Judge puts two-week pause on Trump's mass government layoffs The Trump administration's ongoing mass firing of government employees has been put on hold, with a federal judge calling the move "likely illegal" and ordering the government to hand over evidence to prove it didn't violate the law. Since taking office in January, Trump has issued a series of executive orders to slash and …
I am surprised that ronald rump hasn't installed a golden throne behind the resolute desk yet. He does have a frightening attitude in thinking he is King of the World.
I was going to say that the sooner he has a heart attack the better, but that would then leave jd vance in charge - possibly even worse.
Sounds it, unless of course it turns out to be a bogus order. It is really not clear that a district judge can usurp executive powers through injunctions without even making a ruling and without even hearing opposing arguments. Hiring and firing are clearly executive powers granted solely to the president, not to Congress, and certainly not to unelected judges. Obviously, if any EO can be stopped by any district judge, then it will be Republican judges doing the same to the next Democratic president, etc., etc., meaning the more partisan judges are running the country, and God help us all.
> It is really not clear that a district judge can usurp executive powers through injunctions without even making a ruling and without even hearing opposing arguments
The sole purpose of a TRO is to pause things in order that a properly organised hearing can be arranged, when all arguments can be properly presented.
A TRO does not usurp anything, it only provides for the opportunity to let due process be performed.
then it will be Republican judges doing the same to the next Democratic president
They already tried - republicans kept using that one judge district in Texas with a super conservative judge to push their agenda and he did the same to Biden on multiple occasions, and it was cleaned up by the appeals court. At least democrats aren't always going to one ultra liberal judge knowing that it will be overturned. In some cases Trump appointed judges are the ones placing TROs on his actions. That should tell you something about their lack of legal basis.
If you think this order is bogus then it will be cleaned up by the appeals court, or supreme court if necessary. If they decline to hear appeals or support the judge then it will turn out to have not been a bogus order, but illegal action by Trump.
If they (Supreme Court) block an elected president from down-sizing government then there is no democracy and the US will be faced with bureaucratic rule all the way down to collapse. If you have a balloon that can only take air in, there are only 2 end states; pop or decay.
Congress hold the purse strings and powers to create/eliminate/upsize/downsize agencies and rescind/amend/increase already lawful funding approved.
Direction of travel is be gift of POTUS, not as an ad-hoc wrecker..
You still don’t understand the constitution - you affirm to - and the equal separation of powers across Executive/Legislative/Judiciary by design.
These days I just assume all ACs (and a few named accounts) are Russian stooges shilling for Putin. No real MAGA voter wants Trump to have unlimited power over stuff the Constitution clearly states are the remit of Congress because they know that a democrat president would have equally unlimited power in the future.
How can this be down-voted? This person (Jaybus) has made an obvious and correct deduction. Do the down-voters want to pay evermore taxes and be tied in ever more rules and bureaucracy. Do they want to be ruled by faceless bureaucrats? Or are they the workers under threat - at least that is an understandable reason to down vote.
You seem to correlate all Government with faceless bureaucrats, pointless administration, fraud and waste and intrusion into peoples lives… with zero evidence.
US debt ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances to give a tax cut to the already (relatively) wealthy and above.
> A few minions inside for contempt of court? Harrison Fields called the judge's decision a "bogus order". That sounds contemptuous.
Contempt of court is just another court ruling, If they are ignoring other rulings, what makes you think they wouldn't ignore a contempt ruling?
The courts have no ability to enforce their decisions. They have no 'physical' arm to conduct enforcement. They rely on the DoJ for that 'physical' enforcement of theur rulings - to follow their rulings and order the various law-enforcement agencies (FBI, Marshall's, etc) to do the enforcing. So if the DoJ ignores their orders, there is nothing Judges can do to enforce them apart from issue yet more orders that will be ignored by the DoJ.
This is why it's all such a problem, in the end court rulings depend on the Executive Government Agencies to enforce any rulings. And if those agencies don't honour their constitutional duty to do so, there is nothing the courts can do about it in a physical sense.
The Democrats didn't help themselves with talk of changing or re-interpreting the constitution and committing lawfare against Trump. They effectively made him. If your opposition is cheating, you have little option but to follow suit if you want to win. This has probably been escalating behvaiour since WW2 or maybe forever. I guess it's why dominant powers all fall eventually.
The President needs the Judiciary. If 5 members of the Supreme Court announced tomorrow that (in retaliation for Trump failing to honor their judgements) they will find against the Trump Administration on every single issue, the Justice Department wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. The states would be able to kick out or completely neuter the FBI, INS, Border Patrol, etc. agents trying to operate within their borders.
I agree-ish but what do you do if some judges are more focused on politics that simply upholding the law. This is wide problem and happening in the UK too. There are cases of prison and ridiculously long prison terms for hurty words on the Internet while sexual predators get minimal or suspended sentences. There has been political capture of many of the seperate powers such that they aren't actually seperate anymore.
Exactly this. Sentencing isn't up to the whim judges. In the UK, every offence carries sentencing guidelines, which must be adhered to. Failure for the judge to do so is grounds for an appeal. It would be a serious matter for judges to ignore sentencing guidelines, and, I suspect, one which would cost them their jobs.
The idea that some judges are "more focused on politics that simply upholding the law" is put forward by people who are annoyed that they can't just do whatever they want with impunity. Even though I, myself, have personal reason to dislike judges, I still believe that in the majority of instances, they're simply doing exactly what their job requires of them.
The suggestion that people get "ridiculously long prison terms for hurty words on the Internet" is also a nonsense peddled by self-declared "free-speech absolutists" who also happen to be massive hypocrites. I'm guessing what you're talking about is people like Lucy Connolly, whose conviction reports lumped under “hurty words,” when in reality she was found guilty of deliberate incitement to racial hatred and violence under the Public Order Act 1986. She received 31 months’ custody for calling for the mass deportation of immigrants and the burning down of hotels housing them. As unquestionably demonstrated by events last year, posts on social media can and do have real-world consequences, and people can be and have been hurt or killed as a result.
And as for the idea that "sexual predators get minimal or suspended sentences", this is easily disprovable Daily-Mail-peddled bullshit. In the early 1990s, the average sentence for rape was around 6 years. Meanwhile, in 2020, the average sentence for rape was around 10 years. Want more evidence that we're not going "soft on crime" as idiots with an agenda seem to keep shouting? Okay. In general, average custodial sentence lengths (for all offences) have roughly doubled since 1998. Furthermore, the average custodial sentence length for sexual offences increased by 50% between 2007 and 2017. Look shit up before talking shit about shit.
Lucy Connolly is the one that got picked up on. She lost it having a young girl of similar age to those killed, went for a walk cooled down and deleted her statement. As a parent I can empathise with her feelings. I have a little more control. She is not the only one, there have been others less publcised. One committed suicide in prison. I agree these are not the majority of cases but they are becoming more common. Parliaments in Europe & UK keep pushing further censorship bills under the claims of "protecting" us. If you cannot see the danger then you are either a fool or hope to be on the Stasi side of things when we get there. Lucy Connolly admitted she was wrong, retracted her heated remark yet was slammed anyway. Her act was worthy of a police visit and serious warning, no more. There have been many reported cases of Imans and other Muslims making similar remarks of hatred and violence and it's ignored. This is so inflammatory one can only deduce 2 reasons; votes or wanting to create division and hatred between cultures.
Am I saying white good, black bad. Not in the least, I am fully aware how Western intelligence agencies have stirred up trouble for decades amongst nations acting independently and consequently it resulting in death and destruction. Had they not, some of the division and hatred developing would not be happening. Unfortunately, most are not aware and it it still does not justify making examples of people for idealogical purposes. That is surely aimed at suppression of free speech through psychological means, choosing a young mother especially. There is of course the secondary impact on her child and family.
For a serious sexual offence, i.e., rape there should never be anything other than jail and the same for a false accusation. Rape cannot happen by accident. I am not saying every judge is corrupt and I am sure the majority are not but they do exist and should be rooted out and dismissed. Justice becomes more "unjust" and less equally applied day by day as appointees are made on political beliefs. That isn't an overt practice by one party only, it is systemic bias that is allowed to develop because it serves certain malign interests.
"Imans [sic] and other Muslims making similar remarks of hatred and violence and it's ignored."[citation needed]
"Lucy Connolly admitted she was wrong, retracted her heated remark yet was slammed anyway."
Sooo... by your logic if I raped someone and then admitted I was wrong and apologised, that would be fine? Damage still done.
This is not censorship. Would you advocate for my right to say that your home should be burnt down? Oh but it's fine, I was just angry in the heat of the moment. What if I stabbed you in the heat of the moment and then changed my mind after a walk to cool down? Surely fine?
Yes, these are dumb extrapolations, but what you are describing is precisely the kind of two-tier justice you claim to be railing against. They did not "choose" a young mother: she chose to post the tweet. You seem to suggest that if it was an Imam who made a similar statement, then they would somehow deserve to go to jail more than she. Both have exactly the same level of culpability. Do you not see the problem there?
Sigh ….
- The elected Executive issues direction of travel
- The Legislative branch consents to and enacts the agreement/funding into law of the above by the consent of the elected representative democracy members
- The (appointed and confirmed by both of the above) judiciary members ensure those laws - as written and sometimes interpreted - are being followed.(why well crafted legislation is always good).
It’s Meerkat “Simple’s”
If separation of powers means the elected cannot govern there is a BIG problem. From the UK experience I believe that problems start arising when appointments of separate powers are made politically. The so called fairer, more democratic election of the Lords in the UK has not improved things with parties desperately trying to stuff it full of their people. It was better with unelected toffs. At least the toffs had an interest in low taxes especially inheritance tax and property rights.
It you don’t have a madman as executive and have a majority in the legislature who can make and fund good law … you. Can easily govern. If you don’t have a majority it’s either a coalition or bill by bill compromise.
Judiciary are there to ensure the law - as written - is followed.that’s it. Most of the injunctions have been granted as Trump is deemed by a law professional to be violating the law - as written. He does not have unfettered powers.… by design.
<......."The so called fairer, more democratic election of the Lords in the UK has not improved things".....>
There is as yet no 'democratic election' of the Lords. We have simply gone from a large proportion being hereditary peers (many not directly affiliated to a political party, and therefore free to act in what they see as the best interests of the country), to a situation now is the vast majority are political appointees.
However, I would agree that the current situation has resulted in a less fair, more politically partisan (and therefore less objective) second chamber; and that filling the chamber with political appointees (mainly ex-members of the Commons) is if anything, less democratic than the previous situation.
UK HoL … probably less shit is probably a good status update of how it is now v’s last century.
The evolution of ‘The Law Lords’ to an independent UK-wide Supreme Court is a positive move forward. As played out 2 weeks ago by the clarification of the definition of a woman in the Equality Act and the case brought by the Scottish Government.
What we don’t need is a revisionary second chamber populated by the same electoral split/demographic as the primary chamber. You might as well just not bother in that case as a waste of time/resources - see Scottish Parliament…. not that they get it right all the time - see above. Hopefully a few people apologiese. to JK Rowling as it sided with her viewpoint on the clarification of the law - *as written*.
The judgement by the UK Supreme Court was strictly limited to the definition of a woman under the UK Equalities Act, and applies only to the provisions of that act. The fact that JK Rowling took this as tacit confirmation of her opinion in crusade against trans people only illustrates that she doesn't understand what the ruling was about (and neither do you), and that she is desperately grasping for anything that she can use to amplify her hate speech. If you think that any of her "gender critical" bollocks that she spouts is anything other than bollocks, then you are exactly as stupid and bigoted as she is.
It's probably worth reminding people that the modus operandi of the far right is to find a minority group which can't defend itself, and demonise them. If you genuinely think trans people are the problem, then you are suckling on the teat of fascism and should hang your head in shame.
It's also worth pointing out that on the grounds of "making women safer", this judgement has led to our idiotic government saying that trans people should use the toilet that matches their "birth gender" (ignoring for the moment the fact that intersex people exist, as do people whose primary sexual characteristics at birth do not match their sex chromosomes). What this means in practice that trans men (people born female but who have transitioned to male and appear outwardly male) now have to use women's toilets. The consequences of this are twofold: either you get "genital inspectors" in public toilets which would be a horrendous invasion of everyone's privacy (including yours) and is obviously unworkable, or you run the very real risk of men going into women's toilets, stating they are trans men, and attacking women, which is statistically much more likely than a trans person committing a sexual assault. A quick reminder: the vast majority of all sex crimes are committed by cis-gendered men against women, followed by those committed by cis-gendered men against other men, and against children. Trans people don't even show up meaningfully in the statistics.
So, in summary, and the tl;dr; for lazy readers: there are a number of ways in which you, personally, can be shown to be a fucking idiot.
Hm. Couldn't decide whether to downvote or upvote you. I'm sticking my neck out to be taken down by people with extreme views here, but give me a chance to present some nuance [he asked, probably in vain]. I generally agree with your thrust (so to speak), but I am largely on the side of JKR – albeit with a desire that she would be rather more measured and perhaps at least try not to sound like she hates trans people. But I do think that the statements by the younger of the HP actors are crass and bandwagonesque. I can see that they're trying to show support, but their – ironically binary – opinions are not well thought through.
I don't believe JKR actually does hate trans people. Her opinion that trans women are not the same thing as women is a simple fact; to say otherwise is to deny objective reality. The fact that the phrase "trans woman" exists demonstrates this unequivocally. Claiming that a trans woman will have had the same arc of life experiences as a cis woman is in fact to do both a disservice: it erases the possibility of each talking about their own distinct experiences. Whatever happened to the idea of pride in distinctiveness? Is not a trans identity one to be celebrated in its own right? If you try to claim that it is no different from being a woman from birth, then you remove that as a possibility. Its also a simple falsehood.
Trans people should have the right to live in their role as their chosen gender, to do as they like, and to go about their business as they please. Unfortunately, as with all rights, these rights must be balanced against the rights of others. Trans women playing physical sports will clearly have – on average – an advantage, so they should not be given carte blanche; it should be down to the choice of the other people/teams/organisations involved. Trans women who still have male genitalia should probably not be in women's-only spaces where there may be communal nudity. They should certainly not be in women's prisons (after they've had the chop – different story, I say – down to case-by-case). Toilets? Tough one. I personally don't go waving my schlong around in public anyway, and I think urinals are a primitive throwback that should be got rid of. But if people are "passing" and just getting on with it, I really don't care either way.
The ruling by the supreme court was exactly what it should have been, and it would have made no sense to rule any other way. The government, however, probably needs to get its shit together regarding its messaging. Truth is, most trans people are quietly getting on with their lives in their chosen gender and will continue to go into whichever toilet makes sense to them. The real problem here are the shouty people on both sides who are actively trying to make everything a problem.
The main problem with JKR is that she does indeed try to sound like she doesn't hate trans people, and she dresses her arguments up in all sorts of nuanced euphemism, like "gender critical". She's bright enough to know the consequences of both her words and her actions, and their effect on an increasingly marginalised group. Incidentally, the only person I know who has ever been attacked in a toilet, is a trans man. From what I hear, trans people being attacked is far, far, far more common than trans people doing the attacking, but the sort of "othering" language put forward by people like JKR couches them as the threat. That, there, is the problem, because, without realising it, you have probably subconsciously swallowed the idea that trans people are a threat, but conveniently forgotten that we live in a very patriarchal society where men sexually assault women on a daily basis, and usually get away with it. If Rowling genuinely had a concern about women's safety, she'd be campaigning against rape culture, but she isn't, because guess what? She's a transphobic bigot.
And here we have the blindingly stupid assumption that every cis woman's lived experience is identical, and categorically different to that of a trans woman's.
I don't presume to speak for women; you (an obviously white, male, right-wing AC), do. Your comment does, however, sound like that which comes from someone who never interacts with women. Is there a court order that stops this, perhaps? You certainly sound like someone who has never met any trans people, or observed any real-world interaction between women, trans or otherwise.
She wasn't crusading she was standing up for women's rights and common sense. There are 2 genders, ignoring some very few edge cases. Anything else is attention seeking or symptomatic of a deeper problem. You can put on a dress and make up but that doesn't make you a woman or vice versa. Women are given private spaces for a reason, because some men are predatory and some remain predatory in a dress, some wear the dress simply because it gets them into women's spaces. I support the right of people, in situations without dress code to wear anything they want, in private to perform whatever consented sexual act they want but if you start chopping your body around and taking drugs you are going to end up in a very bad place and it still doesn't change your inherent sex. Push this on children, make it normal for them or sexualise them early then you an evil predatory human.
Simply put, bollocks.
Please cite me one genuine case where a man "has put on a dress" to get into women-only spaces in order to assault women, because I really think you can't do so. Even if you were able to, it would be far outweighed by the cases of men just going into women only spaces and assaulting women, and this line of argument makes this vastly more likely, not less likely, because, and I'll state this again, and this time spell this out in block capitals so it can grab the attention of your rather dim mind: REQUIRING PEOPLE TO USE THE TOILET OF THEIR "BIRTH GENDER" AFTER TRANSITIONING MEANS THAT CIS-GENDERED MEN (THE ONES MOST LIKELY TO ASSAULT CIS-GENDERED WOMEN) CAN SAY "I AM A TRANS MAN, SO I HAVE TO USE THIS TOILET" AND WALK INTO A WOMEN'S TOILET IN ORDER TO ASSAULT A WOMAN.
Now, the whole argument around toilets in regard to "protecting women" is utterly specious, because not only do men already attack women in women's toilets (there isn't some sort of magical force-field that stops them going in there), men also attack women in lots of places that aren't toilets. At work, at home, on public transport, OUTSIDE TOILETS, in bars, in restaurants, pretty much everywhere, and turning the eye of scrutiny on the already marginalised trans community does absolutely fuck all to address the real, and ever-present problem of toxic masculinity and "rape culture". The argument boils down to "if only it wasn't allowed, it wouldn't happen," which is obvious bollocks as evidenced by the existence of murder trials. The deceptive language of dressing up trans people as "part of the problem" is transphobic, whether or not you have been pulled into the argument through ignorance, or have wilfully gone down that line of reasoning with full knowledge of the implications, like JK Rowling has. It is faulty logic, based on biased reasoning, which has "trans people are a threat" as its ab initio condition. "Fear those people because they are different to you, and therefore should have fewer rights". That, my good sir, is fascism.
FWIW, I have friends in the trans community, both trans men and trans women. None of them corresponds to the sort of crude caricature of "sex offender by default" that "gender critical activists" like to implicitly portray.
According to reductio ad absurdum, you are the one who is absurd.
What other people believe is utterly irrelevant, treating other human beings with basic respect is what is important here.
Believe it or not (ha!), other people hold a whole range of beliefs which, to you, may seem absurd. Feel free to fight anyone who disagrees with you, but historically, this ends badly for all involved. The working solution is something called secularism, where people let other's hold their beliefs without trying to enforce their own onto them. After all, it is supremely arrogant to assume that oneself is correct in everything, and that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong.
Anyway, you have singularly failed to address my original point, via a number of argument-switching manoeuvres (don't think nobody has noticed), which is very real problem, which actually exists, of men (not trans women) attacking women, and of idiots like you trying to make out that it's trans women who are the problem. Making rules that trans men have to use women's toilets means that those same men can walk into those toilets unchallenged, beyond simply having to claim that they are a trans man. This is vastly more likely to happen than any trans woman ever attacking a cis woman in a toilet. Incidentally, despite that fact that this whole straw-man argument about toilets has been going on for a couple of years now, I've yet to hear of one single example of this ever happening. Ever. This would seem to indicate that actually, it doesn't happen, and that it is a scenario dreamed up by people with a prejudice against trans people who want everyone else to assume that they are sex pests of some kind. You, good sir, are one of those bigoted fuckwits, with the arrogance to think that you speak for women, of any variant. I'm pretty sure my wife would give you some choice words to make your idiotic ears burn as well, as would pretty much any other woman I happen to know. One day, you might find a woman who is willing to talk to you, rather than crossing the road to avoid you, and you might find out for yourself.
“ very real problem, which actually exists, of men (not trans women) attacking women‘
Given the trans definition of a woman is someone who believes they are a woman (and similarly for a man) and that it is their opinion which counts, it is not beyond possible for a “man” to claim in a particular instance they are a “woman” and others should not question this self declaration. Whether the person concerned is or isn’t actually “trans” is not relevant.
Hence the “toilet problem” isn’t actually about trans people per se. It’s about once you permit “men” to call themselves “women” and to access designated “women only” spaces, problems will arise…
I've come to the conclusion that you can't actually read, because I have discussed this, at length, twice, in a way which clearly states why this is wrong, for the very simple reason that there is already a problem of men accessing women's-only spaces, and there is no documented case, that I am aware of, of a trans woman in a women's-only space actually causing a problem.
Meanwhile, the security for rape crisis centres and women's refuges has to be very tight, in many cases to the extent of their location being kept secret, because men frequently do attempt to access them, and not on the pretext of needing to use the toilet.
The fact that you have repeatedly failed to grasp this demonstrates that you are indeed, very, very thick.
I suggest you actually read what JKR has actually said rather than the rants of offended male egos.
When an idiot suggests it is more important for NHS monies to be spent on medical conditions arising from the voluntary use of sex change drugs rather than on the ailments of 51% of the population, namely “biological women” , you know reality and rational thinking has gone out the window.
Ad hominem? Check. False dilemma? Check. Also touching on appeal to ridicule, strawman, and the genetic fallacy. Do I get a prize?
So the head of the executive branch is barred from firing employees of the executive branch?
... without going through proper processes. Similarly the head of the executive branch cannot sell employees of the executive branch for medical research, demand their sexual favours or take pot shots at them from the roof of the White House. Well, not so far, anyway.
While the employees are part of the executive branch, the money to pay their salaries was all approved by Congress. And the heads of the departments require Congressional approval as well. The President never had total carte blanche authority to just go do anything he wants to do with those departments, even though they are technically part of the executive branch and he does have the authority to supervise and direct their efforts.
Just because it is an "executive branch" department doesn't mean the President has absolutely power and control, or that the Congress has none. That has NEVER been the case:
Congress has broad constitutional authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy. Congress may use its Article I lawmaking powers to create federal agencies and offices within those agencies, design agencies’ basic structures and operations, and prescribe, subject to certain constitutional limitations, how those holding agency offices are appointed and removed. Congress also may enumerate the powers, duties, and functions to be exercised by agencies, as well as directly counteract, through later legislation, certain agency actions implementing delegated authority.https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45442
The injunction should have been heard 12-Feb and SCOTUS by emergency session probably the following week referring changes, funding deletion and department closures to Congress.
I guess ‘You Know Who’ doesn’t do RACI <LOL>
This is 3 months of wanton wrecking (mostly ideological) down the fucking line …..
My parents were with the 5th army for a combined 65 years, I am afraid what trump is doing is nececarry. Most of us have dealt with lazy government employees with an atttude. None of the rest of us have jobs for life.
The country is over $36 trillion in debt. This article seems quite politically biased. Even organizations with promissing titles collect "lint". So don't assume that just because we laid off from a cyber security organization, that he layoff are mostly computer scientists ... This article seems politically motivated.
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
A good analogy to many government agencies is depicted in the mini series "Chernoby".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)
The President is not permitted to do this.
It is illegal.
Some of what Trump is doing are things that only Congress can do.
Some are things that only the judiciary can do.
Some of what he's doing is straight-up illegal and nobody at all can do without a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by the States.
Imagine if Obama had banned all private firearms, no exceptions. You'd rightly expect the courts to reverse that decision immediately - because that would require a constitutional amendment.
If I hacked your leg off, I'd be arrested and prosecuted - even if I claimed it was "necessary" because you had gangrene.
Because I'm not a doctor, and you didn't consent.
Agreed. What Trump is doing, at least what he claims to be doing is a good thing. Drain the swamp! There is a huge problem in the West with the political capture of governments, state institutions and media by what are effectively far left influences. They use leftist idealogs as a tool for what is the intent of some very wealthy and powerful people who keep a low profile. They are the globalists who have no loyalty to a specific country. They want an authoritarian and neo-feudal system that they control. The far left ideology is a useful tool for them by creating false virtue; everyone's equal, save the planet and there aren't bad people just misled. The outcome of that thinking is misery for good people.
… so you will obviously not support increasing the US Debt ceiling by $4tn to help fund further tax cuts for the already wealthy and above.
You know it makes sense. More sense that analogising Federal Government to the (pretty good) Chernobyl TV show… which would be subject to 100% tariffs now as largely made in Lithuania and The Ukraine.
>” The country is over $36 trillion in debt.”
You and many millions of others have no understanding what the debt of a sovereign currency issuing government is; it’s very different to the debt you and I incur when we take out a loan to buy a car or house.
I will remind you, the key neo-liberal paper that supposedly showed national debt to be a bad thing, was discredited when it was discovered the authors had made schoolboy errors in their Excel spreadsheet. The errors when corrected indicated the opposite was true ie. Those countries with high levels of national debt had a higher rate of growth…
How can the judiciary only allow government to grow? That stinks. There should be a requirement to follow a reasonable process but at the end of the day a one way street for government employment is absolute insanity. That means low productivity, jobs for the boys, corruption, ever increasing taxes, Kafka-esque buraucracy and ever more rules ... oh yeah that's the problem they want to solve isn't it?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
