The Next President is...

[brabus]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I would encourage you to think twice about sharing it.

Nah, I’m happy to share far and wide the gross negligence, incompetence, and in many cases, FWA, the gov has been conducting using our money. The mask is pulled off, and it’s very ugly. People need to know. We’ve been played hard in many ways, better to acknowledge that and start working on solutions. Or gaslight yourself and don’t believe what’s 6 inches in front of your face, but I don’t recommend anyone take that approach.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean ok, but then why does literally every country on earth except a handful of weird, tiny enclaves use income taxes?

Ok…but how were we able to build a super power without income taxes prior to 1913? This argument is kind of like, “well everyone else is doing X, so we’d be dumb not to!” If you’re going to argue income tax is the best option, then at least put some substance behind it. So to that point, why would a sales tax or flat tax (or a combo) not be able to properly fund our gov, but our income tax system can? I think a reasonable flat tax or sales tax only would likely reduce our fed revenue compared to the current system, but I see that as a good thing. The evidence for why is on display right now…billions spent on shit that does not advance American values and interests (but may advance some very politicized interests of certain demographics…which is not good on either end of the spectrum).

[nsplayr]

I’ll say this, there’s not $4.7T in fraud waste and abuse, and implying that is a bad idea.

If another tax scheme were so brilliant we or someone else would have tried it already. Most people have the sense not to KO their economies and their countries.

We may not be so wise…

Edited Wednesday at 06:57 AM by nsplayr

[pbar]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I do think people who have the money to do so, i.e. high W2 earners but also, and first, the extremely wealthy & highly profitable corporations need to pay more taxes, yea.

If for nothing else to stop deficit spending every single year, but also to maintain our nation's quality of life and top dog place in world affairs.

High tariffs will just be passed along to consumers, amirite?  But higher corporate taxes won't be?  

[lloyd christmas]

Admittedly, I’m not well versed on tax policy or law.  When I hear/read these arguments about the 1% paying more, corporations paying more or Bezos not paying a fair share etc, I always wonder why a company like Amazon is not looked at in totality.  How much do they pay in excise taxes on gas for cars and aircraft, property taxes, income taxes generated by employing thousands of people, SSN/FICA/Medicare, sales tax on what they purchase, sales tax paid on their products by the consumer who buys their products, etc?   I guess I’m missing something because it seems like a guy like Bezos is generating untold amounts of tax revenue for both the local and federal governments.  

[brabus]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ll say this, there’s not $4.7T in fraud waste and abuse, and implying that is a bad idea.

Zero mention of FWA or implication of it (though you obviously inferred it because you’re driven by political bias). Directly says they increased insight into where money is going. If one doesn’t support transparency and basic tracking of money, they’re simply an idiot. Stop grasping at straws, it’s a bad look.

[M2]

Just to switch gears (not that getting breech loaded over taxes isn't a fun discussion!), I just saw this and wanted to highlight another excellent pick by Trump!

Trump to tap Texas “border czar” to lead U.S. Border Patrol, report says

I met Mike Banks when he spoke at a Texas Leadership conference a year or so ago, and was highly impressed with the guy!  He's not a politician, knows the border as well as anyone, and has reasonable expectations as to what needs to be done. 

He is also very unapologetic, during his speech he talked about the border buoys Texas is putting in the Rio Grande.  He defended their use, and addressed numerous fallacies about them such as using saw blades in between the buoys. 

Not long after, I took a week-long trip along the Texas border with a stop at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, and there was a line of these waiting to be placed in the river.  I did the same thing Banks mentioned and ran my bare palm along the ridges of those "blades."   I didn't get a scratch.  

This new administration is moving in the right direction when it comes to defending our sovereignty!

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Admittedly, I’m not well versed on tax policy or law.  When I hear/read these arguments about the 1% paying more, corporations paying more or Bezos not paying a fair share etc, I always wonder why a company like Amazon is not looked at in totality.  How much do they pay in excise taxes on gas for cars and aircraft, property taxes, income taxes generated by employing thousands of people, SSN/FICA/Medicare, sales tax on what they purchase, sales tax paid on their products by the consumer who buys their products, etc?   I guess I’m missing something because it seems like a guy like Bezos is generating untold amounts of tax revenue for both the local and federal governments.  

Often getting a Amazon warehouse or other large corp HQ comes with corresponding tax cuts/breaks from the local/state governments. So, we got an inland port up where I'm working, for the next 10~15 years the owners of that port are paying severely reduced taxes compared to other businesses in the area. Idea is to spur growth obviously. Is that passed on to the businesses who utilize said inland port? No idea.

I legit have no strong feeling either way about that.

Additionally, these large corp's have armies of tax lawyers looking for ways to categorize for tax savings, and Amazon itself has many sub-business arrangements under the Amazon umbrella (ex. AWS) that allow for further tax savings (ex. R&D like I mentioned before). Finally, there's the whole revenue vs. profit and how that applies to taxes.

Also not a tax lawyer. 

EDIT: As a nerd, the story of how AWS came to be is pretty cool.

Edited Wednesday at 04:24 PM by 17D_guy

[17D_guy]

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Or Trump saying Ukraine shouldn't have started the war?

[brabus]

A couple snippets re: the EO that I just looked at (I have not read the actual EO):

• Therefore, because all executive power is vested in the President, all agencies must: (1) submit draft regulations for White House review—with no carve-out for so-called independent agencies, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve; and (2) consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards.
• The Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.
• The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. 
 

There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the fuck they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Depends on how you are interpreting it. I can see a lot of people hyperventilating by claiming that this is some sort of attempt to bypass the judiciary, but there's no good evidence of that. This seems to be a memo declaring that within the executive branch, interpretations will be made at the highest level.

 

Everything about that is a good thing.

[Blue]

20 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Yeah.  Saying that the EOs intent was "only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws" is a shitty take.  Didn't stop all of social media from running with it yesterday though.  

7 minutes ago, brabus said:

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the fuck they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

This was my interpretation as well.

For all of the screaming about Trump, DOGE, firings, Ukraine, taxes, etc, a large portion of what is happening is a long overdue attempt at reigning in the federal bureaucracy.  This EO is just another step in that direction, and I think it's a reasonable approach.

I'm anxiously awaiting the implementation of the "Schedule F" EO, which is intended to put some guardrails around civil service employees working in policy-influencing positions.  As can be expected, many in .gov land are not supportive. 

[Flev]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

A couple snippets re: the EO that I just looked at (I have not read the actual EO):

 

• Therefore, because all executive power is vested in the President, all agencies must: (1) submit draft regulations for White House review—with no carve-out for so-called independent agencies, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve; and (2) consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards.
• The Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.
• The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. 
 

There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

I think it's also a direct response to SCOTUS getting rid of Chevron Deference (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/) last year in the wake of agencies who were using their rule-making authority to create pseudo-carveouts in the law. One example was the ATF's bump-stock case which ultimately was found to violate the Administrative Procedures Act last summer (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-976).

Now whenever a legal challenge comes up against these agencies, they can't just have government lawyers appease judges by saying "Trust us we're the experts." They have to show a legitimate attempt to remain within the guard-rails set by Congress, and Trump's administration is likely tired of these agencies making fools of themselves.

Edited Wednesday at 05:45 PM by Flev
Adding Links for Context

[Stoker]

On 2/16/2025 at 1:32 PM, Prosuper said:

Why do we need 44 Four stars. Didn't we win WW2 with 7?

You can flatten the rank structure if you increase the pay. It isn't surprising we don't track good talent to be GOs when an O-7 makes less than a 3rd year FO at mainline. Our military pay structure hasn't been "designed" in any meaningful way in decades - we've just done percentage increases across the board, and it isn't reasonable to expect people to serve out of self-denying patriotism absent an ongoing existential war.

More leadership positions is a long trend in military history. I'm sure Alexander had some folks complaining about paying for front and rear file leaders in the phalanx, when the Athenians used to get away with just front file leaders.

[17D_guy]

10 minutes ago, Stoker said:

You can flatten the rank structure if you increase the pay. It isn't surprising we don't track good talent to be GOs when an O-7 makes less than a 3rd year FO at mainline. Our military pay structure hasn't been "designed" in any meaningful way in decades - we've just done percentage increases across the board, and it isn't reasonable to expect people to serve out of self-denying patriotism absent an ongoing existential war.

More leadership positions is a long trend in military history. I'm sure Alexander had some folks complaining about paying for front and rear file leaders in the phalanx, when the Athenians used to get away with just front file leaders.

Welp, I'm sure they'll figure it out with this coming - Trump administration orders Pentagon to plan for sweeping budget cuts

Also getting rid of probationary means people that have moved positions as well, and a ton of vets. So, if you had a shit hot tech person that moved into a supervisory position last year -- thanks for your service your performance isn't good enough and you're out.

Personal anecdote, wife's gig hired a new tech lead last year...still on probation, the old tech lead got a new position higher up to better inform leadership of test capes for F22...still on probation. 

Same thing they just did to VA nurses (2 year probationary period), seasonal firefighters (def won't be a problem here in the West...), etc.

Meanwhile my state leg is trying to get rid of mail in voting because...well no reason. They've got an R super-majority but apparently some foreign influence campaign is going to flip UT blue next election? Also setting the standards for ballot initiatives even harder than legislators have, and to get rid of the FOIA agency and make it a single person accountable only to the Gov. You know, anti-representative democracy stuff.
 

5 hours ago, Blue said:

Yeah.  Saying that the EOs intent was "only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws" is a shitty take.  Didn't stop all of social media from running with it yesterday though. 

Yea, haven't read it yet. Like I said before, while we disagree on a lot I still value the input here. The tax and home examples a few pages back were fucking money for discussion.

[Stoker]

3 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Also getting rid of probationary means people that have moved positions as well, and a ton of vets. So, if you had a shit hot tech person that moved into a supervisory position last year -- thanks for your service your performance isn't good enough and you're out.

Don't worry, everyone unlawfully fired will eventually be getting full back pay, which should help with the deficit somehow. And we'll have to increase federal civ salaries in the future, because a lot of their total compensation was job security, and that's gone.

I'm honestly somewhat confused that the administration didn't even try to cover their tracks and pretend to do things lawfully - like, you'd think with some of Musk's patented AI they could have invented some BS that actually alluded to a reason to be fired. Firing every single probationary employee for "poor performance" means you're just bunch of liars. Which, I guess, is the point - if you're willing to lie and fire people who you hired, you're probably loyal enough to say the sky is green if the boss says so.

[brabus]

How is firing/laying off probationary people illegal? Serious question. 

[nsplayr]

44 minutes ago, brabus said:

How is firing/laying off probationary people illegal? Serious question. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/107230/federal-employee-rights-probationary-faqs/

This is a pretty good summary. BLUF it's likely not illegal.

It's just unusual/unjust/unwise vs doing cuts based on performance or targeted cuts per agency as the mission dictates. You can and do have some awesome employees who are probationary due to recent jobs changes, promotions to become a supervisor, etc. that will be needlessly shitcanned but you'll retain some bump-on-a-log folks who have full civil service protections who truly are the ones you would want to trim if that was your goal.

Saying you're firing people for poor performance when they have documentation showing otherwise may open up grounds to appeal, but this admin has also canned a ton of IGs and other internal guardrails, so you'd likely be appealing to a recent Trump appointee who is going to tell you to pound sand because that's the party line. Folks might be able to sue but that'll take forever and you may or may not win.

I'm not a federal government employment lawyer or a judge, YMMV.

Edited yesterday at 12:52 AM by nsplayr

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Meanwhile my state leg is trying to get rid of mail in voting because...well no reason. They've got an R super-majority but apparently some foreign influence campaign is going to flip UT blue next election?

Good. Mail in voting is absurd, outside of it's original intent, and should not be conflated with early-voting, which is a good thing. 

Military and out-of-state only. 

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

How is firing/laying off probationary people illegal? Serious question. 

Federal employee supervisor here. Firing an employee with causation (e.g., poor performance, not maintaining a security clearance, etc.) while on probation is perfectly legal. Firing an employee due to “poor performance” where there is no documentation from the supervisor chain of poor performance is illegal. Some employees who have been terminated for “poor performance” haven’t even had their first performance appraisal, had a highly rated performance appraisal, and/or didn’t have any documented performance issues or a performance improvement plan implanted. Federal employees also aren’t “at will.”

[brabus]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

will be needlessly shitcanned but you'll retain some bump-on-a-log folks who have full civil service protections who truly are the ones you would want to trim if that was your goal.

Yes, unfortunately that will happen. But the fed civ corps is so insanely out of control that scalpel surgery isn’t feasible - I’ve seen that tried and failed for 19 years. Unfortunately full blown chemo is necessary and that’ll have some undesired side effects, but it will ultimately save the body in the end. And to all those crying about the poor gubmint workers and how will they feed their children! Welcome to everyone else’s life who doesn’t have a gov job. Time to stop sucking on the gov tit and do something useful in the civ sector. The good ones that we unfortunately lose will do just fine on the civ side. It’s the useless sacks of shit that’ll wine incessantly because they know the gov is the only place they can suck so bad and stay employed (up until now at least).

[brabus]

@Sua Sponte Yep, all makes sense. The hard thing, as you’ve probably seen, is firing those shitty workers. It is a mountain to climb to build the requisite documentation for poor performance history, make the improvement plan, document them not meeting the plan, etc. A shitload of work to fire horrible workers - very frustrating. 

[nsplayr]

13 minutes ago, brabus said:

And to all those crying about the poor gubmint workers and how will they feed their children! Welcome to everyone else’s life who doesn’t have a gov job. Time to stop sucking on the gov tit and do something useful in the civ sector. The good ones that we unfortunately lose will do just fine on the civ side. It’s the useless sacks of shit that’ll wine incessantly because they know the gov is the only place they can suck so bad and stay employed (up until now at least).

I hope to god you don't supervise anyone with an attitude like this man. And why are uniformed service members so different? Are MSG towel handlers really that different? MX? Pilots? Why don't they "stop sucking on the gov tit and do something useful in the civ sector?"

Jesus Christ the just dripping animosity for our own government that you yourself are a part of is wild.

I really hope the leopards from the "Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party" don't eat your face, but please don't be surprised when they do.

Edited yesterday at 04:20 AM by nsplayr

[Sua Sponte]

6 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Sua Sponte Yep, all makes sense. The hard thing, as you’ve probably seen, is firing those shitty workers. It is a mountain to climb to build the requisite documentation for poor performance history, make the improvement plan, document them not meeting the plan, etc. A shitload of work to fire horrible workers - very frustrating. 

I was told today that I had 15 minutes to provide data to justify two GS-07s jobs that work for me. When I sent the data in, the exec (some Major) didn't send it in time, and so the response didn't include the data when they wanted it. Now I'm expecting to have both employees terminated by Friday, and I can't hire anyone to replace them. 

[nsplayr]

12 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Sua Sponte Yep, all makes sense. The hard thing, as you’ve probably seen, is firing those shitty workers. It is a mountain to climb to build the requisite documentation for poor performance history, make the improvement plan, document them not meeting the plan, etc. A shitload of work to fire horrible workers - very frustrating. 

"Ya know it's really annoying to follow this legal process, so instead of improving the process let's just all draw numbers from a random number generator and anyone with an odd number, pack your shit!"

There are proposals like Schedule F that while I don't agree with some of the details, bring some needed reforms to civil service. The full-control GOP Congress can and probably will pass that, and there could be an orderly process to improve the way our government works.

But going full chemo and nuking our own organs is, let's put it mildly, not the strategy I would employ. You're killing off people's careers at random and having the gall to justify it as "stop sucking on the government tit, the good ones will be fine in the civ sector."

Edited yesterday at 04:22 AM by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

I was told today that I had 15 minutes to provide data to justify two GS-07s jobs that work for me. When I sent the data in, the exec (some Major) didn't send it in time, and so the response didn't include the data when they wanted it. Now I'm expecting to have both employees terminated by Friday, and I can't hire anyone to replace them. 

That sucks to hear. And never trust a Major haha. Just like Roman statues, we cover our pricks in gold (2d Lt and Maj) 😅

Edited yesterday at 04:21 AM by nsplayr