Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 6, 2006.
Homeland Security? HS is a less polite way of saying Equine Excrement.
Southern Border. Radiation detection equipment at the border crossings and ports. Nuke plants. Refineries.
What HS is good at is spending money on office buildings and semi-trained warm bodies.
I agree, but I have to wonder whether has to be the fate of HS. With a good leader, and support from on high, would the program be more effective? Remember, Bush never wanted a HS department, he was only forced into it after sticking his finger in the air and finding that the public was decidedly against him. (Of course, this was considered a character flaw in Clinton.)
The Bush administration has proven that they can run FEMA into the ground from it's once-effective status. Conservatives have been working on running the Dept. of Ed. into the ground for years, along with the Dept. of the Interior.
Self-fulfilling prophecies are easy to bring to fruition. But does it have to be that way?
The larger the bureaucracy, the more it becomes devoted to central planning from On High. That's why there ain't no mo' USSR. Inefficiency. I don't think political party has diddly-boo to do with it. It's purely a size thing, and none of the agencies you mentioned have decreased in size.
But FEMA was highly effective when it was run competently.
What I'm saying is that anyone can run an agency into the ground. It takes someone who believes in it to get it to run properly.
Is the military more effective than it was when it was smaller? Should that be disbanded as well because it's gotten Too Big?
Which of course is why large corporations are always monumental failures.
You'd think Wal-Mart would have collapsed under the weight of all that on-high management by now...
I realize the ultraconservatives' rational of making some government programs run poorly so it's easier to justify getting rid of them, but wouldn't Homeland Security be one of those things that would be exempt from such things? Even the staunchest conservative believes in strong national defense, and you'd think HS would be part of that. Not that Bush is at all a real conservative. Frankly, I'm surprised Republicans put up with him for as long as they did. Everyone talks about security and terrorism when defending Bush, but he's been so bad at it how can anyone see it as a plus for him?
But hey, he's a moral guy (according to what he says of course, not what he does), so I guess it's ok.
Ah but don't forget... Bush never wanted a DHS, and fought it tooth and nail until he stuck his finger in the air and found that the American people disagreed with him, so he flip-flopped and grudgingly allowed it's creation... then took credit for it.
Of course, the same Republics who told us that it was shameful the way Clinton and Kerry 'governed by poll' will tell you that it was a sign of strength when Bush did it.
You and I know that, but most of the people I tell that to think I'm lying. There was a thread awhile ago where I asked if Bush had done anything right, and this was one of the things mentioned as a plus. When I pointed it out to the poster who listed it, as well as all of the other things he had as pluses that were actually screw ups on Bush's part (like the 9/11 panel he also fought against), I didn't get a response. Wonder why.
Though lately, I find that is changing. People are getting frustrated with Bush, no matter what he does. Not everybody of course, some people still believe in him. But people have just as many valid reasons. Which is to say, none. Seriously, somebody give a reason why you like this guy!