Department of Homeland Security - Still Needed?

[ll74]

This was brought up on a podcast I listened to today (pod save the world), though just throwing it out there.

Is the department needed? Was it ever needed? It definitely seems redundant and has too much power to fuck citizens' rights over legally.

I would be fine with getting rid of it and returning their oversight areas back to the original agencies.

Thoughts?

 

[KeithD]

States rights and white supremacist Republicans shoudn't want to have it--and it was Republicans who established it.

 

[ll74]

States rights and white supremacist Republicans shoudn't want to have it--and it was Republicans who established it.

It was unanimous support.

 

[KeithD]

It was unanimous support.

I don't remember supporting it--and I was offered a job there at inception.

 

[ll74]

I don't remember supporting it--and I was offered a job there at inception.

You weren't a Congressmen, were you? Those are the people who established it. Support = voting on legislation

 

[KeithD]

You weren't a Congressmen, were you? Those are the people who established it. Support = voting on legislation

You posted "supported" and didn't mention either congressmen or "established." No moving of goalposts. (Support is NOT restricted in meaning to voting on legislation. That's a dumb assertion on a writing site.)

 

[ll74]

You posted "supported" and didn't mention either congressmen or "established." No moving of goalposts. (Support is NOT restricted in meaning to voting on legislation. That's a dumb assertion on a writing site.)

I'm not moving anything...I'm pointing out that both Democrats and Republicans established the department and not just Republicans as you stated.

 

[KeithD]

I'm not moving anything...I'm pointing out that both Democrats and Republicans established the department and not just Republicans as you stated.

It was Republican legislation under a Republican administration. I don't know what your problem is with that.

 

[ll74]

It was Republican legislation under a Republican administration. I don't know what your problem is with that.

It was a bipartisan effort. If a Democrat was in office, it would've still been established. You playing partisanship is dumb.

 

[KeithD]

It was a bipartisan effort. If a Democrat was in office, it would've still been established. You playing partisanship is dumb.

No, I was pointing out to board Trumpettes that it was a Republican action.

Because it was. It was put into the legislative process by a Republican administration. It was devised by the Bush administration.

But at least are we giving up the dumb assertion that "support" equates to "voting legislation"?

I really don't know why you're doing this shit.

 

[ll74]

No, I was pointing out to board Trumpettes that it was a Republican action.

Because it was. It was put into the legislative process by a Republican administration. It was devised by the Bush administration.

But at least are we giving up the dumb assertion that "support" equates to "voting legislation"?

I really don't know why you're doing this shit.

And it wasn't a Republican action. It was a bipartisan action under a Republican administration.

There is a difference, especially so because it was supported by everyone and has been renewed by both dem and pub alike ever since.

If you can't accept that's , it's not my fault..this thread is about Homeland Security, not about who started it. So fuck off with your blame

I want a discussion on whether it should stick around, not a blame game that is literally a falsehood.

 

[KeithD]

So you're no longer asserting that support equals voting legislation? (Which of course will mean that you'll have to acknowledge that there were some folks alive who didn't support (not meaning congressmen voting for it) the establishment of the department.) And if you acknowledge that, you lose your reason for jumping down my throat, which was all caused by you misstating something.

And just keep on ignoring what my correct post was meant to do.

 

[ll74]

So you're no longer asserting that support equals voting legislation? (Which of course will mean that you'll have to acknowledge that there were some folks alive who didn't support (not meaning congressmen voting for it) the establishment of the department.) And if you acknowledge that, you lose your reason for jumping down my throat, which was all caused by you misstating something.

And just keep on ignoring what my correct post was meant to do.

Democrats and Republicans created the department and continued to renew it's existence. Congress....the ones who created it.and renewed it. IYour original post was to blame one party and absolve the other which is horseshot. I don't care if you feel it was only Republicans. It wasn't.

The thread is about whether it should remain of be disbanded. If you wish to discuss blame, feel free to create your own thread on that topic.

 

[KeithD]

The president of the United States, George Bush, Republican, proposed the creation of DHS in June 2002. It was enacted in November 2002.

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/proposal-create-department-homeland-security

 

[KeithD]

9 senators and 132 representatives voted against the DHS creation Act.

That belies "everyone supported" and negates the need to have a tizzy fit over any "everyone supported" issue even on the basis of the adjusted original statement of "everyone supported" and of what "support" means.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005/actions

 

[Chernosoth]

Government departments and agencies have a cycle of which departments have the power and competence. The older departments fill up with dead weight. Firing them and telling Congress to cut the funding is too much hassle, so they are quietly ignored as work is moved to some new department. That runs up the bills, so they raise the debt ceiling. Fuck it, they're spending other people's money. They will eventually run out of other people's money, so that can be the next guy's problem.

 

[adrina]

Government departments and agencies have a cycle of which departments have the power and competence. The older departments fill up with dead weight. Firing them and telling Congress to cut the funding is too much hassle, so they are quietly ignored as work is moved to some new department. That runs up the bills, so they raise the debt ceiling. Fuck it, they're spending other people's money. They will eventually run out of other people's money, so that can be the next guy's problem.

Bloated bureaucracy is not what is ballooning the debt and deficit. That would be wealthyfare and tax cuts for the rich. Those are the two largest causes of the debt and deficit.

 

[KeithD]

Chernosoth's post is why I noted that not everyone (certainly not unanimous) supported the creation of DHS. I was interested in it at the time as I was offered a job there. But it looked mostly like adding on and muddying up what was there previously and not working. I thought they should save a lot of effort and quite a bit of duplication, intended or not, in making what was there work and connect better. The first director, Tom Ridge was the closest to being able to pull something useful off, but it's gone downhill, created a lot of turf wars, and swallowed up a whole lot of money since then.

 

[ll74]

Government departments and agencies have a cycle of which departments have the power and competence. The older departments fill up with dead weight. Firing them and telling Congress to cut the funding is too much hassle, so they are quietly ignored as work is moved to some new department. That runs up the bills, so they raise the debt ceiling. Fuck it, they're spending other people's money. They will eventually run out of other people's money, so that can be the next guy's problem.

Generalizing government agencies is fun. I'm specifically talking about homeland security. All of its functions have come from other departments and could easily be absorbed back in..along with eliminating outdated functions and over the top allowances which typically involve eroding of people's rights.

 

[KeithD]

Generalizing government agencies is fun. I'm specifically talking about homeland security. All of its functions have come from other departments and could easily be absorbed back in..along with eliminating outdated functions and over the top allowances which typically involve eroding of people's rights.

So, without commenting, you're dropping your "falling on your sword"-level "unanimous support" and "support equals voting legislation" argument and just moving on?

 

[ll74]

So, without commenting, you're dropping your "falling on your sword"-level "unanimous support" and "support equals voting legislation" argument and just moving on?

I already commented on that. Take it or leave it. I don't give a shit.

 

[KeithD]

I already commented on that. Take it or leave it. I don't give a shit.

No, you haven't conceded your misstatements at all, and in case you wonder why I pursued it, your #5 post was pretty snotty. You're not the only one who knows anything.

 

[ll74]

No, you haven't conceded your misstatements at all, and in case you wonder why I pursued it, your #5 post was pretty snotty. You're not the only one who knows anything

Yah, sorry bout your feels
I care .

Feel free to call customer support and let them know.

 

[KeithD]

Yah, sorry bout your feels
I care .

Feel free to call customer support and let them know.

I'm sure folks can discern who's butt hurt on this.

 

[ll74]

I'm sure folks can discern who's butt hurt on this.

Yes, I'm sure they can. Maybe post some more on that...it's seems very important to you.