or inefficient. As long as the haircuts affect large parts of that bloated cesspool, I'll live with a bit less government.

Dude, you're making the classic mistake of making a blanket generalization. Read my posts here and elsewhere and try again.