Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

There's that as well.

Me: "I want to see posts from the people i follow in chronological order."

X: "F*ck you, you get antisemitism and porn bots."

I have seen tech guys like him before, and it has never worked out well.  While he does have a point that there's a lot of fat in large organizations, mass firings means you end up with people who can't get a job elsewhere, or self-hating human pigeons....

The "chained to the desK' life is a dead end and it takes exactly 1 negative career event for people to learn that.  I learned mine, and my career is now going great without me killing myself... 

The best was firing people that he had to hire right back.  ( I worked for a company that did that in the 80s.  )

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Ah but you see I don't think for a second that any of these people involved are interested in that outcome.

So, you are applying your assumptions to their motivations with no actual evidence that your assumptions are indeed their motivations? And I'm supposed to accept that because....?

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Vivek Ramaswamy for one.

He said he would make cuts to the IRS. Yes. Does that mean he would cut investigations as you declared?

16 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

They aren't accountants. They are special agents who investigate financial crimes, money laundering, tax-related identity theft and terrorist financing.

And you believe that financial crimes experts aren't accountants? Have you ever heard of forensic accountants?

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Well then I'm not sure how you can be on X and not see that it sucks shit. It's mainly bots, dropshipping ads and a heaping helping of Nazis.

And you just invalidated anything you've said.  Calling the people that disagree with you bots and Nazis means you aren't serious.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

So, you are applying your assumptions to their motivations with no actual evidence that your assumptions are indeed their motivations? And I'm supposed to accept that because....?

I just listen to what they say.

Quote

He said he would make cuts to the IRS. Yes. Does that mean he would cut investigations as you declared?

Given his stated goal of shutting down the iRS I think he would make cuts that would impair it's ability to carry out it's core functions.

Quote

And you believe that financial crimes experts aren't accountants? Have you ever heard of forensic accountants?

What evidence do you have that these agents are accountants?

Quote

And you just invalidated anything you've said.  Calling the people that disagree with you bots and Nazis means you aren't serious.

I didn't call "people that disagree with me" bots and Nazis. I called the bots and Nazis bots and Nazis.

 
  • Like 1

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
6 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I just listen to what they say.

But you can't find one person that actually said that.

6 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Given his stated goal of shutting down the iRS I think he would make cuts that would impair it's ability to carry out it's core functions.

He didn't say he would just shutdown the IRS. Now you are just mischaracterizing his position for your own purposes.

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

What evidence do you have that these agents are accountants?

 

Well: "In your role as a Special Agent, you’ll integrate your expertise in accounting with law enforcement proficiency " IRS Special Agent Job Posting

9 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I didn't call "people that disagree with me" bots and Nazis. I called the bots and Nazis bots and Nazis.

 

Uh huh.

On 10/17/2024 at 1:13 PM, Black Dog said:

One definite downside has been the proliferation of Nazi losers on the internet.

You said that didn't you? Sure sounds like someone that calls people he disagrees with Nazis.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I left it because it was buggy as hell and my feed was constantly screwed up.

I just registered for Bluesky yesterday. I am hoping it is good. 

Twitter used to be good. I saw the feed of people I was following, and interacted with them on a regular basis. Then Musk messed with the algorithms, it's just all of these garbage accounts, and hatred accounts. Like I really want to hear what catturd has to say.

Edited by DUI_Offender
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

But you can't find one person that actually said that.

Yeah it's hard to get any of these shitheads on record saying they want to cut Social Security etc because it's a political hand grenade, but that doesn't mean they won't try. It would be hard to make any significant impact on the budgets if thwy don't.

Quote

He didn't say he would just shutdown the IRS. Now you are just mischaracterizing his position for your own purposes.

The post I linked to literally starts with "Shut down the FBI and IRS."

Quote

Well: "In your role as a Special Agent, you’ll integrate your expertise in accounting with law enforcement proficiency " IRS Special Agent Job Posting

Thanks I stand corrected. But you wanted to know why they needed guns: your link says why:

Quote

Be prepared and capable of engaging in arrests, executing search warrants, and undertaking other hazardous assignments as required.

 

Quote

You said that didn't you? Sure sounds like someone that calls people he disagrees with Nazis.

I was calling a super racist dude a Nazi actually.

If I called people I merely disagreed with Nazis, then odds are I would have called you a Nazi a long time ago.

Edited by Black Dog

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Twitter is still running. It now has thousands of fact checkers that add community notes and do it for free. It has tackled a lot of the bots (you can't get them all). It has gotten rod.of tje government interference and exposed it for what it was. You don't like that he allows conservative, liberal and moderate voices to ne heard and they all have to be truthful or suffer a community note. X has become a tremendous free speech outlet. Embrace it. It's good for everyone.

Nice spin, but no sale. The bots are bad--and only more visible as the mass exodus of users continues. It's become even more of a cesspool of hate and disinformation. That's what has driven people out. It's what's driven the value into the toilet. 

This is is like a Brewster's Millions scheme where somebody dared Elon Musk to burn $40 billion dollars as fast as he could. 

Good news for Threads and Bluesky though. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

Can anyone explain to me how the DOGE is meant to work? The Congress passes laws. Some of those laws create new programs. The Executive branch carries out the laws that Congress make.

Unilaterally cutting programs and regulatory agencies that were created by statute is not within the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

Granted, with a majority of Congress Republican for the next couple years the DOGE could coordinate with Congress, but how long will members of Congress be interested in having their agenda decided by an ad hoc executive agency?

Posted
5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Can anyone explain to me how the DOGE is meant to work? The Congress passes laws. Some of those laws create new programs. The Executive branch carries out the laws that Congress make.

Unilaterally cutting programs and regulatory agencies that were created by statute is not within the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

Granted, with a majority of Congress Republican for the next couple years the DOGE could coordinate with Congress, but how long will members of Congress be interested in having their agenda decided by an ad hoc executive agency?

Well, the part that you bring up is a problem, I agree.  I don't understand it.  Maybe the idea is to find savings and pass executive orders to fix them.  But given the target for reductions (Multi-trillion-dollar) it seems like it could only be achieved with dictatorial cuts that are also unpopular.

The Trump supporters here have denied that's the intent, which is understandable.  But I don't understand how you're supposed to square that circle.  And didn't Musk say something about entitlements ?  

My bet is that this vessel is not seaworthy and won't make it out of dock.  Musk has enough on his plate running the future of transportation, the colonization of space, and the moderation of all global online conversations.  Plus he gets bored easily...

Posted
41 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Can anyone explain to me how the DOGE is meant to work? The Congress passes laws. Some of those laws create new programs. The Executive branch carries out the laws that Congress make.

Unilaterally cutting programs and regulatory agencies that were created by statute is not within the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

Granted, with a majority of Congress Republican for the next couple years the DOGE could coordinate with Congress, but how long will members of Congress be interested in having their agenda decided by an ad hoc executive agency?

The DOGE is advisory panel that will suggest cuts to spending and regulations to the house and senate. In some cases, the President MIGHT be able to use an EO. However, spending is a congressional power. All spending changes will go through the house then senate.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But given the target for reductions (Multi-trillion-dollar) it seems like it could only be achieved with dictatorial cuts

Presidential powers have been expanding beyond the consitution for 240 years. The "Conservatives" are adhering so closely to having the government do less that they seem willing to permanently hand the power of the purse over to one person. Trump has been setting the stage for fight over radically expanded impoundment powers. So that laws and funding Congress pass would basically be optional by the president and he could use that money for other purposes. It's tough to imagine that even republicans in Congress would go along with their institutions core powers being stripped away.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The DOGE is advisory panel that will suggest cuts to spending and regulations to the house and senate. In some cases, the President MIGHT be able to use an EO. However, spending is a congressional power. All spending changes will go through the house then senate.

Ah fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy. I'm not opposed. I'd go way further even and would like to see a constitutional amendment that created a 4th branch of government that with independent ombudsman, audit, ethics, and efficiency powers. These things have always been lacking in our constitutional design, which placed too much trust in the power of federalism to solve everything.

Edited by Matthew
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

In case anyone is interested in a little truth...

25% of all job gains in the US in 2023, we're government jobs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-administration-job-growth-numbers-175321823.html

I think there's room to trim the fat.

No one is questioning that. But trillions of savings can't be achieved.  So there's a contradiction somewhere.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Posted
16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No one is questioning that. But trillions of savings can't be achieved. Remote touch to programs. So there's a contradiction somewhere.

Trimming the fat only gets you so far, but it's a start. Then we have to have real conversations about what is and what isn't needed.

  • Like 2

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No one is questioning that. But trillions of savings can't be achieved. Remote touch to programs. So there's a contradiction somewhere.

Probably not trillions considering the entire spending in 2024 was only 6.75 Trillion.  It's not like they're going to be able to cut spending in half 

But i bet they could hit 1 trillion if they wanted to. Although that probably wouldn't happen right away - fact is 'automation' and 'merging offices' is great and all but it does take time and often money. 

Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Trimming the fat only gets you so far, but it's a start. Then we have to have real conversations about what is and what isn't needed.

I think the even bigger fight will be how to deliver what's needed. 

I'm sure someone like musk will look at much of the services being delivered and think "I could have software written that could eliminate all of those jobs over there tomorrow and still deliver 95 percent of what those people are" . The unions and such are going to HATE that. 

Unions aren't just about getting the best deal for their workers, they're about political power. Fewer workers means less political power. Even if they don't fire anyone, automation means less hiring in the future. 

We'll see. 

As to the mechanism -  congress authorizes how much you CAN spend, not what you HAVE to spend by and large. Also laws ENABLE gov't to create divisions and such but they very rarely require it.  It's actually a lot easier to shut most of that stuff down than youd think. 

 

Posted
32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

But i bet they could hit 1 trillion if they wanted to. Although that probably wouldn't happen right away - fact is 'automation' and 'merging offices' is great and all but it does take time and often money. 

You have the right idea. The best thing is to keep dollar targets as guide posts, not absolutes

Posted
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You have the right idea. The best thing is to keep dollar targets as guide posts, not absolutes

Well considering that doge Won't be making any actual final decisions but rather just making recommendations I suspect that that's what's going to happen. We've all seen how these things work, they will propose 100 changes, the government will say it's working on all of them but can only get 50 done before the next term etc etc and they'll drop the ones they don't want to take action on right now

Posted
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No one is questioning that. But trillions of savings can't be achieved.  So there's a contradiction somewhere.

Halting funding for wars that don't concern us would help a lot.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

TgTWA-most-us-military-spending-goes-to-

 

Didn't help from 2015 to 2020..

Ya know...I remember when mercenaries were unpopular among most people.

Maybe funding for them should be cut drastically too?

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

TgTWA-most-us-military-spending-goes-to-

 

Didn't help from 2015 to 2020..

I mean, who would make weapons as a nonprofit?

If you'll remember, Obama had gutted the military to the point that they didn't have money to fly training missions or shoot rifles or fix ships or vehicles. It was bad. Trump spent money to fix all of that. But he also worked on pulling our troops out of places that we didn't need to be.

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No one is questioning that. But trillions of savings can't be achieved.  So there's a contradiction somewhere.

There is a very simple way to come up with the money. Tax billionaires and rich corporations, like 30 years ago. The continuous tax breaks for the ultra rich and big corporations has been ongoing for decades, and has only accelerated under the former Trump Administration.

Why cut health care, social security, or pensions? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

There is a very simple way to come up with the money. Tax billionaires and rich corporations, like 30 years ago. The continuous tax breaks for the ultra rich and big corporations has been ongoing for decades, and has only accelerated under the former Trump Administration.

Why cut health care, social security, or pensions? 

In 2020, the top 1% of earners paid about 42.3% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% paid only about 3.1% of the total. How much more would be the fair share?

https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...