Rex Tillerson gutting the State Department

[ip_law-hokie]

Basic functions such as...? I haven't seen/read anything like that and I seriously doubt them without tangible evidence.

For one, policy in the various regions. What is our policy for Africa? NEA? Even the middle east. How is that policy being established? Who is carrying it to our various embassies? Who is even at the posts to receive it? What is the methodology og getting this out to our friends and enemies?

This is just one of dozens of serious flaws right now. I get it. For you it's "drain the swamp", full time, all the time. But you have no clue what it takes for state to run its policy and programs, once even defined. You just want to clean hose because you think they are all Obamatrons and deep staters. You really need to check reality on some of these issues.

...so what? I don't see anything remotely compelling in what you described. Does the world stop if we don't have an "Africa policy"? Sounds like the lack thereof is a policy in and of itself - and something I would agree with.

WADR, this sounds like the self licking ice cream cone describing how hard it is to lick itself. It should hurt, but we should realize the world still spins and Africa still exists even if we don't have some bureaucratic abomination documenting in detail how we're going to waste blood and treasure there.

ETA : I'm not saying everyone in the State Department is part of the swamp. I'm sure that there are plenty of good people who show up every day and work hard. Reducing the size of government isn't easy, but I don't see any reason why the state department needs something like 500 (or whatever) flag-officer level billets (one example).

And that in and of itself is your problem. You're just ranting about bloat when you know nothing about the operation. In fact you don't even want to understand. You just want to close your eyes, scrunch up your face, and throw a tantrum about bogeyman big government. Have at it. Just know that you have no credibility.

Aren’t you a Republican?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, why? Just because I'm conservative doesn't mean I think all government functions are wasteful. That's just knee jerk and narrow minded. I like to think that I view such things with an open mind and an understanding of function and purpose before spouting "cut, cut, cut!".

Government has certain constitutional functions. Diplomacy is an important one, particularly in todays world.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RiverguyVT]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

[HokieFanDC]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

[RiverguyVT]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Look at Wikipedia's page on the st dept. Specifiaclly, the org chart...
Hack away, with a machete, not a butter knife

[USN_Hokie]

And that in and of itself is your problem. You're just ranting about bloat when you know nothing about the operation. In fact you don't even want to understand. You just want to close your eyes, scrunch up your face, and throw a tantrum about bogeyman big government. Have at it. Just know that you have no credibility.

WADR, you just sound like someone defending their sacred cow. Between the two of us, you are the one responding on emotion, not me. I'm just the crazy guy who thinks you don't need 500 flag officer/SES positions to run a state department.

Arguments like yours are why government only grows...until now, hopefully.

What's the right number of SES?. What if it was something closer to say, 200....

I assumed the career ambassadors and career ministers were SES positions, but it looks like they have their own ranking system of "SFS" (Senior Foreign Service) upon closer examination. The point remains (actually, it's strengthened - thanks), there is an inordinate number of flag-level equivalent civilians in the state department. So...431+39 = 470 SFS's + ~200 SES's = holy farking bloated government batman.

The number of those with the department’s top two ranks of career ambassador and career minister — equivalent to four- and three-star generals — will have been cut in half by Dec. 1, from 39 to 19. And of the 431 minister-counselors, who have two-star-equivalent ranks, 369 remain and another 14 have indicated that they will leave soon — an 18 percent drop — according to an accounting provided by the American Foreign Service Association.

[USN_Hokie]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

[ip_law-hokie]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[133743Hokie]

Most embassy have an ambassador and a deputy chief of mission(DCM). The DCM is the #2 persona at an embassy and is 1) in charge of the day to day operation when the ambassador isn't present and 2) actually the operations admin at those embassy that have political appointees, non foreign service ambassadors (i.e London, Paris, etc.). The US has about 210 diplomatic facilities world wide.

Career FS Ambassadors and DCMs work their way up the food chain, serving in various capacities at facilities over the years, small and large. They may start as a consular officer in Nairobi for a few years, then move to facilities in ChangMai, then admin counselor in Luxembourg. Then they need to have experience at high risk, unaccompanied, hardship posts so they then move laterally to be admin at say Algiers or Baghdad. Once you do those tours you usually come stateside to main state for a few years, then you get you pick as a reward. Finally they get their shot at DCM at some backwater place like Baku. Maybe the they step up to be DCM at a better place. Ultimately they get to be ambassador somewhere. They gave an FS grade and step pay program just like GS. Once you move into the executive ranks (AMD and DCM at embassies, Asst SOS stateside) they go on the executive pay track.

You make it sound like these people show up and are suddenly making big bucks. That isn't the case. Like any job you work your way up through the ranks. Some stick with it. Some are weeded out.

[HokieFanDC]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

You're not arguing over whether it can be smaller. You called it draining the swamp, and RiverGuy called it an abomination. You said Tillerson is gutting the department, and that it should hurt.

That's more than just making it smaller, and more than "Everyone can take a haircut". You seem to have a healthy dose of disgust for the department, and probably with little knowledge of what they do. Why?

[USN_Hokie]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

You're not arguing over whether it can be smaller. You called it draining the swamp, and RiverGuy called it an abomination. You said Tillerson is gutting the department, and that it should hurt.

That's more than just making it smaller, and more than "Everyone can take a haircut". You seem to have a healthy dose of disgust for the department, and probably with little knowledge of what they do. Why?

So now you're reduced to arguing over the size of a haircut? Ok then.

There's nothing incongruent about anything I said.

[RiverguyVT]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

You're not arguing over whether it can be smaller. You called it draining the swamp, and RiverGuy called it an abomination. You said Tillerson is gutting the department, and that it should hurt.

That's more than just making it smaller, and more than "Everyone can take a haircut". You seem to have a healthy dose of disgust for the department, and probably with little knowledge of what they do. Why?

Let's see it go from 70,000 to 5,000 ... fair enough?

[RiverguyVT]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

[ip_law-hokie]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

Hyperbole? That is the CBO estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieHam]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

Hyperbole? That is the CBO estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing you’ve “got”......the left’s talking points.

[ip_law-hokie]

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

Hyperbole? That is the CBO estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing you’ve “got”......the left’s talking points.

??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieFanDC]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

You're not arguing over whether it can be smaller. You called it draining the swamp, and RiverGuy called it an abomination. You said Tillerson is gutting the department, and that it should hurt.

That's more than just making it smaller, and more than "Everyone can take a haircut". You seem to have a healthy dose of disgust for the department, and probably with little knowledge of what they do. Why?

So now you're reduced to arguing over the size of a haircut? Ok then.

There's nothing incongruent about anything I said.

Haircuts don't hurt, try again.
I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what you said. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead.


If you are just saying it can be smaller, I'm cool with that, I'll take your word and we agree.
But, of all the departments we have, I think the state department is one of the more important.
Take the UK for example. They once ruled a large part of the world with military force, at a great cost.
Today, they have a pretty small military but a tremendous presence in the world, because they have a large embassy and consulate presence. They use their presence to advance UK interests across the globe, and they do a very good job at it.

[USN_Hokie]

Haircuts don't hurt, try again.
I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what you said. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead.


If you are just saying it can be smaller, I'm cool with that, I'll take your word and we agree.
But, of all the departments we have, I think the state department is one of the more important.
Take the UK for example. They once ruled a large part of the world with military force, at a great cost.
Today, they have a pretty small military but a tremendous presence in the world, because they have a large embassy and consulate presence. They use their presence to advance UK interests across the globe, and they do a very good job at it.

1. Tell that to the democrats who shut down government at the prospect of reducing the budget a penny.

2. The UK foreign and commonwealth office has a 2017 budget of $1.6B. The State Department budget for the same period is something like $50B....

[RiverguyVT]

133743, I get it. I do. Foreign relations & security of citizens abroad are actual, bona fide constitutional directives. We just don't need 70,000 employees to do it. That's an abomination.

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

Hyperbole? That is the CBO estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it is hyperbole because "tax cuts for the rich! (gasp!/pant)" has nothing at all to do with St Dept staffing.

The top 1% pay something like 45% or so of taxes. Top 20% pay something like 85%. Do you think that their share will drop, as a percentage?

[ip_law-hokie]

70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??

Where are you going with this DC? Nobody here except #'sHokie claims to be an expert on State Dept. staffing. We're arguing over whether it *can* be smaller.

I don't care what the "right number" is either - ask me what the "right number" of Ferraris for my garage should be an you'll get a different answer than asking me for the bare minimum of Ferraris I need. We're >$20T in debt. Everyone can take a haircut.

Let’s just cut taxes on the rich, increase the deficit by 1.4T and call it the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got hyperbole?
The rich pay a shirt ton.

Hyperbole? That is the CBO estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it is hyperbole because "tax cuts for the rich! (gasp!/pant)" has nothing at all to do with St Dept staffing.

The top 1% pay something like 45% or so of taxes. Top 20% pay something like 85%. Do you think that their share will drop, as a percentage?

You guys butch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RiverguyVT]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

[ip_law-hokie]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

However you want to justify it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RiverguyVT]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

However you want to justify it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you think I'm justifying... but okay.

[awesome guy]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

However you want to justify it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you think I'm justifying... but okay.

That's IP's femine side, a gap in funding always means you need to make more, not spend less. Unless it's pizza of course!

[ip_law-hokie]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

However you want to justify it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you think I'm justifying... but okay.

That's IP's femine side, a gap in funding always means you need to make more, not spend less. Unless it's pizza of course!

You guys talk a lot about cutting spending. . . .

[awesome guy]

You guys bitch and moan about pennies, but don’t care about dollars.

Well, some of us don't conflate questions of revenues with questions of expenses, either.

However you want to justify it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you think I'm justifying... but okay.

That's IP's femine side, a gap in funding always means you need to make more, not spend less. Unless it's pizza of course!

You guys talk a lot about cutting spending. . . .

Yep. That's what a smart person does when you can't live on 3t a year.