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

71–80 of 124 posts

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

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

atmavatar wrote: post #70
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…

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 reg…

> 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.

Rule changes can occur any time, but except for the initial adoption of the rules by a majority vote by each House at the opening of each Congress are, themselves, subject to the rules adopted by that House for that Congress, which may impose additional process.

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

#72

Post by alephnerd »

atmavatar wrote: post #70
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…

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 reg…

House can de facto filibuster in the sense that a 3 rep majority will inevitably lead to clashes internally, as every rep in the GOP absolutely will use this as an excuse to get concessions. This happened everytime this happens.

> It can be removed with a simple majority vote

It absolutely can, but both sides steer away from doing so due to situations like this - either party inevitably becomes the minority as some point in the Senate, so Senate leadership in both parties prefer to maintain it.

> 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

And that's my point. With Thune as Senate majority leader, Recess Appointments are basically moot.

The whole point of Recess Appointments is to undermine the power of the Senate, which much of the Senate obviously opposes.

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

#73

Post by rurp »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #18

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.

If you're worried about the national debt you're really not going to like the next 4+ years.

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

#74

Post by mostlysimilar »

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

You're right, you weren't paying close enough attention.

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

#76

Post by psb217 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #41
kelseyfrog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have too many states

Can you clarify what you mean?

I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWc6WRHKEE

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

#77

Post by Volundr »

akmarinov wrote: post #60

As a person who has no idea what most of the agencies do (exactly what Musk and Ramaswamy are): DHS can easily be folded into the FBI and cuts made TSA is a non-brainer, they don't really provide much security, let airports handle it on a case by case basis Do they really need a NSA and a CIA? Space force - just roll it into the air force Bam - that's probably like 500 billion right there

> DHS can easily be folded into the FBI and cuts made

Easily? You just folded the Coast Guard, FEMA, Immigration, and the secret service along with many other agencies under the FBI.

> Space force - just roll it into the air force

Already part of the air force.

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

#78

Post by unsnap_biceps »

dvdhnt wrote: post #61
hunbcfgd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We have the safest food supply in the entire history of humanity and there still improvements to go, but just removing all that progress because it wasn't perfect seems insane to me.

You want more things banned? Removing all existing regulations will not get you there.

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

#79

Post by unsnap_biceps »

lambdaba wrote: post #33
some_random wrote: post #25

As 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.

There's a ton of information about every agency out there, but people don't read about them. One of the benefits of government is that it allows people to ignore all the details that make modern life possible.

On the tech stack, it's like claiming that everyone should understand assembly. It's useful for some folks to know assembly, but the vast majority of folks don't care. They just want to use the stuff that's built upon it.

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

#80

Post by Arnt »

steveoscaro wrote: post #7
mattgibson wrote: post #5

This 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?

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?

Democracy isn't as simple as that. When you get 49.9% of the vote and can form a government, that isn't carte blanche to do anything and everything. A long-lived democracy depends on governments that take care not to offend the voters who voted against.

Angela Merkel was great at that — even when she had a majority anyway, she'd take care to act in such a fashion that ~half of the opposition voters approved.

Post reply on HN