Anybody hear about this?

[crazed_hoosier2]

And Banks still said the guy deserved it. Are you actually trying to defend him with this?

While I won’t defend him saying he deserved it, I will say that broad job cuts are normal in the private sector…and if somebody I laid off followed me around with a camera trying to produce a viral video to publicly shame me for it, I might be tempted to say something snarky to him as well.

Why is this guy’s job more sacrosanct than somebody who works in construction?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

While I won’t defend him saying he deserved it, I will say that broad job cuts are normal in the private sector…and if somebody I laid off followed me around with a camera trying to produce a viral video to publicly shame me for it, I might be tempted to say something snarky to him as well.

Why is this guy’s job more sacrosanct than somebody who works in construction?

Once again, I support downsizing the government which means laying some people off legally and intelligently without disrupting the mission of the organization. This is not that. This is like some company deciding they need to cut 10 percent and sending some dude through the halls to fire people randomly. “I don’t know you, don’t know how productive you are or how vital you are to this company’s mission, but you’re fired.” Hell, some of these people found out they were fired when their keycard for getting into the building wouldn’t work on Monday morning. There are legal procedures for firing people and they’re not following them. They’re likely going to lose every lawsuit and have to rehire a lot of these people. It’ll be expensive. I do know one guy on base who happily took the offer to leve in September. He’s been drawing full pay for over a month and will until September. No work. Can’t even get back into the building. He was a project manager and was able to set up his remaining people and contractors so the project progresses for now, though at a slower pace. He planned to retire this year anyway, but he would have worked and been productive until retiring. Now he gets full pay for no work for 8 months. What’s smart about this? The answer is absolutely nothing.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Once again, I support downsizing the government which means laying some people off legally and intelligently without disrupting the mission of the organization. This is not that. This is like some company deciding they need to cut 10 percent and sending some dude through the halls to fire people randomly. “I don’t know you, don’t know how productive you are or how vital you are to this company’s mission, but you’re fired.” Hell, some of these people found out they were fired when their keycard for getting into the building wouldn’t work on Monday morning. There are legal procedures for firing people and they’re not following them. They’re likely going to lose every lawsuit and have to rehire a lot of these people. It’ll be expensive. I do know one guy on base who happily took the offer to leve in September. He’s been drawing full pay for over a month and will until September. No work. Can’t even get back into the building. He was a project manager and was able to set up his remaining people and contractors so the project progresses for now, though at a slower pace. He planned to retire this year anyway, but he would have worked and been productive until retiring. Now he gets full pay for no work for 8 months. What’s smart about this? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Many were told by email, which is not the best way to fire people. Then Musk goes out and does the whole chainsaw thing to celebrate, also not the best way. They are claiming in court it is performance-based, which of course means anyone fired is sort of damaged goods looking for new work even though we know for a fact it had nothing to do with performance. The feds have slow walked a lot of people's documentation for collecting unemployment:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/unemployment-benefits-laid-off-federal-workers/index.html

There was a way to answer that, we need to right-size the government and some people have to be let go. But his answer goes back to a statement I made a while back, many MAGA see federal workers as the enemy.

 

[76-1]

@Marvin the Martian @UncleMark

FBI raids home of prominent computer scientist who has gone incommunicado

Indiana University quietly removes profile of tenured professor and refuses to say why.

arstechnica.com

Um……..

Gets curiouser and curiouser... 😎

'Both are currently safe' | Lawyers confirm fired IU professor and wife are safe after FBI raids

The FBI has not revealed why it raided homes belonging to XiaoFeng Wang, who was fired from IU.

www.wthr.com

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Once again, I support downsizing the government which means laying some people off legally and intelligently without disrupting the mission of the organization. This is not that. This is like some company deciding they need to cut 10 percent and sending some dude through the halls to fire people randomly. “I don’t know you, don’t know how productive you are or how vital you are to this company’s mission, but you’re fired.” Hell, some of these people found out they were fired when their keycard for getting into the building wouldn’t work on Monday morning. There are legal procedures for firing people and they’re not following them. They’re likely going to lose every lawsuit and have to rehire a lot of these people. It’ll be expensive. I do know one guy on base who happily took the offer to leve in September. He’s been drawing full pay for over a month and will until September. No work. Can’t even get back into the building. He was a project manager and was able to set up his remaining people and contractors so the project progresses for now, though at a slower pace. He planned to retire this year anyway, but he would have worked and been productive until retiring. Now he gets full pay for no work for 8 months. What’s smart about this? The answer is absolutely nothing.

I get all that, Aloha. Honestly I do. But the people responsible for the purse strings of government have demonstrated pretty conclusively to me that they would never do it.

I would much rather this all be approached in the right way. To me, that would mean Congress reforming our entitlements to flatten their cost curve. They could also stand to do a lot of rational right-sizing of the bureaucracies, too -- even if that isn't the primary source of our fiscal pain. And, naturally, the auditors throughout government would be competently taking care of anything approaching fraud and abuse (waste isn't their purview).

I would bet that your and my visions of the best way to tackle this problem would look very similar.

Where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimistic that the will exists to actually do that. It's far easier for Congress to kick the can down the road and just let the Fed continue to do its thing. And that's not just an American thing, it's almost always what governments anytime and everywhere have chosen to do.

Why? Because the policies that put societies in a hole are popular, the policies to get them out of that hole are unpopular....and politicians who have to face the voters are acting rationally by continuing popular policies and avoiding unpopular ones.

We have seen the enemy. And he is us.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Gets curiouser and curiouser... 😎

'Both are currently safe' | Lawyers confirm fired IU professor and wife are safe after FBI raids

The FBI has not revealed why it raided homes belonging to XiaoFeng Wang, who was fired from IU.

www.wthr.com

The story below talks about the China Initiative, the first Trump administration charged researchers who had been involved in research with Chinese researchers and didn't report it. Some were charged, none were convicted, and Biden dropped the initiative. The thought is that it has been quietly reinstated. Some of that is in the article below.

Cybersecurity Professor Faced China-Funding Inquiry Before Disappearing, Sources Say

A lawyer for Xiaofeng Wang and his wife says they are “safe” after FBI searches of their homes and Wang’s sudden dismissal from Indiana University, where he taught for over 20 years.

www.wired.com

 

[larsIU]

Gets curiouser and curiouser... 😎

'Both are currently safe' | Lawyers confirm fired IU professor and wife are safe after FBI raids

The FBI has not revealed why it raided homes belonging to XiaoFeng Wang, who was fired from IU.

www.wthr.com

Yeah. I get their concern about the secrecy but.....

Also, this idea that the justice dept is just gonna go whole hog on immigrants in prestigous research positions benefitting American univerisities is, well, dumb. No way all this happens without this guy having been caught up in something.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Gets curiouser and curiouser... 😎

'Both are currently safe' | Lawyers confirm fired IU professor and wife are safe after FBI raids

The FBI has not revealed why it raided homes belonging to XiaoFeng Wang, who was fired from IU.

www.wthr.com

Is it awful of me that every time I see that this man is named Wang, I think of Al Czervik?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I get all that, Aloha. Honestly I do. But the people responsible for the purse strings of government have demonstrated pretty conclusively to me that they would never do it.

I would much rather this all be approached in the right way. To me, that would mean Congress reforming our entitlements to flatten their cost curve. They could also stand to do a lot of rational right-sizing of the bureaucracies, too -- even if that isn't the primary source of our fiscal pain. And, naturally, the auditors throughout government would be competently taking care of anything approaching fraud and abuse (waste isn't their purview).

I would bet that your and my visions of the best way to tackle this problem would look very similar.

Where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimistic that the will exists to actually do that. It's far easier for Congress to kick the can down the road and just let the Fed continue to do its thing. And that's not just an American thing, it's almost always what governments anytime and everywhere have chosen to do.

Why? Because the policies that put societies in a hole are popular, the policies to get them out of that hole are unpopular....and politicians who have to face the voters are acting rationally by continuing popular policies and avoiding unpopular ones.

We have seen the enemy. And he is us.

Instead of the sledgehammer method DOGE started with, the President could order every Department and Agency to do a deep dive into their current missions and to eliminate those things not actually required by law (mission creep happens) then to analyze their workforce and downsize as appropriate to accomplish their missions. Then RIF (or transfer to open billets, due to normal attrition, that are needed) those personnel in jobs they don't need. This is similar to what was successfully done in the 90s.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The story below talks about the China Initiative, the first Trump administration charged researchers who had been involved in research with Chinese researchers and didn't report it. Some were charged, none were convicted, and Biden dropped the initiative. The thought is that it has been quietly reinstated. Some of that is in the article below.

I don't have a problem with those working with Chinese researchers being required to report that. Maybe there are better ways to attack the problem that is aiming at, but it is a problem.

It does not mean that the US-based researchers -- whether they're of Chinese descent/nationality or not -- are deliberately up to no good. But we're right to be wary of what kind of information we're sharing with the Chinese. They aren't our friend.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Instead of the sledgehammer method DOGE started with, the President could order every Department and Agency to do a deep dive into their current missions and to eliminate those things not actually required by law (mission creep happens) then to analyze their workforce and downsize as appropriate to accomplish their missions. Then RIF (or transfer to open billets, due to normal attrition, that are needed) those personnel in jobs they don't need. This is similar to what was successfully done in the 90s.

Maybe. At the end of the day, it's critically important that our agencies are able to fulfill their duties competently. We talked a lot about ATC after the DC crash, as an obvious example. Last night, I was glad that the NWS was on top of the violent storms that came through this region. And, by my accounts, they did.

Still, my confidence level in the bureaucracies (including Congress) being capable of addressing the problem is very low. They've had ample opportunity to do so -- and I just don't get the impression that the will to do it is there internally.

So I just think, realistically, that our available options are this way or no way.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Maybe. At the end of the day, it's critically important that our agencies are able to fulfill their duties competently. We talked a lot about ATC after the DC crash, as an obvious example. Last night, I was glad that the NWS was on top of the violent storms that came through this region. And, by my accounts, they did.

Still, my confidence level in the bureaucracies (including Congress) being capable of addressing the problem is very low. They've had ample opportunity to do so -- and I just don't get the impression that the will to do it is there internally.

So I just think, realistically, that our available options are this way or no way.

Concur. Covid etc shined a light on where some of these agencies stand.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Maybe. At the end of the day, it's critically important that our agencies are able to fulfill their duties competently. We talked a lot about ATC after the DC crash, as an obvious example. Last night, I was glad that the NWS was on top of the violent storms that came through this region. And, by my accounts, they did.

Still, my confidence level in the bureaucracies (including Congress) being capable of addressing the problem is very low. They've had ample opportunity to do so -- and I just don't get the impression that the will to do it is there internally.

So I just think, realistically, that our available options are this way or no way.

This way will end up being a massive failure. It's so ridiculously ham handed, it's just not going to succeed. They're firing people they need because they're doing no analysis at all. They'll end up rehiring some people and/or having to fill important billets. And who the hell will want to take a government job in this environment? I have a perfect example, being an instructor at the last institute I worked at while on active duty, was a coveted position. Subject Matter Experts wanted to teach others how to do their jobs better. We got dozens of great applicants for every opening, and we hired great people to be great instructors. Now, that same institute can't get anyone worth a crap to apply for the openings they have so they're going unfilled and they're beginning to fail in their mission. They can't meet the demand for he training and education they provide. This is all due to DOGE's Clown Show creating an environment no one wants to take a chance in working. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is going to result in highly visible and extremely embarrassing (to the administration) important mission failures. It's inevitable.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This way will end up being a massive failure. It's so ridiculously ham handed, it's just not going to succeed. They're firing people they need because they're doing no analysis at all. They'll end up rehiring some people and/or having to fill important billets. And who the hell will want to take a government job in this environment? I have a perfect example, being an instructor at the last institute I worked at while on active duty, was a coveted position. Subject Matter Experts wanted to teach others how to do their jobs better. We got dozens of great applicants for every opening, and we hired great people to be great instructors. Now, that same institute can't get anyone worth a crap to apply for the openings they have so they're going unfilled and they're beginning to fail in their mission. They can't meet the demand for he training and education they provide. This is all due to DOGE's Clown Show creating an environment no one wants to take a chance in working. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is going to result in highly visible and extremely embarrassing (to the administration) important mission failures. It's inevitable.

Don't you think it's possible they're expecting the restitutions?

Because I've thought that all along. Whatever happens with the courts or Congress, whatever form these agencies take after the dust settles is still going to look considerably different than what they looked like before all this began.

Like a planned Humpty Dumpty strategy. Obviously, history won't stop whenever DOGE turns off the lights. But whoever comes behind all that, whether working under court orders or not, will still be starting from a very different place.

If I'm right about this, then while it's clearly fair to call it ham-fisted, that's being done strategically.

 

[Ohio Guy]

This way will end up being a massive failure. It's so ridiculously ham handed, it's just not going to succeed. They're firing people they need because they're doing no analysis at all. They'll end up rehiring some people and/or having to fill important billets. And who the hell will want to take a government job in this environment? I have a perfect example, being an instructor at the last institute I worked at while on active duty, was a coveted position. Subject Matter Experts wanted to teach others how to do their jobs better. We got dozens of great applicants for every opening, and we hired great people to be great instructors. Now, that same institute can't get anyone worth a crap to apply for the openings they have so they're going unfilled and they're beginning to fail in their mission. They can't meet the demand for he training and education they provide. This is all due to DOGE's Clown Show creating an environment no one wants to take a chance in working. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is going to result in highly visible and extremely embarrassing (to the administration) important mission failures. It's inevitable.

I wonder if they announced that they were planning to reduce the federal government after careful analysis and that layoffs would start in 6-12 months if they would have saved a fair amount simply by natural attrition/people volunteering to leave their jobs because they didn't want to risk being laid off. Then they could have made cuts after careful analysis.

I think they would have still received push back, but it wouldn't have been the massive failure/ PR nightmare that they have exploding in their face today. I think they might've had some sensible people saying that while it sucks, it had to be done.

Taking the 'chainsaw of bureaucracy" to federal jobs was definitely not the way to go.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Don't you think it's possible they're expecting the restitutions?

Because I've thought that all along. Whatever happens with the courts or Congress, whatever form these agencies take after the dust settles is still going to look considerably different than what they looked like before all this began.

Like a planned Humpty Dumpty strategy. Obviously, history won't stop whenever DOGE turns off the lights. But whoever comes behind all that, whether working under court orders or not, will still be starting from a very different place.

If I'm right about this, then while it's clearly fair to call it ham-fisted, that's being done strategically.

If they have some great strategic plan, they aren't letting anyone know what it is. I don't think they have one and I think they're creating a huge mess which won't be cheap to fix.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If they have some great strategic plan, they aren't letting anyone know what it is. I don't think they have one and I think they're creating a huge mess which won't be cheap to fix.

Why would they let anyone know what it is?

But my theory is that they're deliberately making it necessary to fix -- thus creating a situation where it's fixed not expensively, but within the constraints of political reality. A reset, basically.

Think of it this way....when the federal budget skyrocketed during Covid, it didn't settle back down to roughly about where it was before. It settled back down on a higher trajectory.

Same idea, in reverse.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Why would they let anyone know what it is?

But my theory is that they're deliberately making it necessary to fix -- thus creating a situation where it's fixed not expensively, but within the constraints of political reality. A reset, basically.

Think of it this way....when the federal budget skyrocketed during Covid, it didn't settle back down to roughly about where it was before. It settled back down on a higher trajectory.

Same idea, in reverse.

Nothing like increasing the chaos and uncertainty. We're seeing it tank the market. It's not just tariffs; it's also the government wide chaos right now.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Nothing like increasing the chaos and uncertainty. We're seeing it tank the market. It's not just tariffs; it's also the government wide chaos right now.

You think so? I don't.

I think the volatility is mostly about the economic uncertainty from trade. As always, there are other factors pushing on it too. But I don't see DOGE's chainsaw as being one of them.

Global capital markets loved Milei's usage of it in Argentina. And with good reason.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You think so? I don't.

I think the volatility is mostly about the economic uncertainty from trade. As always, there are other factors pushing on it too. But I don't see DOGE's chainsaw as being one of them.

Global capital markets loved Milei's usage of it in Argentina. And with good reason.

trump fixed the border. we've largely eradicated the stupid woke bs defund/bail soros rhetoric etc. he could have used his political capital on the tax extensions and shrinking the gov and he'd have gone down as one hell of a success.

instead he's fcking up everything with these stupid tariffs. it's unreal

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

trump fixed the border. we've largely eradicated the stupid woke bs defund/bail soros rhetoric etc. he could have used his political capital on the tax extensions and shrinking the gov and he'd have gone down as one hell of a success.

instead he's fcking up everything with these stupid tariffs. it's unreal

Well, that's why I cited it as the #1 reason I wouldn't vote for him in 2024, after having done so before. Trade policy is never a really big issue in elections. It's just not all that sexy or sensationalist. Tell me the last politician who gave a memorable stemwinder about foreign trade on the campaign stump. But it's a BFD.

Most people who wouldn't vote for him talked about his character, recklessness, obnoxious things he'd say, etc. etc. All true and all valid reasons not to vote for him. And, of course, a lot of people put those things out there....but really are just loyal Democrats who probably had similar unflattering things to say about Bush, Romney, and whoever else. For them, Trump's outrageousness was more of a talking point than a motivation.

But not me. He has always had some really horrible ideas about trade. And that's one thing I think he genuinely believes. He's talked about it literally for decades. And we're seeing him here actually follow through with it...

...just like he said he would.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Well, that's why I cited it as the #1 reason I wouldn't vote for him in 2024, after having done so before. Trade policy is never a really big issue in elections. It's just not all that sexy or sensationalist. Tell me the last politician who gave a memorable stemwinder about foreign trade on the campaign stump. But it's a BFD.

Most people who wouldn't vote for him talked about his character, recklessness, obnoxious things he'd say, etc. etc. All true and all valid reasons not to vote for him. And, of course, a lot of people put those things out there....but really are just loyal Democrats who probably had similar unflattering things to say about Bush, Romney, and whoever else. For them, Trump's outrageousness was more of a talking point than a motivation.

But not me. He has always had some really horrible ideas about trade. And that's one thing I think he genuinely believes. He's talked about it literally for decades. And we're seeing him here actually follow through with it...

...just like he said he would.

yup. since the 90s he's been talking about it. i just thought/hoped he'd have the good sense to recognize that the timing couldn't be worse.

any way carry on. i'll be publishing my rankings of posters soon and suspect you will do well