(11-09-2016 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Get the headcount in every department, broken down between administration in the DC area and operations in the rest of country. Cut the DC administrative headcount for every department by 10% per year until you cut it in half. Do the same thing with consultant fees, across the board.

Don't cut the field offices. That's where the benefits, if any, of any program are delivered. Cut the administrative overhead.

The three US counties with the highest average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC Metro area. That is absolutely nonsensical. There is simply no reasonable justification, because little or nothing of value is produced there.

Zero-based budgeting is our friend.

(11-09-2016 02:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Can we get rid of a few of those departments?

-Justice and part of Homeland Security to Attorney General/Justice
-State
-Defense, Veterans' Affairs, and part of Homeland Security to Defense
-Treasury
-Commerce and Transportation to Commerce
-Labor
-Interior, Agriculture and Energy to Interior, Natural Resources, and Environment
-Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education to HEW

(11-09-2016 02:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I know it isn't Cabinet .. but it's sorta related.

If Trump is really savvy ... he'd tap Judge Andrew Naplitano for SCOTUS. That's a VERY real and impactful olive branch to the hard line conservatives and libertarians. And Napolitano would be like Clarence Thomas 2.0 ... only even better.

completely agree...he would be my first choice on merit alone....but I get the 'political' aspect too

(11-09-2016 02:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Can we get rid of a few of those departments?

We had a chance to do that ....






Dude straight BLEW UP five departments in his own campaign ad.

I'm not in love with Newt as State. And while unpalatable, I agree with ark30. Priebus has to get something for what he's done. As Staff Chief he can expedite actually bring the GOP back together.

(11-09-2016 04:23 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I think we'll see him surround himself with advisors like he does with his companies. I think we're going to see a new way of doing the job. Then again I'm wrong and a complete buffoon.

that's exactly the way every successful business is run....

the buffoons are ones that don't understand that in concept....

like our university athletic budget.....dat's why wees be brokes

to you and the fam!

the hard working good folks won last night!

As much as I don't like this woman she is a true conservative. Judge Judy for the Supreme Court. No BS kind of judge. I'd get rid of Dept. of Education. I'd let the states handle our dumb S'es in our schools.

(11-09-2016 06:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm not in love with Newt as State. And while unpalatable, I agree with ark30. Priebus has to get something for what he's done. As Staff Chief he can expedite actually bring the GOP back together.

the bottom line is not about 'who'

it's about 'who' can get things done....stat...

this is no longer a game in political historical terms....

I would think Ben Carson would be Surgeon General. But could see him as the head of the HHS.

(11-09-2016 06:30 PM)muffinman Wrote:  I would think Ben Carson would be Surgeon General. But could see him as the head of the HHS.

You want Ben as HHS. The SG doesn't have a lot of policy authority

(11-09-2016 06:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm not in love with Newt as State. And while unpalatable, I agree with ark30. Priebus has to get something for what he's done. As Staff Chief he can expedite actually bring the GOP back together.

the bottom line is not about 'who'

it's about 'who' can get things done....stat...

this is no longer a game in political historical terms....

I'd agree with you but my hesitation with Newt is that I don't think he could get anything done as State. As an adviser, sure, maybe even as SECDEF. But I just don't think he's got the chops to rep as Trump's advance team when it comes to the change to will occur from Obama to the new administration.

(11-09-2016 06:41 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:30 PM)muffinman Wrote:  I would think Ben Carson would be Surgeon General. But could see him as the head of the HHS.

You want Ben as HHS. The SG doesn't have a lot of policy authority

Whichever position he takes. He should have a big role in the replacement of Obamacare.

I don't really know which department would be in charge of getting rid of our awful debt but which ever it is I would ask Rand Paul go do it.

No Democrats for the Cabinet?

(11-09-2016 06:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 02:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Can we get rid of a few of those departments?

We had a chance to do that ....






Dude straight BLEW UP five departments in his own campaign ad.

The President that never was. High School me loved listening to him being pissed off at the other politicians, predicting things that have come true, and just being a badass.

(11-09-2016 06:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 04:23 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I think we'll see him surround himself with advisors like he does with his companies. I think we're going to see a new way of doing the job. Then again I'm wrong and a complete buffoon.

that's exactly the way every successful business is run....

the buffoons are ones that don't understand that in concept....

like our university athletic budget.....dat's why wees be brokes

to you and the fam!

the hard working good folks won last night!

So much truth, we put way too much money into sports in schools, from the top down, Pro leagues here could take a note from Euro Soccer on how to build development leagues.

Sound like some of you want to build an establishment cabinet...

(11-09-2016 08:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sound like some of you want to build an establishment cabinet...

some understand value relative to surrounding oneself with experience in various fields of expertise...

not sure how intelligence can otherwise be obtained relative to any line item agenda...

oh, my mistake....that would be the last 16 yrs of policy developed by those 'other' career agenda guys that just tossed back shots, laughed, and tossed darts at the map of the U.S. trying to determine who/how would get their pucker suckered next....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/p...spartanntp

Not terribly enthused with taking sitting Republican Senators and putting them in the cabinet. With only a 51-48 edge pending Louisiana, that's a pretty narrow margin, even if the Senator is from Alabama.

I think some of you need to think outside of the box.

Throughout Trumps career, he has been heavily influenced by business leaders. I wouldn't dismiss some of them stepping into a position rather than the named politicians. Remember Trump expects a certain amount of work ethic and many of the candidates that has been proposed here don't carry that pedigree.

(11-10-2016 01:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/p...spartanntp

Not terribly enthused with taking sitting Republican Senators and putting them in the cabinet. With only a 51-48 edge pending Louisiana, that's a pretty narrow margin, even if the Senator is from Alabama.

Agree. I don't think you'll see many, if any, sitting senators being considered.