Would you keep it, scrap it, or change it?
2007-12-25 07:30:52 · 18 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
GUESS WHO PULLED THEIR QUESTION
hint: The initials are GOP
2007-12-25 07:48:29 · update #1
It needs to be completely scraped. It is ill-organized, misdirected, sprawling, an octopus with no direction. It does nothing to help our country or make it more safe. It is the worse department ever created by our government, another injury Bush has done to our country.
2007-12-25 07:55:25 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Scrap it. It is a giant waste of money.Before 9/11 we had all the information needed to stop. But large government bureaucracies didn't act on the info fast enough. Larger bureaucracies are not the answer.
2007-12-25 07:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the big picture of todays world it is a good idea.However,some if not most of the functions are overlapped by other government agencies.This bureaucracy was created as a knee-jerk reaction by both parties as a response to the 9/11 attacks on our country.It is a worthy idea that needs to be streamlined so as to not duplicate services from other agencies.I doubt that either party will do that,though.
We do need to make and keep our borders and citizens safe from further attacks like 9/11/01(or the original WTC bombings),Oklahoma City or even Pearl Harbor.The American people need to remember to never forget their feelings on those days and the days following.We can not become complacent again or we will suffer the same consequences.
2007-12-25 08:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by Michael R 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You might as well ask if we have been attacked in a big way since 9/11. Of course we haven't...yet.
But, in sayiong that...
Our boarders are a sive, and its been almost miraculous that we keep hearing about people like the 20 conspirators in England caught before they could blow up those 10 transatlantin airliners what 2 years ago!
That Ricard so and so the Shoe bomber, the Canadian boarder patrol woman that stopped the guy w/ the truck full of explosives headed for LAX....the list is long...all the foiled attemps..in part, because of Homeland security...
But, it needs to get better, the holes in our defences are glaring and some day Al Qeida will find one.
Things need to be improved...a national ID card would be one of those things. If Citibank can do it, or the State of Nebraska...the Feds should/could do it too!
2007-12-25 07:34:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
HLS is an interesting organization
It started as if it was a new Civil Defense Corps. But has expanded to give Presidential control over inter-agency operations. Like the FBI.
Eroding Government Branch separation is not in the long term good of our Nation.
2007-12-25 07:56:02 · answer #5 · answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Department of Homeland Security is not a brand new department with all new employees. It is a consolidation of existing departments such as FEMA. I would keep it and also expand the idea because it is important that various agencies, including immigration, share their information and database to fight terrorism. We can also cut down on excessive expenses by streamlining operational costs. I'm not for bigger government, just more efficient one.
2007-12-25 08:01:26 · answer #6 · answered by averagebear 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the race card? returned? Republicans did whinge approximately Bush's spending. it quite is why they did no longer prove to help the GOP in '06 and '08. We understood the could desire to spend money after 9/11 and to combat wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. yet by applying 2005 the economic device grow to be recovered and it grow to be time to start paying the fees. Bush did no longer shrink spending or strengthen gross revenues in 2005 and 2006. Republican electorate thought that grow to be irresponsible and refused to vote in help of him. yet Obama took that over spending and enhanced it by applying 4. He took a foul coverage and made it plenty worse. Why is it so annoying to think of that folk can disagree with Obama on ideological and coverage subject concerns? I in simple terms don't comprehend this physique of suggestions that each and one and all Obama fighters could desire to be racists. perhaps you may clarify the way you arrived at this fantasy.
2016-10-09 04:11:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dep of Homeland Security needs to be gutted out if it's ever going to work.
Case in point - FEMA was actually useful before Homeland Security got their claws into it after 9/11
2007-12-25 12:02:39 · answer #8 · answered by Pask 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
As long as is stays in Constitutional bounds and it's own domain, I think we can keep it. That being said, somebody should keep a good eye on the department. By somebody, I mean the rest of America. It can potentially bring us one step closer to tyranny, and do much harm to the US.
2007-12-25 07:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by Mitchell 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Scrap it.
I think it is a pass the buck agency. A proxy way for him to pass controversial legislation and not take the political heat for it.
The agency is all for "security" so they can pass for it that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else. And they can overshoot their boundaries with very little oversight as no one wants to be accused of being "Weak On Terror" tm
2007-12-25 08:40:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋