Hmmmmmmmmm


https://x.com/WallStreetMav/st.../1896069582085042660

Apparently, the primary weapon of the Norwegian military is faggotry.

https://x.com/real_defender/st.../1895930882063810795

Everything Zielinski and the EU are doing has put a twinkle in Putin's soulless eyes.

I think Gaza would be the perfect place for new HQ for the UN. I would even support having the US build the airport for it. Then it ends.

Other than Orban the EU are nuddered numbskulls.
If they want to go it alone. Be my guest. They are in it for the treasure and our treasury has had enough, thank God.

And these idiots are indeed playing with igniting WWIII

https://www.newsmax.com/politi...dkt_nbr=0105022w0bws

Senate Pushes to Make Trump Tax Cuts Permanent Despite Conservative Fiscal Worries

A controversial plan by U.S. Senate Republicans to make President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent by ignoring the cost to the deficit is raising warnings from party fiscal hawks and independent analysts of a potential "debt spiral" that could undermine economic growth.
Top Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader John Thune, are determined to make permanent tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year, through a parliamentary maneuver that bypasses Democratic opposition. Because rules prohibit bills from expanding the deficit beyond a 10-year window, they intend to ignore a projected revenue loss of more than $4 trillion by claiming that tax policy would remain unaltered.

The ploy is already running into opposition from enough hardline Republican fiscal conservatives to prevent such a measure from making it through Congress, given that the party holds only a 218-215 majority in the House of Representatives.

"I can't support that. It's just a way to break the bank," said Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who is one of the leading deficit hawks in Congress.

Two other fiscal conservatives, Representatives Victoria Spartz and David Schweikert, signaled opposition as well, while others said they saw the plan as a way to avoid offsetting Trump's tax priorities with deep spending cuts.

"It's heresy. They're being absolutely intellectually disingenuous," said Schweikert, of Arizona. "This is their way of avoiding making difficult decisions on modernization and changing the spending curve. I view it as absolutely immoral."

The push for tax permanence is the latest example of Republican readiness to heed Trump's demands, in a Senate that has confirmed a roster of controversial cabinet secretaries. Trump called for making his tax cuts permanent repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign and stepped up pressure on lawmakers last week on social media.

But Republicans have still voiced skepticism about the tax strategy, saying their objective should be to restrain the $36 trillion U.S. debt and preserve social safety net programs being targeted for spending cuts.

Senate Republicans who back permanent tax cuts say that forecasts of mounting debt are ill-conceived or just plain wrong. Thune and eight other Republicans from the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee vowed to Trump in a February 13 letter that they would oppose a temporary extension of the tax cuts.

Congressional Republicans in 2017 argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects.

Republicans are again forecasting economic growth as part of a formula to pay for the Trump agenda, including separate proposals to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime pay and Social Security benefits.

'DEBT SPIRAL'

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or CRFB, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog, warned that making the tax cuts permanent would mean up to $4.6 trillion in extra deficit increases over the next decade and set a dangerous precedent for future borrowing.

"Over the long run, it may be what puts us into a debt spiral situation. The higher your debt, the higher your interest rates. And the higher your interest rates, the higher your debt," said Marc Goldwein, senior CRFB policy director.

Rising interest rates mean that the U.S. would be paying ever more to service its debt. Interest payments alone represented more than $1 trillion of the federal government's $6.7 trillion budget last year.

Senate Republicans are working to revise a budget plan that squeaked through the Republican-controlled House on Tuesday to include permanent tax cuts. Once complete, the revised measure would need to pass the Senate and the House.

The House and Senate need to pass a budget resolution to unlock a parliamentary tool called budget reconciliation, which would allow Republicans to circumvent Democratic opposition and the Senate filibuster in enacting Trump's priorities later this year.

Part of the Senate's aim is to revise the House budget bill in a way that can pass the House, where Republicans can afford to lose no more than one vote on legislation Democrats oppose.

"It's complicated. It's hard. Nothing about this is going to be easy," Thune told reporters when asked about Senate plans to alter the House budget blueprint.

"We'll continue to work on the policy piece of it and try to figure out where we get to 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate."

Republicans also face two crucial deadlines on government funding and fiscal matters in coming weeks.

They must enact legislation to keep federal agencies open after March 14, when current funding expires.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Sunday he hoped to pass a "clean" stopgap federal funding bill that would freeze funding at current levels.

"We are working hard to do our responsibility to keep the government open. Democrats have to help negotiate this," Johnson said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Lawmakers must also raise the U.S. borrowing limit at mid-year or risk a catastrophic national default.

quote:

Apparently, the primary weapon of the Norwegian military is faggotry.

Vikings in Valhalla are pissed off:

Per NATO Treaty Article 13, countries can withdraw from NATO but must send such notification to the US Govt, as the signatory custodian of the Treaty, which then notifies other NATO members. After one year waiting time, the withdrawal becomes effective.

Since NATO was/is a creation of the USA, withdrawal from NATO by USA would mean that what was left NATO would then become an EU military organization. That would then effect the stability of the Euro currency as they would have to fund up their own militaries.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Apparently, the primary weapon of the Norwegian military is faggotry.

I can imagine Vlad is saying "Uff da! That's not the way an Army should be doing side straddle hops, and bends and thrusts during PT!"

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I am a DoD government civilian employee (one of the evil lazy bureaucrats we've been discussing here ...

I appreciate your posting here, Hound Dog. I hope you will continue to give your perspective.

.

Zelenskyy (AKA “Lil Z”) obviously never read “The Art of the Deal”!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cda926,

My brother and exwife both work for DFAS. They both got the email. Both were told by their supervisor to only respond to emails that come from their chain of command. Neither replied to HR's bullet point email. Both are still working.
I've watched my brother take calls from retired vets on Sundays during family dim sum time to help them through whatever they need to navigate the system.
He didn't cry about it, make a tik tok or ask for OT.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I am a DoD government civilian employee (one of the evil lazy bureaucrats we've been discussing here ...

I appreciate your posting here, Hound Dog. I hope you will continue to give your perspective.

Retired (since 2016) DoD civilian here. I agree the federal govt needs to spend less money and reduce slots, but with smart cuts. I also think the demonization of ALL federal workers is unnecessary.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Per NATO Treaty Article 13, countries can withdraw from NATO but must send such notification to the US Govt, as the signatory custodian of the Treaty, which then notifies other NATO members. After one year waiting time, the withdrawal becomes effective.

Since NATO was/is a creation of the USA, withdrawal from NATO by USA would mean that what was left NATO would then become an EU military organization. That would then effect the stability of the Euro currency as they would have to fund up their own militaries.

We won't go that far... at least not in the foreseeable future. We will scale back our participation, but we won't completely withdraw. Although, I wish we would. It would be like ripping off a band-aid, only painful for a second.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Retired (since 2016) DoD civilian here. I agree the federal govt needs to spend less money and reduce slots, but with smart cuts. I also think the demonization of ALL federal workers is unnecessary.

I agree with you. I think most here would agree with your post.


.

So I LOVE President Trump, and I like what Musk is doing with DOGE. I'm having to do some introspection to see if I'm being a hypocrite. Like, they gut USAID and fire all the IRS employees hired specifically for the purpose of auditing Republicans, and I'm cheering "Yeah! Get rid of those dead-weight bums." Now, when I'm affected (DoD Govt Civilian), I'm going "Hey hey hey, let's think about this first. . ."

I can say "Well, DoD is different, as we are important," but I'm sure the USAID and IRS people felt the same way. It's my ox that has been gored this time around, and I have to make sure I'm being objective.

I don't like the way they are going about this. I honestly don't mind the whole '5 Things I Did This Week.' It literally took me 5 minutes to come up with my list, and another 10 to tweak it. What is bothersome is the way the Air Force reacted:

We get the E-mail, saying "Submit these 5 bullets or you will be fired."

USAF Leadership comes back with "No, don't do it," and THEN goes dark and doesn't tell us jack for an entire week. We see these statements and meetings on the news, with DOGE saying "We will really fire you," but our leadership HAS NOT TOLD US JACK. Not, "Hey, we are working this - hang tight." Not, "Hey, we know you are stressed (this is our literal livelihood at risk), but we got your back." Just nothing.

Now, my wife's office came out and told them that they can submit their list if they want to. News said that 1 million DoD employees submitted their lists. So will they be ok but I'll be fired if I don't submit my list, even when USAF leadership told me not to? I spent 23 yrs in active duty Air Force - and, a fundamental truth of leadership is that a lower level of leadership (USAF) can NOT over-ride directives from higher up Executive Branch/DOGE. So is this an illegal order to not submit our list? Will I lose my job by obeying my USAF leadership? I don't know, because my USAF leadership ISN'T TELLING ME JACK.

And this isn't all happening in a vacuum. We had a civilian all-call with my Numbered Air Force leadership a couple weeks ago. It was short-notice, and other employees have said that in the past, they have had these meetings where everybody got fired. Now, this wasn't a mass firing, but we didn't know that going in. There is a lot of uncertainty here, and typically humans do not thrive in such an environment.

Both my wife and I are GS (Government Service) employees, and so this is our livelihood being threatened. There is no way we will be unconcerned about this, as there is so much at stake.

Oh, and now we hear they are going to fire everybody in GS Probation status. When a new GS is hired, we spend one year on Probation (it is typically hard to fire a GS employee - even bird Colonel Wing Commanders have trouble firing a single GS employee). Now we hear DoD will fire ALL GS Probationary employees.

I do NOT understand the rationale behind this. Just because these employees are new does NOT mean they are not needed. In fact, if they were not needed, they would not have been hired.

This doesn't affect my wife or I as much, since we both are years in. But, we have a new guy who just got hired last year, and he might lose his job. This would suck for him, as he just got hired and had a new baby, and we REALLY need him in our office. We just lost a guy who moved sections, so we are a man down already. If we lose the new guy, too, we will be short-manned. Our jobs are critical - if we don't do our jobs, our mission will fail. We can't do 50 hours of work in 40 hours, and we aren't authorized over-time.

They just can't (at least, they shouldn't) blindly fire people without assessing whether or not they are needed. I'm sure some work centers have an excessive amount of extra people, but we do not. We are at the minimum we need to do our job. If the other employee rage quits like I suspect she will, we will be screwed as we won't have enough people.

In the 1990s-2000s, we heard (OVER AND OVER AGAIN) 'Do more with less.' Well, we've been doing that for decades. A Major I worked for my last Active Duty job said "At some point we will have to do less with less." I suspect we will find ourselves at this point if they just reduce manpower without doing it intelligently.

We both are VERY pro-Trump, but I am disappointed with the way DOGE has handled this, and I am disappointed in the USAF leadership's inability to keep us informed. It's like a small child watching his alcoholic parents fighting. We don't know what it will mean for us.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sigmund:
Retired (since 2016) DoD civilian here. I agree the federal govt needs to spend less money and reduce slots, but with smart cuts. I also think the demonization of ALL federal workers is unnecessary.

I agree with you. I think most here would agree with your post. QUOTE]

I just want to add my agreement with Sigmund and TigerDore's post (as well as others here who have expressed similar sentiments.)

I agree with you, Hound Dog. I’m not GS, but still what would be considered mission critical. We are already short handed and dealing with restrictive head counts that won’t let us hire the people we need. Let’s not shoot the patient in the face to cure the disease. My organization could sure as hell lose some fat at the management level, but we need more technical people on the ground.