(02-28-2025 06:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  My son works for the DOD in Philadelphia. There are 5K employees in his group.I talked to him yesterday and he said he got the 5 things email but also received orders to not reply.

His group received what he called the “fork in the road email” a month ago. The administration offered employees of his group 25K to resign. He refused the buyout because he isn’t sure the people will get paid.

My son said they let 300 go this week. One person on his team left a job to start with the DOD this past Monday and was let go yesterday.

I asked my son if he felt safe and he said “no”. I told him layoffs were part of every career. I reminded him of the plant closings and job changes I had been through when he was growing up.

My son has two advanced degrees. He won’t have a problem getting another job.

I told him to get his resume updated and start looking now. He said he had already started. I feel sorry for what my son may have to go through but he knows what I’ve always told him, “You’re hired to be fired”.

Has he worked there long?

Wondering if they are doing last in, first out. My local news showed two young NPS Rangers who had been on the job for only a few months complaining about being let go.

(02-27-2025 02:50 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-26-2025 08:02 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(02-26-2025 01:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  The part you are ignoring is that theoretically, by reducing the tax burden, you will increase spending, and thus, revenue. It's not a zero sum game.

You guys have been waiting on that trickle down since Ronnie. It didn’t work.

If you cut taxes on a poor person he might spend more. Cut taxes on the top 5% and they will just save more. The difference between making 500k and 800k is how much you stock away at Fidelity, standard of living is the same.

All of these tax cuts are regressive. The less money you make, the more of your money you spend, they larger the impact of Tariffs are. The people who are getting the tax cuts aren’t the kind of people who spend more because they made more.

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/d...g-families

"The truth is, the Trump tax cuts resulted in economic growth that was a full percentage point above CBO’s forecast, and federal revenues far outpaced the agency’s predictions. In fact, under Trump tax policies in 2022, tax revenues reached a record high of nearly $5 trillion, and revenues averaged $205 billion above CBO predictions for the four years following implementation of the law.

Beyond what the Trump tax cuts did for economic growth and federal revenues, it provided major benefits to working families. The officially reported poverty level fell to its lowest rate in 50 years and unemployment rates for minorities and those without a college degree hit all-time lows. Real median household income rose by $5,000, and wages went up by nearly 5 percent. Americans earning under $100,000 saw an average tax cut of 16 percent. And while the tax burden on low-income families went down, the top one percent saw their share of federal taxes go up."

A couple of republicans agree with the tax cuts? Shocker.

Actual research doesn’t agree with them.

“ Companies that enjoyed larger cuts invested more than companies that saw less tax relief, increasing their total tangible corporate investment by 8–14 percent, the researchers write. Also, changes made to the taxation of foreign income had domestic implications. For example, US multinationals that benefited also boosted domestic operations.

But these benefits were dwarfed by forgone tax revenue, according to the researchers. Additionally, while the Council of Economic Advisers had predicted the TCJA would benefit full-time employees by up to $9,000 on average (in 2017 dollars), the researchers indicate it actually produced a wage boost that averaged $750. Long-term GDP grew by less than 1 percent annually, they find.

The researchers note that the government’s fiscal picture has worsened since the passage of the tax cuts. Extending most or all of the expiring and expired provisions while letting the rate cut for corporations remain would be costly relative to the growth it would buy, the researchers write, especially given the substantial rise in interest rates over the past seven years. Among the risks of extending costly provisions is the prospect that government deficit financing will crowd out investment, complicating the Federal Reserve’s mandate of seeking low inflation and full employment.”

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/trum...st-revenue

Also the rising deficit doesn’t agree with your theory that additional spending will offset revenue loss. What do you see here from our deficit trends? A big pop during the global financial crisis then year over year a smaller deficit each year under Obama. Then trumps tax cuts and a steadily increasing federal deficit under Trump even before Covid.

(02-28-2025 04:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Not sure she understands what she just said - like 1 percent of their budget.

Technically the food and aide stuff is what they are supposed to be spending MOST of their money on.... not just 1% of it.

USAID has never been about aid. It's a clever name. It's about developing assets. It's why JFK formed it during the height of the Cold War. To develop assets against communists...

Problem is the communists got entrenched here and focused the goals on helping the loony left and against the right.

(02-28-2025 07:08 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 06:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  My son works for the DOD in Philadelphia. There are 5K employees in his group.I talked to him yesterday and he said he got the 5 things email but also received orders to not reply.

His group received what he called the “fork in the road email” a month ago. The administration offered employees of his group 25K to resign. He refused the buyout because he isn’t sure the people will get paid.

My son said they let 300 go this week. One person on his team left a job to start with the DOD this past Monday and was let go yesterday.

I asked my son if he felt safe and he said “no”. I told him layoffs were part of every career. I reminded him of the plant closings and job changes I had been through when he was growing up.

My son has two advanced degrees. He won’t have a problem getting another job.

I told him to get his resume updated and start looking now. He said he had already started. I feel sorry for what my son may have to go through but he knows what I’ve always told him, “You’re hired to be fired”.

Has he worked there long?

Wondering if they are doing last in, first out. My local news showed two young NPS Rangers who had been on the job for only a few months complaining about being let go.

Right now they are getting rid of all probationary employees. My guess is they will work their way up from the bottom. My son has been there almost 4 years. He is a team leader and what they call “a subject matter expert” for the group.

He seems to think they will get him. Like I told him we’ll all have to suffer a little bit for them to get the problems in DC worked out.

My daughter in law is an attorney in Philly. They’ll be fine until he finds something, if it happens.

(03-01-2025 09:44 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 04:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Not sure she understands what she just said - like 1 percent of their budget.

Technically the food and aide stuff is what they are supposed to be spending MOST of their money on.... not just 1% of it.

She means that USAID is less than 1% of US budget. Total foreign aid (not all of which runs through USAID is normally between .8 and 1.3% of the US budget. Getting rid of it barely puts a dent in the deficit.

The Republican budget has a 2.5T deficit, completely eliminating USAID and putting all that money to the deficit leaves us with a 2.42T deficit. Her point is that cutting off humanitarian aid that in many cases is keeping people from starving won’t even make a meaningful dent in balancing the budget.

(03-01-2025 10:11 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  She means that USAID is less than 1% of US budget. Total foreign aid (not all of which runs through USAID is normally between .8 and 1.3% of the US budget. Getting rid of it barely puts a dent in the deficit.

The Republican budget has a 2.5T deficit, completely eliminating USAID and putting all that money to the deficit leaves us with a 2.42T deficit. Her point is that cutting off humanitarian aid that in many cases is keeping people from starving won’t even make a meaningful dent in balancing the budget.

The problem is USAID doesn’t believe they should be held accountable. That’s the fault of every president since Kennedy. USAID refused to let the Senate Oversight Committee look at their records.

What’s happened is politicians of both parties have gotten rich appropriating money for USAID that’s then sent to NGO’s who funnel money back to members of both parties.

It’s a losing proposition for anyone to complain to the American people that the $21.7 billion distributed by USAID is just 1% of the US Budget. The average American sees money being spent by USAID as a waste of their tax dollars.

(02-26-2025 11:05 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  These IRS workers are going to be snatched up by corporations and put into finance and compliance departments rather quickly. They will be fine

Except they will actually have to work now.

(03-01-2025 10:11 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 09:44 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 04:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Not sure she understands what she just said - like 1 percent of their budget.

Technically the food and aide stuff is what they are supposed to be spending MOST of their money on.... not just 1% of it.

She means that USAID is less than 1% of US budget. Total foreign aid (not all of which runs through USAID is normally between .8 and 1.3% of the US budget. Getting rid of it barely puts a dent in the deficit.

The Republican budget has a 2.5T deficit, completely eliminating USAID and putting all that money to the deficit leaves us with a 2.42T deficit. Her point is that cutting off humanitarian aid that in many cases is keeping people from starving won’t even make a meaningful dent in balancing the budget.

Okay. And? This is akin to Martha Radditz telling then-Senator Vance that the number of Tren de Aragua gang members in Aurora, Colorado, shouldn't matter because it's "not big enough" in her or the legacy media's eyes. So here's the point, Elvy boy: ANY number that's bigger than zero is too much, whether it be illegals in this country, fraud, waste, theft, or even murder.

As for previous spending, well, Bush 43 was a neocon, Obama was a leftist, Biden was a puppet of Obama, and Trump was fighting his own party during his first term. Not that you care, because you don't. That's okay. Maybe one day, you'll wake up and actually see the forest from the trees.