Trump to cut taxes on Social Security

[Tax Counsel]

I wish we could issue a recall vote, Trump is a moron of the highest order and should not have been reelected. I should have taken notice of all the warning signs. Mainly Elon the IDIOT Muck, the autistic dipchit is trying to make all Federal employees welfare recipients.

I've felt that way for a long time. I tried to point out the warning signs. I respect that you are looking at what's really going on and are willing to change your view of Trump based on how he's actually doing the job. As much as I dislike Trump I didn't think he'd cause this much chaos in less than a month on the job. The real hardcore Trumpists will deny he ever does anything wrong and stay with him even if Trump managed to bankrupt the country, effectively going down with the ship along with their captain.

 

[Tax Counsel]

but access to internal computers (and internal email) has to be immediately shut off any time an employee leaves a company or a government job.

As to private employers that is certainly ideal, but the vast majority of companies have no legal requirement to do that. In my state there are former state legislators that are allowed to keep their legislative e-mail accounts and still have a page on the legislature's website. The point being that even in government the rules are not always the same across all levels of government or across all departments/agencies. Most government employee e-mail accounts are indeed shut down very quickly after they exit the job, but that's not the case for all of them.

 

[Mark_A]

Because Musk doesn't know what the hell he's doing and doesn't the proper way to get things done. He talks about "deleting" whole departments and agencies, something neither he nor Trump have the power to doCorporate CEOs and boards can cut their company budgets however they like. They only have to answer to the shareholders. But the President of the United States (and those working for him) don't have that same degree of freedom. The Constitution and federal statutes set limits on what they can and establish the processes to follow for what they can do. Musk has a lot of learning to do if he wants to be truly effective.

Musk's appointment is not as a civil service employee, as you suggest in your post. Although his exact status and authority are currently being litigated there isn't anyone claiming he's a civil service employee. Trump claims Musk is simply one of his advisors and has no formal authority, a claim which a district court judge was highly skeptical of when the DOJ attorneys made that claim in a hearing. The dispute mattters in part because if he's not simply an advisor then as he's neither a civil servant nor an executive employee subject to Senate confirmation the law limits his time in the job to less than 150 days.

If I said Musk was an civil service employee, then I misspoke. He is an advisor, whether paid or not, and he clearly does not have authority to directly fire people. But I think he does have authority to give advice on what people to fire, or at least what departments can get by with fewer employees or no employees in some cases (due to de-regulation). Presidents get all kinds of advice from many people who are not approved by the Senate, or there is nothing illegal about that. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

I explained in previous comment that the President does have the authority to cut discretionary spending, especially if that spending is merely to run the Executive Branch. I explained the distinction between discretionary spending, and mandatory spending. The president cannot unilaterally cut mandatory spending on things like Social Security and Medicare, where the disbursements to people under those programs are mandated by laws passed by Congress and signed by a President. However, the President does have the power to cut discretionary spending (even if allocated by Congress in the budget) and to cut the administrative workforce needed to run agencies that disburse mandatory funding. So I disagree with your thesis about what the President can and cannot do without approval from Congress.

This is clearly just a form of harassment against Trump and Musk in particular. Musk voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but obviously changed his mind in the 2024 election, partly because Joe Biden started a campaign to destroy Musk and his businesses because they strongly discourage labor unions especially at Tesla. As you may recall, this feud started when Musk was not invited to a Biden summit with EV auto manufactures early in the Biden term:

New YorkCNN Business —
President Joe Biden celebrated ambitious electric vehicles goals by automakers at the White House on Thursday [August 5, 2021]. But he did so without the world's largest maker of EVs: Tesla.

"Joining Biden were executives from General Motors (GM) and Ford (F), as well as Stellantis, the company formed by the merger earlier this year of Fiat Chrysler and France's PSA. But electric vehicles are only a sliver of these companies' US sales — 1.5% for GM and 1.3% for Ford (F) so far this year, and Stellantis doesn't have any pure EVs for sale on US soil yet.

Meanwhile, Tesla (TSLA) makes nothing but battery-powered electric vehicles, and always has. So why wouldn't the world's biggest maker of EVs be invited to the table?

One potential reason for the apparent snub: The United Auto Workers union will also be at the ceremony. The UAW represents workers at GM, Ford and Stellantis, but has been battling, so far unsuccessfully, to organize Tesla workers at the EV maker's plant in Fremont, California."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/business/tesla-snub-white-house-event/index.html

Ever since then the Biden administration has engaged in a full assault against Elon Musk and started government investigations against every one of his businesses, pretty much the same way Putin does things in Russia. IMO, Joe Biden is one of biggest fascists in US history for the way he governed and used the government to harass his political adversaries.

 

[Mark_A]

As to private employers that is certainly ideal, but the vast majority of companies have no legal requirement to do that. In my state there are former state legislators that are allowed to keep their legislative e-mail accounts and still have a page on the legislature's website. The point being that even in government the rules are not always the same across all levels of government or across all departments/agencies. Most government employee e-mail accounts are indeed shut down very quickly after they exit the job, but that's not the case for all of them.

The problem is not the email account, it is the company or government network that is the problem. Most email accounts for businesses and federal government are inside a private network, and access to that network has to be shut down when someone leaves the company for security reasons. As you noted, there are exceptions made for some elected officials, and also things like some retired University professors (especially with professor emeritus status). But those networks are not usually the same as the private internal government or university network that runs those organizations.

Of course, one could always reach Hillary Clinton, because she illegally created her own private email network used for official State Department business.

 

[Mark_A]

I've felt that way for a long time. I tried to point out the warning signs. I respect that you are looking at what's really going on and are willing to change your view of Trump based on how he's actually doing the job. As much as I dislike Trump I didn't think he'd cause this much chaos in less than a month on the job. The real hardcore Trumpists will deny he ever does anything wrong and stay with him even if Trump managed to bankrupt the country, effectively going down with the ship along with their captain.

Did Bill Clinton bankrupt the country when he eliminated 426,200 federal roles (resulting in an actual layoff or resignation of 377K federal employees)? I think he balanced the budget and the economy and stock markets did quite well. Having a Republican Congress probably helped, and he may not have been able to do that with a Democratic Congress.

I think deep down you are worried that Trump will greatly simplify the income tax laws (Trump actually want to eliminate them and replace with some other kind of tax) and worried that tax lawyers and tax accountants will be put out of business. I would recommend you get a job as a plumber or HVAC technician, because the going rate for those skills (if you can even find one) is well over $150 per hour (but maybe not as much as a Tax Counsel). The local Hyundai dealer charges $200 per hour for non-warranty labor.

 

[welkin]

Instead of all the uninformed speculation, how about you read the Executive Order that created DOGE and who runs the agency. The agency is run by the USDS, an administrator that has yet to be publicly named.

As to what roll Musk plays according to Joshua Fisher, Director of the Office of Administration:

In a declaration Monday from Joshua Fisher, the director of the Office of Administration, Musk is described as a White House employee. He holds the position, the declaration states, as a special government employee who serves as a "Senior Advisor to the President."

The filing goes on to say that Musk is not an employee of the separate U.S. DOGE Service (USDS) or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization tasked with improving government technology and cutting spending or staffing.

"In his role as a Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors," the filing reads. "Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President's directives."

The White House filing also says Musk is not the USDS administrator in charge of the DOGE effort, and did not mention who holds that position.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/18/g-s1-49450/elon-musk-doge-leader


If you click on the declaration link above, you can read the actual court filing.

 

[Redemptionman]

Did Bill Clinton bankrupt the country when he eliminated 426,200 federal roles (resulting in an actual layoff or resignation of 377K federal employees)? I think he balanced the budget and the economy and stock markets did quite well. Having a Republican Congress probably helped, and he may not have been able to do that with a Democratic Congress.

I think deep down you are worried that Trump will greatly simplify the income tax laws (Trump actually want to eliminate them and replace with some other kind of tax) and worried that tax lawyers and tax accountants will be put out of business. I would recommend you get a job as a plumber or HVAC technician, because the going rate for those skills (if you can even find one) is well over $150 per hour (but maybe not as much as a Tax Counsel). The local Hyundai dealer charges $200 per hour for non-warranty labor.

It goes beyond that, the only way Tesla really survives is if Musk hitches his wagon to the Trump train. Now Tesla is the number one supplier of EVSE equipment and vehicles. Chargepoint's share price is under 1 dollar per, and ENEL X is GONE. I see what this is for what this is, Elon Musk bought no compete EV market share and is benefiting financially from this arrangement.

 

[Mark_A]

It goes beyond that, the only way Tesla really survives is if Musk hitches his wagon to the Trump train. Now Tesla is the number one supplier of EVSE equipment and vehicles. Chargepoint's share price is under 1 dollar per, and ENEL X is GONE. I see what this is for what this is, Elon Musk bought no compete EV market share and is benefiting financially from this arrangement.

Musk's EV and battery business would have benefited a lot more under a Democratic president. Trump is likely to slow down the transition to EV, and pull back on EPA rules for gasoline miles per gallon requirements. Musk took a loss of about $26 billion to buy Twitter, for the sole reason to restore freedom of speech. So I completely reject your thesis about what motivates Musk.

 

[Redemptionman]

Musk's EV and battery business would have benefited a lot more under a Democratic president. Trump is likely to slow down the transition to EV, and pull back on EPA rules for gasoline miles per gallon requirements. Musk took a loss of about $26 billion to buy Twitter, for the sole reason to restore freedom of speech. So I completely reject your thesis about what motivates Musk.

Musk's 250 million dollar campaign contribution afforded him to be able to do exactly what he is doing. If you don't see the obvious link then you can't see it all. For 250 million dollars he will make billions more.

 

[Mark_A]

Musk's 250 million dollar campaign contribution afforded him to be able to do exactly what he is doing. If you don't see the obvious link then you can't see it all. For 250 million dollars he will make billions more.

As of today, Musk is worth $396 billion so he doesn't need any more money. Musk lost about $26 billion on his purchase of Twitter, which he did to preserve freedom of speech, not to make money. His motivations for donating the Republican PAC (not all for Trump) was not related to his personal financial gain, but to his belief about what is best for the US, similar to his strong belief about freedom of speech.

Harris received far more donations from billionaires than Trump, and she outspent Trump in the campaign. 8 of the 10 top billionaires in the US are Democrats:

Zuckerberg, Bezos. Gates. Page (Google), Brin (Google), Buffett, Balmer, Bloomberg are all Democrats. Not only did they donate more money to Democrats than Musk donated to Republicans in the last election (by a wide margin), they control media empires, search engines, etc that shape the reporting of news.

Musk has risked alienating many potential buyers of EV's who on the whole tend to vote Democratic. Further, the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back emissions restrictions for automobiles, which is not in the best interest of Tesla (to put it mildly).

Trump transition team plans sweeping rollback of Biden EV, emissions policies[

• Trump plans to cut EV support, impose tariffs on battery materials
• Proposals aim to boost U.S. production, redirect funds to national defense
• Transition team suggests rolling back emissions standards, blocking California's stricter rules

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-transition-team-plans-sweeping-rollback-biden-ev-emissions-policies-2024-12-16/

So IMO your thesis is intellectually and factually bankrupt.

Musk was born in South Africa, and became a US citizen in 2002, not by accident of birth, but because he loves this country, the principles upon which it was created under, and what is stands for (or is supposed to stand for).

 

[Redemptionman]

As of today, Musk is worth $396 billion so he doesn't need any more money. Musk lost about $26 billion on his purchase of Twitter, which he did to preserve freedom of speech, not to make money. His motivations for donating the Republican PAC (not all for Trump) was not related to his personal financial gain, but to his belief about what is best for the US, similar to his strong belief about freedom of speech.

Harris received far more donations from billionaires than Trump, and she outspent Trump in the campaign. 8 of the 10 top billionaires in the US are Democrats:

Zuckerberg, Bezos. Gates. Page (Google), Brin (Google), Buffett, Balmer, Bloomberg are all Democrats. Not only did they donate more money to Democrats than Musk donated to Republicans in the last election (by a wide margin), they control media empires, search engines, etc that shape the reporting of news.

Musk has risked alienating many potential buyers of EV's who on the whole tend to vote Democratic. Further, the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back emissions restrictions for automobiles, which is not in the best interest of Tesla (to put it mildly).

Trump transition team plans sweeping rollback of Biden EV, emissions policies[

• Trump plans to cut EV support, impose tariffs on battery materials
• Proposals aim to boost U.S. production, redirect funds to national defense
• Transition team suggests rolling back emissions standards, blocking California's stricter rules

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-transition-team-plans-sweeping-rollback-biden-ev-emissions-policies-2024-12-16/

So IMO your thesis is intellectually and factually bankrupt.

Musk was born in South Africa, and became a US citizen in 2002, not by accident of birth, but because he loves this country, the principles upon which it was created under, and what is stands for (or is supposed to stand for).

I think your love of Elon is very misplaced. He is an autistic moron who got lucky stealing others ideas and making them a reality. I voted for Trump not for the actions he has taken but for I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Elon is no super hero, he doesn't really care about America or Americans but rather his own ego as being the guy of Space X and Tesla. If you think he bought Twitter just because of freedom of speech then you are misplaced in your thinking. It was a pretty cool TV moment when he bought in the Kitchen Sink and said let that sink in. Elon serves Elon and it was even made fun of on the BBT show. What Elon is doing now serves no purpose other than to make him feel more powerful. Trust me he would cut Trump loose in a minute once it no longer serves his purpose.

I did not VOTE for middle class federal workers to loose their jobs. I did not VOTE for Elon Musk to go through the SS numbers of millions of Americans doing social credit scores. Elon Musk should not be allowed on Trump's administration and should not have access to those records.

 

[Mark_A]

I think your love of Elon is very misplaced. He is an autistic moron who got lucky stealing others ideas and making them a reality. I voted for Trump not for the actions he has taken but for I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Elon is no super hero, he doesn't really care about America or Americans but rather his own ego as being the guy of Space X and Tesla. If you think he bought Twitter just because of freedom of speech then you are misplaced in your thinking. It was a pretty cool TV moment when he bought in the Kitchen Sink and said let that sink in. Elon serves Elon and it was even made fun of on the BBT show. What Elon is doing now serves no purpose other than to make him feel more powerful. Trust me he would cut Trump loose in a minute once it no longer serves his purpose.

I did not VOTE for middle class federal workers to loose their jobs. I did not VOTE for Elon Musk to go through the SS numbers of millions of Americans doing social credit scores. Elon Musk should not be allowed on Trump's administration and should not have access to those records.

I don't love Elon Musk, but I don't hate him, and I don't like when people make factually incorrect statements about people. The bottom line appears to be that you are either directly or indirectly impacted by large cuts in the Federal government workforce, and that has colored your opinions of Musk. But that doesn't give you the right to make factually incorrect statements.

What difference does it make whether Elon Musk has access to SS numbers or whether it is a career government employee? Someone needs to go through those records to determine whether there is fraud and abuse. I can assure you that there has always been fraud and abuse from virtually every government entitlement program, and also related to the IRS.

A low level IRS employee illegally released Trump's tax returns, and many illegal leaks have come from career government employees. The whole idea that Musk is searching for fraud and abuse to steal sensitive information for his own financial benefit is ridiculously absurd.

 

[stealthy1]

The affected federal employees have been let go for performance issues in most cases they all have or had great performance reviews. This makes them ineligible for workforce service unemployment

Which is likely why the powers that be are citing performance issues.

 

[army judge]

That's all true. But preferable to the chaos that would ensue without government.

"Democracy is a very bad form of government. All the others are so much worse."

Variations of that phrase have been attributed to many.

The United States of America isn't a "democracy".
Democracy was not the system of governance our Founders created.
Ours is a Constitutional Republic.

As far as chaos, we're living in chaos. Regardless of right or wrong, our two major parties are responsible for the chaos surrounding us everyday.

Crime is at epidemic proportions. Murders don't seem to be decreasing, neither is pedophilia and pedophiles declining. Heck, teachers ceased to be role models, as of many of them appear to have developed an insatiable desire to perpetrate unspeakable sexual attacks and abuse amongst their naive, young charges.

Our ancestors succeeded because of their desire to improve their lot via hard work and personal effort. Today we see, hear, and read about people in distress because many prefer to BEG, rather than work.

It saddens me to see our regression. It isn't just the USA, either. The entire planet seems to have reverted to behaviors that our citizenry once uniformly rejected.

 

[Redemptionman]

The whole idea that Musk is searching for fraud and abuse to steal sensitive information for his own financial benefit is ridiculously absurd.

and so are your responses and posts, I stated facts about ole Musk but you are free to believe whatever you want. When you have to terminate a worker for no other reason than Mr. Trump said so then that is not a valid reason for termination. Sure, it is easy to get rid of slackers and those who do not work properly. It is harder to fire people who work hard and show up to work everyday. These people have families and are not rich. A termination to them is a huge financial set back. The reasons they are getting rid of these folks are not valid. Firing someone for no other reason than they are on their probationary period is not a valid reason.

I could care less, I am close to retirement anyway and can only hope to work another 9-10 years. This however is affecting younger people who have families of their own. I have looked into the legislation proposed by Republicans and you can figure out for self. Fact is if a moderate democrat would have run for President then I would have voted for them. However, in this environment you have one extreme to the other. All you are doing is creating more of those who are dependent on the government. Congratulations, you have just created more welfare dependent people, which might be what the rich Republicans want? They are easier to control, easier to tell what to do and won't fight back.

 

[Mark_A]

and so are your responses and posts, I stated facts about ole Musk but you are free to believe whatever you want. When you have to terminate a worker for no other reason than Mr. Trump said so then that is not a valid reason for termination. Sure, it is easy to get rid of slackers and those who do not work properly. It is harder to fire people who work hard and show up to work everyday. These people have families and are not rich. A termination to them is a huge financial set back. The reasons they are getting rid of these folks are not valid. Firing someone for no other reason than they are on their probationary period is not a valid reason.

I could care less, I am close to retirement anyway and can only hope to work another 9-10 years. This however is affecting younger people who have families of their own. I have looked into the legislation proposed by Republicans and you can figure out for self. Fact is if a moderate democrat would have run for President then I would have voted for them. However, in this environment you have one extreme to the other. All you are doing is creating more of those who are dependent on the government. Congratulations, you have just created more welfare dependent people, which might be what the rich Republicans want? They are easier to control, easier to tell what to do and won't fight back.

In the private sector, companies reduce staff all the time via layoffs or "right-sizing" because it is determined by management that the work can be done with fewer people. This happens all the time. I have been through at least 5 major layoffs at various companies (not including several times where my consulting contract was abruptly cancelled because of budget cuts).

I suppose that government employees are not accustomed to reductions in the workforce for budget or efficiency reasons, but it happens all the time in the "real" world. When that happens, organizations might take into account the amount of money being paid to certain employees as a factor, not just whether they are good performers or slackers. However, they have to be careful to not violate age discrimination rules when they do that. One can be a superior employee, but if that function is being eliminated or automated, the organization can't always keep employees around just because they got good reviews in the past.

Employing people just to keep them off of welfare makes no sense. That is not the purpose of government, except in specific circumstances such as occurred during the "New Deal" after the Great Depression. There are still shortages of workers in many fields, and now that illegal immigration is likely to be reduced, there may even more shortage of workers. People just have to adjust and find a way to make themselves employable in some other job. That's how it works in the private sector.

 

[army judge]

Trump's actions seem to irk, annoy, disgust some of our populace.

No matter what Trump does, he seems to irritate donkeys.

No matter how Trump's 47th presidency ends, Donkeys will hold him in low esteem.

Relax and take it, because that's what I experienced during the 46th term of the beach vacationing, mush mouthed, addle brain, somnolent, yet minimally animated, corpse, and his henchwoman.

 

[Redemptionman]

Well I see, so we might as well cancel the Air Force and Army as well, might as well reduce the number of JAG officers in half. Lets also take the former federal judges and cut their retirement benefits while we are at it. How much money does that save?

Where does this stop? It isn't anytime soon and they are cutting Generals and heads of military departments. Why not stop all retirement benefits to all federal employees with previous 30 plus years of service. You have opened Pandora's box so we might as well go all the way. Run it like a LLC or a private equity firm. Carve it up and sell it off.

 

[Mark_A]

Well I see, so we might as well cancel the Air Force and Army as well, might as well reduce the number of JAG officers in half. Lets also take the former federal judges and cut their retirement benefits while we are at it. How much money does that save?

Where does this stop? It isn't anytime soon and they are cutting Generals and heads of military departments. Why not stop all retirement benefits to all federal employees with previous 30 plus years of service. You have opened Pandora's box so we might as well go all the way. Run it like a LLC or a private equity firm. Carve it up and sell it off.

So you are saying that reducing the number of employees to run the federal bureaucracy is going "all the way"? What if those employees are no longer needed. There is a big difference between cutting retirement benefits (which would require Congressional approval to change the law) and cutting the number of bureaucrats needed to administer the retirement programs (which generally speaking the President has the power to do without Congress).

No one seemed to complain when Bill Clinton reduced over 377K federal jobs that were deemed to be not necessary.

I was going to suggest that you move to some other country which guarantees all their citizens government jobs, but I am not sure there are any left. Even in North Korea and Cuba, they don't guarantee you a job. They did that in Russia and China years ago, but they gave that up. Maybe on some other planet.

 

[Redemptionman]

So you are saying that reducing the number of employees to run the federal bureaucracy is going "all the way"? What if those employees are no longer needed. There is a big difference between cutting retirement benefits (which would require Congressional approval to change the law) and cutting the number of bureaucrats needed to administer the retirement programs (which generally speaking the President has the power to do without Congress).

No one seemed to complain when Bill Clinton reduced over 377K federal jobs that were deemed to be not necessary.

I was going to suggest that you move to some other country which guarantees all their citizens government jobs, but I am not sure there are any left. Even in North Korea and Cuba, they don't guarantee you a job. They did that in Russia and China years ago, but they gave that up. Maybe on some other planet.

You said, cuts might as well go all the way. Why hold back what kind of savings could we gain? Cut the nuke guys as well that should work out good for our enemies. You like your leader have a failed ideology. You make sensible cuts not just massive uneducated slashes which result in damaging the ability of the government to function. You make no sense in your arguments nor the defense of them. You are correct as I am indirectly affected by this and my brother is directly is affected. Firing people is never easy but when you are forced to do that on the whim of the new administration it is even harder.