There you go using logic. It has no place here.Originally posted by: bamacre
Worthless to talk about cutting the size of government when this country just elected another big government president. Americans don't want a smaller government, right?
Well, if you seriously just suggested that we do away with our entire military, then yes, you certainly qualify as a nutcase.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL... nevermind! I didn't realize that you were a fucking nutcase...
Trillions of dollars lost in an accounting black hole, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and I'm the nutcase, gotcha.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The Eye Are Ess.
If we could come up with a simple cut and dried taxation system for personal income taxes it could be so automated that there would be no reason to have that bloated agency that is the IRS.
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
After the conclusion of major involvment in Afghanistan on our part I would cut the DoD budget anywhere from 33-50%.
That would be monumentally stupid.
No it wouldn't. Feel free to explain why you think so though.
Because that large of a cut doesn't justify the risk of losing tens of thousands of perfectly worthwhile government defense jobs with expanding global security concerns. I might reduce troop levels, but that hardly would account for the 33-50% reduction you just proposed. The DoD is far more than just troops.
Originally posted by: palehorse
Would you ever consider placing the Coast Guard under DoD control? If not, why not?Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: palehorse
For each:Originally posted by: umbrella39
#1 DEA - kill
#2 FCC - reorganize
#3 NSA - kill
#4 DHS
#5 TSA
Reduce, consolidate, or eliminate? Also, please be sure to break DHS down into all its parts when responding. After all, "eliminating" the Coast Guard is a bit ridiculous...
Eliminating organizations does not nor should it imply that their specific parts should be eliminated, I just honestly didn't feel like typing out a couple pages of text. But to answer your specific question, the Coast guard can go back to the DOT, for example. Semper Paratus.
And you'd honestly "kill" the entire NSA, thus destroying most of the U.S.' SIGINT capabilities?! Wow... that's a scary thought!
The question about the NSA is whether it's able to produce useful information proportionate to the cost in light of developing technologies blocking its ability to intercept.Originally posted by: palehorse
And you'd honestly "kill" the entire NSA, thus destroying most of the U.S.' SIGINT capabilities?! Wow... that's a scary thought!
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The Eye Are Ess.
If we could come up with a simple cut and dried taxation system for personal income taxes it could be so automated that there would be no reason to have that bloated agency that is the IRS.
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I edited my post, too late I see; I was going to change that to reorganize but submitted my post too early and never did get to the DHS and TSA parts.
Anyhow, to answer your DoD question, I don't see why that move would be necessary considering they already have authority over the Coast Guard during times of declared war, correct? Then if not mistaken they fall under control of the Navy. I guess their budget would be big enough to absorb the Coast Guard. What do you think? What was wrong with the Coast Guard when they were DOT controlled?
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
How about the DEA? If you want to end the drug war, that would be the way to go. Just have the FDA regulate the safety/purity of the supply just like any other drug. Let the various other agencies handle the taxation issues...
Defense should be cut as we need to scale back foreign operations. Remember that MIC that Eisenhower warned us about? You needen't look too far to find examples of the excessive influence that they have held the past few years. (that being said, we need to treat our own soldiers better in terms of care and pay)
More will come as I think of it.
Bamford's books, while decent, are somewhat outdated. The NSA remains quite effective at what they're tasked to do... but, I might agree to some downsizing and elimination of mission-creep that has made them a bit bloated over the years.Originally posted by: Craig234
The question about the NSA is whether it's able to produce useful information proportionate to the cost in light of developing technologies blocking its ability to intercept.Originally posted by: palehorse
And you'd honestly "kill" the entire NSA, thus destroying most of the U.S.' SIGINT capabilities?! Wow... that's a scary thought!
We can spend many billions for not getting much.
The challenges are detailed well by James Bamford in 'Body of Secrets'.
Originally posted by: boomerang
Well, we'd have to quit defending the world which BTW I am very much in favor of.Originally posted by: Craig234
None come to mind. We should cut the defense budget 50% IMO. We'd still have the biggest military budget of any nation in the world.
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I edited my post, too late I see; I was going to change that to reorganize but submitted my post too early and never did get to the DHS and TSA parts.
Anyhow, to answer your DoD question, I don't see why that move would be necessary considering they already have authority over the Coast Guard during times of declared war, correct? Then if not mistaken they fall under control of the Navy. I guess their budget would be big enough to absorb the Coast Guard. What do you think? What was wrong with the Coast Guard when they were DOT controlled?
I never really had a problem with the CC being under DoT control, but it just seems pointless to separate them from the other uniformed services. Given the fact that yes, the Navy would control them in time of war, why not streamline the process and bring them into the DoD at all other times as well? I've just always viewed their mission as much more related to Defense than Transportation.
It's certainly an interesting conundrum given their ever-expanding mission...
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: boomerang
Well, we'd have to quit defending the world which BTW I am very much in favor of.Originally posted by: Craig234
None come to mind. We should cut the defense budget 50% IMO. We'd still have the biggest military budget of any nation in the world.
Come to think of it...I don't remember seeing anything in the US Constitution that says the US has to be the world's fucking police force...
Shut the doors on ALL foreign aid, on ALL support of foreign militaries, stop sales of arms to foreign nations, (let them buy them elsewhere), and stop propping up these phony regimes...we SHOULD have learned SOMETHING from the Shah of Iran fiasco...
Originally posted by: palehorse
"Culture" is something that occurs naturally in every society.Originally posted by: Gand1
NEA provides Americans with a little something called culture. We waste plenty of money in many other areas that could be cut.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: hellod9
How about all the ones starting with the letter D?
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
www.darpa.mil
Defense Information Systems Agency
www.disa.mil
Defense Intelligence Agency
www.dia.mil
Defense Logistics Agency
www.supply.dla.mil
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
www.dnfsb.gov
Defense Security Service
www.dss.mil
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
www.dtra.mil
Drug Enforcement Administration
www.usdoj.gov/dea
DARPA and DISA? Your ideas are mostly bad.
I'm not sure how one would "prove" the statement without first agreeing on a definition. But, I'll try...Originally posted by: sonambulo
Originally posted by: palehorse
"Culture" is something that occurs naturally in every society.Originally posted by: Gand1
NEA provides Americans with a little something called culture. We waste plenty of money in many other areas that could be cut.
Prove this statement.
I like the sound of that too.Originally posted by: MovingTarget
How about reducing the Dept. of Education for x-12 education? Let them fund/direct research for higher ed, but leave the burden of K-12 to the states?
Originally posted by: palehorse
I'm not sure how one would "prove" the statement without first agreeing on a definition. But, I'll try...
Even the most primitive societies, such as native Indians and African tribes, have expressed themselves through art, song, and dance, for thousands of years.
Do you honestly believe that the arts, entertainment, or other "culture" industries in the U.S. would be drastically impacted if the NEA ceased to exist?!
Hell, we spend more private funds on those industries than the entire rest of the world combined!
Culture and artful expression are natural phenomenons that need no Federal funding to develop, thrive, or survive.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
DHS, first and foremost. They are no longer necessary.
