National Security and Health Care - Two Very Different Approaches

[PBzeer]

It would be funny, if not so predictable. Could you point out where, at any time, I have said there should be no government? Because that's what you're saying.

There are, certain and specific areas where government should be involved, and we should fund those areas of involvement. I know of no conservative that says otherwise. What I have said, is that there are many areas where government shouldn't be involved and is involved.

Perhaps you can tell us how education has prospered since the creation of the Department of Education?

[PBzeer]

Ok, let's take the FDA. Would it cease to exist without a HHS? No. Nor Medicare/Aid, or any other program currently a part of HHS (whether they should exist in the first place or not). All that HHS does is add another layer of bureaucracy. To what purpose? What can having an HHS add to what the FDA is congressionally mandated to do that isn't political? (And I would think that no one thinks the FDA should be political.)

[PBzeer]

And just how does HHS "coordinate" the FDA beyond what the head of the agency already does? (Oversight is a congressional function of any congressionally mandate program.)

Any bureaucracy, whether public or private, inevitably expands beyond what is necessary for efficient performance. This is always exacerbated in government programs because there are no real cost considerations to contain the expansion. When coupled to the fact that all government agencies will spend whatever they are budgeted to spend (so as not to have their budgets cut), and the problem becomes even worse.

While you're certainly welcome to believe we have the best organizational structure possible, at this point in time, I don't subscribe to that viewpoint. Of the 15 Cabinet level departments, I believe 8 are unnecessary. (this includes the belief that many of the agencies within those departments are redundant.)

[PBzeer]

You claim the HHS is necessary to "coordinate" the FDA. I'm still waiting to hear how and why this is necessary.

[bljones]

I say we've got about 4 more posts before this devolves into "I know you are, what am I?"

[PBzeer]

First of all, I'm not concerned with the organizational structure of HHS. My point is why is an HHS even necessary (thus, no structure is needed). The assumption one has to take from your replies is, because it exists it must be necessary.

The Tenth Amendment shows a clear intent by the Founders in a limited Federal Government. I merely seek a return to that envisionment. And a first step would be the elimination of unnecessary Cabinet level departments. Departments which exist for their political use, not because they are necessary to the function of the agencies that are within them.

[Alibaba]

Originally Posted by lporcano

OMG, The only changes you have suggested would not even make the tiniest dent in the US budget, and so far I have not seen you offer one benefit that we would get from your suggested changes. Yet, you seem to believe that the future of liberty and the prosperity of our nation rests in getting rid of HHS, while maintaining all of it's functions in some re-organized fashion.

Good god, so this is how republicans get elected.

Typical Republican response. Cut all the social welfare programs, but dont you dare cut Corporate Welfare.

Arguing with working people who think they are republicans is Non-Productive. nothing you can type will convince them to change thier minds. The Right Wing in America had spend billions of dollars manipulating media and controlling politiacal opinions.

[PBzeer]

but dont you dare cut Corporate Welfare.

Perhaps you could point out where I have said that? Corporate welfare is just as obnoxious to me as any other welfare.

I have no problem with the government lending a helping hand in time of need. What I do oppose is when it becomes permanent instead of temporary.

The Right Wing in America had spend billions of dollars manipulating media and controlling politiacal opinions.

Huh?

I think that a lot of those arguments are the same ones put forth by Timmy McVeigh, Randy Weaver and Ron Paul, so there are definitely people that agree with you.

Quite frankly, that doesn't even deserve a response.