If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Meanwhile, in the hilariously ironic and predictably stupid, the Ds continue to lambaste an "unelected official" for trying to eliminate lots and lots and lots of unelected jobs.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Without knowing necessary details to fairly assess reduction in force policies, my gut feeling is that these policies represent a trend worth pursuing. There has been repeated complaints, here and elsewhere, regarding the administrative state that is governing this country. They are uniformly (e,g, HHS, DOE, etc.) and should be dismantled. Supporters of the status quo and the government agencies and jobs at risk of elimination are voicing concerns that the Trump administration's actions are chaotic, not well planned and, of course, a threat to democracy (and all that complaining entails).
In my recollection, political and business figures that have undertaken a slash and burn approach have gotten roasted. Never mind that operating efficiencies and cost containment were obtained. A business figure that comes to mind is Carl Ichan. He broke up the APA and slashed salaries of Continental Airline, employees saving millions in operating expenses and making the airline profitable before he sold his interests in the company and it merged with United.
Ronald Reagan championed smaller government and Federalism but not with a slash and burn approach like Trump appears to be taking. In both cases these two presidents had similar objectives. Reagan was immensely popular and depending on what measuring stick one might use, Reagan reshaped American government into the less socially intrusive, less regulatory in nature and fiscally conservative government he set out to obtain. The Obama presidency reversed most of Reagan's achievements. Obviously, we don't know how Trump's efforts will work out but the clamoring by his opponents, going to court to be stymy his actions, is a major obstacle that, how the courts rule and how Trump reacts to those rulings, has unprecedented consequences for this country.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
Decreasing the size of the federal workforce and decreasing the power of the Presidency are two different things. Trump (and people in his administration) are spoiling for a fight with Congress over who actually controls spending and if Trump wins at the Supreme Court, the power of the Executive branch in this country will grow significantly.
Funny you Progs had ZERO issues when Chief Poopypants was signing hundreds of EO's...but now it is abuse of power when Trump does it? Personally I don't like the pretty much unrestricted power of the EO...their intent was to give that power in times of crisis...that was the spirit of it...now it's just un-checked power pretty much. But this is what the Progs normally love...but only when it increases the size of their cookie jar...
Most of the executive orders are meaningless. I'm not even talking about that. Those are bread and circus for the masses to show that he's getting so much accomplished. Ooooh, an executive order to celebrate plastic straws. February 9th shall hereafter be celebrated as Gulf of America Day. Who gives a shit.
I'm talking about upcoming fights where Congress specifically allocated money to an agency and Trump refuses to spend it. Or voids contracts already signed. Soley because Trump is personally against it. It's almost like a line-item veto in a way. I doubt he would win at the Supreme Court but that doesn't mean he won't try.
Comment