This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
robertsnj · 56-60, M
it is not a negociation strategy. nowhere in any other line of business is refusual to work post payment (the payment being our taxes) considered a negociation strategy.
i think that taking "negociation strategy" off the table and conversing about it is a more honest starting point. that and in the idea that refusal to work or pay for work post work is in this context theft on 2 different levels
level 1 is wage theft to the federal employees even if they get back pay because the didn't get paid on time andlevel 2 is theft of services to the public who paid for those services through their taxes and were than denied access to those services after payment was secured. The thieves being the party in power that facilitated the shutdow.
i think that taking "negociation strategy" off the table and conversing about it is a more honest starting point. that and in the idea that refusal to work or pay for work post work is in this context theft on 2 different levels
level 1 is wage theft to the federal employees even if they get back pay because the didn't get paid on time andlevel 2 is theft of services to the public who paid for those services through their taxes and were than denied access to those services after payment was secured. The thieves being the party in power that facilitated the shutdow.
robertsnj · 56-60, M
@sstronaut i did not know that part--and i wasn't angry when i typed my answer but more introspective in pointing out that a gov shutdown is not a negociation strategy and taking that thought process out in describing it (looking at you every major news outlet) will yield a better starting point for conversations.
@robertsnj Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, legislation that the Democrats pushed and President Trump signed in January 2019, which ended a record 35-day government shutdown, guaranteed back pay to employees once any shutdown ends.
Trump and OMB is saying NO, they changed the policy and the policy now says they DO NOT automatically get back pay.
Well, clearly they don't understand Federal Government, as LAW supercedes policy, so unless they change the law, the policy doesn't matter.
And so my projection, is that when the employees get their back pay, Trump is going to be claiming the Federal Employees only got the back pay because he wanted them to get it... which in reality, they were the only ones threatening that the Employees wouldn't get it.
That's the problem, is most of this "negotiation" is FAKE, over non-issue, just trying to create issues to play the blame game.
It's really just about healthcare and how they're going to handle some expiring subsidies, and not all this extra stuff, but they're bringing in the extra stuff, in an attempt to use it as leverage.
Trump and OMB is saying NO, they changed the policy and the policy now says they DO NOT automatically get back pay.
Well, clearly they don't understand Federal Government, as LAW supercedes policy, so unless they change the law, the policy doesn't matter.
And so my projection, is that when the employees get their back pay, Trump is going to be claiming the Federal Employees only got the back pay because he wanted them to get it... which in reality, they were the only ones threatening that the Employees wouldn't get it.
That's the problem, is most of this "negotiation" is FAKE, over non-issue, just trying to create issues to play the blame game.
It's really just about healthcare and how they're going to handle some expiring subsidies, and not all this extra stuff, but they're bringing in the extra stuff, in an attempt to use it as leverage.
ElwoodBlues · M
@specman Yes, but federal workers have the equivalent of employment contracts (based on civil service laws), so the firings are illegal. In fact, any federal official who approves mass firings outside the 1884 Antideficiency Act’s legal parameters could face felony liability.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@ElwoodBlues Problem here is while Congress holds the purse and can control the spending, Trump has the power over the federal government and it's employees.
Why Trump can nullify DEI, through executive orders, while the spending is still approved by Congress.
Spending goes through Congress while implementation is under the president's purview.
Why Trump can nullify DEI, through executive orders, while the spending is still approved by Congress.
Spending goes through Congress while implementation is under the president's purview.
@specman
Yes, but not because of the shutdown...
They were signaling that those employees positions would be fired anyways months ahead of time, they just waited until now, so they could blame the shutdown and blame the Democrats.
Like the department of Education firings, they have been trying to completely get rid of that department as it only helps poor people, and Trump doesn't need or want that. And they were shutting it down anyways.
I have not (YET) seen one employee been fired that they weren't talking about getting rid of those positions many MONTHS ago.
They (SO FAR) have nothing to do with the shutdown, other than Trump is trying to claim it's due to the shutdown. But really they just waited until now, so they could blame the Democrats.
a lot of federal employees are getting fired
Yes, but not because of the shutdown...
They were signaling that those employees positions would be fired anyways months ahead of time, they just waited until now, so they could blame the shutdown and blame the Democrats.
Like the department of Education firings, they have been trying to completely get rid of that department as it only helps poor people, and Trump doesn't need or want that. And they were shutting it down anyways.
I have not (YET) seen one employee been fired that they weren't talking about getting rid of those positions many MONTHS ago.
They (SO FAR) have nothing to do with the shutdown, other than Trump is trying to claim it's due to the shutdown. But really they just waited until now, so they could blame the Democrats.
@AmericanAvenger Nope, that (even if it were true, which is doubtful) has nothing to do with it...
A bunch of people old folks (who tend to vote) are about to be pissed off about their healthcare cost increases is what it's about...
And Democrats wants to show that we fought for them, in an attempt to get their votes...
A bunch of people old folks (who tend to vote) are about to be pissed off about their healthcare cost increases is what it's about...
And Democrats wants to show that we fought for them, in an attempt to get their votes...
@specman Sadly I feel like the political parties, social media, news and culture have hypnotized a large percentage of their voters, where their own party could absolutely screw them, and they would still be blaming the opposite party and not believe the truth. And to be clear, that's all sides.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@specman Actually they finally gave Congress the supposedly iron proof intel that's supposed to be unquestionable to prove they have drugs on the boat.
And both parties said that the "intel" was extremely questionable and pretty darn low for intel standards...
Which means either Pete Hegseth lied to congress, or worse, he legitimately doesn't know about Intel and what he's doing...
But how much of this is just a publicity stunt for Trump?
But after that, it sounded like we're switching from South America's East Coast, and now we're going to be focusing on their West Coast...
Which they claim the purpose is because Columbia not Venezuela is getting their drugs into the US...
But really it's probably a covered excuse because Congress called them out on their Intel and/or the UN said what they were doing is illegal
And both parties said that the "intel" was extremely questionable and pretty darn low for intel standards...
Which means either Pete Hegseth lied to congress, or worse, he legitimately doesn't know about Intel and what he's doing...
But how much of this is just a publicity stunt for Trump?
But after that, it sounded like we're switching from South America's East Coast, and now we're going to be focusing on their West Coast...
Which they claim the purpose is because Columbia not Venezuela is getting their drugs into the US...
But really it's probably a covered excuse because Congress called them out on their Intel and/or the UN said what they were doing is illegal
@sstronaut I believe the intelligence was correct about the strikes, but the people running the boats are just mules carrying the drugs because they are in dire need and that need has been exploited. I don’t think they are narco terrorists by trade. They are just local fishermen.
@specman I believe Congress as even the Republicans said it was pretty low and potentially unreliable Intel.
Also, in the past, when they would intercept the boats instead of bomb them, they only had about 25% success rate of finding drugs on said drug boats.
So I believe there was a 25% chance those boats had drugs on them... at best.
Is 25% of possibly having drugs worth the cost gas, employees and bombs? Which I doubt are cheap... much less the cost of human life of those being bombed like a fish in a moving barrel.
And as you said, based on the media reports, it sounds like one or two people on the boats might be career criminals, with the others seemingly being for hire fishermen, just trying to put food on the tables.
Also, in the past, when they would intercept the boats instead of bomb them, they only had about 25% success rate of finding drugs on said drug boats.
So I believe there was a 25% chance those boats had drugs on them... at best.
Is 25% of possibly having drugs worth the cost gas, employees and bombs? Which I doubt are cheap... much less the cost of human life of those being bombed like a fish in a moving barrel.
And as you said, based on the media reports, it sounds like one or two people on the boats might be career criminals, with the others seemingly being for hire fishermen, just trying to put food on the tables.