I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
How can it be necessary? Even Fox News isn't touting this as great. Would you like to take a mulligan? Fore!
“In carrying out this memorandum, I ask that you seek efficient use of existing personnel and funds to improve public services and the delivery of these services,” Trump wrote in the memorandum, according to the paper.
Statistics from the Office of Personnel Management, though, show that the number of executive branch employees hasn't been this low since 1965, and that the number of employees has stayed more or less steady in the last 15 years.
The full effect of a hiring freeze is unclear. According to OPM, the federal government hired 221,000 workers in fiscal 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. The number excludes uniformed military personnel. But roughly a third of those hired were military veterans, who enjoy hiring preferences in the federal government.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
You're reeling.
It is a major point. The f**king idiot you think so much of is spending government revenue lavishly on himself and at a rate grotesquely higher than any other president to date... while 'sticking it' to families in service of the country.
The federal employees you lament are working overtime protecting the president, his family, and his assets so he can bask in the sun acquiring his orange hue. They'd be 'unnecessary' as well if they weren't needed as much as Trump demands them.
Stupid people voted for this f**king idiot. And stupid people are defending him.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
like the President flying to and staying at his private for profit club every weekend bilking taxpayers for his own profit? seems like low hanging fruit to me
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
after the loser has been in office only a month, its not like the dude has been in there for years and has everything running smoothly FFS
I thought there was American carnage to address and make America great again?
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
"He's taking shots, but he's still smiling!"
(Boxing commentator describing Dennis Andries in the ring as he took a beating from Tommy 'Hit Man' Hearns)
BS... youre a tricky one so I would like to ask some direct questions... we may disagree, but at least your a conservative on here that can actually articulate your positions. I wouldn't mind having a whiskey or two with you and just talking things out. and who knows, maybe I could get you to try the liberal whacky weed while we were at it so I can get the real answers lol
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
He took his black friend and completely unqualified HUD sec. nominee Dr. Ben Carson to the #nmaahc yesterday.
From November...
Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser. "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."
He took his black friend and completely unqualified HUD sec. nominee Dr. Ben Carson to the #nmaahc yesterday.
From November...
Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser. "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."
#completelyunqualified
I still have no clue how he got through the nomination process...
He took his black friend and completely unqualified HUD sec. nominee Dr. Ben Carson to the #nmaahc yesterday.
From November...
Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser. "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."
#completelyunqualified
"Hey guys, I'm not qualified to run a federal agency because I have no government experience. I think I'm going to run for president instead."
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
How can it be necessary? Even Fox News isn't touting this as great. Would you like to take a mulligan? Fore!
“In carrying out this memorandum, I ask that you seek efficient use of existing personnel and funds to improve public services and the delivery of these services,” Trump wrote in the memorandum, according to the paper.
Statistics from the Office of Personnel Management, though, show that the number of executive branch employees hasn't been this low since 1965, and that the number of employees has stayed more or less steady in the last 15 years.
The full effect of a hiring freeze is unclear. According to OPM, the federal government hired 221,000 workers in fiscal 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. The number excludes uniformed military personnel. But roughly a third of those hired were military veterans, who enjoy hiring preferences in the federal government.
Here's some of the effect and reality of what is happening:
Ballooning federal employment a myth Press secretary Sean Spicer has said the hiring freeze “counters [the] dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years.” But according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the federal government workforce made up of civilians has remained more or less consistent for the past 50 years. While there have been ups and downs in federal hiring, if postal service workers are included and U.S. population growth is factored in, “the federal government has barely grown in recent years,” explains PolitiFact. Currently, less than 2 percent of American workers are federal employees.
Loss of access to jobs under a federal hiring freeze will hit black Americans, and black women, particularly hard. Office of Personnel Management statistics show that blacks make up a higher proportion of the federal workforce than the private sector, and more than half of these workers are women.
Also among the hardest hit are communities that rely on federal land management agencies—among them the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management—and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. Communities that rely on federal prison and veterans center employment will also suffer potential job losses.
On February 1, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs wrote to Trump urging him to exclude from the freeze federal agencies providing essential services to Native communities, especially the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
“Even before the hiring freeze was announced, Federal agencies that provide these services were struggling to recruit and retain a qualified workforce,” wrote the senators, led by committee vice-chairman Tom Udall.
As the letter explained, IHS medical facilities, which provide primary and preventative health care to about 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, predominantly in rural areas, regularly face 20 percent or greater vacancy rates for doctors, nurses and other clinical staff. On February 17, the Department of Health and Human Services responded saying that IHS clinical staff would be exempt from the federal hiring freeze. The committee Democrats called this “a step in the right direction.”
Other community programs may still be subject to the freeze. On January 31, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidelines about exemptions but they have not yet been clarified. "We have no idea how broadly these agencies will be able to construe that guidance. It does not appear to answer the question of whether positions like teachers or other education personnel could receive an exemption,” Udall’s communications director, Jennifer Talhelm, explained in an email. “We remain hopeful that President Trump will reconsider the hiring freeze as it applies to all Indian programs,” the Democrats said in a statement.
At the same time, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) executive director Jeff Ruch, staff shortages are also a serious problem throughout the agencies responsible for public lands and wildlife management. In a PEER survey, 84 percent of national wildlife refuge managers said they don’t have enough staff to meet their “core conservation mission.”
“This freeze means that the thin green line protecting America’s natural resources will get thinner and, in some places, it will snap,” Ruch in a statement. “How this will affect fire crews, especially on wild land fires, is of particular concern,” he said in a phone interview. “As a management tool, it seems kind of crude and misguided.”
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
He is hiring 15k more ICE agents and such for the deportation. That's not a freeze in my book.
Cold & rainy...been a crazy winter here, actually.
$10+ million is insane. Bigly.
I'm no Trump fan. But you know how the media is coming up with that number? It's off this trip Obama took in 2013, in which he flew from DC to Chicago, then down to Palm Beach, then back to DC. http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680400.pdf
Yes, it's costing us a lot money. But no way it will cost the same just flying from DC to Palm Beach, and back to DC, as the trip Obama took. The trip Obama took would require having a Secret Service details in both cities, and flying all his support vehicles to both cities. No way in hell that both trips would cost the same amount of money.
Didn't Obamas security detail cost less in a year than Trumps has cost so far?
Why would his SS detail cost so much more in such a little bit of time? Got any proof of that, or is it just speculation?
Well, wouldn't having to protect Trump Tower daily greatly increase the cost? Not to mention the place down in Florida every weekend. And then the boys trips overseas? You didn't have those issues with the Obamas because they're a relatively young family. I don't fault Trump for having a large family and needing them protected, i fault him for being a hypocrite. He made a campaign issue out of Obama's vacations and golfing and 30 days in or so, Trump has proven to be much worse. Another lie that Joe American barely getting by in the lower middle-class fell for.
I'm not taking up for either one of them. But don't think they have spent more on Trumps SS yet then the total on Obama and family for a year. In the long run probably, because of the larger family. They both will (and) have spent a lot of our money on BS. Hell, Obama turned a trip to spread his Grandmothers ashes into a 12 day Hawaiian family vacation on the tax payers dime before he was even sworn into office. They both are POS hypocrites, not just Scrump. SS guarded the empty house in Chicago for 8 years. We've been getting raped by Presidents and their trips, etc. for a long, long time. Nothing we can do about it. Oh well, enough of this for now, have to get out and and get some stuff done before the rain hits around 12-1 today.
EM, so you're saying the president shouldn't take a vacation? Everyone needs vacation time, but it's all about balance and reasonable timing. The biggest issue with Trump is that he constantly criticized Obama for taking vacations and going golfing, but look what's he's been doing since elected. Total hypocrite, so it isn't comparable. Also, when's the last time we had to pay to protect the president's wife in another city? It's one thing to guard an empty house, but to maintain a full security detail for actual people and property will be much more expensive.
Instead of further perpetuating speculative numbers and details about the cost for Obama, let's actually get more accurate details and numbers because we get enough made up "facts" from the current administration.
Obama Chicago house cost: According to the city, the cost to secure Obama’s home between Nov. 5, 2008, and Jan. 18 was more than $1.5 million — most of which the city “expects” to be reimbursed because of his status as president-elect.
In comparison: The costs of guarding the Trump Tower in New York City, where the first lady, Melania Trump, and Trump’s youngest son, Barron live, is estimated to cost $183 million a year. New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer says that he wants the federal government to reimburse New York City and the state for these costs.
Obama's Hawaiian vacation costs for all 8 years: For the last time, taxpayers are paying for a Hawaiian Christmas vacation for President Obama and his family, an annual luxury getaway that has cost the Treasury easily more than $35 million over eight years.
Obama's estimated total travel costs: In total, the cost of the the first family’s personal or largely personal travel during the last eight years comes to $85 million – though that is likely to climb to $90 million after additional records are released, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch based on federal government records.
Or, if you go with Fox New, 100 million: "President-elect Trump can immediately save taxpayers money by reforming presidential travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
"The Obamas' notorious abuse of presidential travel perks wasted military resources and stressed the Secret Service. Judicial Watch estimates that the final costs of Obama’s unnecessary vacation and political travel will well exceed $100 million."
The figure was originally reported as $85 million, but the Obamas' current trip to Hawaii, as well as the release of additional documents, have increased the estimate.
In comparison already (as estimated): In the five weeks since his inauguration, the President has already spent three weekends at Mar-a-Lago, which he has begun referring to as the “Winter White House,” indicating that more is in store for the lavish private club situated on a beachfront property that was not designed with presidential security in mind. Some of the estimated $10 million spent on these three trips included paying for the Coast Guard to patrol the shoreline, according to the Post. Local officials in Palm Beach County, where the estate is located, also reportedly plan to ask Washington to reimburse their expenditures on extra security and traffic management, which could amount to tens of thousands of dollars so far. The county has already spent about $60,000 a day in overtime police payments, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told the Post. In New York, where First Lady Melania Trump has chosen to live with the couple’s school-aged son, the city pays roughly $500,000 each day to secure Trump Tower. This estimate, provided by police officials, could end up totaling about $183 million per year. Security for Trump’s extended family is also expected to run up a hefty tab.
Obama vacation time: He’s taken 28 vacations spanning all or part of 217 days, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent who maintains an authoritative record of presidential activities. Those numbers do not include the latest Hawaii trip, which began Friday and is expected to end Jan. 2.
By comparison, President George W. Bush made 77 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 490 days, and 11 visits to his family’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine, spanning all or part of 43 days, according to Knoller.
What you also need to remember is that Obama did not profit from his vacations or trips. So besides paying for the cost of Trump's trips, the money is going right back to him and his businesses.
Cold & rainy...been a crazy winter here, actually.
$10+ million is insane. Bigly.
I'm no Trump fan. But you know how the media is coming up with that number? It's off this trip Obama took in 2013, in which he flew from DC to Chicago, then down to Palm Beach, then back to DC. http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680400.pdf
Yes, it's costing us a lot money. But no way it will cost the same just flying from DC to Palm Beach, and back to DC, as the trip Obama took. The trip Obama took would require having a Secret Service details in both cities, and flying all his support vehicles to both cities. No way in hell that both trips would cost the same amount of money.
Didn't Obamas security detail cost less in a year than Trumps has cost so far?
Why would his SS detail cost so much more in such a little bit of time? Got any proof of that, or is it just speculation?
Well, wouldn't having to protect Trump Tower daily greatly increase the cost? Not to mention the place down in Florida every weekend. And then the boys trips overseas? You didn't have those issues with the Obamas because they're a relatively young family. I don't fault Trump for having a large family and needing them protected, i fault him for being a hypocrite. He made a campaign issue out of Obama's vacations and golfing and 30 days in or so, Trump has proven to be much worse. Another lie that Joe American barely getting by in the lower middle-class fell for.
I'm not taking up for either one of them. But don't think they have spent more on Trumps SS yet then the total on Obama and family for a year. In the long run probably, because of the larger family. They both will (and) have spent a lot of our money on BS. Hell, Obama turned a trip to spread his Grandmothers ashes into a 12 day Hawaiian family vacation on the tax payers dime before he was even sworn into office. They both are POS hypocrites, not just Scrump. SS guarded the empty house in Chicago for 8 years. We've been getting raped by Presidents and their trips, etc. for a long, long time. Nothing we can do about it. Oh well, enough of this for now, have to get out and and get some stuff done before the rain hits around 12-1 today.
EM, so you're saying the president shouldn't take a vacation? Everyone needs vacation time, but it's all about balance and reasonable timing. The biggest issue with Trump is that he constantly criticized Obama for taking vacations and going golfing, but look what's he's been doing since elected. Total hypocrite, so it isn't comparable. Also, when's the last time we had to pay to protect the president's wife in another city? It's one thing to guard an empty house, but to maintain a full security detail for actual people and property will be much more expensive.
Instead of further perpetuating speculative numbers and details about the cost for Obama, let's actually get more accurate details and numbers because we get enough made up "facts" from the current administration.
Obama Chicago house cost: According to the city, the cost to secure Obama’s home between Nov. 5, 2008, and Jan. 18 was more than $1.5 million — most of which the city “expects” to be reimbursed because of his status as president-elect.
In comparison: The costs of guarding the Trump Tower in New York City, where the first lady, Melania Trump, and Trump’s youngest son, Barron live, is estimated to cost $183 million a year. New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer says that he wants the federal government to reimburse New York City and the state for these costs.
Obama's Hawaiian vacation costs for all 8 years: For the last time, taxpayers are paying for a Hawaiian Christmas vacation for President Obama and his family, an annual luxury getaway that has cost the Treasury easily more than $35 million over eight years.
Obama's estimated total travel costs: In total, the cost of the the first family’s personal or largely personal travel during the last eight years comes to $85 million – though that is likely to climb to $90 million after additional records are released, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch based on federal government records.
Or, if you go with Fox New, 100 million: "President-elect Trump can immediately save taxpayers money by reforming presidential travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
"The Obamas' notorious abuse of presidential travel perks wasted military resources and stressed the Secret Service. Judicial Watch estimates that the final costs of Obama’s unnecessary vacation and political travel will well exceed $100 million."
The figure was originally reported as $85 million, but the Obamas' current trip to Hawaii, as well as the release of additional documents, have increased the estimate.
In comparison already (as estimated): In the five weeks since his inauguration, the President has already spent three weekends at Mar-a-Lago, which he has begun referring to as the “Winter White House,” indicating that more is in store for the lavish private club situated on a beachfront property that was not designed with presidential security in mind. Some of the estimated $10 million spent on these three trips included paying for the Coast Guard to patrol the shoreline, according to the Post. Local officials in Palm Beach County, where the estate is located, also reportedly plan to ask Washington to reimburse their expenditures on extra security and traffic management, which could amount to tens of thousands of dollars so far. The county has already spent about $60,000 a day in overtime police payments, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told the Post. In New York, where First Lady Melania Trump has chosen to live with the couple’s school-aged son, the city pays roughly $500,000 each day to secure Trump Tower. This estimate, provided by police officials, could end up totaling about $183 million per year. Security for Trump’s extended family is also expected to run up a hefty tab.
Obama vacation time: He’s taken 28 vacations spanning all or part of 217 days, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent who maintains an authoritative record of presidential activities. Those numbers do not include the latest Hawaii trip, which began Friday and is expected to end Jan. 2.
By comparison, President George W. Bush made 77 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 490 days, and 11 visits to his family’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine, spanning all or part of 43 days, according to Knoller.
What you also need to remember is that Obama did not profit from his vacations or trips. So besides paying for the cost of Trump's trips, the money is going right back to him and his businesses.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
He is hiring 15k more ICE agents and such for the deportation. That's not a freeze in my book.
That is correct. In addition to this military personnel are also exempt as they do plan to increase the number of men and women across the entire armed forces. Trade off's will be made. With respect to the ICE agents specifically though there is said to be a "cost" associated with unchecked illegal immigration. This study references the wall vs illegal immigration
But the point is the same i.e. does stemming the tide of illegal immigration actually reduce government expenditures in the future? It's possible that the hiring of ICE agents reduces future government expenditures. "If" that's the case then this hiring is not a bad decision from a budgetary perspective.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
He is hiring 15k more ICE agents and such for the deportation. That's not a freeze in my book.
That is correct. In addition to this military personnel are also exempt as they do plan to increase the number of men and women across the entire armed forces. Trade off's will be made. With respect to the ICE agents specifically though there is said to be a "cost" associated with unchecked illegal immigration. This study references the wall vs illegal immigration
But the point is the same i.e. does stemming the tide of illegal immigration actually reduce government expenditures in the future? It's possible that the hiring of ICE agents reduces future government expenditures. "If" that's the case then this hiring is not a bad decision from a budgetary perspective.
You are rationalizing an inaccurate statement regarding gov't workers.
Either way, this CIS study is flawed just like all of their other studies. It failed, from what I can tell, to take into any GDP impact by the immigrant labor that will be lost when they are deported. A similar study in 2013 that they did also only looked at the wages earned minus benefits received to determine that the NPV of an immigrant was negative. But it never accounted for productivity of the work force (how it contributes to the business/farm's revenue and tax base). This is a glaring omission and obviously deliberate. It also tries to use corporate NPV methodology (which is fine) but uses a WACC that is in line with corporation's discount rate...NOT a gov't which has access to much cheaper money. It's another BS study from a biased think tank.
BS... youre a tricky one so I would like to ask some direct questions... we may disagree, but at least your a conservative on here that can actually articulate your positions. I wouldn't mind having a whiskey or two with you and just talking things out. and who knows, maybe I could get you to try the liberal whacky weed while we were at it so I can get the real answers lol
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
I will take being "tricky" as a compliment but I need to clarify a few things before answering the questions. First...you would absolutely love having a whisky with me...i know from your posts across the forum that you are deep into the band and I think you would find the same about me. Second...about "trying the liberal whacky weed"...I have probably smoked more of that shit then anybody on here but let there be no doubt that my answers don't change when I'm high...they in fact get far more convincing. Now in terms of your questions I am actually in agreement with you...I'm troubled by all of it. Can you believe it? I know...crazy. The difference is I recognize that the type of person you elected came with a whole set of problems that your country has never seen before. Maybe the people who voted for him understood this and maybe they didn't? Maybe people appreciated the secret service ramifications/costs and maybe they didn't? The man has properties, a huge family that travels globally, and this creates tremendous security costs no doubt about it. I also don't like that he profits from these security costs but I am not at the point "yet" where I am outraged by it or whether I think it is necessary to stop going to Mar A Lago altogether. Irrespective of all of this it still doesn't change my opinion or probably the opinion of his voters that he was/is still necessary for the times warts and all.
The status quo is no longer acceptable and people are demanding results. He will be judged on results. If nothing changes then issues like golf and trips deserve to weigh him down. If on the flip side things do improve (which many of you even refuse to admit is possible) then all the golf in the world won't matter.
I would love to hear one of you idiotic Trump defenders justify this shit.
It's pretty simple actually. According to the letter part-time daycare is not a core program while full-time care is. Money/staff is being transferred to support the core program. This is going to happen across many different agencies as budgets are eventually brought under control. I am sure you understand.
i would argue that ANY daycare, part-time or full-time, should be considered core programming for our military families.
BS, no where does it say they are transferring money to support that program. They are simply cutting funding to another program. If they were transferring the funding, then there should be more full-time care, but there won't be. Also, if this is the first notice, how shitty to get a 1 week notice. Anyone with kids knows that is a major problem no matter part-time or full-time. Many families depend on part-time programming, so let's not write this off as a "budget control" measure and disregard the impact.
You're right that it doesn't mention funding but it says that staff will be reallocated to the full-time program. You are also right that this is shitty for families. I don't disagree. Budgetary cuts, which include hiring freezes, always have real world consequences. The problem is that the current state of spending just cannot continue.
Which goes to the other part of the question that you didn't answer. Cutting programs while spending on Trump so he can golf every weekend is going through the roof. That was the point you missed.
I didn't address that point because it was silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Trump golfs for free so is it being suggested that money being spent on secret service protection and/or travel costs should be reassigned to the military for increased hiring? I guess you can make that argument if you want but it will not address tour budgetary challenges which primarily revolves around entitlements and federal government employment. Employees over the vast expanse of the federal government cost a lot of money and over the years many of these employees becomes redundant and/or unnecessary for the provision of services. Now this "might" be a case where a blanket federal hiring freeze might be problematic but it doesn't make the concept any less necessary. Overtime holes in the freeze can be sorted out and/or fixed as needed. Finally...for those who claim that Trump has done nothing and/or his EOs are meaningless...this is clearly an example of what EOs can accomplish. A "hiring freeze" is in fact a "hiring freeze" and while it will be accompanied by pain it is completely necessary. Fore!
No, it's not silly at all. A true leader will lead by example. If he expects Americans to tighten their belts he should do the same. The point of the tweet was to point out Trump's obvious hypocrisy. You didn't get it, and that's fine.
I got it. It was silly.
Nah, you trying to defend Trump's golfing vacations is what's silly....but seeing you try is entertaining so continue on.
I don't think I am or have defended his golfing vacations. I was discussing a federal hiring freeze which on the face doesn't seem like terrible policy even though it comes along with real world consequences. What the Merkin and you would like to do is focus on the "hypocrisy". It's always about the "hypocrisy" with AMT. So because Trump golfs one can't defend a hiring freeze. So silly.
He is hiring 15k more ICE agents and such for the deportation. That's not a freeze in my book.
That is correct. In addition to this military personnel are also exempt as they do plan to increase the number of men and women across the entire armed forces. Trade off's will be made. With respect to the ICE agents specifically though there is said to be a "cost" associated with unchecked illegal immigration. This study references the wall vs illegal immigration
But the point is the same i.e. does stemming the tide of illegal immigration actually reduce government expenditures in the future? It's possible that the hiring of ICE agents reduces future government expenditures. "If" that's the case then this hiring is not a bad decision from a budgetary perspective.
You are rationalizing an inaccurate statement regarding gov't workers.
Either way, this CIS study is flawed just like all of their other studies. It failed, from what I can tell, to take into any GDP impact by the immigrant labor that will be lost when they are deported. A similar study in 2013 that they did also only looked at the wages earned minus benefits received to determine that the NPV of an immigrant was negative. But it never accounted for productivity of the work force (how it contributes to the business/farm's revenue and tax base). This is a glaring omission and obviously deliberate. It also tries to use corporate NPV methodology (which is fine) but uses a WACC that is in line with corporation's discount rate...NOT a gov't which has access to much cheaper money. It's another BS study from a biased think tank.
You could be completely correct but I believe that you would concede that unchecked illegal immigration does not come without a cost. I think what none of us truly know is where the math lands. Now in terms of the "statement" the concept of freezing hires and/or shrinking the size of the federal bureaucracy is not something rational people should be so dead-set against. Of course I recognize this will have real world consequences but a CEO style President such as Trump will of course attempt to do more with less. This is what successful businesses do and it is something that almost nobody in government has ever even attempted. It is a reasonable policy.
BS... youre a tricky one so I would like to ask some direct questions... we may disagree, but at least your a conservative on here that can actually articulate your positions. I wouldn't mind having a whiskey or two with you and just talking things out. and who knows, maybe I could get you to try the liberal whacky weed while we were at it so I can get the real answers lol
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
I will take being "tricky" as a compliment but I need to clarify a few things before answering the questions. First...you would absolutely love having a whisky with me...i know from your posts across the forum that you are deep into the band and I think you would find the same about me. Second...about "trying the liberal whacky weed"...I have probably smoked more of that shit then anybody on here but let there be no doubt that my answers don't change when I'm high...they in fact get far more convincing. Now in terms of your questions I am actually in agreement with you...I'm troubled by all of it. Can you believe it? I know...crazy. The difference is I recognize that the type of person you elected came with a whole set of problems that your country has never seen before. Maybe the people who voted for him understood this and maybe they didn't? Maybe people appreciated the secret service ramifications/costs and maybe they didn't? The man has properties, a huge family that travels globally, and this creates tremendous security costs no doubt about it. I also don't like that he profits from these security costs but I am not at the point "yet" where I am outraged by it or whether I think it is necessary to stop going to Mar A Lago altogether. Irrespective of all of this it still doesn't change my opinion or probably the opinion of his voters that he was/is still necessary for the times warts and all.
The status quo is no longer acceptable and people are demanding results. He will be judged on results. If nothing changes then issues like golf and trips deserve to weigh him down. If on the flip side things do improve (which many of you even refuse to admit is possible) then all the golf in the world won't matter.
Your second impressive response in the past week or so.
BS... youre a tricky one so I would like to ask some direct questions... we may disagree, but at least your a conservative on here that can actually articulate your positions. I wouldn't mind having a whiskey or two with you and just talking things out. and who knows, maybe I could get you to try the liberal whacky weed while we were at it so I can get the real answers lol
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
I will take being "tricky" as a compliment but I need to clarify a few things before answering the questions. First...you would absolutely love having a whisky with me...i know from your posts across the forum that you are deep into the band and I think you would find the same about me. Second...about "trying the liberal whacky weed"...I have probably smoked more of that shit then anybody on here but let there be no doubt that my answers don't change when I'm high...they in fact get far more convincing. Now in terms of your questions I am actually in agreement with you...I'm troubled by all of it. Can you believe it? I know...crazy. The difference is I recognize that the type of person you elected came with a whole set of problems that your country has never seen before. Maybe the people who voted for him understood this and maybe they didn't? Maybe people appreciated the secret service ramifications/costs and maybe they didn't? The man has properties, a huge family that travels globally, and this creates tremendous security costs no doubt about it. I also don't like that he profits from these security costs but I am not at the point "yet" where I am outraged by it or whether I think it is necessary to stop going to Mar A Lago altogether. Irrespective of all of this it still doesn't change my opinion or probably the opinion of his voters that he was/is still necessary for the times warts and all.
The status quo is no longer acceptable and people are demanding results. He will be judged on results. If nothing changes then issues like golf and trips deserve to weigh him down. If on the flip side things do improve (which many of you even refuse to admit is possible) then all the golf in the world won't matter.
Your second impressive response in the past week or so.
Do the trump thumpers here still believe trump is doing good? Can you really defend all of the lies? Candidate you defend the media bashing? How do you account for your president spreading obvious lies?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Do the trump thumpers here still believe trump is doing good? Can you really defend all of the lies? Candidate you defend the media bashing? How do you account for your president spreading obvious lies?
not to mention doing nearly nothing in his first month and all of them (and Trump) claiming he is doing more than any past president. it's unbelievable the shit they'll believe just because he (or Fox) says it.
Do the trump thumpers here still believe trump is doing good? Can you really defend all of the lies? Candidate you defend the media bashing? How do you account for your president spreading obvious lies?
not to mention doing nearly nothing in his first month and all of them (and Trump) claiming he is doing more than any past president. it's unbelievable the shit they'll believe just because he (or Fox) says it.
I've even noticed fox news distancing themselves from trump. At least some of the abchors.
I love hearing thumpers claim trump has done so much. He's done NOTHING. Signing executive orders is not action. He's created nothing. He's taken more vacations in 1 month than Obama did his entire first year. He's costing tax payers countless millions in unnecessary security at trump towers because his wife doesn't want to live with him. I don't much blame her.
What exactly do you thumpers think he's doing?
Post edited by Degeneratefk on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
And I forgot about his blind support of Israeli apartheid and terrorism. He's got no clue. Bibi is playing him like a fiddle and he's going along with it even though he doesn't understand it just to keep the bible thumpers happy. What a jackass.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
BS... youre a tricky one so I would like to ask some direct questions... we may disagree, but at least your a conservative on here that can actually articulate your positions. I wouldn't mind having a whiskey or two with you and just talking things out. and who knows, maybe I could get you to try the liberal whacky weed while we were at it so I can get the real answers lol
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
I will take being "tricky" as a compliment but I need to clarify a few things before answering the questions. First...you would absolutely love having a whisky with me...i know from your posts across the forum that you are deep into the band and I think you would find the same about me. Second...about "trying the liberal whacky weed"...I have probably smoked more of that shit then anybody on here but let there be no doubt that my answers don't change when I'm high...they in fact get far more convincing. Now in terms of your questions I am actually in agreement with you...I'm troubled by all of it. Can you believe it? I know...crazy. The difference is I recognize that the type of person you elected came with a whole set of problems that your country has never seen before. Maybe the people who voted for him understood this and maybe they didn't? Maybe people appreciated the secret service ramifications/costs and maybe they didn't? The man has properties, a huge family that travels globally, and this creates tremendous security costs no doubt about it. I also don't like that he profits from these security costs but I am not at the point "yet" where I am outraged by it or whether I think it is necessary to stop going to Mar A Lago altogether. Irrespective of all of this it still doesn't change my opinion or probably the opinion of his voters that he was/is still necessary for the times warts and all.
The status quo is no longer acceptable and people are demanding results. He will be judged on results. If nothing changes then issues like golf and trips deserve to weigh him down. If on the flip side things do improve (which many of you even refuse to admit is possible) then all the golf in the world won't matter.
Your second impressive response in the past week or so.
It's fair.
Only my second?!
This one and that SCTV reference were two of your better ones.
Do the trump thumpers here still believe trump is doing good? Can you really defend all of the lies? Candidate you defend the media bashing? How do you account for your president spreading obvious lies?
not to mention doing nearly nothing in his first month and all of them (and Trump) claiming he is doing more than any past president. it's unbelievable the shit they'll believe just because he (or Fox) says it.
I've even noticed fox news distancing themselves from trump. At least some of the abchors.
I love hearing thumpers claim trump has done so much. He's done NOTHING. Signing executive orders is not action. He's created nothing. He's taken more vacations in 1 month than Obama did his entire first year. He's costing tax payers countless millions in unnecessary security at trump towers because his wife doesn't want to live with him. I don't much blame her.
What exactly do you thumpers think he's doing?
Yeah, you know its bad when Fox News people start bitching about him. Megyn Kelly (now ex-Fox) was first, then Shep Smith, Chris Wallace, and even Bill O'Reilly have had their bouts with him, although Bill seems to be jumping back on board the Trump Train a little bit lately with his liberal media schtick.
And as far as accomplishments go, you're right. He's made a lot of noise but made very few actual moves (hiring freeze, ICE ramp up, lots of golfing, failed immigration ban EO, pro-pollution EOs). He hasn't even started working with congress in any meaningful way yet.
As CNN's Fareed Zakaria said: "The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been an illustration of that line from the writer Alfred Montalpert: "Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress,'" Zakaria said. "We are witnessing a rocking horse presidency," he added.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
“In carrying out this memorandum, I ask that you seek efficient use of existing personnel and funds to improve public services and the delivery of these services,” Trump wrote in the memorandum, according to the paper.
Statistics from the Office of Personnel Management, though, show that the number of executive branch employees hasn't been this low since 1965, and that the number of employees has stayed more or less steady in the last 15 years.
The full effect of a hiring freeze is unclear. According to OPM, the federal government hired 221,000 workers in fiscal 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. The number excludes uniformed military personnel. But roughly a third of those hired were military veterans, who enjoy hiring preferences in the federal government.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-orders-hiring-freeze-for-much-federal-government.html
It is a major point. The f**king idiot you think so much of is spending government revenue lavishly on himself and at a rate grotesquely higher than any other president to date... while 'sticking it' to families in service of the country.
The federal employees you lament are working overtime protecting the president, his family, and his assets so he can bask in the sun acquiring his orange hue. They'd be 'unnecessary' as well if they weren't needed as much as Trump demands them.
Stupid people voted for this f**king idiot. And stupid people are defending him.
I thought there was American carnage to address and make America great again?
(Boxing commentator describing Dennis Andries in the ring as he took a beating from Tommy 'Hit Man' Hearns)
what are your thoughts on the President going to Mar-A-Lago so frequently this early?
what are your thoughts on tax payers funding these trips which in turn Trump profits from? such as hosting the PM of Japan? any issue with the Trump profit piece of this issue?
what are your thoughts on the President visiting his 2 Florida golf courses 6 times and playing 7 rounds so far in his first month?
He took his black friend and completely unqualified HUD sec. nominee Dr. Ben Carson to the #nmaahc yesterday.
From November...
Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser.
"Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."
#completelyunqualified
truly amazing
-Ben Carson
"You're hired!"
-Trump
Ballooning federal employment a myth
Press secretary Sean Spicer has said the hiring freeze “counters [the] dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years.” But according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the federal government workforce made up of civilians has remained more or less consistent for the past 50 years. While there have been ups and downs in federal hiring, if postal service workers are included and U.S. population growth is factored in, “the federal government has barely grown in recent years,” explains PolitiFact. Currently, less than 2 percent of American workers are federal employees.
Loss of access to jobs under a federal hiring freeze will hit black Americans, and black women, particularly hard. Office of Personnel Management statistics show that blacks make up a higher proportion of the federal workforce than the private sector, and more than half of these workers are women.
Also among the hardest hit are communities that rely on federal land management agencies—among them the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management—and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. Communities that rely on federal prison and veterans center employment will also suffer potential job losses.
On February 1, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs wrote to Trump urging him to exclude from the freeze federal agencies providing essential services to Native communities, especially the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
“Even before the hiring freeze was announced, Federal agencies that provide these services were struggling to recruit and retain a qualified workforce,” wrote the senators, led by committee vice-chairman Tom Udall.
As the letter explained, IHS medical facilities, which provide primary and preventative health care to about 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, predominantly in rural areas, regularly face 20 percent or greater vacancy rates for doctors, nurses and other clinical staff. On February 17, the Department of Health and Human Services responded saying that IHS clinical staff would be exempt from the federal hiring freeze. The committee Democrats called this “a step in the right direction.”
Other community programs may still be subject to the freeze. On January 31, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidelines about exemptions but they have not yet been clarified. "We have no idea how broadly these agencies will be able to construe that guidance. It does not appear to answer the question of whether positions like teachers or other education personnel could receive an exemption,” Udall’s communications director, Jennifer Talhelm, explained in an email. “We remain hopeful that President Trump will reconsider the hiring freeze as it applies to all Indian programs,” the Democrats said in a statement.
At the same time, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) executive director Jeff Ruch, staff shortages are also a serious problem throughout the agencies responsible for public lands and wildlife management. In a PEER survey, 84 percent of national wildlife refuge managers said they don’t have enough staff to meet their “core conservation mission.”
“This freeze means that the thin green line protecting America’s natural resources will get thinner and, in some places, it will snap,” Ruch in a statement. “How this will affect fire crews, especially on wild land fires, is of particular concern,” he said in a phone interview. “As a management tool, it seems kind of crude and misguided.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://cis.org/The-Cost-of-a-Border-Wall-vs-the-Cost-of-Illegal-Immigration
But the point is the same i.e. does stemming the tide of illegal immigration actually reduce government expenditures in the future? It's possible that the hiring of ICE agents reduces future government expenditures. "If" that's the case then this hiring is not a bad decision from a budgetary perspective.
Either way, this CIS study is flawed just like all of their other studies. It failed, from what I can tell, to take into any GDP impact by the immigrant labor that will be lost when they are deported. A similar study in 2013 that they did also only looked at the wages earned minus benefits received to determine that the NPV of an immigrant was negative. But it never accounted for productivity of the work force (how it contributes to the business/farm's revenue and tax base). This is a glaring omission and obviously deliberate. It also tries to use corporate NPV methodology (which is fine) but uses a WACC that is in line with corporation's discount rate...NOT a gov't which has access to much cheaper money. It's another BS study from a biased think tank.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/20/the-real-division-in-american-life-isnt-about-trump/
The status quo is no longer acceptable and people are demanding results. He will be judged on results. If nothing changes then issues like golf and trips deserve to weigh him down. If on the flip side things do improve (which many of you even refuse to admit is possible) then all the golf in the world won't matter.
It's fair.
we will find a way, we will find our place
www.headstonesband.com
I love hearing thumpers claim trump has done so much. He's done NOTHING. Signing executive orders is not action. He's created nothing. He's taken more vacations in 1 month than Obama did his entire first year. He's costing tax payers countless millions in unnecessary security at trump towers because his wife doesn't want to live with him. I don't much blame her.
What exactly do you thumpers think he's doing?
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
And as far as accomplishments go, you're right. He's made a lot of noise but made very few actual moves (hiring freeze, ICE ramp up, lots of golfing, failed immigration ban EO, pro-pollution EOs). He hasn't even started working with congress in any meaningful way yet.
As CNN's Fareed Zakaria said:
"The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been an illustration of that line from the writer Alfred Montalpert: "Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress,'" Zakaria said.
"We are witnessing a rocking horse presidency," he added.