Which Federal Departments would you get rid of?

[LegendKiller]

The free market as defined by Adam Smith? Not quite what you think.

Let me get this straight, without regulation those big pharma agents would not have been replaced with unscrupulous greedy individuals who don;t care about safety?

THe 19th century called, its lonely.

That's the problem with these guys. They don't want to have a modern society, culture, economy, or government. They want to go back to farming, disease, shitty work conditions, polluted waters, aristocracy, and robber barons.

Because life for the farmers, families, and anybody below aristocracy was so great.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm not sure the President is really a 'Federal Department' but I'd like to see the current holder of said position removed.

 

[her209]

I'm not sure the President is really a 'Federal Department' but I'd like to see the current holder of said position removed.

 

[NetGuySC]

Where is IRS on this poll?

 

[IronWing]

Where is IRS on this poll?

Anarchist420 doesn't have a job (still in HS) and doesn't pay taxes so the IRS doesn't concern him.

 

[PottedMeat]

Just a question: Do we really need all these intelligence agencies?

oh what would a gov't be without internal turf wars?

 

[dguy6789]

YAanarchist420trollT

He's not trolling, he's entirely serious.

 

[SP33Demon]

Bush's DHS, the others all serve a purpose and is just stupid trolling.

 

[bamacre]

If that's the case, then wouldn't your precious Free Market be the cause of the problem?

Uhh, no.

 

[Jadow]

I don't know if I'd get rid of any, however I would put a 5 year FREEZE on their budgets, then after that, only allow their annual budget to grow at 90% the rate of inflation. That way over time they will gradually diminish to a modest level. Maybe after 20-30 years, we could up their growth rate to inflation only, NEVER more than the rate of inflation.

I am sickened by how large our government has become.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know if I'd get rid of any, however I would put a 5 year FREEZE on their budgets, then after that, only allow their annual budget to grow at 90% the rate of inflation. That way over time they will gradually diminish to a modest level. Maybe after 20-30 years, we could up their growth rate to inflation only, NEVER more than the rate of inflation.

I am sickened by how large our government has become.

Many people have concerns about the size of government spending, including progressives.

But remember which party turned big deficits into a surplus - and which party did the opposite?

We're in an economic crisis needing 'stimulus' - and much more than we've had - but need to then cut spending and greatly shrink the deficit.

The policy you don't mention and may not be clear is in place is the one that helps the rich in so many ways, so that all economic growth after inflation goes to them.

That's the real drain on America that's the problem.

 

[JSt0rm]

I would get rid of all of them if I could. Being more realistic, I'd get rid of all of them except the DoD, the DoVA, the DoState, and the DoTreasury. I'd streamline those ones however.

So is that the reason they arent apart of your failpoll?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Where is the option for 'DoD' or 'None'?


..

 

[JSt0rm]

Where is the option for 'DoD' or 'None'?


..

He is retarded. He thinks the DOD should stay so he didnt let anyone vote on that. lol.

 

[Bateluer]

DoHS definitely. They've been nothing but a budget leach since their creation.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

DoHS, in particular the TSA.

 

[Fenixgoon]

DoHS definitely. They've been nothing but a budget leach since their creation.

i never quite understood DHS or DNI. isn't that what the FBI and CIA are for?

 

[trenchfoot]

Seems to me DoHS was created by Bush via Cheney to make things easier for themselves to seize tight control over all the intelligence agencies so as to make them their own personal spy agencies and/or to make them produce intel that fit their agenda, truth be damned, just as they used/abused the CIA, FBI and Justice (Alberto Gonzalez) to justify invading Iraq and spy on US citizens.

I don't know what Pres. Obama is doing with it, but I haven't heard a single thing about DoHS violating its stated mission or the Constitution since Bush and Cheney left office. But its a relic of the Bush era and needs to be axed.

edit - It would be so satisfying if Pres. Obama used DoHS to dig up every single crime that Bush Corp. committed against the citizens they swore to protect.

 

[nonlnear]

i never quite understood DHS or DNI. isn't that what the FBI and CIA are for?

There were some major problems with the way intelligence was structured prior to 9/11. Some of them were fixed, and many new ones were created. (Well the second part is debatable, as most of the "problems" only exist for those concerned with civil liberties.)

The FBI is not really designed for preemptive missions. For the most part they investigate crimes that have been committed and prepare evidence for trials, much like a federal police force. That's not the best way to counter a terrorist threat unless we accept the commission of the acts as given and are content to prosecute after the fact. The thing is it's hard to design an agency that can be effective at both investigating crimes with a focus on prosecution, and at preemptively stopping major terrorist threats. The evidence procedures (among other things) needed to accomplish one of those missions are very different from what they need to be to be effective at the other. Whether that actually necessitated more alphabet soup is another matter, but there was a good reason to reorganize things.

I wouldn't say I have any real insight on the CIA/DNI/ASDFGHJKL thing that happened to the intelligence world so I won't comment on that. All I know is I have heard some reasons that sounded good on paper, assuming they were the whole story - which of course they weren't. Such is the world of intelligence...

 

[SP33Demon]

There were some major problems with the way intelligence was structured prior to 9/11. Some of them were fixed, and many new ones were created. (Well the second part is debatable, as most of the "problems" only exist for those concerned with civil liberties.)

The FBI is not really designed for preemptive missions. For the most part they investigate crimes that have been committed and prepare evidence for trials, much like a federal police force. That's not the best way to counter a terrorist threat unless we accept the commission of the acts as given and are content to prosecute after the fact. The thing is it's hard to design an agency that can be effective at both investigating crimes with a focus on prosecution, and at preemptively stopping major terrorist threats. The evidence procedures (among other things) needed to accomplish one of those missions are very different from what they need to be to be effective at the other. Whether that actually necessitated more alphabet soup is another matter, but there was a good reason to reorganize things.

I wouldn't say I have any real insight on the CIA/DNI/ASDFGHJKL thing that happened to the intelligence world so I won't comment on that. All I know is I have heard some reasons that sounded good on paper, assuming they were the whole story - which of course they weren't. Such is the world of intelligence...

The NSA is the agency that should be preemptively stopping threats.

 

[werepossum]

Many people have concerns about the size of government spending, including progressives.

But remember which party turned big deficits into a surplus - and which party did the opposite?

We're in an economic crisis needing 'stimulus' - and much more than we've had - but need to then cut spending and greatly shrink the deficit.

The policy you don't mention and may not be clear is in place is the one that helps the rich in so many ways, so that all economic growth after inflation goes to them.

That's the real drain on America that's the problem.

Since Congress makes the budgets and spends the money, that would be "Republican" to both. Clinton's budgets after the '94 election were all DOA; remember when a Republican had to introduce Clinton's budget for a vote because no Dem would do so?

Congress spends the money - not the President, who deserves credit or blame only insofar as he vetoes or chooses not to veto spending. Clinton vetoed Republican-crafted budgets only to reduce spending cuts and slow-downs; Bush vetoed nothing except fetal stem cell research. Thus Clinton gets no credit for the (paper) surpluses, Bush gets half the blame for the deficits under his watch, and Obama gets half the blame for the current deficits (half because Congress could ignore his budgets just as the Republican Congresses ignored Clinton's.)

 

[werepossum]

Seems to me DoHS was created by Bush via Cheney to make things easier for themselves to seize tight control over all the intelligence agencies so as to make them their own personal spy agencies and/or to make them produce intel that fit their agenda, truth be damned, just as they used/abused the CIA, FBI and Justice (Alberto Gonzalez) to justify invading Iraq and spy on US citizens.

I don't know what Pres. Obama is doing with it, but I haven't heard a single thing about DoHS violating its stated mission or the Constitution since Bush and Cheney left office. But its a relic of the Bush era and needs to be axed.

edit - It would be so satisfying if Pres. Obama used DoHS to dig up every single crime that Bush Corp. committed against the citizens they swore to protect.

Perhaps you could have someone explain irony to you. Someone with a lot of patience, preferably in conjunction with training and a lot of experience in educating slow children.

 

[Carmen813]

I'd like to see many departments combined, as I see lots of overlap. In particular many regulatory agencies could be combined to operate under the same organization. Same for intelligence, though getting past departmental entrenchments would be no small undertaking. Also, let's go back to calling the Department of Defense what it really is (and what it's old name was): Department of War.

 

[Linflas]

Bush's DHS, the others all serve a purpose and is just stupid trolling.

Funny it was Bush that initially rejected the notion of creating an entire new bureaucracy in reaction to 9/11 until bludgeoned politically by first the Democrats, then Republicans all determined to "out security" one another. Go look at the daily headlines in the Washington Post archives if you weren't around then.

 

[nonlnear]

The NSA is the agency that should be preemptively stopping threats.

I wasn't arguing for the DHS in particular. Just laying out why something needed to change. What that change should have been is another matter entirely.