USAID

24,720 Views | 552 Replies | Last: 36 min ago by Eastern Oregon Bear
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearNIt • 9:10p, 2/10/25
BearNIt said:
bear2034 said:
BearNIt said:
movielover said:
And radical Dems will expand it back when they regain power.

You realize we get intel from some of the workers in USAID. Intel that is needed to keep our soldiers and our country safe. In this instance less personnel means more danger.

That's why they're retaining 294 on staff.
You think 294 people tasked with keeping this country safe from our enemies have enough bodies to cover the job and keep what's left of an organization that has save countless lives around the globe open?

There's already 2 million Americans tasked with that job, with an annual budget of one trillion dollars.
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:44p, 2/10/25


Same crew (below) benefitted from the Ukraine War, and supposedly will benefit from rebuilding Ukraine.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Zippergate
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 9:50p, 2/10/25
Remember when the Extreme Left here told us this wasn't happening?
Reply Quote
3
Zippergate
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 9:56p, 2/10/25
What happens during a recession where benefits go up and tax revenues collapse? We could see a one-year deficit of 5 trillion. This is why it's so important to eliminate as much fraud and waste as possible and claw back fraudulent payments. Pay it back or it's off to Hotel Bukele.
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:58a, 2/11/25
Reply Quote
3
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 7:09a, 2/11/25
movielover said:
Your lonely fact checker to say that claim about SS benefits has been long debunked and is intentionally very missleading. A SS NUMVER is not the same as benefits and a SSI is not the same as Social security as most people know it.
Take care of your Chicken
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:48a, 2/11/25
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.

Very few of these jobs were economically viable, and in the rare cases where the main mission is commendable, there isn't much oversight on the way the funds are spent.

Very good roundup on USAID from the real left:



If you want a shorter version, start at the *:19 mark, bookmarked here:
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:25a, 2/11/25
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.
Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
People who voluntarily elect to leave in exchange for months of pay? They are not being forced out / fired. No boo-hoos here.

What we are seeing is that government is an amorphous mess, currently including egregious instances of outrageous spending aligned with Democratic social policies. (I expect there easily could be similar things found on the Republican side). Those programs - see things like USAID funding a program for proper pro-nouns to be used by Venezuelan (?) press - are ****ing outrageous. They SHOULD be terminated. The scale of cuts to federal spending like this is so huge that people will necessarily lose jobs. Tough. Right-size and right-purpose the government, then staff it appropriately to fulfill that mission.
Reply Quote
6
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 8:58a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.
Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
So the Trump team claims. I will wait for evidence.

Again, though, pretty amusing how much people are just willing to take the richest tech billionaire's word for this. If it were George Soros making an unverified claim there's no way you'd be so trusting.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 2/11/25
Arguably the biggest waste of taxpayer money is baked into the very structure of the monetary system and money creation, in that the banks create money out of thin air and lend it back to the Fed at interest, as opposed to the Fed or Treasury creating the funds interest-free.



Debt only started when this policy was put in place by the Wilson administration after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which was followed by the implementation of the federal income tax on a large scale - the two policies are connected, as this scheme is a large transfer from the taxpayers to the banks printing money and lending it back with interest to the Fed.






The exact same picture is also present in France, where a structural change in monetary policy to a system where in 1973 the central bank was made to borrow funds at interest from a banking consortium who creates the funds out of thin air instead of the central bank printing money interest-free.

This resulted in the growth of the national debt, which was non-existant before that law passed, despite the French government having made massive infrastructure investments which include at the time the world's greatest nuclear energy program, world's best high-speed rail network along with Japan's, massive housing projects for 10 million families, the Concorde and Airbus programs among other state-funded projects.

All these massive state-sponsored projects were accomplished with very low debt before the 1970s and the passing of the new Fed-like law. After that, debt started ballooning despite the state funding fewer projects.

French national debt as a % of GDP:
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:28a, 2/11/25
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.
Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
So the Trump team claims. I will wait for evidence.

Again, though, pretty amusing how much people are just willing to take the richest tech billionaire's word for this. If it were George Soros making an unverified claim there's no way you'd be so trusting.
You are correct in your assessment of how I would react if it were Soros making these calls. Fair point.

But numerous of these things are really pretty straight forward on their face.

Consider, the Exec Order to pause payments was signed Jan 20. That is a matter of public record.

DOGE claims FEMA made 59 million payments last week. The first workday last week was Monday, Feb 3, some 2 weeks after the EO. It is literally true that we do not now that claims to be true but that is such as patently basic thing to verify that we can likely have a high level of confidence in its veracity.

So four people were fired for making the payments they were ordered not to make. I have zero sympathy for them. Good for the government for holding people accountable.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 10:45a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
DOGE claims FEMA made 59 million payments last week. The first workday last week was Monday, Feb 3, some 2 weeks after the EO. It is literally true that we do not now that claims to be true but that is such as patently basic thing to verify that we can likely have a high level of confidence in its veracity.

So four people were fired for making the payments they were ordered not to make. I have zero sympathy for them. Good for the government for holding people accountable.
What if the money they were spending was money that had already been explicitly earmarked and authorized by Congress and these employees correctly believe that it would actually be illegal to stop payments? Should they be fired for that?
Reply Quote
1
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 10:52a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.
Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
People who voluntarily elect to leave in exchange for months of pay? They are not being forced out / fired. No boo-hoos here.

What we are seeing is that government is an amorphous mess, currently including egregious instances of outrageous spending aligned with Democratic social policies. (I expect there easily could be similar things found on the Republican side). Those programs - see things like USAID funding a program for proper pro-nouns to be used by Venezuelan (?) press - are ****ing outrageous. They SHOULD be terminated. The scale of cuts to federal spending like this is so huge that people will necessarily lose jobs. Tough. Right-size and right-purpose the government, then staff it appropriately to fulfill that mission.
All the "Fork in the road" emails include wording like "If you don't take the voluntary resignation offer, there's no guarantee that your job will be spared from upcoming Reduction In Force actions." That sure sounds like they are planning to fire people. I haven't violated any Executive Orders and I haven't refused to go back to the office. I've been working in the office everyday for the last couple years now.
Reply Quote
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:52a, 2/11/25
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
DOGE claims FEMA made 59 million payments last week. The first workday last week was Monday, Feb 3, some 2 weeks after the EO. It is literally true that we do not now that claims to be true but that is such as patently basic thing to verify that we can likely have a high level of confidence in its veracity.

So four people were fired for making the payments they were ordered not to make. I have zero sympathy for them. Good for the government for holding people accountable.
What if the money they were spending was money that had already been explicitly earmarked and authorized by Congress and these employees correctly believe that it would actually be illegal to stop payments? Should they be fired for that?
At its heart this goes to a very interesting Constitution question about the scope and authority of Congress and The Executive. As a matter of C law, I am very interested to see the cases work their way through the courts.

Re your question, I would say an employee escalates the issue to get direction about how to proceed. There must be legal counsel available to them within the department. Law schools is too many moons in my rear view mirror to exactly remember the correct name but there's a mechanism where you can go to court and have a judge determine how to proceed (Interlocutory relief???).
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 10:55a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
DOGE claims FEMA made 59 million payments last week. The first workday last week was Monday, Feb 3, some 2 weeks after the EO. It is literally true that we do not now that claims to be true but that is such as patently basic thing to verify that we can likely have a high level of confidence in its veracity.

So four people were fired for making the payments they were ordered not to make. I have zero sympathy for them. Good for the government for holding people accountable.
What if the money they were spending was money that had already been explicitly earmarked and authorized by Congress and these employees correctly believe that it would actually be illegal to stop payments? Should they be fired for that?
At its heart this goes to a very interesting Constitution question about the scope and authority of Congress and The Executive. As a matter of C law, I am very interested to see the cases work their way through the courts.

Re your question, I would say an employee escalates the issue to get direction about how to proceed. There must be legal counsel available to them within the department. Law schools is too many moons in my rear view mirror to exactly remember the correct name but there's a mechanism where you can go to court and have a judge determine how to proceed (Interlocutory relief???).
So you decide to escalate through internal channels that you think the order is illegal. Elon finds out about that. You're fired.

Also IMO it's not even a "very interesting" question. If Congress says the money has to be spent like this, then it has to be. Period. The President cannot alter that. If he can, then we just have a unitary executive and not a representative democracy.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 10:55a, 2/11/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
tequila4kapp said:

Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
People who voluntarily elect to leave in exchange for months of pay? They are not being forced out / fired. No boo-hoos here.

What we are seeing is that government is an amorphous mess, currently including egregious instances of outrageous spending aligned with Democratic social policies. (I expect there easily could be similar things found on the Republican side). Those programs - see things like USAID funding a program for proper pro-nouns to be used by Venezuelan (?) press - are ****ing outrageous. They SHOULD be terminated. The scale of cuts to federal spending like this is so huge that people will necessarily lose jobs. Tough. Right-size and right-purpose the government, then staff it appropriately to fulfill that mission.
All the "Fork in the road" emails include wording like "If you don't take the voluntary resignation offer, there's no guarantee that your job will be spared from upcoming Reduction In Force actions." That sure sounds like they are planning to fire people. I haven't violated any Executive Orders and I haven't refused to go back to the office. I've been working in the office everyday for the last couple years now.
Yes, they are telling you they plan to reduce the size of government, which means people will lose their jobs. People show up to work in the private sector every single day to learn their employer has reduced staffing as a cost cutting measure and they no longer have a job. No advance warning. No 8 months severance pay. It may not feel like it but they are doing federal employees A Solid by giving them this opportunity.
Reply Quote
4
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 11:09a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
tequila4kapp said:

Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
People who voluntarily elect to leave in exchange for months of pay? They are not being forced out / fired. No boo-hoos here.

What we are seeing is that government is an amorphous mess, currently including egregious instances of outrageous spending aligned with Democratic social policies. (I expect there easily could be similar things found on the Republican side). Those programs - see things like USAID funding a program for proper pro-nouns to be used by Venezuelan (?) press - are ****ing outrageous. They SHOULD be terminated. The scale of cuts to federal spending like this is so huge that people will necessarily lose jobs. Tough. Right-size and right-purpose the government, then staff it appropriately to fulfill that mission.
All the "Fork in the road" emails include wording like "If you don't take the voluntary resignation offer, there's no guarantee that your job will be spared from upcoming Reduction In Force actions." That sure sounds like they are planning to fire people. I haven't violated any Executive Orders and I haven't refused to go back to the office. I've been working in the office everyday for the last couple years now.
Yes, they are telling you they plan to reduce the size of government, which means people will lose their jobs. People show up to work in the private sector every single day to learn their employer has reduced staffing as a cost cutting measure and they no longer have a job. No advance warning. No 8 months severance pay. It may not feel like it but they are doing federal employees A Solid by giving them this opportunity.
By ignoring the rules and regulations that have been passed by Congress and been in effect for decades. Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
Reply Quote
2
Zippergate
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:12a, 2/11/25
Congress says FEMA money has to used to house illegals in hotels? Certainly possible with swamp creatures like Mitch McConnell but show me where. More likely, Biden's handler's were simply diverting money that for one purpose to their own pet causes. That is not protected.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 11:18a, 2/11/25
Zippergate said:
Congress says FEMA money has to used to house illegals in hotels? Certainly possible with swamp creatures like Mitch McConnell but show me where. More likely, Biden's handler's were simply diverting money that for one purpose to their own pet causes. That is not protected.
OK, where do you plan to house illegal immigrants? It seems to me that you're not going to find enough vacant apartments or houses to cover the need. So, hotels were used.
Reply Quote
1
Zippergate
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 11:26a, 2/11/25
How about this. We could not fly in hundreds of thousands of Haitians. We could secure the border. We could let ICE do its job. We could enforce employment law. Hard as it may be for you to believe, there is majority support for this, even from ethnic minorities.
Reply Quote
4
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 11:30a, 2/11/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
I have family members that work for state government and are unionized. Those two things do not equal lifetime employment and the ability to behave however one wants in the workplace.

I wish my employer made me that offer. As someone who's inside 2 years to retire I'd jump at it too.

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).
Reply Quote
1
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 11:44a, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
I have family members that work for state government and are unionized. Those two things do not equal lifetime employment and the ability to behave however one wants in the workplace.

I wish my employer made me that offer. As someone who's inside 2 years to retire I'd jump at it too.

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).
OK, let's pretend vacated jobs aren't backfilled. Not every job opening is unnecessary. Some jobs are important. I've heard 3rd or 4th hand that there are at least a few federal personnel working as dam operators that have taken the buyout. Some day soon, they will leave federal service. That will leave vacancies in those positions. The word is that the federal agencies involved don't have the people on staff to handle fill those openings and with the hiring freeze in place, it doesn't appear they will get them. Should we just let the dams run unattended and hope nothing bad happens?
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 11:49a, 2/11/25
Zippergate said:
Congress says FEMA money has to used to house illegals in hotels?

Kind of, yes. It's not explicitly a FEMA program though FEMA was tapped to administrate it. City governments could get reimbursed for costs from housing migrants, and this was passed in Congress. You guys need to learn to look stuff up beyond what Elon tells you.



Now, could you argue that some cities were being too loose with this money and not finding cheaper options for housing? Yes! In fact, the Trump administration could make this one of its priorities, limiting how much cities could request or pushing back on certain claims. But just stopping all payments would be in violation of the law.
Reply Quote
3
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 11:57a, 2/11/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
tequila4kapp said:

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).
OK, let's pretend vacated jobs aren't backfilled. Not every job opening is unnecessary. Some jobs are important. I've heard 3rd or 4th hand that there are at least a few federal personnel working as dam operators that have taken the buyout. Some day soon, they will leave federal service. That will leave vacancies in those positions. The word is that the federal agencies involved don't have the people on staff to handle fill those openings and with the hiring freeze in place, it doesn't appear they will get them. Should we just let the dams run unattended and hope nothing bad happens?
Great question. I would like to see government operate efficiently and effectively. I want government to be purposeful for the benefit of Americans and our legitimate interests. So, dam operators? Yes, please. That is an appropriate and good expense, by nearly any measure. There are additional examples, obviously.

But DOGE is showing us there are layers upon layers of expenses that are very much not of that ilk. I am all for getting rid of those expenses. If that means people lose their jobs...well, in my world those jobs never should have existed in the 1st place.

Who gets to decide what is legitimate? That's what we have elections for. Elections matter.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:04p, 2/11/25
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
DOGE claims FEMA made 59 million payments last week. The first workday last week was Monday, Feb 3, some 2 weeks after the EO. It is literally true that we do not now that claims to be true but that is such as patently basic thing to verify that we can likely have a high level of confidence in its veracity.

So four people were fired for making the payments they were ordered not to make. I have zero sympathy for them. Good for the government for holding people accountable.
What if the money they were spending was money that had already been explicitly earmarked and authorized by Congress and these employees correctly believe that it would actually be illegal to stop payments? Should they be fired for that?


Call their superiors and ask for guidance.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 12:06p, 2/11/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
tequila4kapp said:
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:
Truth

Yet you think DOGE having all private citizens tax documents, social security info and bank account data is perfectly OK.

Exactly why do you need to know everything about me? Why should you be trusted? What will it achieve for you?


Why would you believe this ridiculous smokescreen?

They don't give 2 effs about you or me.

They care about the trillions of stolen money

Why don't you care?


You're the one that posted about how private citizens should have full privacy from the government and that public servants like me should have no privacy rights. Was that a ridiculous smokescreen? Why post that if that wasn't what you meant? Personally, I'm offended that you think I have fewer rights than you and movielover do. As for fraud, there was nothing about fraud in that cutesy meme you posted. Sure, I'm against fraud. Prove that I and a couple of million other federal employees have committed fraud before you throw us under the bus.

I've spent the last 25 years doing my level best to keep people safe from harm for far less money than I could have made elsewhere. The last few weeks have been shocking in how little respect many of you all have for myself and the vast majority of other federal workers. I'm doing some soul searching my life choices these days though I still feel like I made the right choice back then. If you get your way, good luck getting AI to do what I do.
I do find it pretty ridiculous that people who supposedly voted for the "populist" president are rooting so hard for thousands of people to lose their jobs, based on the recommendations of the richest tech billionaire.
Who is "losing their job"?
People who voluntarily and knowingly violate a valid Presidential Executive Order? Tough *****
People who voluntarily elect to leave in exchange for months of pay? They are not being forced out / fired. No boo-hoos here.

What we are seeing is that government is an amorphous mess, currently including egregious instances of outrageous spending aligned with Democratic social policies. (I expect there easily could be similar things found on the Republican side). Those programs - see things like USAID funding a program for proper pro-nouns to be used by Venezuelan (?) press - are ****ing outrageous. They SHOULD be terminated. The scale of cuts to federal spending like this is so huge that people will necessarily lose jobs. Tough. Right-size and right-purpose the government, then staff it appropriately to fulfill that mission.
All the "Fork in the road" emails include wording like "If you don't take the voluntary resignation offer, there's no guarantee that your job will be spared from upcoming Reduction In Force actions." That sure sounds like they are planning to fire people. I haven't violated any Executive Orders and I haven't refused to go back to the office. I've been working in the office everyday for the last couple years now.


And surfing the Internet during work hours?
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 12:09p, 2/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
I have family members that work for state government and are unionized. Those two things do not equal lifetime employment and the ability to behave however one wants in the workplace.

I wish my employer made me that offer. As someone who's inside 2 years to retire I'd jump at it too.

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).


What happens if he routes unspent monies to the debt, or ICE?
Reply Quote
1
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 2:09p, 2/11/25
movielover said:
tequila4kapp said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
I have family members that work for state government and are unionized. Those two things do not equal lifetime employment and the ability to behave however one wants in the workplace.

I wish my employer made me that offer. As someone who's inside 2 years to retire I'd jump at it too.

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).


What happens if he routes unspent monies to the debt, or ICE?
Yes, rerouting really is the issue. The federal government units often don't spend all their specified funding and go over budget allocations as well. The practical answer is under fund accounting a lot of these different expenditures are put in the same fund and some allocations are used for different purposes within the same agency. No one really objects to this practice (very little money involved relatively speaking). Black letter law is funds allocated by Congress to one agency can be used by another agency only if there is specific statutory authorization. This can happen during a reorganization when one agency transfers its functions to another for example. I have never heard of repurposing funds into another agency for a different purpose and I assume Congressional authority is required. You would assume Trump has the votes to get that, but you never know or even if Trump will try to get authority. Lot of assumptions in these weird times.

Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:39p, 2/11/25
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 2:40p, 2/11/25
wifeisafurd said:
movielover said:
tequila4kapp said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Also, this is the government, not the private sector. For what it's worth, everyone I've seen that's taking the buyout was planning to retire in the next year or two anyway.
I have family members that work for state government and are unionized. Those two things do not equal lifetime employment and the ability to behave however one wants in the workplace.

I wish my employer made me that offer. As someone who's inside 2 years to retire I'd jump at it too.

Reports indicate about 3% of the federal workforce has taken their offer. The Admin's goal was 5-10%. Let's pretend the Admin simply refuses to backfill these positions. We get an interesting legal question...what happens if the Executive refuses to spend money allocated by Congress? A simple answer could be Congress' control of the purse prevails. But what happens now with unspent agency money? (there's no way every agency spends exactly the amount allocated).


What happens if he routes unspent monies to the debt, or ICE?
Yes, rerouting really is the issue. The federal government units often don't spend all their specified funding and go over budget allocations as well. The practical answer is under fund accounting a lot of these different expenditures are put in the same fund and some allocations are used for different purposes within the same agency. No one really objects to this practice (very little money involved relatively speaking). Black letter law is funds allocated by Congress to one agency can be used by another agency only if there is specific statutory authorization. This can happen during a reorganization when one agency transfers its functions to another for example. I have never heard of repurposing funds into another agency for a different purpose and I assume Congressional authority is required. You would assume Trump has the votes to get that, but you never know or even if Trump will try to get authority. Lot of assumptions in these weird times.
If Trump goes to Congress and gets agreement to reallocate money or stop payments for things then I might disagree with that decision but would have to admit that people credibly "voted for this" and that's how it works in a democratic system. The Trump administration just making these decisions on their own? Not so much.
Reply Quote
3
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:36p, 2/11/25
Too bad it was a DEI hand grenade not a real one
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:40p, 2/11/25
Rich Ukranians about the EU.

Reply Quote
2
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 3:47p, 2/11/25
bear2034 said:

Democratic politicians are out of touch. Their constituents are silently outraged over USAID as well.
Worse. They know exactly what they've been doing and are now freaked out that they've finally been outed with indisputable evidence.
Reply Quote
4
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rushinbear • 3:52p, 2/11/25
Rushinbear said:
bear2034 said:

Democratic politicians are out of touch. Their constituents are silently outraged over USAID as well.
Worse. They know exactly what they've been doing and are now freaked out that they've finally been outed with indisputable evidence.

But at the same time, these Democrats are suddenly interested in the rule of law again?

Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Yogi 1 • 3:54p, 2/11/25
Under Reagan, USAID was heavily used to wreak havoc in regions like Central America, with luminaries like Bolton and Eliot Abrams funding death squads and assorted nun rapists.

Gangs like MS13 are the more recent manifestations of these 1980s terrorists. Just as the 1980s Afghan mujahideen morphed into the Taliban and AQ...

USAID did do some good things back then, like help liberate Poland from Soviet occupation with the Solidarnosc organic movement that really channeled the aspirations of the Polish people, with a strong and genuine Catholic component, but unfortunately that operation was not the norm among the regime change operations of the 1980s, with Central America and Haiti being the most odious ones.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.