It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tillerson Cuts 2,300 Jobs From Bloated State Department

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+14 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The U.S. State Department is starting to trim expenses apparently by cutting its workforce and cutting its budget.

Plans are being considered to reduce employees by "attrition" and "buy-outs".

Attrition is a practice of not hiring new people when current people leave a job.

A but-out is when people are paid to leave.

There's probably thousands of "jobs" in the government that are basically unnecessary and could be eliminated by simple efficiency.


Tillerson Cuts 2,300 Jobs From Bloated State Department

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has begun fulfilling President Donald Trump’s mission to reduce the size of government and save taxpayers a boatload of money by proposing to eliminate 2,300 jobs at the State Department.

If implemented, the plan would trim the State Department’s budget by more than a quarter and its staff by approximately 3 percent, according to The Associated Press.

The majority of the job cuts would be attained through attrition, or the process of waiting for employees to simply retire, while the remainder would be acquired via buyouts. As noted by The AP, buyouts would be offered first to employees over the age of 50 who have at least two decades of government service under their belts.




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Job losses, wars.

Worst President Ever.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


There's probably thousands of "jobs" in the government that are basically unnecessary and could be eliminated by simple efficiency.


I have no doubt in my mind that you are correct.

Many of those thousands of jobs are in the intelligence agencies.




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

One it's a proposal.

Two any money saved will just be spent other ways.

If trump.want to do anything or make any actual change he would work on lobbying.

How are we going to pass Healthcare legislation with the insurance lobby and pharmaceutical companies in everyone's pocket?

It's all smoke and mirrors with this guy.

Same as it ever was, just probably a better profiteer than even his daddy was.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


On Thursday, a bipartisan group of 43 senators urged "robust funding" for the State Department and USAID.
"At a time when we face multiple national security challenges around the world, deep cuts in this area would be shortsighted, counterproductive and even dangerous," they said in a letter to Senate appropriators.
uk.businessinsider.com...


As we've seen with this administration announcements are different to actions , we will have to wait and see if this plan is any different to others.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: xuenchen


On Thursday, a bipartisan group of 43 senators urged "robust funding" for the State Department and USAID.
"At a time when we face multiple national security challenges around the world, deep cuts in this area would be shortsighted, counterproductive and even dangerous," they said in a letter to Senate appropriators.
uk.businessinsider.com...


As we've seen with this administration announcements are different to actions , we will have to wait and see if this plan is any different to others.


Yeah and maybe start with the useless departments first. As it is Tillerson is being overshadowed by a UN secretary, a position rarely heard about.

And the way it is working out with his foreign policy ideas we may need extra state dept. employees.

More amateur hour from the Trump admin.


edit on 30-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)


+14 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

It's called Efficiency. As in getting rid of all the bloated, non essential workers who are there, just to be there. If that many jobs can be cut and save the taxpayer money, why not? Obviously they feel like the work can still get done without them. Why is saving tax dollars a bad thing?
Or is it just because it came from the Trump administration?

See anything wrong here?

www.thegatewaypundit.com...


According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of April 2016 more than 22 million people were employed in the US government.
The US Government, including all federal, state and local employees, employs nearly as many employees as ALL Fortune 500 companies COMBINED.
The total employment for the 500 largest companies in the US at the end of 2015 was 26.8 million people. This means that the US government employs nearly as many people (86%) as the top 500 largest corporations in the US today. It’s no wonder that the US is now more than $19 trillion in debt! Share569Tweet3Mail3

edit on 30-4-2017 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Don't forget we pay for all of them for the rest of their lives in the form of pensions and medical benefits.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The department accounts for about 1% of GDP , the cuts will add little if anything to countering the deficit but will harm the US if it cuts its diplomatic and aid missions.
It seems a short sighted decision to me designed to appeal to supporters rather than take into account the importance of international engagement.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I would have to agree that lots of jobs in the State Department need to be cut. I bet the majority of those jobs are in Washington and the Jobs were created to give good paying jobs to friends of those running things, three jobs may have been created to create a job for one friend to get a job. We are talking big government here, necessary jobs are always cut before these upper management jobs filled by friends of someone..

There are a lot of jobs in all of these programs that are important, I hope he cuts the ones that are not needed and retains the ones that are important. If he listens to the State Department's heads, all of their friends will still be working and people who actually work will be gone. Then they will hire some contractor to do the work and still all the worthless people will have jobs and not be doing anything important. This is how our government works. I was involved in some of this a while back and have friends that work with this crap still. But they actually work for a living, their bosses just BS all day. A good boss does know how to BS and get money though, that is important I guess if they are actually good at getting funding. It is who you know in this society.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Job losses, wars.

Worst President Ever.


When the economy shrank after the last recession, the private sector lost tons of jobs, but the public sector only expanded. The public sector depends on the private sector for its money. So if the private sector can't provide enough, the public sector has to borrow to make ends meet.

This is part of why we have so much deficit and an ever expanding debt.

For things to have maintained a healthy balance, there should have been a proportional public sector job loss to keep pace with the shrinking private sector economy during that last recession. This is just a delayed response to what should have happened then.

In order to "pay" for the tax cuts being proposed, the money has to be recouped somewhere. Heck, to even have a prayer of breaking even under the current tax regime which continues to take in record revenue and not be enough we have to cut spending somewhere. This is one way to do it.

Besides, there is no real reason why the three wealthiest counties in the country are all right around DC now. That means public service is the wealthiest job you can have. That seems wrong.
edit on 30-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DAVID64

The department accounts for about 1% of GDP , the cuts will add little if anything to countering the deficit but will harm the US if it cuts its diplomatic and aid missions.
It seems a short sighted decision to me designed to appeal to supporters rather than take into account the importance of international engagement.


We have to make cuts somewhere.

A little here ... a little there ... instead of looking at every proposed cut and saying, "This is nowhere near enough, so let's leave it alone." But the time all the little cuts are added together, they may be a significant chunk of the problem.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Yes lets get rid of what few good jobs still exist in this country because working people don't need money, or benefits.

This is insanity. Cut jobs, raise interest rates, deregulate, start wars, America is screwed.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




We have to make cuts somewhere.

You have the largest military force in the world , the President is intent on increasing your military budget by $54 billion to $639 billion in 2018 , isn't there some scope for cuts there rather than increasing the budget ?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328

Yes lets get rid of what few good jobs still exist in this country because working people don't need money, or benefits.

This is insanity. Cut jobs, raise interest rates, deregulate, start wars, America is screwed.


There must be other good jobs in the country in order to finance the government's so-called "good jobs." You do realize that the money and benefits provided by those "good jobs" are directly taxed off the backs of other people with good jobs in the private sector?

You know, the makers?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: ketsuko




We have to make cuts somewhere.

You have the largest military force in the world , the President is intent on increasing your military budget by $54 billion to $639 billion in 2018 , isn't there some scope for cuts there rather than increasing the budget ?


There is scope for cutting EVERYWHERE!

So I am tired of the whining over hearing that cuts are being done here and there. Oh no, multi-millionaire Big Bird who pretty much could fund NPR and the Public Broadcasting off his franchising alone, might lose his government cheese ... oh no, some artists might not get grants ...

Oh no, maybe we don't need all these extra positions in this or that department ...

It. all. adds. up.

Meanwhile, yes, we can make the military more efficient too, but at the same time, it *is* the only one of these things provided for in the COTUS.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DAVID64

The department accounts for about 1% of GDP , the cuts will add little if anything to countering the deficit but will harm the US if it cuts its diplomatic and aid missions.
It seems a short sighted decision to me designed to appeal to supporters rather than take into account the importance of international engagement.


We have to make cuts somewhere.

A little here ... a little there ... instead of looking at every proposed cut and saying, "This is nowhere near enough, so let's leave it alone." But the time all the little cuts are added together, they may be a significant chunk of the problem.


Or its a shell game, cut a little here, spend a little there.

And nothing truly gets cut.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't mind investing some of my tax money for jobs. I have been paying for wars since 1968, so why would I mind funding jobs. Someone has to create jobs. All I have seen are broken promises to working stiffs and giveaways to the rich from this administration.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

My government is not a jobs program, especially not when we hear time and again about how so many federal employees have enough time to spend up to eight hours a day surfing porn on their computers.

If they have that much time to waste and they are getting better pay than their private sector counterparts and better benefits to do it, then they have no business with that job and I very much DO mind being taxed to provide it. You should mind it too.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

wow, think about that for a second...

That`s one federal employee for every 12 adult americans.

take a look around you, you and 11 of your adult age family and friends are paying for 1 federal employee and who knows how many retired federal employees.

you would think that since there is 1 federal employee for every 12 adult americans that we would be getting much better and faster government services.




top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join