DrTigerGoob, I am not a lawyer but a casual look at the dictionary says that fraud is "deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." Sounds like it pretty much defines the Biden administration.
So why would anyone suggest fraud if indeed they don't think it is fraud. When a politician votes for / supports a program that has funds that some of which are redirected back to said politician in the form of cash, then I would suggest that to be fraud.
Have you used that same energy/question on DOGE?
Might want to change the Biden in there to Trump
But what you don't recognize is this is making America great again.
Helps the working class when the oligarchs don't have to pay taxes. Maybe we need a sovereign wealth fund with Trump pulling the strings
This right here is another reason why I would’ve never voted for Trump and just further solidifies that Trump is a tool who has never had to work, truly work, for anything in his life.
Nailed it. Coming out today and threatening employees again after the administration told people they didn’t have to.
I hope so, also! There is no room in governance for people who commit fraud in their jobs no matter which party they are affiliated with.
I am actually following the DOGE actions as closely as I can find good data on. Doesn't mean I have all the facts but I do give it a good hard look as often as I can.
I am just getting tired of the constant implications and use of the word "fraud" when very little of what has been shown has actually been fraud.
I basically agree with your statement. They also violate the Constitution when they allow the Deep State to interpret and define what the law means and then actually make some changes.
This is so low-brow but please describe to us how this "deep state" commits treason 😅
Good post.
Good post.
I agree with most of this, with the following exceptions:
As a general rule, the "best & brightest" don't typically go to work for the Federal Government. I won't bore you with the extensive list of agencies, both state & federal that I've worked with over the years, but that's my observation. On more than one occasion, I've even had California State regulators make comments about the work ethic of the federal staff they have to engage with. I just sat there and nodded. Pissing contests between State & Feds over who has authority were particularly amusing to me.
With regard to the "Type 5 things" comment...I know that's probably uncomfortable for some; however, if you know your job well but can't quickly summarize what you do and how that integrates with the mission of your Corporation/Agency/NGO to spit out 5 meaningful things you did last week, then it suggests to me you're not very competent. Maybe these federal workers have never had the "Whiz Kids" from McKenzie Group or Bain (zero idea about how important specific roles were) come in at the behest of executive management and do this very thing. PLENTY of us in Corporate America have seen this happen and had to do this exact exercise...later to see the jobs combined/eliminated.
Also, I've seen first-hand how performance management, or the lack thereof, occurs at government agencies.
I'm curious about dis-rail as well. Is this like "Duel-Threat Quarterback" or "Could care less"?
State and Federal employees in general I dealt with some years ago were very competent, honest and a pleasure to work with on projects.Good post.
I agree with most of this, with the following exceptions:
As a general rule, the "best & brightest" don't typically go to work for the Federal Government. I won't bore you with the extensive list of agencies, both state & federal that I've worked with over the years, but that's my observation. On more than one occasion, I've even had California State regulators make comments about the work ethic of the federal staff they have to engage with. I just sat there and nodded. Pissing contests between State & Feds over who has authority were particularly amusing to me.
With regard to the "Type 5 things" comment...I know that's probably uncomfortable for some; however, if you know your job well but can't quickly summarize what you do and how that integrates with the mission of your Corporation/Agency/NGO to spit out 5 meaningful things you did last week, then it suggests to me you're not very competent. Maybe these federal workers have never had the "Whiz Kids" from McKenzie Group or Bain (zero idea about how important specific roles were) come in at the behest of executive management and do this very thing. PLENTY of us in Corporate America have seen this happen and had to do this exact exercise...later to see the jobs combined/eliminated.
Also, I've seen first-hand how performance management, or the lack thereof, occurs at government agencies.
I'm curious about dis-rail as well. Is this like "Duel-Threat Quarterback" or "Could care less"?
We were all just trying to do our jobs, fair enough, but it’s more than “some” poor employees. Don’t know about you or @Dadar, but regulatory agency interfacing was my job, for decades. Both Federal and State. Was very successful at it, but it’s not like I didn’t take note of the unpleasant side of what I saw.
I have those same concerns 👍
I think the issue with the email had more to do with humiliating them in hopes it might lead to further departures and since it also came through over the weekend when some employees didn't have access to their email or could have been on vacation/leave etc... the narrow timeline meant people could be fired even before they had an opportunity to respond.Good post.
I agree with most of this, with the following exceptions:
As a general rule, the "best & brightest" don't typically go to work for the Federal Government. I won't bore you with the extensive list of agencies, both state & federal that I've worked with over the years, but that's my observation. On more than one occasion, I've even had California State regulators make comments about the work ethic of the federal staff they have to engage with. I just sat there and nodded. Pissing contests between State & Feds over who has authority were particularly amusing to me.
With regard to the "Type 5 things" comment...I know that's probably uncomfortable for some; however, if you know your job well but can't quickly summarize what you do and how that integrates with the mission of your Corporation/Agency/NGO to spit out 5 meaningful things you did last week, then it suggests to me you're not very competent. Maybe these federal workers have never had the "Whiz Kids" from McKenzie Group or Bain (zero idea about how important specific roles were) come in at the behest of executive management and do this very thing. PLENTY of us in Corporate America have seen this happen and had to do this exact exercise...later to see the jobs combined/eliminated.
Also, I've seen first-hand how performance management, or the lack thereof, occurs at government agencies.
I'm curious about dis-rail as well. Is this like "Duel-Threat Quarterback" or "Could care less"?
The Trump solution to a "politicized" bureacuracy is a bureacuracy politicized in his favor, so "politization" was never the real problem.
