DHS Shut Down Averted
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:13:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  DHS Shut Down Averted
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: DHS Shut Down Averted  (Read 7047 times)
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2015, 02:16:27 PM »

Republicans never learn.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2015, 02:36:18 PM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

The DHS is unnecessary as a bureaucracy.

The agencies under DHS control are necessary to be funded.
^^^^^^
Homeland Security now includes agencies like the Coast Guard and Border Control. Republican threats to blow up America if they don't get everything they want are just that, threats. It's obvious they aren't actually going to pull the trigger and do it. I have no idea why Obama has waited this long to call their bluff. He rewarded their bad behavior for far too long.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2015, 03:22:07 PM »

The House just passed a clean HS funding bill through the end of the fiscal year (September 30) and the bill now heads to the President's desk.  Republican leadership told the rank and file members that this fight had run its course and there was really no alternative but to pass the bill.  Good job, Speaker Boehner.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2015, 03:29:38 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/house-homeland-security.html?_r=0

Passed 257-167, with 75 republican votes.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2015, 03:33:20 PM »

The right has already moved on from this to Hillary's email "scandal" and blowing Bibi. Boehner is going to walk away from this scot-free.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2015, 03:43:46 PM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

Because it is. It is a hallow department that is massively inefficient with tax dollars according to the Office of Government Accountability, and was basically a "we're doing something about 9/11" gesture. We should roll anything that the department does that is necessary into the Defense Department and the rest are completely eliminated.  Dems were accurate during that time but since the party is a a shallow opportunist party, changed their tune when the departments shut down potentially benefits them.

And of course the Republicans are never going to follow through on this shut down, which is an utter shame.
Logged
Beezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,902


Political Matrix
E: 1.61, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2015, 05:06:19 PM »

There's only one rule on Boehner's House floor: Fück all rules!

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/house/hastert-rule
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2015, 05:26:13 PM »


To be fair, the Hastert rule is pretty terrible.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2015, 05:41:43 PM »


LOL at the picture of Boehner in this article.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2015, 05:47:44 PM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

Because it is. It is a hallow department that is massively inefficient with tax dollars according to the Office of Government Accountability, and was basically a "we're doing something about 9/11" gesture. We should roll anything that the department does that is necessary into the Defense Department and the rest are completely eliminated.  Dems were accurate during that time but since the party is a a shallow opportunist party, changed their tune when the departments shut down potentially benefits them.

And of course the Republicans are never going to follow through on this shut down, which is an utter shame.

What?  You want the DHS to shutdown to shut down for some arbitrary length of time?  Why?

And, let's get the history right.  At first, the Bush administration was against the DHS concept.  And, then they were for it and accused any of the opponents of hatred of America, including people who had lost their limbs fighting for this country. 

But, let's get real:  There are two different problems. 

1.  The DHS should never have been created because it was just reshuffling departments for no real reason.

2.  Post-9/11 we have over-invested in border security and homeland security measures that amount to pork barrel spending.

Does shutting down the department help either at all?  No.  We still need the functions of DHS to work, like the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, FEMA, etc.  Changing around those functions from one department to another was the useless part of the bill, it's not the we don't need a Coast Guard or FEMA.

However, getting rid of DHS wouldn't help.  It would just be more wasted money on reshuffling departments and bureaucratic turf, with no real change ultimately.  The real issue should be getting the departments within DHS to work efficiently and smartly on their various missions. 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2015, 07:09:41 PM »

Excellent news. Boehner once again shows that he's the best leader we can hope for out of this caucus and I hope he can hang on.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2015, 08:32:25 PM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

Because it is. It is a hallow department that is massively inefficient with tax dollars according to the Office of Government Accountability, and was basically a "we're doing something about 9/11" gesture. We should roll anything that the department does that is necessary into the Defense Department and the rest are completely eliminated.  Dems were accurate during that time but since the party is a a shallow opportunist party, changed their tune when the departments shut down potentially benefits them.

And of course the Republicans are never going to follow through on this shut down, which is an utter shame.

What?  You want the DHS to shutdown to shut down for some arbitrary length of time?  Why?

And, let's get the history right.  At first, the Bush administration was against the DHS concept.  And, then they were for it and accused any of the opponents of hatred of America, including people who had lost their limbs fighting for this country. 

But, let's get real:  There are two different problems. 

1.  The DHS should never have been created because it was just reshuffling departments for no real reason.

2.  Post-9/11 we have over-invested in border security and homeland security measures that amount to pork barrel spending.

Does shutting down the department help either at all?  No.  We still need the functions of DHS to work, like the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, FEMA, etc.  Changing around those functions from one department to another was the useless part of the bill, it's not the we don't need a Coast Guard or FEMA.

However, getting rid of DHS wouldn't help.  It would just be more wasted money on reshuffling departments and bureaucratic turf, with no real change ultimately.  The real issue should be getting the departments within DHS to work efficiently and smartly on their various missions. 

Wouldn't the necessary functions of DHS be better run if they were under a different Department and had to report to those people? And look, I know shutting it down is kind of just inefficient and wasteful, but it does open up to conversation at least to more productive ones like this - do we really need a DHS at all?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2015, 11:21:22 PM »


Wouldn't the necessary functions of DHS be better run if they were under a different Department and had to report to those people? And look, I know shutting it down is kind of just inefficient and wasteful, but it does open up to conversation at least to more productive ones like this - do we really need a DHS at all?

I'm afraid it tends not to. When something is threatened to have all its funding suddenly cut off in these congressional standoffs, then there is a rallying effect as both parties talk about how important it is and blame the other that it isn't being funded.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2015, 11:26:41 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2015, 11:30:34 PM by The Mikado »

Everyone else has already beaten me to it, but its sub-agencies could be divided among Defense, Interior, and even Commerce. I don't really hate the DoHS, but it's basically the Miscellaneous Department even more than Commerce is.

Remember that in 2002 the argument for forming DoHS was that the CIA and FBI weren't under the same roof and had difficulty coordinating...and neither CIA nor FBI are under DoHS and that's just as true as it was in 2002.

EDIT: Granted, some of the DoHS' agencies' previous locations made even less sense. The Secret Service as part of the Treasury Department was baffling, even if the Secret Service's portfolio was 1. prevent Presidential assassination, and 2. prevent counterfeiting. Mainly because those two tasks shouldn't belong to the same agency.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 04, 2015, 12:18:39 AM »

The House just passed a clean HS funding bill through the end of the fiscal year (September 30) and the bill now heads to the President's desk.  Republican leadership told the rank and file members that this fight had run its course and there was really no alternative but to pass the bill.  Good job, Speaker Boehner.

You mean good job, Speaker Pelosi. Wink
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 04, 2015, 01:46:06 AM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

The DHS is unnecessary as a bureaucracy.

The agencies under DHS control are necessary to be funded.

That's the issue... the optics etc of the umbrella they are formed under doesn't matter, the funding for the activities carried out under that umbrella is.
 
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2015, 09:12:16 AM »

I'm personally very upset that a better funding bill wasn't passed, and my dislike for fringe House Republicans grows stronger with each day.  However, I must question how much of this criticism is partisan or legitimate, as I seem to remember quite a few Dems hooting and hollering about the DHS being unnecessary when President Bush was around.

Because it is. It is a hallow department that is massively inefficient with tax dollars according to the Office of Government Accountability, and was basically a "we're doing something about 9/11" gesture. We should roll anything that the department does that is necessary into the Defense Department and the rest are completely eliminated.  Dems were accurate during that time but since the party is a a shallow opportunist party, changed their tune when the departments shut down potentially benefits them.

And of course the Republicans are never going to follow through on this shut down, which is an utter shame.

What?  You want the DHS to shutdown to shut down for some arbitrary length of time?  Why?

And, let's get the history right.  At first, the Bush administration was against the DHS concept.  And, then they were for it and accused any of the opponents of hatred of America, including people who had lost their limbs fighting for this country. 

But, let's get real:  There are two different problems. 

1.  The DHS should never have been created because it was just reshuffling departments for no real reason.

2.  Post-9/11 we have over-invested in border security and homeland security measures that amount to pork barrel spending.

Does shutting down the department help either at all?  No.  We still need the functions of DHS to work, like the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, FEMA, etc.  Changing around those functions from one department to another was the useless part of the bill, it's not the we don't need a Coast Guard or FEMA.

However, getting rid of DHS wouldn't help.  It would just be more wasted money on reshuffling departments and bureaucratic turf, with no real change ultimately.  The real issue should be getting the departments within DHS to work efficiently and smartly on their various missions. 

Wouldn't the necessary functions of DHS be better run if they were under a different Department and had to report to those people? And look, I know shutting it down is kind of just inefficient and wasteful, but it does open up to conversation at least to more productive ones like this - do we really need a DHS at all?

Think of DHS like a tree diagram like this:



You could put those boxes at the bottom of the chart in a number of different places.  You could make them independent agencies which report to the President.  You could make sub agencies, like DHS could be split into, Immigration, Customs, and Border Security and a catch all department for the rest.  You could come up with a lot of different types of management diagrams.  Ultimately, most of the meat here is within those sub-agencies at the bottom.  Within the Coast Guard, there's another tree diagram.



Would it really matter that much if the Commandant of the Coast Guard reported to the Defense Secretary or the DHS Secretary?  I don't think so.  Obviously, you don't want the Secretary of Agriculture to oversee the Nuclear Regulatory commission.  But, this is all close enough if you ask me.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2015, 02:26:55 PM »

Now they're going to continue to touch my junk.  Cry
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.