USDA fired officials working on bird flu, now trying to rehire them
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
You hear stories like people being fired from their public service jobs, then being hired by the consulting firm and being back the next week, now with the consulting firm charging more than double what they were paid before for their time - and they're doing the exact same job they were doing...
The track is unprofitable (legacy maintenance) and had to be brought back into public ownership for safety reasons. The staff are shuffled between various paper-thin "franchise" employers. The one profitable bit is train leasing; the privatization created ROSCOs, which are train landlords, who get the real profits from public subsidy.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/18/profits-of-...
Having sold a fairly sophisticated and expensive financial product with nasty downside risks to lots of states and cities, Wall Street then went on to rig the underlying number: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ten-big-banks-settle-us-intere... (although market conditions since the financial crisis would have caused the buyers to lose money anyway)
The only legitmate ways you justify cutting public transit is
1. a superior form of transit has been established for a while
2. Literally no one is using the transit for whatever reason (which is nearly impossible)
3. mass extinction occurs and there's no one left to transit (though at that point transit is the least of our issues)
It's not supposed to be a direct profit. You Transport people around to businesses to sell to, work to operate the city with, and overall stimulate the economy.
Some predictions:
- The 2025 US budget will increase compared to 2024. - The 2025 US budget deficit will increase compared to 2024. - At the end of 2025 the US national debt will have increased compared to 1/1/25.
This is because the U.S. has become so excessively politically polarized in recent years. The typical "conservative" here is more like the "extreme right" elsewhere around the world. They're literal "extremists", taking those political views to the furthest extremes they can think of, and actively hating anyone and anything that's not totally in line with that extremist viewpoint. (The political "left" has become much the same in the other direction here these days as well, thus exacerbating the issue from the "other side".) It's really not a "winning combination" for humanity in general. When (some) folks say "both sides are the same", I suspect that's what they're referring to. They're both becoming increasingly "extremist" in their respective viewpoints, and unwilling to move toward "the middle" even a tiny bit to allow for any productive discussion or compromise that could benefit everyone involved.
I don't see any other outcome when one side is usually supported by evidence and the other side is usually driven by hatred and hysteria generated by rage-bait media. How do you find a middle ground with a nazi?
What's wilder is that the left clearly still thinks that continually framing their opposition as modern day nazis is a winning electoral strategy.
There's no room for reasonable discussion with anyone who can look at that and come to the conclusion that they're being "framed" as nazis. To be clear, I don't believe all of their voters are nazis, just those who decide to stick with the party in light of the overwhelming evidence.
Elon Musk is either a nazi or merely a capitalist who knows dog whistling as a nazi is good business right now. That my observation of this doesn't help with a national political strategy doesn't mean much to me in the moment. He's not been quiet about it, and people don't seem to care (do you?). So, I guess we'll see where it goes.
The fact that the right and large part of center do not care about truth and cares only about verbal strategy is the issue. Otherwise said, these are people who honestly express their observations and opinions on what right is.
One reason right became what it is is that years of expectation that reasonable people must euphemism away who they are. That reasonable people must enable them.
The DOGE logo literally has a Nazi wheel for an O: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/1irkzry/wel...
If you read the link you provided, even a lot of people on r/EnoughMuskSpam are calling this argument weak - it is obviously an AI-generated image, and some subtle similarity between an AI-generated image and an obscure Nazi logo is much more likely to be just a coincidence than something intentional.
TIL that Nazis invented the gear.
The left has also more or less split as of late between socialism and neoliberalism too. But that's a whole other conversation.
Especially at the part level where radical right rules Republicans and have their support while democrats are centrists and
Oh no, you're totally right on that one there. The numbers of people going to those extremes are definitely far far higher on "the right" for sure. I just find it a bit "scary" that radicalization and extremism on either side is becoming so normal instead of a massive push-back against it. It's absolutely dangerous that society is coming to accept and support the sorts of extremism that they have in recent years / decades. This is not gonna play out well for humanity. :(
And what double annoys me that any centrist or leftist who correctly described what right wants and plans ended up labeled extreme left and dismissed. Except they were all right it turned out. I mean, I used to dismiss them too, but eventually figured the situation few years ago.
Cultivate in-group bias so that any dissenting opinion are from people not in the know or who can’t be trusted.
Works every time.
Then some centrist turns up to say that maybe annoying shitposters are the real threat, while the US sells out its European allies and dismantles its nuclear safety and pandemic infrastructure.
As I think you've noted previously, there's a lot of guns in the USA.
Luigi was one of four recent, last 12 months, people in the news whom I would count as… well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".
(The other three being Matthew Alan Livelsberger (even if he only shot himself, given he also blew up the car he was in), Ryan Routh (golf course), and Thomas Matthew Crooks (ear)).
Like you, I find it remarkable how the US has managed to combine the 2nd amendment and lots of school shootings with relatively little political violence. Like, why are their politicians more sacrosanct than their own kids? Why is the 2nd amendment sacrosanct even to politicians who get the dangerous end pointed at them?
> Why is the 2nd amendment sacrosanct even to politicians who get the dangerous end pointed at them?
Sounds like a zinger, but isn’t really.
Why not?
From the outside, trust me: we have no idea why you're like this.
Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?
It really, genuinely, sincerely, makes no sense. Do your politicians think the secret service is magical pixie dust? Or are you all just so numb to the ongoing threat of it that you treat it as an unavoidable part of nature? (As per Onion headline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...)
> School shootings are usually committed by children… children have little access to politicians and little interest in politics.
I think you've misunderstood the point. Why do the people of the USA support the existence of the 2nd amendment over the lives of their kids? Just that, by itself, is already weird.
The USA is a country happy to let kids shoot each other as a price worth paying for… the constitutional right to threaten politicians? Who then act as if they don't feel threatened? I'm not even sure if that's better or worse than them being terrified by the guns, but it's just so alien a culture.
I mean, where I grew up, the regular placement of political figures in crosshairs in political adverts is already at the level of "WTF!", and yet in the USA it seems to not bat eyelids any more. Even the people whose faces are put in the crosshairs (both of targets and actual live fire) don't seem to object.
It makes no sense.
> Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?
Because the gun-loving populace is mostly on the right and they never actually do anything. Despite what you'll see claimed online, almost all of that kind of crazy comes from the gun-hating left.
But when the left discovers a love of guns, that's when you get things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
Edit: Removed distraction from my main point
besides try to assassinate the predsident twice. And yes, if your kid gets into your gun, I'd say you're responsible. So many of those school shooter gun owners were right wing.
That's not even mentioning the entire police force leans right to begin with. That's a lot of people with a lot of reckless control because they know they can't be fired easily.
I'm not really sure what Luigi's personal views are, but it's my impression that Luigi was (is) celebrated among both left-wing and right-wing people (including MAGA).
Livelsberger's uncle said "He loved Trump, and he was always a very, very patriotic soldier, a patriotic American." He was also very dissatisfied with the government but I don't see strong indications that he was criticizing from the left.
Crooks donated once to ActBlue. He was also a registered Republican and the FBI deputy director described his social media activity as anti-semitic and anti-immigration. Again, case seems open.
Routh is certainly reasonable to classify as a leftist.
> well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".
Despite who and what they targetted.
For a mere protest-based example of oppositon: an ex of mine is an actual literal communist, so way to the left of the Dems in a lot of regards, and yet was still so anti-Dem as to promote Trump the first time around.
The "anti" part seems more relevant than the "pro", when the question is violence.
But perhaps that's just me.
in my perspective, I can see DEI-right and MEGA-right
it looks like:
left ------------------------------------------------------ right
commies------------------------------DEI---------------MEGA
---i'm here-------------------------you're here(I guess)--
DEI looks just fine to you, but to those who're 'right' enough, DEI is extreme left, commies are too far to see
A one-dimensional political coordinate cannot accurately describe this situation, we need a compass
Yet only one side is literally dismantling the country, department by department, and selling off chunks to the richest man in the world.
The richest man in the world, who keeps appearing next to the president in interviews besides not being elected by anyone for anything.
There are some rather unhinged people on the left, sure, but they're basically just nutters on the internet, maybe a few activist groups, and things like that. They're certainly not the ones running the show: by and large the people elected to office on a Democratic ticket are ... just normal sane people.[1] People you can disagree with, dislike, or even hate: that's all fine. I intently dislike Ronald Reagan, but he was also a relatively normal sane person so that's okay, and part of the normal democratic process.
What we've seen in the Republican party is completely different. Not just over the last few months, over the last few decades. Remember Mitch McConnell just outright obstructed anything for years simply as a power game to make the Democrats look bad? Or Republican actors cooking up crazy conspiracies about the Clintons and then banging on and on and on about it for years and years?
And of course the Democratic party isn't perfect. But there are degrees of things, and it's just not comparable. This is "murder, rape, and shoplifting" – all are illegal and should be prosecuted, but they're also not hte same.
People saying that "both sides are the same" are deeply and profoundly misinformed, suffering from pseudo-intellectual delusions of "being above it all", or just outright arguing in bad faith.
[1]: I'm sure there are the occasional exceptions – there are thousands of people if we count federal, state, and local level and any group of thousands has a few nutjobs no matter how you qualify them. It's not above the baseline nutjob factor.
Just the other day, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was quoted as saying, regarding his own Democratic Party, that “I think the majority of the party realizes that the ideological purity of some of the groups is a recipe for disaster and that candidly the attack on over-the-top wokeism was a valid attack” - https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-mark-warner-democ...
So, (if I’m interpreting you correctly) you are saying extreme views isn’t a major problem in the Democratic Party, while Senator Warner is arguing it was a significant contributor to their loss in the 2024 election, and hence Trump being back in the White House. Who is right here?
My point: it would be rather strange for leading Democrats to come to believe their party is being harmed by its own extreme element if that element was non-existent or completely lacking in any relevance.
Maybe you think he meant "extreme" and was using a euphemism. But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe.
They are different vaguely defined degrees on the same continuum; while “extreme” no doubt has stronger connotations than “over the top”, neither term has a precise definition and the boundary between the two isn’t clearly defined.
> But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe.
True, but I think you’ll find that in that soul-searching period which inevitably follows defeat, they have the greatest freedom to speak their minds and say what they really think, or at least much closer to what they really think. And the bigger the defeat, the more that’s true: and while November 2024 wasn’t that big a defeat in raw numerical terms, I think it was a much bigger loss in psychological terms
I'm not surprised. It's a neoliberal congress ignoring a platform demanding increasingly socialistic ideals. We're not aligned at all.
I don’t think “socialistic ideas” are what Warner was talking about. I think he was really talking about social and cultural issues. If you look at antiwoke Marxists such as Adolph L Reed Jr and the Trotskyist International Committee of the Fourth International, you’ll find they’d agree with a lot of Warner’s criticisms of “wokeism”, even as they condemn Warner himself as a member of the capitalist class (with a net worth over $200 million, he’s the second richest US Senator)
He isn't, but my main point is that a lot of congress's represenatives are not aligned with what their people want to begin with. As neoliberals they do support hypercapitalistic ideas as well as deregulation. Which is the opposite of what many in their voterbase want in terms of better governmental support and proper worker protections. I'm not really focusing on the "woke" part beyond "If they aren't harming anyone, just let people live how they want, please".
It was making Mt. Everest out of a molehill. No matter the "validity", sending a missle at said molehill is overkill.
>So, (if I’m interpreting you correctly) you are saying extreme views isn’t a major problem in the Democratic Party
It is not in my eyes. Very few disagree with DEI programs and LGBT issues. If those are "woke" I suppose Women's suffrage 120 years ago was also "woke". I just want people to have equal rights in life, no matter their origin.
Americans as a whole are close to evenly divided on DEI programs. A recent YouGov/Economist poll found 45% support abolishing DEI programs in education and government, 40% opposed; a Reuters/Ipsos poll found 44% supported “closing all federal government DEI offices and firing federal employees working on the issue” with 51% opposed. [0] Unfortunately I don’t have detailed crosstabs (which tend not to be very reliable anyway), but I expect they’d show that there is a decent minority of Democrats and Biden/Harris voters who are opposed to DEI programs
“LGBT issues” are a whole bunch of different issues, and attitudes vary depending on which of them we are talking about. A Gallup poll from May last year [1] found 69% of Americans support same-sex marriage, a slight decline from 2022-2023 but still close to an all-time high. Yet, the same survey also had 51% of respondents labelling gender transition as “morally wrong” [2]. And in 2023 the same survey found 69% of Americans opposed transgender athletes being able to compete as the gender they identify with [3]. So it seems like the average American supports some “LGBT issues” but opposes others
> If those are "woke" I suppose Women's suffrage 120 years ago was also "woke".
It all depends on how you define “woke”. The African-American anti-woke Marxist Adolph L Reed Jr defines “woke” [4] as a form of progressivism that rejects the traditional Marxist analysis that class oppression is the root cause of non-class-based oppression. He wouldn’t call women’s suffrage “woke” because most Marxists historically supported women’s suffrage as a means of empowering working class women, and saw it as fundamentally compatible with their class-first analysis of society’s problems; but he does criticise a lot of contemporary “wokeness” as being in fundamental contradiction to that analysis
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2025/02/03/how-po... - I think the difference in results may be partially due to the question asked - I expect some respondents would have said “Yes” to the first question but “No” to the second, because while they support shutting down government DEI programs, they’d prefer to see the government workers involved reassigned to other tasks rather than simply fired. Asking a question “Do you support A and B?” is problematic because you don’t know if people answering “No” oppose both A and B or only one of them
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/646202/sex-relations-marriage-s...
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say...
[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate... - I can’t find 2024 figures but I assume they haven’t substantially changed
[4] https://newrepublic.com/article/160305/beyond-great-awokenin...
>It all depends on how you define “woke”.
I'd defer to modern discussion to try and define that. It's pretty clear that if they think women hires are DEI, than women's issues has some degree of "woke".
Again, it depends on the issue. The 2023 Gallup poll I cited [0] found that 48% of Democrats opposed allowing transgender athletes competing under the gender they identify with, with 47% supporting - a notable shift from two years earlier when a clear majority of Democrats (55%) were supportive. By contrast, in 2023, independents were 67% opposed, 28% supportive; Republicans were 93% opposed. A 2024 Pew survey found 75% of Democrats support corporate DEI initiatives, 21% oppose; [1] while 75% is a supermajority, 21% is a substantial minority rather than a minuscule or irrlevant one
> It's pretty clear that if they think women hires are DEI, than women's issues has some degree of "woke".
I don’t think anyone considers the mere fact of hiring a woman to be “woke”. Is Trump “woke” for nominating Pam Bondi to be United States Attorney-General, or Elise Stefanik to be US ambassador to the UN, or putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court? Were the Tories “woke” when they elected Margaret Thatcher as their leader in 1975? Is Alternative für Deutschland “woke” because one of their two co-equal leaders is Alice Weidel?
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-...
Those sound like expected numbers to me. People in general will be split if they have little opinion, because only the extreme cases will chime in.
>while 75% is a supermajority, 21% is a substantial minority rather than a minuscule or irrlevant one
not for polling. As a reference, Nixon's ratings leaving office was 25%. I wouldn't take that to mean "a quarter of the nation supported Watergate".
60+ is pretty high, 70+ is basically overwhelming support. 90% is almost unheard of and only really happens in maritime efforts or very early pollings.
So 75% supporting DEI initiatives is very high. ~50% being split on sports shows the interest is fairly low and pretty much "whatever". I wouldn't be surprised if the drop was simply because 2022 had some huge incident and then 2023 had none.
I more or less feel the same way about trans athletes; meh. it's a private organization adjusting rules for money at the end of the day and rarely about "sportsmanship". They'll do whatever makes them more money in the end. In the grand scheme of the world this will disappear into nothing as transitioning technology improves to make people biologically identical to their chosen gender.
>I don’t think anyone considers the mere fact of hiring a woman to be “woke”.
They should probably tell that to that pilot that died while Trump blamed it on "DEI".
That was part of my point. "Woke" is just a bad dogwhistle stretched beyond meaning. Pam Bondi can be not woke but Danielle Sassoon may be if that's how they frame it.
I thought Trump’s comments were about the FAA not the female helicopter pilot. Her name and gender weren’t released until several days after the accident, by which point I think Trump had largely stopped talking about it. And part of the background to Trump’s remarks about the FAA is a longstanding legal and political dispute about FAA DEI policies going back to the Obama administration, into which Trump had intervened by signing a presidential memorandum a week before the crash. [0] An outstanding class action lawsuit [1] alleges the FAA replaced a program under which it accredited college courses in air traffic control with a “biographical questionnaire” engineered to discriminate against qualified white applicants. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that underlying situation, I think it was wrong for Trump to “jump to conclusions” by blaming an air crash on it when the investigation into its causes was only just beginning; but my recollection is Trump’s DEI-blaming was about the FAA’s hiring policies not the female helicopter pilot; part of Trump’s claim is that the FAA created for itself an artificial staff shortage by refusing to hire qualified applicants simply because they were white.
> "Woke" is just a bad dogwhistle stretched beyond meaning.
There is no one single definition of “woke”. Some definitions are very vague, others much more precise. I keep on coming back to Adolph L Reed Jr’s definition, which is reasonably precise and concrete, yet also undeniably pejorative. Of course, one can reject his orthodox Marxist premises, but I don’t think the word as he uses it (and as many of his antiwoke Marxist fellow travellers use it) is a mere meaningless dogwhistle
> Pam Bondi can be not woke but Danielle Sassoon may be if that's how they frame it.
I haven’t heard anyone call Danielle Sassoon “woke”. Given she’s a Republican, a Federalist Society member, and she clerked for Scalia, I doubt it is going to happen. Some conservatives admire her courage, others may view her as foolish or disloyal, but I doubt any of them will call her “woke”-unless she goes in a very different direction in the future.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-pr...
In 2024, Republicans and Democrats in Congress made a lot of compromises to come up with a bipartisan bill to fix the situation at the southern border. Trump told the Republicans to vote against the bill that they had helped craft, because he didn’t want Biden to get the credit. They listened. The parties are not the same.
Especially at the part level where radical right rules Republicans and have their support while democrats are centrists
"Anyone who offers evidence that disagrees with me is just more proof that I'm right!"
He can't blame egg prices and inflation anymore. He's managed to mess both of those up even more in a month.
Back in the days in NL we had university grads stocking shelves in the supermarket. It was hard to see the point of it.
How useful that was became obvious when it was abolished and political parties pretty much had to explain their program as if the voter was 5 years old. The thing is, hardly anything is that simple. Picture a field with spherical cows all over.
Everything comes with an explanation simplified to the point it becomes a lie.
Every politician needs to carefully keep up with the basket of lies. More and more lies are added on top. One might as well start lying for real and profit from it. If the lion share of voters buys into everything anyway???
This was funny
If god wanted us to give power-point presentations he would have provided screens?
Maybe the real budget isn't in the books?
https://home.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new...
The strategy is to identify government agencies or programs that conservatives don't like. Then they cut funding or put up obstacles for that agency. Over time the agency can't complete it's stated goals because of a lack of funding or restrictions. Then conservatives claim the program doesn't work and it's a waste of money.
I've seen this repeatedly my entire life in American politics. It's so dumb.
Who owns the consulting firms? They are tied to the conservatives doing this. They are now getting a free cut from the backs of the people.
Musk may or may not be an autist, but his deranged treatment of people is not because of autism.
Maybe he's a little of both. I doubt they're mutually exclusive. One can be both of those things I believe, yes?
Why does it matter what musk is, when he is actively trying to make your life worse. No matter the motives.
But this metaphor isn't really aligning with Musk anymore.
> The layoffs concerned a number of Republican lawmakers, who privately warned the Trump administration that such cuts could hamper the government’s bird flu response and asked them to reconsider, according to two Republican sources with direct knowledge of the situation.
This is so infuriating - "privately". You know a good chunk of Republicans in Congress are educated people aware these many of these cuts are a mix of illegal, unconstitutional or dangerous to national security. But for the sake of their reelection campaign two years from now they're rolling over and ceding any oversight authority they have.
Show a spine, if you're going to give all your Branch's power to a dictator you might as well let DOGE dissolve congress and save us the salaries.
Congress is a joke, it fails to do it's job which is keeping the other two powers in check. But then, the founding fathers never had strong political parties in mind and thought the size of Congress and the geographic distribution would be enough to have a Congress with a representative range of opinions.
Regarding reelections, with gerrymandering and many more districts being a sure win for either party, the focus shifts to the primaries where an extreme voice can win easy if they can activate their supporters. This mess isn't easy to fix if those in power don't seed the need that they have to fix it.
When the dust settles on the buckshot of related cases and they make their way to the SCOTUS, it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch. If it’s constitutional, it’s de facto legal. And I think it will be at least 7-2 as well.
Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all?
Of course it's unconstitutional. It's clearly outlined in Article 2 that the President has the power to appoint:
>> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Only judicial appointments are life terms and that's the only one outlined in Article 3. All other appointments are at the pleasure of the President. There's no mention of "Ambassador for Life" or "Minister until replacement is Senate confirmed" in the Constitution. For non-judicial appointments, the power to appoint includes the power to remove.
> If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all?
To allow for autonomy of that individual at that agency. Otherwise the actions would need to roll up to the President directly requesting the said action via executive order. I see it as guardrails for when the Article 2 powers are being scaled out via long term delegation.
I'll thank you for providing the direct quote which highlights the gap between the talking point and the actual text itself.
I could see it playing out like this, except that you can't fire so many that the departmental mission enacted by congress is substantially or totally hindered.
Fire any one particular person? Maybe. Fire everyone in a department? What power does congress have if that were allowed?
Then we have rules against impoundment. That has yet to work its way through the courts; we'll see if those rules survive and have any teeth.
Strict reading of the Constitution, nothing. Our government was not set up to be efficient, more the opposite. The Founders were distrustful of government, especially a federal government over their states, so they set up a government that wasn't good at doing things.
Whether you and I still want that is a different question, but the ultimate legality of the congress not being able to compel the executive to take action seems pretty clear.
>rules against impoundment
this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do
Thankfully, 200 years of judicial interpretation and precedent disagree with this conclusion.
And of course, America's job is not to move fast and break things. it's to be as safe and stable as possible.
>this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do
yup, like I said. Precedent on this has been proven wrong every time. That's exactly what the judicial branch should be doing.
Those rules were passed in the 1970s. Has there been a Supreme Court decision on their validity? (Real question; I don't know.)
But if the president can decide to not spend the money, how does Congress have the power of the purse?
We did a horrible job interpreting that for 250 years if true.
Judicial branch is putting up a fight, though. But they are by design the slowest, most meticulate branch.
So conservatives said, all right, if that's the way the game is played, then we need to own the Supreme Court. And here we are.
Don't act like the game started with Reagan. It didn't. It's just that the other side was thoroughly winning before then.
I argue conservatives started it with Citizens United. Thereby making the democracit process a game of who kisses the ring of the most billionaires.
On the merits, this Court previously held that no provision of § 8468 prevented the plaintiffs' removal. See Mem. Op. at 7. First, the Court noted that “the power of removal from office is incident to the power of appointment” “absent a specific provision to the contrary.” Id. at 6 (quoting Carlucci v. Doe, 488 U.S. 93, 95 (1988) (citation omitted)). Second, the Court held that the plain text of § 8468(b), which provides only that Board members “serve for three years each” on staggered terms, does not meet that standard. Id. at 7. Third, the Court read Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897), and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), to hold that term-of-office provisions, standing alone, do not confer removal protection.
But hey, the site is still running. So, success.
Just imagine the voice:
"It’s not a tax, folks—no, no, the fake news will say that, but it’s not a tax. It’s a beautiful, tremendous investment in our great government, the best government in the world—people are saying it. And look, some very smart people, the best people, they tell me, ‘Sir, this is how we build a stronger economy,’ and I say, ‘You know what? You’re right!’ Because let’s be honest, negative interest—some people don’t get it, but I get it—it’s a winning deal, okay?"
(No, not a real quote).
Like the discussions on there look like something out of 4chan these days.
A generous interpretation might be that Elon thought that re-enabling public discussion in certain verboten topics is important enough to light a big wad of cash on fire.
It’s not hard to predict that letting people talk about those things openly will scare off a lot of people. I would be surprised if he is surprised.
Like, quite obviously the best thing he could do for profit is to shut up and quit talking publicly about politics.
I believe that people are actually making real world Tesla purchasing decisions based on his public persona, and this could have a major impact on Tesla and likely already is. Not to mention public support for and excitement about SpaceX seeming to be below what it used to be despite continued advances on their part technically.
I don’t think it’s completely crazy to suspect he’s controlled opposition or something like that, but the idea that he is doing what he is doing for money is ridiculous in the original severity of the word.
What that really shows is the quality of engineering before Musk took over. Many of the changes since Musk have been buggy and/or have to be rolled back. Twitters future is really what Musk sold to save money in the short term. Of course none of that may matter since he’s POTUS and bribery/corruption is the new law of the land.
more like, I'm the co-presidennt of the United States. So, success.
What could go wrong
This push and pull is at a lot of places where decisions around resources are made. Like in their private lives, when people don't really talk to each other right up until they are about to lose the other, like a parent, or their partner.
So he has both the authority to do that and also has shareholders and employees believing that can multitask. That's not true of others. It's not like he's hiding it or lying about it like many people who secretly work multiple remote jobs do.
The suggestion that, "It's not a good comparison because he's a boss and he can make the rules," might be technically true, fine, but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
Then do that wherever you have authority to do for subordinates, and for companies you found or are CEO of. Maybe you already did, do tell us about your accomplishments. Telling others how to run their own company feels strange, especially given how Musk led two companies to great success.
> he can fuck right off
With what authority or credentials do you say that? That is just your opinion that a lot of others don't seem to share, and they actually put their money where their mouth is, by being shareholders, investors and employees. Or hiring him like Trump did.
You are free to short Tesla stock if you truly believe that. Or quit if you're a Tesla employee or in one of his other companies. You're free to vote and campaign against his boss in the govt.
A lot of people work multiple jobs and are hired while being transparent about them. I don't see a problem with that if their superiors are okay with it.
He lead SpaceX and Tesla to great success, so a lot of people think he has proven that he can multitask successfully. If you or your subordinates(if you have any) have not proven to be capable of doing then don't automatically assume absolutely no one in the world can do that.
Only if you care about your TSLA shares. I can say he's done an awful job from a quality and worker standpoint just fine.
>With what authority or credentials do you say that?
Being (or striving to being) a moral human being.
>You are free to short Tesla stock if you truly believe that.
1. I'm not a fan of gambling with monopoly money
2. How does that even work? Shorting is predicting it falls and comes back up. I do not predict that. I know that TSLA is a meme stock held up my Musk's personality. THe moment he's out of the governmental picture it will fall. The moment he steps down it'll fall like a rock. If it falls a lot, it's not coming back up for a decade+, assuming the new owners are even interested in long term value.
>A lot of people work multiple jobs and are hired while being transparent about them. I don't see a problem with that if their superiors are okay with it.
The superior's superior is us. I'm not okay with the blatant conflict of interest. Carter over 50 years ago had to sell off his peanut farm to tale office. Musk meanwhile is geting government contacts while slashing others. It's so blatant.
>He lead SpaceX and Tesla to great success, so a lot of people think he has proven that he can multitask successfully.
And the employee accounts I read lead me to believe they had to work around Musk, not with Musk. The moment he goes hands on he does the same song and dance; recklessly fire a bunch of people who make him feel bad, scramble to try to get the best people back, and cause a lot of long term damage. He literally can't access all of his SpaceX facilities because he's not classified.
It's sad this propaganda that "he did and lead this" works so well even on other people in tech when these stories have been out there for decades.
Thanks for the advice! I already happen to do my best to act by that ideal, but I appreciate the support. As it happens, I actually haven't told Elon how to run his companies, but if you know of a way I could reach him directly, please let me know!
>Telling others how to run their own company feels strange, especially given how Musk led two companies to great success
He's welcome to run his businesses however he chooses to, just as we're all welcome to our own opinions about how he runs his businesses.
>With what authority or credentials do you say that?
What an odd perspective, believing that someone needs to have some kind of "authority" over someone else, or some kind of vetted "credentials", in order to be able to tell them to piss off if they see something they don't like. I'd be curious how you feel, generally, about questioning authority.
>That is just your opinion that a lot of others don't seem to share...
I hate to do this, but in point of fact, my first response in this thread, at the time of this comment, has 13 upvotes. My second response has 8 upvotes. Your initial response to my first comment has been downvoted enough to be greyed out. Seems like public sentiment 'round these parts is in favor of my perspective.
Just because a relative handful of people (compared to the planet's entire population) throws some cash at him in the hopes of generating more wealth for themselves means nothing in this context other than they think whatever he's doing is fine as long as they get richer. I don't believe in obtaining wealth by treating people poorly, but go ahead and keep on keeping on if you do.
And please, spare me the argument that we should "trust" the opinion of someone who has very clearly been proven to be a notorious liar.
>You are free to short Tesla stock if you truly believe that. Or quit if you're a Tesla employee or in one of his other companies. You're free to vote and campaign against his boss in the govt.
I'm also free to voice my opinions whenever I feel like it. Isn't that neat? I kinda prefer to keep my actions localized, by demonstrating what I believe to be good values towards those I interact with on a daily basis. Ya know, leading by example.
>A lot of people work multiple jobs and are hired while being transparent about them. I don't see a problem with that if their superiors are okay with it.
I never said that there was anything wrong with holding multiple jobs, and I encourage it if folk want to do that! What I take issue with is demanding absolute focus and absolute dedication from your teams, and being an asshole about it, while not doing the same yourself.
>He lead SpaceX and Tesla to great success, so a lot of people think he has proven that he can multitask successfully. If you or your subordinates(if you have any) have not proven to be capable of doing then don't automatically assume absolutely no one in the world can do that.
"Great success" in this context isn't important to me, and never will be. I don't care what you've achieved if you've had to be a lying, hypocritical asshole to get there.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/delaware-judge-rejects-request...
I got a "yes" to this twice. One of those, double the pay I was hired for for 2 years.
You'd think they'd get better at this. How many times has Trump/Musk made idiotic decisions to fire people? The nuclear safety inspectors (and rumored, some nuclear weapons experts) they fired was ... last week?
https://time.com/7225798/doge-fires-national-nuclear-securit...
Morons.
Gee, almost like there should be a process to fire public employees instead of treating it like a private business.
They did this multiple times with other adminsitrations (the DoE as an example) so I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt.
If you fired necessary people in error, you are the incompetent one doing damaging firings. No one has the duty to pretend it was something better.
Obviously Trump personally did not changed opinion, people executing his policy under his terms made predictably bad firing.
My guess is, departments don't want layoffs, but they don't want to contradict the higher-ups either, so they fire and rehire.
this can work because DOGE only has administrative power and cannot decide the budget, only those who can decide on departmental budgets truly have the power to influence the size of the department
btw, i just found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfzCjHCTmo
Your guess is very wrong.
Everybody is hired and fired by OMB (run by loyalist Russell Vought). They are now firing people directly without going through any sort of triage of who is actually somebody that needs to be let go - they are running pulls on internal HR data and firing every person who fits the criteria of "can be fired".
Shockingly, this sort of insane scattershot firing of the federal workforce is stupid! and catches a lot of people who need to be doing their jobs for us to do things like keep track of nuclear waste and track the spread of bird flu.
This seems like the same approach as the Elon going into twitter's data center to physically remove servers story. Except instead of pulling servers, they're pulling jobs instead.