PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 Most Useless Socialist Run Government Agencies......



Libhater
10-04-2013, 11:18 AM
#10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual budget $8.5 billion

#9 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) annual budget $13.3 billion

#8 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) annual budget $13.5 billion

#7 Department of Justice (DOJ) annual budget $28 billion

#6 Spy Agencies: 17 Spy agencies including CIA + NSA annual budget $55 billion

#5 Department of Education (ED) annual budget $70 billion

#4 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) annual budget $100 billion

#3 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) annual budget $155 billion

#2 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS annual budget $892 billion

#1 Department of Defense (DOD) annual budget ??? Officially $613 billion


That's almost 2 trillion dollars a year wasted on useless agencies. Can someone point out where
any of these socialist run agencies appears in our Constitution? Even #1 the Department of Defense
is useless as we have our military (including our National Guard) to handle any and all of those services.

Fat chance that the leftist senate leader Dirty Harry Reid or our Manchurian president
would ever consider cutting back or eliminating any or all of these financial monstrosities.
Now you know why Harry Reid hasn't brought a balanced budget proposal to the House floor
in 4 years--these clowns have no intention of balancing the budget, and in fact they continue
to raise the debt limit guaranteeing that none of those useless socialist programs ever gets cut
or eliminated.

http://wariscrime.com/new/top-10-most-useless-u-s-government-parasite-agencies/

Cthulhu
10-04-2013, 11:51 AM
Why isn't FDA on the list?

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 12:20 PM
#10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual budget $8.5 billion

#9 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) annual budget $13.3 billion

#8 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) annual budget $13.5 billion

#7 Department of Justice (DOJ) annual budget $28 billion

#6 Spy Agencies: 17 Spy agencies including CIA + NSA annual budget $55 billion

#5 Department of Education (ED) annual budget $70 billion

#4 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) annual budget $100 billion

#3 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) annual budget $155 billion

#2 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS annual budget $892 billion

#1 Department of Defense (DOD) annual budget ??? Officially $613 billion


That's almost 2 trillion dollars a year wasted on useless agencies. Can someone point out where
any of these socialist run agencies appears in our Constitution? Even #1 the Department of Defense
is useless as we have our military (including our National Guard) to handle any and all of those services.

Fat chance that the leftist senate leader Dirty Harry Reid or our Manchurian president
would ever consider cutting back or eliminating any or all of these financial monstrosities.
Now you know why Harry Reid hasn't brought a balanced budget proposal to the House floor
in 4 years--these clowns have no intention of balancing the budget, and in fact they continue
to raise the debt limit guaranteeing that none of those useless socialist programs ever gets cut
or eliminated.

http://wariscrime.com/new/top-10-most-useless-u-s-government-parasite-agencies/

Well, you sure do know how NOT to deliver. You titled this thread "Top 10 most useless socialist run government agencies," but then didn't name a single socialist agency.

Also, I had to LOL at you saying the DoD was useless because the military can handle all of its expenditures. The DoD is the military budget. Genius.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 12:21 PM
Why isn't FDA on the list?

Probably because it isn't socialist, same as the rest of the list.

Cthulhu
10-04-2013, 12:23 PM
Probably because it isn't socialist, same as the rest of the list.

Doesn't change the fact that it is useless.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 12:24 PM
Doesn't change the fact that it is useless.

Well, sure, but his premise is that these are useless socialist agencies. Had he just said "useless," he'd be right on the money. But adding "socialist" makes it incorrect. Now, he could say "progressive" and be correct. But he also couldn't call them "anarchist" and be correct.

Chris
10-04-2013, 12:31 PM
Depends, I think, on how you define socialism. Voluntarist socialism is one thing, but authoritarian socialism, marked by central planning in the redistribution of wealth, is another. I think the OP intends the latter.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 12:48 PM
Depends, I think, on how you define socialism. Voluntarist socialism is one thing, but authoritarian socialism, marked by central planning in the redistribution of wealth, is another. I think the OP intends the latter.

Even if we go by the latter definition, it's still not socialism, because it's capitalism. Socialism and capitalism can only co-exist in a voluntary system. We are far, FAR from a voluntary system.

As for "redistribution of wealth," it's a common meme to attribute this solely to socialism, but the simple fact is that "redistribution of wealth" is inherent in any economic system.

Chris
10-04-2013, 01:04 PM
But centrally planned redistribution by means of taxation and regulation is often called socialism. Thos seem to be common denimonators of implementations of socialism, even though there are lesser heard of voluntary implementations.

Captain Obvious
10-04-2013, 01:19 PM
Disappointing

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 01:19 PM
But centrally planned redistribution by means of taxation and regulation is often called socialism. Thos seem to be common denimonators of implementations of socialism, even though there are lesser heard of voluntary implementations.

I suppose if you tack on "centrally planned" you'd have a case, but then corporatism can be centrally planned too, and it's the evil step-mother of capitalism.

I would also say that who the money is being redistributed to is an important factor in whether or not it qualifies as socialist. In socialism, it has to be from the top-down, regardless of the form.

Chris
10-04-2013, 02:00 PM
I suppose if you tack on "centrally planned" you'd have a case, but then corporatism can be centrally planned too, and it's the evil step-mother of capitalism.

I would also say that who the money is being redistributed to is an important factor in whether or not it qualifies as socialist. In socialism, it has to be from the top-down, regardless of the form.

Disagree. Corporatism is the collusion of business and government, crony capitalism, not free market capitalism which would be voluntary.

Hoppe would say social and corporate welfare are both socialist central planning, one more liberal, one more conservative, that is conserving wealth in the hands of few.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 02:09 PM
Disagree. Corporatism is the collusion of business and government, crony capitalism, not free market capitalism which would be voluntary.

Crony capitalism is still capitalism, so I'm not sure where your disagreement is.


Hoppe would say social and corporate welfare are both socialist central planning, one more liberal, one more conservative, that is conserving wealth in the hands of few.

He would be wrong. I'll elaborate more later, I'm on my phone.

Chris
10-04-2013, 02:16 PM
Crony capitalism is still capitalism, so I'm not sure where your disagreement is.



He would be wrong. I'll elaborate more later, I'm on my phone.

Because crony capitalism is not capitalism. Crony capitalism is managed markets not free markets.

Let's not get hung up on nomenclature.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 02:21 PM
Because crony capitalism is not capitalism. Crony capitalism is managed markets not free markets.

Let's not get hung up on nomenclature.

Capitalism is not exclusively free market any more than socialism is exclusively voluntary.

Nomenclature is important. If we all define our words willy-nilly, we'll never get anywhere, because we'll all say the same words but mean different things.

Libhater
10-04-2013, 02:58 PM
Well, you sure do know how NOT to deliver. You titled this thread "Top 10 most useless socialist run government agencies," but then didn't name a single socialist agency.

Any time an agency is funded by the tax payers, i.e. via a centralized government and not mentioned in our Constitution like with our military then it is considered to be socialist.


Also, I had to LOL at you saying the DoD was useless because the military can handle all of its expenditures. The DoD is the military budget. Genius.

I see you failed to read the entire message contained in #1 the Department of Defense. Had you taken the time to read it you would have noticed that a good bulk of that useless funding from for the DoD was allocated to (DARPA) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and to the black budget secret projects. Think of these useless research and secret projects as being a waste of tax dollars similar to the spending of millions to erect statues and pet projects in W. Virginia to honor the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. You getting where I'm going with this now?

But I digress: You have any comment on the fact that the liberals/socialists in high office refuse to pass a balanced budget while paying no attention to our national debt, all the while increasing our debt limit? Wouldn't it make sense if those turkeys were to at least listen to proposals to cut or eliminate that 2 trillion annual debt as could be realized from those top 10 useless agencies?

Chris
10-04-2013, 03:54 PM
Capitalism is not exclusively free market any more than socialism is exclusively voluntary.

Nomenclature is important. If we all define our words willy-nilly, we'll never get anywhere, because we'll all say the same words but mean different things.


Which is why I'm trying to clarify libhater's, your and my meanings for otherwise ambiguous terms.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 08:22 PM
Any time an agency is funded by the tax payers, i.e. via a centralized government and not mentioned in our Constitution like with our military then it is considered to be socialist.

Yes, and that is wrong. That's not what "socialism" means, any more than "capitalism" means "the sound made by diddling each other."


I see you failed to read the entire message contained in #1 the Department of Defense. Had you taken the time to read it you would have noticed that a good bulk of that useless funding from for the DoD was allocated to (DARPA) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and to the black budget secret projects. Think of these useless research and secret projects as being a waste of tax dollars similar to the spending of millions to erect statues and pet projects in W. Virginia to honor the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. You getting where I'm going with this now?

It's still part and parcel of the military budget. I never said it wasn't wasteful, useless spending, as I myself hate defense contractors, but to say that the entire agency is useless because the military can handle its duties is hilariously ignorant of what the relationship between the DoD and the military is.


But I digress: You have any comment on the fact that the liberals/socialists in high office refuse to pass a balanced budget while paying no attention to our national debt, all the while increasing our debt limit? Wouldn't it make sense if those turkeys were to at least listen to proposals to cut or eliminate that 2 trillion annual debt as could be realized from those top 10 useless agencies?

Only that there is only one socialist in office and he has offered budgets. We can't help it that the rest of Congress is a retarded mess.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 08:23 PM
Which is why I'm trying to clarify libhater's, your and my meanings for otherwise ambiguous terms.

Generally speaking, I find the first paragraph of wikipedia's articles (yes, yes, grahh wikipedia, but their definitions of the political philosophies we're speaking of are accurate and heavily sourced) on each topic to be instructive in that.

Chris
10-04-2013, 09:24 PM
Generally speaking, I find the first paragraph of wikipedia's articles (yes, yes, grahh wikipedia, but their definitions of the political philosophies we're speaking of are accurate and heavily sourced) on each topic to be instructive in that.

The problem with socialism is it has two meanings, one as a transitional means from capitalism to socialist ends, a transition that is authoritarian in means even if the ends is not. History has seen only the transitional means. That is so, I think, in part because power is corrupting and in part because the ends are not clearly laid out.

That said, I understand a non-authoritarian, a voluntarist could bypass those transitional means in the formation of a socialist community or form, parecons like Valve do exist.

But I think most people when they hear socialism think the historic authoritarian one and not the voluntarist sort.

Libhater
10-04-2013, 09:55 PM
Yes, and that is wrong. That's not what "socialism" means, any more than "capitalism" means "the sound made by diddling each other."



It's still part and parcel of the military budget. I never said it wasn't wasteful, useless spending, as I myself hate defense contractors, but to say that the entire agency is useless because the military can handle its duties is hilariously ignorant of what the relationship between the DoD and the military is.



Only that there is only one socialist in office and he has offered budgets. We can't help it that the rest of Congress is a retarded mess.


Why do you prefer to play a semantics game here? Can't you give a reasonable comment on whether you think the Senate leader Reid and the president Barack Hussein should at least entertain the thought of reducing some if not all of those useless government agencies outlined in the OP? At this point a simple yes or no will do.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 10:08 PM
Why do you prefer to play a semantics game here?

It's not a game. Semantics are important. How can we possibly know what anyone is talking about without clearly defined words?


Can't you give a reasonable comment on whether you think the Senate leader Reid and the president Barack Hussein should at least entertain the thought of reducing some if not all of those useless government agencies outlined in the OP? At this point a simple yes or no will do.

Let's be honest, Libhater. Do you really want reasonable commentary, or do you just want your nose tickled with partisan rhetoric?

It's a serious question. I would like it if you answered with the former, but be honest.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 10:10 PM
The problem with socialism is it has two meanings, one as a transitional means from capitalism to socialist ends, a transition that is authoritarian in means even if the ends is not. History has seen only the transitional means. That is so, I think, in part because power is corrupting and in part because the ends are not clearly laid out.

That said, I understand a non-authoritarian, a voluntarist could bypass those transitional means in the formation of a socialist community or form, parecons like Valve do exist.

But I think most people when they hear socialism think the historic authoritarian one and not the voluntarist sort.

I won't argue with that. My point is simply that the definition of socialism you are referring to is relatively modern, and was invented by socialism's detractors, not by socialists. I tend to use the definition made by the actual adherents, rather than the ones invented by detractors for the purpose of vilification.

sky dancer
10-04-2013, 10:19 PM
It's not a game. Semantics are important. How can we possibly know what anyone is talking about without clearly defined words?



Let's be honest, Libhater. Do you really want reasonable commentary, or do you just want your nose tickled with partisan rhetoric?

It's a serious question. I would like it if you answered with the former, but be honest.

Good luck with that.

Libhater
10-04-2013, 10:24 PM
It's not a game. Semantics are important. How can we possibly know what anyone is talking about without clearly defined words?

Look, I don't care if you were to use humor in calling Reid and Obama capitalists and patriotic Americans, but I would expect someone who posts on this political site to at least be somewhat willing to comment with their opinion and or to answer straight forward questions without getting into a bantering game with semantics.



[QUOTE]Let's be honest, Libhater. Do you really want reasonable commentary, or do you just want your nose tickled with partisan rhetoric?

It's a serious question. I would like it if you answered with the former, but be honest.

Looks like my previous response addresses that query rather nicely. Now lets see if you can step up to the plate and deliver some reasonable commentary.

Green Arrow
10-04-2013, 10:30 PM
Look, I don't care if you were to use humor in calling Reid and Obama capitalists and patriotic Americans, but I would expect someone who posts on this political site to at least be somewhat willing to comment with their opinion and or to answer straight forward questions without getting into a bantering game with semantics.

Looks like my previous response addresses that query rather nicely. Now lets see if you can step up to the plate and deliver some reasonable commentary.

*shrug* I worked for the John McCain campaign in 2008, got my ass kicked in high school for wearing my Palin the Riveter t-shirt to school, kept wearing it anyway. I've put my ass on the line to oppose Obama from the start. As for Reid, I'm not supporting any Democrats for the Senate unless they are already sitting in office and I like them. I would like to see the GOP get a Senate majority if for no other reason than to keep Reid out of the Leader's seat.

Chris
10-05-2013, 09:28 AM
I won't argue with that. My point is simply that the definition of socialism you are referring to is relatively modern, and was invented by socialism's detractors, not by socialists. I tend to use the definition made by the actual adherents, rather than the ones invented by detractors for the purpose of vilification.

It was invented pretty much by Marx and his fellow travelers, iow, by socialists. These socialists saw totalitarian communism as ushering in a socialist state no one has ever bothered to describe.

Your point better suits capitalism which was defined by those same socialists when it originally meant the free market. Corporatism is corrupt managed markets not free markets. The case might be made that state capitalism might be a version of capitalism where the state controls the capital but works in a free market setting.

It would be good if we had simple words for state socialism, state capitalism, voluntary socialism, free markets, but we don't, thus the ambiguities.

Contrails
10-05-2013, 10:34 AM
#10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual budget $8.5 billion
Because having clean air and water is a luxury we can't afford?


#9 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) annual budget $13.3 billion
How effective do you think a voluntary tax reporting systems would be?


#8 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) annual budget $13.5 billion
I think some people in Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, Missouri, and just about every other state except possibly Wyoming would disagree with you.


#7 Department of Justice (DOJ) annual budget $28 billion
Are you suggesting that crime is not a problem in this country?


#6 Spy Agencies: 17 Spy agencies including CIA + NSA annual budget $55 billion
How can you have an effective foreign policy if you don't know what is really going on in other countries?


#5 Department of Education (ED) annual budget $70 billion
Because literacy in this country was so much better back before we had a Department of Education?


#4 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) annual budget $100 billion
Besides FEMA, which you already mentioned, how do you propose we control our borders without the DHS?


#3 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) annual budget $155 billion
Possibly may have out lived it's usefulness now that


#2 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS annual budget $892 billion
Try telling all those senior citizens how useless their Medicare and Medicaid is.


#1 Department of Defense (DOD) annual budget ??? Officially $613 billion
I would agree that spending more than the rest of the world combined is excessive, but as Green Arrow pointed out, the DOD is the military.

Chris
10-05-2013, 11:13 AM
Because having clean air and water is a luxury we can't afford?


How effective do you think a voluntary tax reporting systems would be?


I think some people in Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, Missouri, and just about every other state except possibly Wyoming would disagree with you.


Are you suggesting that crime is not a problem in this country?


How can you have an effective foreign policy if you don't know what is really going on in other countries?


Because literacy in this country was so much better back before we had a Department of Education?


Besides FEMA, which you already mentioned, how do you propose we control our borders without the DHS?


Possibly may have out lived it's usefulness now that


Try telling all those senior citizens how useless their Medicare and Medicaid is.


I would agree that spending more than the rest of the world combined is excessive, but as Green Arrow pointed out, the DOD is the military.



What a marvelous job of defending socialism (centrally planned redistribution of wealth)!

:applause:

Libhater
10-05-2013, 01:13 PM
What a marvelous job of defending socialism (centrally planned redistribution of wealth)!

:applause:


Thanks for pointing out the obvious push for and or advocacy of certain posters for their system of socialism. I was going to pick apart all of his responses one by one, but to save time I will once again tell him that its the wasteful dollars spent on every one of these entities that is the problem. I could possibly see the need for one or two of those top 10 where there is only one bureaucratic office calling the shots, and where there is some sensible oversight on those bureaucrats in making sure the $$ is spent on the intended service. Its those very 10 useless government agencies that have helped create this crony capitalism that we hear about. I still say eliminate them all and let the free market private sector take over.

Contrails
10-05-2013, 05:54 PM
What a marvelous job of defending socialism (centrally planned redistribution of wealth)!


Thanks for pointing out the obvious push for and or advocacy of certain posters for their system of socialism.

Well, I guess that settles the question about "reasonable commentary".

Green Arrow
10-05-2013, 06:35 PM
It was invented pretty much by Marx and his fellow travelers, iow, by socialists. These socialists saw totalitarian communism as ushering in a socialist state no one has ever bothered to describe.

Marx abandoned socialism for his own invented ideology, communism. He HATED the socialism of men like Proudhon and Bakunin precisely because it wasn't statist.


Your point better suits capitalism which was defined by those same socialists when it originally meant the free market. Corporatism is corrupt managed markets not free markets. The case might be made that state capitalism might be a version of capitalism where the state controls the capital but works in a free market setting.

It would be good if we had simple words for state socialism, state capitalism, voluntary socialism, free markets, but we don't, thus the ambiguities.

I present simple words for all the various forms. *shrug*

Green Arrow
10-05-2013, 06:37 PM
Thanks for pointing out the obvious push for and or advocacy of certain posters for their system of socialism. I was going to pick apart all of his responses one by one, but to save time I will once again tell him that its the wasteful dollars spent on every one of these entities that is the problem. I could possibly see the need for one or two of those top 10 where there is only one bureaucratic office calling the shots, and where there is some sensible oversight on those bureaucrats in making sure the $$ is spent on the intended service. Its those very 10 useless government agencies that have helped create this crony capitalism that we hear about. I still say eliminate them all and let the free market private sector take over.

If you wanted to know who was and was not advocating socialism, I'll happily point out that I am a socialist.

Chris
10-06-2013, 09:47 AM
Well, I guess that settles the question about "reasonable commentary".



Then by all means, don't just point out instance of justified central planning, present your justification.

Chris
10-06-2013, 09:51 AM
Marx abandoned socialism for his own invented ideology, communism. He HATED the socialism of men like Proudhon and Bakunin precisely because it wasn't statist.



I present simple words for all the various forms. *shrug*


And those simple terms are obviously ambiguous and lead to a lot of pointless disputation.



He [Marx] HATED the socialism....

Evidence?

So where has the theory of socialism been implemented higher than the community level that wasn't first authoritarian? Or where initially authoritarian, those authorities ever relinquished power? Communism? Fascism?

Contrails
10-06-2013, 04:11 PM
I was going to pick apart all of his responses one by one, but to save time I will once again tell him that its the wasteful dollars spent on every one of these entities that is the problem.
That just begs the question, who determines what is wasteful and what isn't? Just because you think something is wasteful doesn't mean it is wasteful to everyone else. Here's a novel idea, each of us can vote for a representative that shares our ideas on how taxes should be spent, then these representatives can get together and debate different proposals, voting on which ones should be funded and for how much. Do you have a better idea?

Chris
10-06-2013, 04:18 PM
That just begs the question, who determines what is wasteful and what isn't? Just because you think something is wasteful doesn't mean it is wasteful to everyone else. Here's a novel idea, each of us can vote for a representative that shares our ideas on how taxes should be spent, then these representatives can get together and debate different proposals, voting on which ones should be funded and for how much. Do you have a better idea?

Here's another novel idea, let the free market decide, let consumers vote with their pocket books.

Contrails
10-06-2013, 05:00 PM
Here's another novel idea, let the free market decide, let consumers vote with their pocket books.

When and where has that ever worked for any of these agencies? Let's focus for a minute on #10, the EPA. In a completely free market, how would consumers know if a manufacturer was polluting the air and water?

Green Arrow
10-06-2013, 11:30 PM
And those simple terms are obviously ambiguous and lead to a lot of pointless disputation.

They are hardly ambiguous, they are very specific.


Evidence?

Communism only exists because of Marx's parting company with anarcho-socialists Bakunin and Proudhon.


So where has the theory of socialism been implemented higher than the community level that wasn't first authoritarian? Or where initially authoritarian, those authorities ever relinquished power? Communism? Fascism?

Nowhere, because it CAN'T be implemented above the community level.

zelmo1234
10-07-2013, 06:28 AM
Because having clean air and water is a luxury we can't afford?


How effective do you think a voluntary tax reporting systems would be?


I think some people in Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, Missouri, and just about every other state except possibly Wyoming would disagree with you.


Are you suggesting that crime is not a problem in this country?


How can you have an effective foreign policy if you don't know what is really going on in other countries?


Because literacy in this country was so much better back before we had a Department of Education?


Besides FEMA, which you already mentioned, how do you propose we control our borders without the DHS?


Possibly may have out lived it's usefulness now that


Try telling all those senior citizens how useless their Medicare and Medicaid is.


I would agree that spending more than the rest of the world combined is excessive, but as Green Arrow pointed out, the DOD is the military.

Actully you are very mislead by many things

The 3 that really stand out are

#1 the DOD has improved education, they have not! it is getting worse, not better.

#2 the IRS is only about collecting taxes. It has been turned into the SS wing of this and likely all future administrations.

Libhater
10-07-2013, 06:41 AM
[QUOTE=Contrails;386615]That just begs the question, who determines what is wasteful and what isn't?

Whomever it is that determines what is wasteful are most likely the American people who may want to know how their tax monies are being spent. My opinion as already stated is that those top ten useless agencies are all wasteful and all need to be drastically cut back if not elimited entirely.

Green Arrow
10-07-2013, 06:42 AM
Whomever it is that determines what is wasteful are most likely the American people who may want to know how their tax monies are being spent. My opinion as already stated is that those top ten useless agencies are all wasteful and all need to be drastically cut back if not limited entirely.

We agree on this, to a point.