OK, there's a lot to unpack here, but let me just say this is one of my favorite AW threads in a while- people actually debating arguments, and not attacking each other. Great job- sincerely.
I don’t deny that Trump is a wrecking ball. Surely there was a better way forward, but I highly doubt an existing bureaucracy would tolerate being “reformed.”
Bureaucracy is generally resistant to anything but expansion, it's true. However, bureaucracy can and has been reformed throughout history, and it does not require the wrecking ball approach to do it.
5% cut to all DoD civilians and contractors. Extend CG service life. Cut out LCS / FFG, buy fewer carriers, cut two Army divisions, buy more DDGs, submarines, munitions, and unmanned stuff is the early plan I came across.
The CG part was ... odd. They are all broken-ass money pits.
Yeah, that is odd. Constituency and lobbying is the usual suspect.
Trump is a businessman and is trying to run the government like a business. When you have a product line or department or whatever that isn't working, you clear house and cut your losses (and sometimes declare bankruptcy to erase all your debt).
I assert the government should
not be run like a for-profit business. Government for hire? Isn't that a YUGE part of the problem? Government's task and purpose are different than a for-profit business. However, in the interest of this argument, I'll pose a hypothetical: How would you like to work for a corporation that pays less than the competition, and engages in wholesale firings every four years or less? Well here come Trump and Musk with a deal just for you! Brain-drain is becoming a very real thing, and as I have said before- I believe is intentional. They want "those people" out of the way.
Furthermore, this is likely to lead to a bureaucratic backlash the second team elephant (or really, team MAGA) is no longer in charge. One very possible outcome of that backlash will be to further entrench bureaucracy- it isn't hard to imagine politicians screaming "more protections for government employees! Prevent brain drain!". That is an outcome I would also consider to be detrimental.
You don't wait around for people to talk it to death and get consensus approval.
Since it's generally a lot easier to unilaterally stop payments than to start them, he's going to keep doing this until someone makes him stop.
Is that the kind of leadership we want? A wrecking ball that has to be stopped? So the next guy can bring an even bigger wrecking ball?
Ad Hominem Impetum!
Now, to round this discussion out…wouldn’t it be nice if Congress actually did its job and set Constitutional limits to POTUS power?
Nah….we’d rather have a mess so “our guy” can use those powers to advance “our agenda.”
If our government actually held to the Constitution, that is exactly what would happen. But each side, in turn, as abused their power to advance their agenda, using the previous administration's actions as rationalization for doing so. And it gets bigger, and more broken, with the original intent of the founders all but forgotten.
Elections have consequences, and Trump's approval rating has a positive slope since taking office.
Trump is not 'my guy.' But I think that the ACA was significantly more unconstitutional than what Trump is doing (and the Courts eventually struck down most of the ACA's provisions).
I'll say again, approval ratings are not justification for bringing a wrecking ball into a china shop. As for the ACA, I agree it was unconstitutional. Exactly how much is debatable, and irrelevant, unless you're looking to rationalize current actions in light of what the previous guy did.
Not really. People point to his bankruptcies, but Trump is notorious for using financial tomfoolery to keep his fortune in tact. He's raised his net worth from tens of millions to over $5 billion over the course of his career. Most businessmen would consider that successful.
Kevin O'Leary was livid at why NYC sued Donald Trump over his taxes. He basically said every businessman ever does the same exact thing, including himself.
Hmmm... So, are you in favor of financial tomfoolery in government?
Kevin O'Leary is not someone I would consider to be a statesman, nor is he an example of someone I'd like to be in business with. Oh, he'll make his money for sure. But if he destroys you in the process, then that's your fault for being a sissy and not working 36 hours every day.
There are an awful lot of people who unceremoniously just got shitcanned, who hold really high clearances, who may be staring at financial straits, and may be not loving their most recent employer.
Yes, (former) insider threats are likely to be a rising problem in many circles. Our national security is at risk in several key areas.
