Great. I am eager to see where this goes, as we have too large a civil workforce, unsustainable levels of spending, and a lack of accountability. Same for many states too.
We have too many states
Can you clarify what you mean?
Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
41–50 of 124 posts
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#42As always I'm putting my money on "nothing ever happens", but I do think it's probably good that we have a serious discussion on what exactly the purpose various agencies serve and refine their missions and processes to actually support them. Will it happen, probably not, but I can dream.
Just some transparency would be great. Democracy can't work if the people are not able to understand their government.
Why anyone would think we're going to get more transparency this time around is beyond me. President Obama started the federal Open Data initiative and Trump, almost as quickly, neutered it just short of axing it. If they cared at all about being transparent, they would have worked on the Open Data initiatives rather than shrouding everything in further secrecy.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, its a department that literally does not exist yet because the regime that wants to build it isn't in power yet. So, maybe have a bit of patience before breaking out the name-calling.
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…?
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't a democracy vote in the people that are saying they want to remove some agencies? Isn't that also how the agencies came to be in the first place?
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 near as bad as people think it is. In countries with multi-party systems, parties often have to form coalitions in order to govern. In countries with two-party systems, parties have to do most of that coalition forming before the election. That's why we see far-left and center-left politicians in the Democratic party instead of having viable left wing parties.
One way or another, we get a coalition government. Is it better for those coalitions to be formed before the election or after? If it happens before the election, the electorate can see the results in time to change their decision. If it happens after the election, the fringe parties' arguments probably get discussed more, but there's no guarantee those parties will be part of the governing coalition.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#45This looks horribly like failing to understand Chesterton's fence https://thoughtbot.com/blog/chestertons-fence The agencies were democratically put in place for a reason. Removing them with no public discussion of the original reasoning is deeply undemocratic. At the very least, someone thought that the cost of having them in place was less than the cost to society of not having them there. Has that changed?
> This looks horribly like failing to understand Chesterton's fence
I think they know very well that the fences of democracy are in their way. That's why they want to dismantle the guardrails.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention but deleting agencies was not something I saw discussed at all prior to the election.
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
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#47Elon and Vivek have no authority to close a federal agency, and Trump doesn’t either. We’re currently in the bloviating stage of this election cycle; once attention dies down I fully expect DOGE to achieve very little and to die a slow death. The sad part of all of this is that the government could absolutely be more efficient than it currently is, while still providing the same services. But that’d take serious thou…
>Elon and Vivek have no authority to close a federal agency, and Trump doesn’t either.
You're right but the Republican-led House and Senate absolutely do have the power to both do that and grant these guys the power to do it.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't a democracy vote in the people that are saying they want to remove some agencies? Isn't that also how the agencies came to be in the first place?
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention but deleting agencies was not something I saw discussed at all prior to the election.
As a non-American I didn't see it in public discussion in US's media but it was very clearly outlined on Project 2025 when I read it.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#49That's great, He doesn't have the power to do that but whatever.
Re: Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just some transparency would be great. Democracy can't work if the people are not able to understand their government.
Why anyone would think we're going to get more transparency this time around is beyond me. President Obama started the federal Open Data initiative and Trump, almost as quickly, neutered it just short of axing it. If they cared at all about being transparent, they would have worked on the Open Data initiatives rather than shrouding everything in further secrecy.
Oh I am NOT talking about what I expect to happen, just what I wish would happen.