quote:
An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers as a way to shrink the size of government. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing.

The ignorance on this particular "highlight" makes me laugh so much. All federal agencies have legislative mandates to perform certain jobs. I suppose you could just get rid of the federal government wholesale, but until that happens, putting a freeze on hiring civil service employees means that the agencies will be forced to hire contractors at a much greater price (Trump has put no freeze on hiring contractors). It's actually a stroke of genius by the Republicans, because they can give all of our money to their contractor campaign donors, all while deceiving fools like you into thinking they are actually shrinking the size of government.

How is this any different from the crony capitalism of the Bush-Cheney cartel?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by SquatchDawg

Cohutta Wilderness

Member since Sep 2012

14343 posts

Posted on 1/27/17 at 9:05 pm to baconwaffle

Your core assumption is that the government is running so efficiently that they can't operate without replacing personnel that leave. This is laughable. The federal govt is a bloated bureaucracy with ridiculous levels of duplication and waste.

Only hacks like you equate limited government to basic services. I doubt you even really believe this but if you do - trust me - there are plenty of agencies that could disappear tomorrow and wouldn't be missed.

And don't start with the whole "fire and police" bit that gets regurgitated by countless idiots - most on this board know those are state responsibilities.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by DawgsLife

Member since Jun 2013

59021 posts

Posted on 1/28/17 at 9:10 am to baconwaffle

quote:
How is this any different from the crony capitalism of the Bush-Cheney cartel?

Crony capitalism? Is that like selling time in the Lincoln bedroom the Clinton's were famous for? Or the Clinton Foundation taking money from foreign individuals and governments, then when she loses election those funds dry up? Are all those foreigners not interested in supporting philanthropy anymore?
Or how about the Clinton's using money donated to their "charity" to pay for Chelsea's wedding?

Please don't lecture us on cronyism.