Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#61

Post by dvdhnt »

hunbcfgd wrote: post #6
mensetmanusman wrote: post #2

I like the framing of agencies as task forces, because it gives clear goals, then it prepares people for knowing it’s temporary. It also provides an off ramp to resist a situation where admin and bureaucracy always grows.

What is “temporary” about stopping corporations from poisoning local ecosystems for profit? What is “temporary” about validating new food or pharmaceutical products?

I’d argue the regulatory unit ought to be temporary while enforcement is ongoing. Permanent organizations are just as ineffective. They did nothing to protect our food supply from ingredients banned in other countries. They did nothing to stop microplastics from taking over the world.

So exactly what are they good for while sitting around pontificating for years on end?

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#62

Post by dpkonofa »

alephnerd wrote: post #57
dpkonofa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All this hyperventilating over DOGE is distracting from actual issues to worry about It's not hyperventilating. It may start as a task force but it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department of the federal government by Congress.

> it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department It cannot easily be converted. The house margin is razor thin now that Gaetz and Stefanik gave up their seats for nominations, and filibuster-able. And Senate leadership is status quo GOP with Sen Thune as Senate Majorty leader, and his allies Grassley and Cornyn, as well as shakey Senators like Collin and Murkowski reducing that majority, and the Senate…

Where were you for the last 8 years? If there's one thing the GOP is great at, it's coalescing around votes. Even with the thin margins, there are ways for them to achieve their goals quickly. I think you're not giving them enough credit here...

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#63

Post by dpkonofa »

some_random wrote: post #46
dpkonofa wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, it was part of Project 2025 - something one of the candidates claimed to know nothing about...

I'm sorry but Project 2025 still strikes me as fanfiction

What part of it makes it fanfiction to you? Multiple authors of the document are now in cabinet positions in the new administration.

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#64

Post by alephnerd »

dpkonofa wrote: post #62
alephnerd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department It cannot easily be converted. The house margin is razor thin now that Gaetz and Stefanik gave up their seats for nominations, and filibuster-able. And Senate leadership is status quo GOP with Sen Thune as Senate Majorty leader, and his allies Grassley and Cornyn, as well as shakey Senators like Collin and Murkowski reducing that majority, and the Senate…

Where were you for the last 8 years? If there's one thing the GOP is great at, it's coalescing around votes. Even with the thin margins, there are ways for them to achieve their goals quickly. I think you're not giving them enough credit here...

> Where were you for the last 8 years

Partaking in the revolving door (early-mid Obama 2 era) and chatting with friends of mine who still work on the Hill about these kinds of topics.

> Even with the thin margins, there are ways for them to achieve their goals quickly.

What ways? Thin margins BY DEFAULT slow everything down. The house is functionally split 218-215 now that Gaetz and Stefanik have been nominated.

Just 3 defection means House votes fail, and managing a caucus is DIFFICULT - especially given how split the GOP is.

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #43
dragonwriter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think DOGE does exist, it just is a non-government entity advising the incoming administration with a deceptive name that makes it sound like a government agency rather than a privileged private lobbying group.

Aren’t there already millions of ‘non-government entities’ directly advising every administration, or indirectly advising the advisors, etc…?

Most of them aren't named like government entities, given a verified-government-entity greycheck on Twitter, have their leadership announced by the incoming President elect, recruit on the explicit premise of being part of Administration policy, and have public confusion as to whether they are a government department or something else.

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#69

Post by gwurk »

d35007 wrote: post #44
gwurk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, but america use a two party system, there were only two options, and those options differed in many ways, it is difficult to say if "removing some agencies" was what the people that voted wanted, or if they just preferred that candidate despite them wanting to remove some agencies.

This is a pretty weak argument. Blaming the two-party system might feel good, but I don't think it gives us a better understanding of what happened in this election. People voted for the guy at the top of the ticket, and he was pretty clear about wanting to get rid of some federal agencies. I think we have to conclude that people were receptive to his message. My hot take is that the two-party system isn't anywhere n…

you are right in it being a weak argument in this situation, and I'll refrain from arguing against a two party system in this comment.

What I should have said, is that as an outsider: I see lots of interviews with people who state that they are going to vote for trump (at time of interview), and they all seem to pick and choose from the things that trump says, some they take at face value, and others they consider to be just "the way he talk", campaign speech, or something along those lines.

Now, I don't know, maybe the majority of the people that voted for him actually want to dismantle institutions, maybe they don't and just saw it as an exaggerated way of saying that there should be some cutbacks. I don't know, I just don't think that it is an obvious conclusion from the result.

Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes

#70

Post by atmavatar »

alephnerd wrote: post #57
dpkonofa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All this hyperventilating over DOGE is distracting from actual issues to worry about It's not hyperventilating. It may start as a task force but it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department of the federal government by Congress.

> it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department It cannot easily be converted. The house margin is razor thin now that Gaetz and Stefanik gave up their seats for nominations, and filibuster-able. And Senate leadership is status quo GOP with Sen Thune as Senate Majorty leader, and his allies Grassley and Cornyn, as well as shakey Senators like Collin and Murkowski reducing that majority, and the Senate…

It is only the Senate which has the filibuster, and it merely exists as a Senate rule. It can be removed with a simple majority vote, though I believe rule changes must occur at the beginning of the new Congress.

For example, SR 15 in the 113th Congress ultimately removed the filibuster for judicial appointments (see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-resoluti...).

That may be a moot point with regard to cabinet positions should the incoming Republican Senate go along with Trump's request for recess appointments, though.

Post reply on HN