View Poll Results: Should the Homeland Security Dept Be Shutdown

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 43.75%
  • No

    17 53.13%
  • Can't be sure

    1 3.13%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: Axing Homeland Security

  1. #81
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    392

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    How old are you?

    Except for TSA, all the sub groups under DHS used to be under various other departments.

    CBP was under DOJ

    ICE was INS and also under DOJ

    Coast Guard used to be under Treasury

    FPS was under GSA

    etc.
    And now they are all part of DHS, which apparently you and AOC want to axe. If that's not it, then what is it that you actually want to axe? Maybe you should be more precise.

  2. #82
    Professor

    Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-13-19 @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Richard Clark did do what he could, but no, the PDB did not contain actionable intelligence.

    Here, an example:


    "Hezbollah, on Iran's behalf, is considering responding to the recent rise in tension by attacking America with a boat."


    Alright, you're the President. You get half a dozen warnings like this every day, how do you stop this attack when you have:

    1. No idea who is actually going to be involved
    2. Where it's going to occur (or, for that matter, fresh water or salt)
    3. If it's actually going to occur, or if it's an intention
    4. How far the planning process has gone


    Do you just say "NO MORE AMERICANS IN OR NEAR THE WATER, AND I CAN"T TELL YOU WHY, BUT REASONS? ALSO, THE NAVY NEEDS TO SHOOT ANY BOAT THAT COMES NEAR, BECAUSE IT MIGHT GET ATTACKED"

    Giving an intention to - maybe - attack at some time, with some thing, isn't really actionable, unless you also have specific individuals involved, that you can find, etc.

    Bush was told Bin Laden intended to attack the U.S. (again), and authorized armed drones to go after him. Other than that.... ban Arabs from entering the United States? Nuke Afghanistan in order to make sure we got him?
    I sure as hell would not have ignored it and I sure as hell would not have ignored Clarke upon taking office.
    Your mother swims after cruise ships.

    'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' Anatole France

  3. #83
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Seen
    07-15-19 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    How old are you?

    Except for TSA, all the sub groups under DHS used to be under various other departments.

    CBP was under DOJ

    ICE was INS and also under DOJ

    Coast Guard used to be under Treasury

    FPS was under GSA

    etc.
    I had to go looking to see which agencies were "consolidated" under DHS. Most of them, I'd never heard of.

    Still don't understand why the Coast Guard...the true guardians of much our of "border" were under Treasury (except that they probably seized a ton of money, lol). I always thought they were a branch of the military and fell under the Joint Chiefs purvey.

    Now...the Cajun Coast Guard...my hat's off to 'em. They get it done when it needs to get done. No questions asked. Hope all in Barry's path stay safe.
    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. ~Ancient Proverb
    You can send a child to school, but you cannot make him think. ~są

  4. #84
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    98,954

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by SomeCents View Post
    I had to go looking to see which agencies were "consolidated" under DHS. Most of them, I'd never heard of.

    Still don't understand why the Coast Guard...the true guardians of much our of "border" were under Treasury (except that they probably seized a ton of money, lol). I always thought they were a branch of the military and fell under the Joint Chiefs purvey.

    Now...the Cajun Coast Guard...my hat's off to 'em. They get it done when it needs to get done. No questions asked. Hope all in Barry's path stay safe.
    ATF used to be under treasury too. I have no idea why either.
    Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's idea of a rich man and a weak man's idea of a strong man. --Meme of the Year nominee

  5. #85
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    60,532

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Sampson Simpson View Post
    Except the same thing happens at the state level, and the same thing happens in corporations and in business. The justice system as well is rife with politics. DAs doing thigns solely for being elected or political reasons as opposed to what is being done right.

    The right likes to think its solely the federal government that is like that, but it infiltrates everything humans have their hands in
    On the contrary, my friend, what you are pointing to is one of the greater conservative insights, Public Choice Theory

    Economists who study behavior in the private marketplace assume that people are motivated mainly by self-interest. Although most people base some of their actions on their concern for others, the dominant motive in people's actions in the marketplace—whether they are employers, employees, or consumers—is a concern for themselves. Public choice economists make the same assumption—that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-interest. In Buchanan's words the theory "replaces... romantic and illusory... notions about the workings of governments [with]... notions that embody more skepticism."


    The only things that force state or (more likely) local government to be even slightly better is it's greater proximity to those it screws over, the fact that, given the smaller scale, issues are inherently less complex to begin with, and the fact that rational ignorance plays less of a role, since the immediately impacted local community can have swift impact if it mobilizes.

    (same source above):

    One of the chief underpinnings of public choice theory is the lack of incentives for voters to monitor government effectively. Anthony Downs, in one of the earliest public choice books, An Economic Theory of Democracy, pointed out that the voter is largely ignorant of political issues and that this ignorance is rational. Even though the result of an election may be very important, an individual's vote rarely decides an election. Thus, the direct impact of casting a well-informed vote is almost nil; the voter has virtually no chance to determine the outcome of the election. So spending time following the issues is not personally worthwhile for the voter. Evidence for this claim is found in the fact that public opinion polls consistently find that less than half of all voting-age Americans can name their own congressional representative.


    It's easy for a Congresscritter to ignore half the country. It's tougher for a city board to ignore their neighbors.


    Private industry isn't more efficient and better at innovating because it's full of people who pursue the public good - but because it faces immediate market discipline in the form of competition (excepting in cases where government protects it from competition, and in those cases, private industry does indeed become less efficient, less caring about it's customers, and less able or willing to innovate). Rational Ignorance on the part of the voter/consumer also plays much less of a role, ensuring that that market discipline is much better informed, as well as swifter:

    Public choice economists point out that this incentive to be ignorant is rare in the private sector. Someone who buys a car typically wants to be well informed about the car he or she selects. That is because the car buyer's choice is decisive—he or she pays only for the one chosen. If the choice is wise, the buyer will benefit; if it is unwise, the buyer will suffer directly. Voting lacks that kind of direct result. Therefore, most voters are largely ignorant about the positions of the people for whom they vote. Except for a few highly publicized issues, they do not pay a lot of attention to what legislative bodies do, and even when they do pay attention, they have little incentive to gain the background knowledge and analytic skill needed to understand the issues.




    Once you learn to maintain a healthy skepticism of the capability of people to reliably pursue the public good over their private good, and recognize that deep flaws and inadequacies will mark any human institution, and that only those institutions where those flaws and inadequacies face swift and informed correction can ever seriously attempt to mitigate them or improve, you have started on the path to the Dark Side, Sampson.


    Last edited by cpwill; 07-13-19 at 08:21 PM.

  6. #86
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    60,532

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    I sure as hell would not have ignored it and I sure as hell would not have ignored Clarke upon taking office.
    Bin Laden's threat wasn't ignored - Bush authorized a CIA base in Northern Afghanistan to use armed drones (then still pretty new) to hunt him.

    The intel available briefed to senior decision-makers simply lacked the specificity necessary to disrupt the 9/11 attacks.

  7. #87
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    60,532

    Re: Axing Homeland Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Checkerboard Strangler View Post
    My Point (Axing Homeland Security)

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •