Trump Tells Team to Target 10% Spending, 20% Fed Workers Cuts

[Sun Devil 92]

Insult me all you want, but come up with your own material. You will go on ignore for circle jerking with Faun, Syriusly and Dot Com

Well, since you were trained to pump financial products and you use that to free the elderly from big chunks of their retirement in exchange for self interested mediocre investment advice, one is better off not listening to you, either

Kazzie,

If you wanna go The Dozens, don't start crying when you're the one left bleeding.....

You're really the very worst kind of mewling pussy, you know that?

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...


I'm sure this SEEMED really clever when you first thought of it....like much of what you bleat, it contains the seed of its own invalidation.....

It was pretty clever.

it was quite labored......leading to a disappointing denouement....

I understand.....that you don't understand (all that well).

 

[IcebergSlim]

I actually passed that course.... And several more advanced versions....

You?

So we should see net job losses after March 2010, right!

Can you count backward from 81?

Cause that is the length of the current private sector payrolls' streak.

According to the data.

I asked a very simple question which you as a true libturd avoided answering. Nice and expected.

So again, did the money run out since there was no investment made with it?

What happened to that company Solydra? How profitable did that company get after it received it's subsidy? Oh yeah went out of business. Can't make this shit up. These dufus's wish to continue to challenge and lose. There is nothing on their side of success. It's why the congress went up in count of conservatives the last three elections. And these stupid fks still don't get it.


"2011 —Solyndra, squandered government subsidy; 2012 — Benghazi; Obama lied about terrorist attack; 2012 — Sebelius violated Hatch Act; 2012 — Government hacked Sharyl Attkisson’s computer; 2012 – Obama used alias email ID to communicate with Hillary on her illegal server; 2013 — IRS targeted conservative charities; 2014 — VA corruption and mismanagement; 2015 — Falsified/altered border security data; 2016 — Iran ransom; 2009-16 — Taxpayers paid over $44.35 million for Obama and family vacations; etc. 2012 was an exceptional year for screw-ups.

Read more here: Obama’s term filled with scandals

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees .


Documents show politics infused Obama ‘green’ programs
Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig DEC 25, 2011

Since the failure of solar-panel company Solyndra, President Obama’s $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability."

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

Bradenton.com opinion?

You're a moron....

and here is a Solyndra update...

Exclusive: Controversial U.S. energy loan program has wiped out losses

from your link

"That is because most of the projects that received government loans are large power plants that are now feeding electricity into the grid, Davidson said. They include massive photovoltaic solar and solar thermal power plants in California and Arizona, wind farms and geothermal energy facilities."

Let's see how true those two sentences really are:
Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down

"Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
Federally backed project asks California regulators for more time to sort out its problems
By
Cassandra Sweet
March 16, 2016 7:27 p.m. ET
A federally backed, $2.2 billion solar project in the California desert isn’t producing the electricity it is contractually required to deliver to PG&E Corp., which says the solar plant may be forced to shut down if it doesn’t receive a break Thursday from state regulators."

Ivanpah is still cranking.....

is it producing the electricity its required to produce? Post up some fking links pup. Why you always hanging out in the shadows?

oh......so we're concerned about links, are we?

I can't quantify "required to produce"......here is something more recent than your citation....

NRG Energy says Ivanpah output on track to meet its contracts

but I expect you to remember this the next time you balk at a request for a citation....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Well, since you were trained to pump financial products and you use that to free the elderly from big chunks of their retirement in exchange for self interested mediocre investment advice, one is better off not listening to you, either

Kazzie,

If you wanna go The Dozens, don't start crying when you're the one left bleeding.....

You're really the very worst kind of mewling pussy, you know that?

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...


I'm sure this SEEMED really clever when you first thought of it....like much of what you bleat, it contains the seed of its own invalidation.....

It was pretty clever.

it was quite labored......leading to a disappointing denouement....

I understand.....that you don't understand (all that well).

Amuse me......tell me what you think there is to NOT understand....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Insult me all you want, but come up with your own material. You will go on ignore for circle jerking with Faun, Syriusly and Dot Com

Well, since you were trained to pump financial products and you use that to free the elderly from big chunks of their retirement in exchange for self interested mediocre investment advice, one is better off not listening to you, either

Kazzie,

If you wanna go The Dozens, don't start crying when you're the one left bleeding.....

You're really the very worst kind of mewling pussy, you know that?

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...

Yes, your eight year old insults backed up with contentless bluster would certainly do well in an insult contest ... if you're up against a seven year old ...


I'm sure this SEEMED really clever when you first thought of it....like much of what you bleat, it contains the seed of its own invalidation.....

You're just in love with the sound of your own voice. You'd hate The Dozens, it requires you to listen to someone else half the time

Your evidence is overwhelming.

It's certainly Boldly Asserted.....

That's Kazzie's style....

 

[jc456]

I asked a very simple question which you as a true libturd avoided answering. Nice and expected.

So again, did the money run out since there was no investment made with it?

What happened to that company Solydra? How profitable did that company get after it received it's subsidy? Oh yeah went out of business. Can't make this shit up. These dufus's wish to continue to challenge and lose. There is nothing on their side of success. It's why the congress went up in count of conservatives the last three elections. And these stupid fks still don't get it.


"2011 —Solyndra, squandered government subsidy; 2012 — Benghazi; Obama lied about terrorist attack; 2012 — Sebelius violated Hatch Act; 2012 — Government hacked Sharyl Attkisson’s computer; 2012 – Obama used alias email ID to communicate with Hillary on her illegal server; 2013 — IRS targeted conservative charities; 2014 — VA corruption and mismanagement; 2015 — Falsified/altered border security data; 2016 — Iran ransom; 2009-16 — Taxpayers paid over $44.35 million for Obama and family vacations; etc. 2012 was an exceptional year for screw-ups.

Read more here: Obama’s term filled with scandals

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees .


Documents show politics infused Obama ‘green’ programs
Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig DEC 25, 2011

Since the failure of solar-panel company Solyndra, President Obama’s $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability."

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

Bradenton.com opinion?

You're a moron....

and here is a Solyndra update...

Exclusive: Controversial U.S. energy loan program has wiped out losses

from your link

"That is because most of the projects that received government loans are large power plants that are now feeding electricity into the grid, Davidson said. They include massive photovoltaic solar and solar thermal power plants in California and Arizona, wind farms and geothermal energy facilities."

Let's see how true those two sentences really are:
Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down

"Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
Federally backed project asks California regulators for more time to sort out its problems
By
Cassandra Sweet
March 16, 2016 7:27 p.m. ET
A federally backed, $2.2 billion solar project in the California desert isn’t producing the electricity it is contractually required to deliver to PG&E Corp., which says the solar plant may be forced to shut down if it doesn’t receive a break Thursday from state regulators."

Ivanpah is still cranking.....

is it producing the electricity its required to produce? Post up some fking links pup. Why you always hanging out in the shadows?

oh......so we're concerned about links, are we?

I can't quantify "required to produce"......here is something more recent than your citation....

NRG Energy says Ivanpah output on track to meet its contracts

but I expect you to remember this the next time you balk at a request for a citation....

funny, the link embedded in the link you provided, Ivanpah CSP facility nabs more time to ramp up output, avoid default

Since 2009, this plant has pooped itself.

"Ivanpah CSP facility nabs more time to ramp up output, avoid default"

 

[kaz]

Yes, they all recovered faster than Obama did

here's one that didn't

To start with, percent of change of what? GDP growth? Stock Market? What?

Are you fucking blind, or just this kind of Stupid?

What does it say at the top?

how the fuck did you get out of GRADE school?

Ah, as I figured, it was addressing an ambiguous point not in contention.

Unemployment rates again only show those looking for a job. With historical lows in labor participation, it's meaningless. Obama has spread hopelessness to lower unemployment, yeah, what a great record.

You can't ignore labor participation, it's the key employment number. John Adams, facts are pesky things

You can't ignore labor participation, it's the key employment number.


Please stop....you're a fucking idiot.....

You think LFPR is more "key" than NOMINAL employment data?

What is the cure for "low LFPR"?

Your statement is ambiguous in several ways. Are you talking long term? Short term? Do you mean in terms of overall employment health? In terms of changes? To the President/Congress? To the employed? You need to make it a well formed statement instead of a swosh that could be interpreted like six ways.

You never get tired of blustering, do you?

 

[kaz]

Yes, they all recovered faster than Obama did

Read this question again.....

Have you considered the fiscal response in each instance?

When you are through demonstrating, once again, that you are blessed with all the insight of a nematode, I'll lead you to the source of the answer....

When I want more contentless bluster, I'll let you know. Hold your breath, it will be any second now

first describe what you see (paying particular attention to the red things, cause I'm gonna follow up on that)....apparently I have to do this

now list the components of the GDP (consumption) equation...

Is this triggering anything?

Anything at all?

Put it in CDZ, mention me, and we'll discuss

Why the conditions?

Just answer the question.

Because you're not interested in an actual discussion. You just argue every statement, change the basis of the discussion. Bluster. I'll banter with you, but I'm not putting work into a response that you won't process in good faith.

Financial salesmen like you are great at throwing crap against the wall that the layman doesn't understand well enough to realize how full of shit you are. I understand what you are saying, and it isn't much. Then you ask open ended questions looking for me to put time into explaining to you and you're clear you won't actually read it and respond in good faith

 

[kaz]

To start with, percent of change of what? GDP growth? Stock Market? What?

Are you fucking blind, or just this kind of Stupid?

What does it say at the top?

how the fuck did you get out of GRADE school?

Ah, as I figured, it was addressing an ambiguous point not in contention.

Unemployment rates again only show those looking for a job. With historical lows in labor participation, it's meaningless. Obama has spread hopelessness to lower unemployment, yeah, what a great record.

You can't ignore labor participation, it's the key employment number. John Adams, facts are pesky things

You can't ignore labor participation, it's the key employment number.


Please stop....you're a fucking idiot.....

You think LFPR is more "key" than NOMINAL employment data?

What is the cure for "low LFPR"?

equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

Indisputably

You met someone who's knowledge of business and finance is as superficial as yours

 

[kaz]

92% of economists from the U of Chicago business school agreed with something that isn't in contention, unemployment went down. The discussion is what that means. With historical lows of labor participation, it doesn't mean shit.

Damn you're dumb. You didn't read your own link or grasp the discussion. That is so classic you.

On the other hand, you did record your voice and play it back so you could whack off to it

The discussion is what that means. With historical lows of labor participation, it doesn't mean shit.

This was the first statement put to them...

Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.


See the "BECAUSE" thingy?

With what part of it are you struggling?

Do you see ANY mention of LFPR?

With historical lows of labor participation, it doesn't mean shit.


There's a guy who calls himself Corvet (named himself after his favorite car - I kid you not.......you should seek him out.....he is all that stands between you and the honorific "The Dumbest MBA Ever"...)

well no shit sherlock. What it doesn't say is it gave recovery. all it states is that some people got jobs. Whether or not they kept them past that money is another thing altogether.

Take us from conjecture to certainty....

Show me what makes you believe they didn't.

It simple, did the money run out? yes it did. Cause all of the jobs made no investment for future money. It was spend only. when the well dries up, the jobs go away. Come on man economics 101.

I actually passed that course.... And several more advanced versions....

You?

So we should see net job losses after March 2010, right!

Can you count backward from 81?

Cause that is the length of the current private sector payrolls' streak.

According to the data.

All you're trained to do is sell. You know nothing about economics or capital markets. Analysts just teach you the talking points to bilk little old ladies out of fat fees for investment advice that isn't better than how their money was already invested

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

My bad......I was addressing this

Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt

​

on the admittedly naive assumption that you bothered to type it for a reason....

​

But hey, if you think that the rate of growth of federal spending is irrelevant to that.......I'm guessing you are a Recidivist Supply Side Voter....

You've guessed incorrectly.

Shocking, no doubt.

I'll not take the bait, but a fine effort.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So let me get this straight we're going to spend more on war, go back to the shit healthcare system but gut infrastructure, science, and education to the bone.

Talk about third world!!! Burn mother fucker burn!

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.

It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.

it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.

Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.

But I'm sure you know better.

Yea, pass.

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Classic tell...
Might as well sport a conical chapeau in neon...

Oh aren't you cute.

When you're ready to engage with the adults, you let us know.

 

[IcebergSlim]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.

It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.

it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.

Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.

But I'm sure you know better.

Yea, pass.

Have you ever taken the time to learn of the projected gap has been quantified?

What did you learn?

 

[IcebergSlim]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Classic tell...
Might as well sport a conical chapeau in neon...

Oh aren't you cute.

When you're ready to engage with the adults, you let us know.

Well, your cliche is obviously the product of decades of cogitation........or 3 minutes spent listening to Cornhole Radio....

This won't involve numerous fawning references to Ayn Rand, will it?

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.

It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.

it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.

Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.

But I'm sure you know better.

Yea, pass.

Have you ever taken the time to learn of the projected gap has been quantified?

What did you learn?

Been hitting that big bowl of vodka and paint chips I see.

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Classic tell...
Might as well sport a conical chapeau in neon...

Oh aren't you cute.

When you're ready to engage with the adults, you let us know.

Well, your cliche is obviously the product of decades of cogitation........or 3 minutes spent listening to Cornhole Radio....

This won't involve numerous fawning references to Ayn Rand, will it?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.

It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.

it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.

Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.

But I'm sure you know better.

Yea, pass.

Have you ever taken the time to learn of the projected gap has been quantified?

What did you learn?

Been hitting that big bowl of vodka and paint chips I see.

Are you of the opinion that no one has ever bothered to project the "shortfall" and to estimate what would be required to meet it?

 

[jc456]

So let me get this straight we're going to spend more on war, go back to the shit healthcare system but gut infrastructure, science, and education to the bone.

Talk about third world!!! Burn mother fucker burn!

no we're not going back to obummercare, we're going to repeal that piece of shit healthcare system thank you very much.

 

[bendog]

Now we get to hear from the left that millions of orphans will be dying of starvation in the streets.

Good to see him working on what got him the job.



Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.

Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.

At least two so-called “landing teams” in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.

The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.

The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump’s plan to boost the Pentagon’s budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation’s southern border.

The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.

Keep reading…

but don't touch soc sec or medicare. LOL

But if Trump does even half of what he says he'll do, I figure the gop congress will pass soc sec and medicare reform, and he'll sign it.