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

[unknown]

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

Ron Paul would not take steps to reduce the power, size and scope of government by expanding it...

The Executive and Legislative branches have the power now to downsize government without first expanding it.

Obviously.

 

[TheTexan]

If one believes that all good things come from government, and without government “doing something” no good can be achieved, this makes perfect sense.

What can government “do” to reduce the cost of living and increase prosperity?

Get the hell out of the way.

We don’t need yet another “cabinet position,” and no doubt government agency to go with it to accomplish that.

Epic fail.

I can't tell if this is TDS or just ideology gone stupid, but goddamn, if you don't want even one person in government who's only assigned role is to reduce government, then you never should have voted for or supported Ron Paul, because that's exactly what he would have been as well.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If one believes that all good things come from government, and without government “doing something” no good can be achieved, this makes perfect sense.

What can government “do” to reduce the cost of living and increase prosperity?

Get the hell out of the way.

We don’t need yet another “cabinet position,” and no doubt government agency to go with it to accomplish that.

Epic fail.

This is about government doing less.
Learn to read.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Expanding the cabinet is the opposite of reducing it

Adding one cabinet position to eliminate bureaucrats and possibly other cabinet positions is reducing government.
This is just the kind of thing Ron would do.
We have enough people dedicated to growing government, it's time we put someone in charge of reducing it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Remove every burdensome regulation driving increased costs ? Sounds like DEA , BATFE and USDA just got fired, lol

That's the idea.

But the TDS crowd would rather have Camela multiply government.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The first action of Elon's "Department of Government Efficiency" should be to abolish Trump's "Department of Reducing the Cost of Living".

 

[Swordsmyth]

The first action of Elon's "Department of Government Efficiency" should be to abolish Trump's "Department of Reducing the Cost of Living".

Because we wouldn't want to lose all those regulations and the bureaucrats associated with them?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Because we wouldn't want to lose all those regulations and the bureaucrats associated with them?

No.

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

Especially not for just the relatively narrow subject area of "reducing the cost of living". [1]

I mean, talk about "inefficienty"! Sheesh!



[1] Why not also have a "Department of Reducing the Cost of Doing Business" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of This Thing" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of That Thing" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of the Other Thing" and ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why not also have a "Department of Reducing the Cost of Doing Business" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of This Thing" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of That Thing" and a "Department of Reducing the Cost of the Other Thing" and ...

First Rule of "Department of Government Efficiency" Club: don't create any other new departments.

 

[TheTexan]

No.

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

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?

 

[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 shit 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 ...)