Should the Department of Labor be abolished?

[A18]

Discuss.

[WalterMitty]

dramatically cut back.

i do believe we can use the dept of labor for union busting...assuming we elect a normal person president sometime soon.

[opebo]

dramatically cut back.

i do believe we can use the dept of labor for union busting...assuming we elect a normal person president sometime soon.

You poor deluded worker.  Did you ever get that job?

[WalterMitty]

dramatically cut back.

i do believe we can use the dept of labor for union busting...assuming we elect a normal person president sometime soon.

You poor deluded worker.  Did you ever get that job?

no im still unemployed.

i guess white, rich folks (your people, opebo) would use the term 'in transition'.

[Dave from Michigan]

not sure what all they do, maybe. it should be cut back

[Emsworth]

Absolutely. They serve no meaningful or coherent purpose.

[Virginian87]

Absolutely. They serve no meaningful or coherent purpose.

Of course, Emsworth, being the champion of extremely limited government that he is, believes most of the Cabinet level departments should be cut.  I take it, in your opinion, that HUD, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs should also be dropped.

[Emsworth]

Of course, Emsworth, being the champion of extremely limited government that he is, believes most of the Cabinet level departments should be cut.

That is certainly true. I would abolish all federal executive departments except the original three: State, Treasury, and Defense/War. I would retain the office of Attorney General as a Cabinet-level post, but there would be no Justice Department, as was the case until 1870.

[Dr. Cynic]

The Department of Labor still serves its purpose, so no. Any position that fails to execute it's purpose should be abolished, but as I see it, the Labor department is intregal in job creation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, it needs to be expanded to actually protect West Virgina miners.

[A18]

Of course, Emsworth, being the champion of extremely limited government that he is, believes most of the Cabinet level departments should be cut.

That is certainly true. I would abolish all federal executive departments except the original three: State, Treasury, and Defense/War. I would retain the office of Attorney General as a Cabinet-level post, but there would be no Justice Department, as was the case until 1870.

Veterans Affairs makes some sense, although I'm not sure there's any need for a separate department for it.

[MaC]

I voted yes, obviously--however I don't think it's obvious to some... 

[Dr. Cynic]

Milk, you only think that because you are such a Libertarian, lol.

[Emsworth]

No, it needs to be expanded to actually protect West Virgina miners.

I'm sure that the state of West Virginia is perfectly capable of protecting its own miners. The federal government is not some sort of omniscient, omnibenevolent national nanny.

[Dr. Cynic]

But it seems like the government is acting like Iraq's nanny. Why care more for them than for Americans?

[Emsworth]

But it seems like the government is acting like Iraq's nanny. Why care more for them than for Americans?

I do not support the Iraqi intervention either.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No.

Employment of our citizens is definately something the government should be concerned with and I think its fine to have a cabinet-level agency to oversee it.

[Dr. Cynic]

I was just making a point. But surely, you must have some heart for the people. If you were President, you mean you wouldn't help miners in danger if you could?

[Emsworth]

But surely, you must have some heart for the people.

I do not think of government in terms of having compassion for any particular group of people (which often means having discompassion for another group). Rather, I feel that the government's functions should be limited to protecting people from violations of their rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly would want to do anything I could to help them. Obviously, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has already been established, so I would not object to sending individuals to help the rescue effort.

However, in general, protecting miners is not a function of the federal government, but of the states.

[J. J.]

No, it needs to be expanded to actually protect West Virgina miners.

Ah, that's the Department of Labor.

[A18]

No, it needs to be expanded to actually protect West Virgina miners.

Ah, that's the Department of Labor.

We're talking about the Department of Labor.

[AkSaber]

Yeah, I'd unload it.

[Virginian87]

No.

Employment of our citizens is definately something the government should be concerned with and I think its fine to have a cabinet-level agency to oversee it.

[opebo]

dramatically cut back.

i do believe we can use the dept of labor for union busting...assuming we elect a normal person president sometime soon.

You poor deluded worker.  Did you ever get that job?

no im still unemployed.

i guess white, rich folks (your people, opebo) would use the term 'in transition'.

I don't know what they'd say, none of them work in jobs.

But as for you, man, wouldn't you rather work for $25+ an hour with excellent benefits, pension, and a union to protect you from abuse or arbitrary firing by your boss?  What is so bad about that?  You think your life will be preferrable making $10 an hour with no benefits in some non-union job?   Of course perhaps you hope to somehow get a 'profesional' or 'white collar' position - but those aren't much better.  A lot of people get $35,000 a year and work a lot more than 40 hours a week, with fairly shakey benefits and retirement - certainly worse than the classic union worker.