This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

(02-27-2025 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

The Federal workforce has shrank dramatically over the past 40-50 years comparatively to the country's population increase. The number of federal employees has consistently been between 2.7 and 3.2 million employees since 1980.

The state governments are the ones with large increases in workforces over the years.

(02-27-2025 07:19 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

The Federal workforce has shrank dramatically over the past 40-50 years comparatively to the country's population increase. The number of federal employees has consistently been between 2.7 and 3.2 million employees since 1980.

The state governments are the ones with large increases in workforces over the years.

Wow. Don't even read the post, let alone the link.

The Biden WH was trying to prop up employment stats by hiring as many people as they could.

(02-27-2025 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 07:19 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

The Federal workforce has shrank dramatically over the past 40-50 years comparatively to the country's population increase. The number of federal employees has consistently been between 2.7 and 3.2 million employees since 1980.

The state governments are the ones with large increases in workforces over the years.

Wow. Don't even read the post, let alone the link.

So the federal workforce increased in raw numbers by roughly 4-5% during Biden's term? Is that really such a gigantic increase that the fate of the country hinges on firing these people? The federal workforce right now is smaller per capita by a large margin than it was during Reagan, but the narrative is that it is this gigantic workforce that has ballooned in the past 40 years. It's simply made up nonsense.

I'm just not someone that's going to feel good about a bunch of normal people losing their jobs as cover for a greedy corrupt insane person gaining access to all of our country's data.

(02-27-2025 11:01 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 07:19 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

The Federal workforce has shrank dramatically over the past 40-50 years comparatively to the country's population increase. The number of federal employees has consistently been between 2.7 and 3.2 million employees since 1980.

The state governments are the ones with large increases in workforces over the years.

Wow. Don't even read the post, let alone the link.

So the federal workforce increased in raw numbers by roughly 4-5% during Biden's term? Is that really such a gigantic increase that the fate of the country hinges on firing these people? The federal workforce right now is smaller per capita by a large margin than it was during Reagan, but the narrative is that it is this gigantic workforce that has ballooned in the past 40 years. It's simply made up nonsense.

I'm just not someone that's going to feel good about a bunch of normal people losing their jobs as cover for a greedy corrupt insane person gaining access to all of our country's data.

Uh, during Reagan desktop computers didn’t even exist in the average employee’s workspace. Is your argument that technological advances that have dramatically increased per capita productivity in the private workplace has completely missed the government?

Explain this, JP Morgan Chase is almost 10 times larger than they were in 1980. Their total number of employees is roughly the same as 1980. This is possible because of computers. During that time they have increased their products and services, expanded their footprint, and increased their profitability. Why is the government immune from this type of technological efficiency gains?

The IRS should require far fewer employees in 2025 than they did in 1980 because you don’t need a person reviewing every return. Most are filed electronically and the paper returns can be fed into a scanner. A computer can analyze every return in a fraction of the time.

What you are ignoring is out government is horrifically inefficient and this is the real mission of DOGE.

There is no one more anti big government than I am. The thought of 700,000 fewer people with government positions pleases me to the max. But.... It seems to me there has to be a better way than this mass firing. What will happen to the unemployment rate? It will go up for sure which will make the politicians look bad. What will happen to the economy when so many have less money to spend? It can't be good. And fewer with health insurance? Republicans lose a few House seats and "impeachment" will be coming out of the corral. And that's not good for any of us. There has to be a better way!

The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

From my point of view, banker is spot on with his comments above - and this is coming from a career (40+ years) DOD civilian employee that worked for the NAVY.

There is plenty of waste and incompetence in the Federal workforce and that doesn't even include the fraud and abuse.

(02-27-2025 11:01 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 07:19 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-27-2025 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  This is why DOGE needs to cut personnel:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...52432.html

"...One wonders how much busier these folks were before the Biden administration’s hiring boom, which, the Wall Street Journal reported, added more federal workers during the last two years than the prior 13. “Since January 2021, the federal workforce has increased by about 120,800 employees. … Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%), and Health and Human Services (18.7%). Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%), and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%).”

From what I gather from news reports, each of these new hires is akin to a fireman rushing to the scene of an inferno. Each lay-off cuts through the muscle and down to the bone of our Republic.

How did we get along for almost 250 years without all these people? It boggles the mind...."

The Federal workforce has shrank dramatically over the past 40-50 years comparatively to the country's population increase. The number of federal employees has consistently been between 2.7 and 3.2 million employees since 1980.

The state governments are the ones with large increases in workforces over the years.

Wow. Don't even read the post, let alone the link.

So the federal workforce increased in raw numbers by roughly 4-5% during Biden's term? Is that really such a gigantic increase that the fate of the country hinges on firing these people? The federal workforce right now is smaller per capita by a large margin than it was during Reagan, but the narrative is that it is this gigantic workforce that has ballooned in the past 40 years. It's simply made up nonsense.

I'm just not someone that's going to feel good about a bunch of normal people losing their jobs as cover for a greedy corrupt insane person gaining access to all of our country's data.

You need better sources of data.

Its insane that you think one of the richest men in the world is doing this to get richer.

We have an unsustainable deficit. This is mandatory to keep the country from being owned by China. But because Trump is doing it, it MUST be bad.

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

(02-28-2025 12:28 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  There is no one more anti big government than I am. The thought of 700,000 fewer people with government positions pleases me to the max. But.... It seems to me there has to be a better way than this mass firing. What will happen to the unemployment rate? It will go up for sure which will make the politicians look bad. What will happen to the economy when so many have less money to spend? It can't be good. And fewer with health insurance? Republicans lose a few House seats and "impeachment" will be coming out of the corral. And that's not good for any of us. There has to be a better way!

There isn't. Civil Service protects most of the employees. So they are eliminating the probationary employees who don't have that protection. Now the probationary status is kind of flaky. My wife knows someone who had about 10 years but transferred to a different division within HHS about 6 months ago and is considered probationary, so he was let go. Beyond this, they are going to be more deliberate.

And some departments like USAID was manned by out of control nutjobs. The whole thing needed to be shut.

(02-28-2025 10:26 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  From my point of view, banker is spot on with his comments above - and this is coming from a career (40+ years) DOD civilian employee that worked for the NAVY.

There is plenty of waste and incompetence in the Federal workforce and that doesn't even include the fraud and abuse.

Typical State/Fed site job:


- 1 guy on a ladder

- 1 guy holding the ladder

- 4 guys watching the guy holding the ladder (sometimes leaning on a shovel)

- 2 guys telling the guy on the ladder what to do


And all 8 guys arrive there in their own government vehicle

(02-28-2025 12:35 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

1) its happened before. Reagan and HW and DJT cut taxes and the economy grew.
2) The vast majority is NOT cutting taxes. Its keeping them the same. The 2017 tax cuts are expiring.

(02-28-2025 12:35 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

so...CUT THEM...wants and needs. The only thing absolutely needed is a strong defense and defending the borders, most all the rest is so much fluff. Keep your families intact and close, get to know your neighbors, and join in community groups and fellowship. Haven't heard too many wikken charities, but I do know of many in a certain denomination that helps millions...problem is, cut their federal funding and make them rely on voluntary donations...then, if people don't willingly voluntarily give to support it, it must not be vital....trans clinics in India are a perfect example for just one of millions of unnecessary and superfluous gub'mint "programs" if theyz so "vital" and "needed" then why theyz shut down and fire all their staff after the USAID spigot got turned off? Where's Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Soros to fund it? nah, theyz was using your tax dollars, never their own...the proof is in the puddin'...

Since DEI is dead now and I was told DEI was the reason for the ATC shortage I keep waiting for that shortage to go away. There's a 3k shortage, and over 3k currently suing over being completely qualified but not hired because of DEI. So any second now this shortage should be solved and all these fully qualified people who were passed over to create this shortage will be brought in!

(02-28-2025 01:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Since DEI is dead now and I was told DEI was the reason for the ATC shortage I keep waiting for that shortage to go away. There's a 3k shortage, and over 3k currently suing over being completely qualified but not hired because of DEI. So any second now this shortage should be solved and all these fully qualified people who were passed over to create this shortage will be brought in!

You are trying to make yourself sound really, really stupid.
That's basically just a stupid troll. Those sorts of things take time.

(02-28-2025 01:02 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 12:35 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

so...CUT THEM...wants and needs. The only thing absolutely needed is a strong defense and defending the borders, most all the rest is so much fluff. Keep your families intact and close, get to know your neighbors, and join in community groups and fellowship. Haven't heard too many wikken charities, but I do know of many in a certain denomination that helps millions...problem is, cut their federal funding and make them rely on voluntary donations...then, if people don't willingly voluntarily give to support it, it must not be vital....trans clinics in India are a perfect example for just one of millions of unnecessary and superfluous gub'mint "programs" if theyz so "vital" and "needed" then why theyz shut down and fire all their staff after the USAID spigot got turned off? Where's Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Soros to fund it? nah, theyz was using your tax dollars, never their own...the proof is in the puddin'...

That 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending includes cutting the only 2 things you think are needs. Defense is basically 1 trillion of that. You gotta cut SS and Medicare if you actually want to have a balanced budget and lower taxes. You ain't cutting trans programs to get there no matter how much you want to pretend you can. Get rid of USAID and it doesn't even make a dent.

(02-28-2025 12:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 12:35 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

1) its happened before. Reagan and HW and DJT cut taxes and the economy grew.
2) The vast majority is NOT cutting taxes. Its keeping them the same. The 2017 tax cuts are expiring.

Economy grew ain't government revenue grew. I'm going to assume you know those 2 aren't the same thing. Government revenue only comes from 1 place, taxes. To make government revenue grow you got to bring in more tax revenue. Sure, in theory you could get so much growth from a tax cut that you bring in more consumption tax revenue than you cut, but that's never happened.

(02-28-2025 12:35 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 03:24 AM)banker Wrote:  The civilian workforce is over 168,000,000, so you could have zero federal employees and only raise unemployment 2%. 700,000 is less than one half of one percent.

The real question is what happens to employment and the economy if spending continues unfettered? What happens when the cuts become necessary because you can’t make payroll? The secondary question is what will unemployment and the economy look like if we can get a balanced budget, reduce debt, and cut taxes? Would you rather have one government employee getting paid or 50 families having an extra $2,000’a year in their pocket? If you cut 700,000 jobs that equals about $550 per taxpayer per year. Over a 40 year work life that compounds to $100,000 per tax payer.

We are already about 20 years too late with these actions and can’t really afford to wait to slowly roll them in over the next 20 years.

That house budget bill was as clear as it could be that cutting the deficit ain't serious. Massey proved to be the only person in the GOP house who actually means what he says regarding the deficit.

There is no world where you can get a balanced budget/reduce debt and cut taxes. Cutting all 1.7 trillion in discretionary spending wouldn't even get you a balanced budget with no tax cuts. There is no fantasy land where cutting taxes increases government revenue. There is no balanced budget that doesn't involve some kind of tax increases (along with spending cuts) unless you are going to seriously and drastically cut the things that are political death to try to cut.

You flaw is that you ignore the amount of waste in non-discretionary spending. You act like every dollar of Medicare and social security goes directly to a beneficiary.

In 2019 the US govt spent 4.5 trillion dollars. This year we will collect over $5 trillion in revenue. Don’t tell me we can’t balance the budget, instead tell me why it was necessary to increase spending by almost 70% in 5 years?