Trump announces Emergency Actions 1st Day to Drastically Reduce the Cost of Living

[Occam's Banana]

What does a cabinet position even entail? Does it automatically mean a higher level of bureaucracy vs a non-cabinet position?

Or is it just a fancy title?

I suppose you could have a "minister without portfolio" (or what we uncouth Americans call a "czar").

[idiom]

All I can say to all you Trump haters is that if Ron Paul said this people would think it was a good idea.

If RP said this we would think he came up with it, understood it, and might actually follow through.

[TheTexan]

No.

Because you don't need a whole new cabinet-level bureaucracy to do those things.

I dunno about that, we're kind of in uncharted territory here.

Has there ever been a government department, who's sole purpose, was to reduce the purpose and scale down the size of other departments?

And if there were, I would probably choose to get rid of that department last, and not first, as long as it was actually doing its job in some meaningful way.

[dannno]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1852472973728338409

[dannno]

Elon wants to expand the government even more by hiring Ron Paul to be apart of the Dept of Govt Efficiency!!!

/s

Sorry but there are a few people here who sound so retarded I don’t even know where to begin.

[TheTexan]

Elon wants to expand the government even more by hiring Ron Paul to be apart of the Dept of Govt Efficiency!!!

/s

Sorry but there are a few people here who sound so retarded I don’t even know where to begin.

Yea TDS is a helluva drug

[PAF]

Elon wants to expand the government even more by hiring Ron Paul to be apart of the Dept of Govt Efficiency!!!

/s

Sorry but there are a few people here who sound so retarded I don’t even know where to begin.

So far, according to his interview, Ron stated that he will not take a position in the administration.

So, there's that, fwiw.

[PAF]

Yea TDS is a helluva drug

It's the only natural drug!

[CCTelander]

What does a cabinet position even entail? Does it automatically mean a higher level of bureaucracy vs a non-cabinet position?

Or is it just a fancy title?

So, you don’t really even understand how all this $#@! works, yet you still feel competent to ridicule people, like myself, who actually do?

Priceless.

[Occam's Banana]

No.

Because you don't need a whole new cabinet-level bureaucracy to do those things.

I dunno about that, we're kind of in uncharted territory here.

Has there ever been a government department, who's sole purpose, was to reduce the purpose and scale down the size of other departments?

And if there were, I would probably choose to get rid of that department last, and not first, as long as it was actually doing its job in some meaningful way.

I was specifically referring to a "Department of Reducing the Cost of Living", not to a "Department of Government Efficiency".

As for a "Department of Government Efficiency" (or of "Reducing the Size of Government", or whatever), I am not opposed to the idea in theory - and if (when ?) it ended up being a wheel-spinning failure in actual practice, there are certainly worse subject areas for cabinet-level bureaucracies to be involved with.

Here's what I said on the subject in another thread:

The quotes I am replying to here are from another thread (Trump announces Emergency Actions 1st Day to Drastically Reduce the Cost of Living):, but my reply is more on-topic for this thread.

Expanding the cabinet is the opposite of reducing it

Creating more agencies, departments and expanding the bureaucracy, obviously reduces the size, power and scope of government.

By definition, expanding the size of the cabinet is certainly the opposite of reducing the size of the cabinet - but it is not necessarily the opposite of reducing the size of the government in general. For example, if you increase the size of the cabinet by one department, but that department reduces the size of each of the other departments by half, then that might very well result in a net reduction in the size of the government. I am extremely skeptical that it would happen in actual practice, but it is at least theoretically possible to reduce the overall size of government by increasing some (new ?) part of it.

The Executive and Legislative branches have the power now to downsize government [in general] without first expanding it [at the cabinet level].

That is one of the reasons I am skeptical. If the will and wherewithal was there, it could already have been done.

On the other hand, given how inefficient the government is by its nature, it seems appropriately ironic that any attempt by (some part of) the government to make government more efficient would itself be ... inefficient.

And here's another reason I am skeptical:

"Government efficiency" is an oxymoron.

Unlike private actors, government has little to no incentive to be "efficient", because it suffers little or no serious or significant consequences for being "inefficient" (none, at least, that can't be fobbed off onto someone else - such as tax payers, et al.).

Even if genuinely dedicated reformers manage to somehow reduce wastefulness, etc., it can't and won't last - the system will inevitably revert to form and the status quo ante will reassert itself. (But in the meantime, it would be fun watching a bunch of outraged pundits and parasitic bureaucrats squeal like stuck pigs - so there's that, I guess ...)

[ClaytonB]

Things Trump has said: approximately 1 zillion
Things Trump said he would do, and then actually did: a handful

I divide thinkers into two broad types: head thinkers and heart thinkers. By "heart thinkers", I don't mean emotional/feminine, I just mean they go more by "gut hunch". Trump is almost 100% a heart thinker, not a head thinker. When he wants to build a building, he hires somebody to oversee the project. If he wants to reduce cost-of-living or cut government (or, preferably, do one by the other), he appoints somebody to his cabinet to oversee it. Could it turn into yet another gov't forever-department? Yes, there is some risk of that. But it doesn't have to. And maybe it won't be an actual cabinet position (which would require Congressional approval), maybe it will just be a special advisor with direct reporting (cabinet-level) and delegated POTUS authority.

You people gotta cut it out with the non-stop litmus testing... get some perspective...

THREAD: Dave Smith & Tom Woods on Voting Trump

[TheTexan]

So, you don’t really even understand how all this $#@! works, yet you still feel competent to ridicule people, like myself, who actually do?

Priceless.

Jeez, wow, you got me good on that one LOL. That really hit hard. I mean, I'd never put forward a rhetorical question, to try to make a point. Inconceivable!

I do love the constant ad-hominem attacks from you though. We agree on like 99% of stuff, except for tariffs, but of course, any disagreement on tariffs of all things, prohibits any attempts at mutual respect, obviously. If you keep this up, I might even have to de-friend you from my RPF profile! And then we can really get at it!

[PAF]

Things Trump has said: approximately 1 zillion
Things Trump said he would do, and then actually did: a handful

I divide thinkers into two broad types: head thinkers and heart thinkers. By "heart thinkers", I don't mean emotional/feminine, I just mean they go more by "gut hunch". Trump is almost 100% a heart thinker, not a head thinker. When he wants to build a building, he hires somebody to oversee the project. If he wants to reduce cost-of-living or cut government (or, preferably, do one by the other), he appoints somebody to his cabinet to oversee it. Could it turn into yet another gov't forever-department? Yes, there is some risk of that. But it doesn't have to. And maybe it won't be an actual cabinet position (which would require Congressional approval), maybe it will just be a special advisor with direct reporting (cabinet-level) and delegated POTUS authority.

You people gotta cut it out with the non-stop litmus testing... get some perspective...

THREAD: Dave Smith & Tom Woods on Voting Trump

Dave and Tom provided some food for thought and their own perspectives. It is still very important to litmus test, look at each policy and how it is put together, to determine if those policies are actually good, bad or indifferent.

There is information that has been published by very reputable sources which shows the breakdown and "bad" of these policies, but they are ignored/overlooked in hopes of some magic bullet.

You brought up "risk". Do you actually understand the risk? Is that risk acceptable? You stated that "it doesn't have to", but until/unless the people are fully informed and understand the breakdown of the policies, they are simply supporting policies blindly and on faith. Which doesn't have to be.

[Anti Federalist]

nvm

[PAF]

Is this confirmed in any way?

Post #37.

[PAF]

nvm

Might be of interest:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7262345

[Anti Federalist]

Post #37.

Yeah, I saw that.

I'm sure he would not hang up on Musk if he called asking for input though.

Might be of interest:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7262345

Yeah just saw that as well.

[PAF]

Yeah, I saw that.

I'm sure he would not hang up on Musk if he called asking for input though.

Certainly he would not hang up on them. Ron is all about outreach and stated in one of his episodes that he is non-partisan and will speak with anybody.

The question remains, after noosing everybody into voting for them, will they actually call Ron on the phone and/or visit with him and ask for his advice?

I remember Mitt saying Ron is the Constitutional expert, yet he did everything in his power to prevent Ron from winning.

[Anti Federalist]

Certainly he would not hang up on them. Ron is all about outreach and stated in one of his episodes that he is non-partisan and will speak with anybody.

The question remains, after noosing everybody into voting for them, will they actually call Ron on the phone and/or visit with him and ask for his advice?

I do not know.

I certainly hope so.

[PAF]

I do not know.

I certainly hope so.

Just curious, how long can you hold your breath? And, are you actually willing to do so? Are you going to???

[Anti Federalist]

Just curious, how long can you hold your breath? And, are you actually willing to do so? Are you going to???

[Anti Federalist]

I do not know.

I certainly hope so.

https://x.com/AntiFeder1776/status/1851012726308679871

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/AntiFeder1776/status/1852572185539334498

[asurfaholic]

Waste is built into most government programs by design. I can very easily see how a new cabinet tasked with eliminating waste and burden on the taxpayers can be a good thing.

Comparing this to creating a new branch of military is asinine.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Libertarians have got to disagree.
My guess if a Libertarian Utopia existed, some would be skeptical and complain that it is not good.

Probably at this point in time, there is little that Ron Paul can offer in regards to input or advice. Everything he has to say has been said for many years. Nothing is groundbreaking never heard of or thought of before. What it takes is putting that ideology into practice.

If my city had somebody that could cut costs by eliminating wasteful spending and finding less expensive methods to accomplish the task, I would be in favor of that.

It is simple mathematics. If you have a person or group of people assigned to do something and allocate money for them to do it, the money they save must be greater than the money wasted. Would anyone think that if Ron Paul was asked to be a consultant on Ron's terms that he should travel to Washington and have to personally pay for the expenses associated with advising? If Ron consulted, should he be compensated for his time, effort, advice?

It doesn't' matter, nothing is ever good enough. We are down to a handful of members that even login and we drastically find fault.

I suppose there are those out there that think Trump is saying these things and making these promises to attract the Libertarian vote. I find that funny. There is no Libertarian vote. The only thing you can count on from Libertarians is infighting.

Vivek, Musk, RFK Jr., Borders, Ukraine, Healthcare, Men out of women's sports, Wasteful spending, Addressing taxation.

If Jesus Christ was running for POTUS, people would not find him pure enough.

[TheTexan]

Libertarians have got to disagree.

I disagree.

[Anti Federalist]

I disagree.

You're wrong.

[Occam's Banana]

You're wrong.

No he isn't.

[ClaytonB]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1852472973728338409

[ClaytonB]

No he isn't.

Yes he is, you're all wrong. Only I am right because only I am the True Libertarian.