It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: redmage
originally posted by: DAVID64
Obviously they feel like the work can still get done without them.
Do they? I'm not sure it's as obvious as you claim.
One trend I've noticed is manufactured failure.
A common tactic in politics is to spend years and years chipping away at an agency through reductions, and/or removing any enforcement powers (like with the EPA), only to later point and say "Look how ineffective 'agency X' is!". Well of course 'agency X' is ineffective after it's been stripped of workers and/or enforcement powers through years and years of chipping away at it, but that's not the fault of the agency itself. It's the fault of politicians meddling at the behest of lobbyists.
originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: ketsuko
I don't follow.
How do constant poverty figures benefit both major parties like falsely low unemployment figures do? It would seem that if either party could actually eliminate poverty it would lead to a more robust economy, and that party would certainly have a status boost in the eyes of Americans.
Your analogy doesn't seem to fit.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DAVID64
The department accounts for about 1% of GDP , the cuts will add little if anything to countering the deficit but will harm the US if it cuts its diplomatic and aid missions.
It seems a short sighted decision to me designed to appeal to supporters rather than take into account the importance of international engagement.
We have to make cuts somewhere.
A little here ... a little there ... instead of looking at every proposed cut and saying, "This is nowhere near enough, so let's leave it alone." But the time all the little cuts are added together, they may be a significant chunk of the problem.
originally posted by: CB328
Yes lets get rid of what few good jobs still exist in this country because working people don't need money, or benefits.
This is insanity. Cut jobs, raise interest rates, deregulate, start wars, America is screwed.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen
There's probably thousands of "jobs" in the government that are basically unnecessary and could be eliminated by simple efficiency.
I have no doubt in my mind that you are correct.
Many of those thousands of jobs are in the intelligence agencies.
Tillerson's proposal reduces the number of new diplomats being hired and includes the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development's possible consolidation, according to officials briefed on the proposal. The staff cuts would amount to about 3 percent of the department's roughly 75,000-strong workforce.
originally posted by: ketsuko
Besides, there is no real reason why the three wealthiest counties in the country are all right around DC now. That means public service is the wealthiest job you can have. That seems wrong.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: MOMof3
Job losses, wars.
Worst President Ever.
Why should the goverment employ people in unneeded jobs? Thats just another form of welfare.