It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: whimsicalmamapig on October 29, 2013, 04:44:11 PM
-
Did anyone happen to read the article by VDH today. In it he implies that the country is running on autopilot and the fact that the POTUS is an incompetent boob and/or malicious liar, has little impact since most of the world has tuned him out as inconsequential. the article was in National Review. It portends a great power grab, not by the other2 branches of our balance of power tripod as so greatly envisioned by our founding fathers, but one by an unelected, bureaucracy that is so entrenched with its government unions as to be unassailable.
-
The bureaucrats and their fiefdoms -- this is my worry about term limits. They must be dealt with.
-
The media, and the bureaucracies, IYKWIMAITYD.
-
Yes, I do know.
OT: I've been thinking of starting an acronym thread and pinning it. What say y'all.
-
Yes, I do know.
OT: I've been thinking of starting an acronym thread and pinning it. What say y'all.
I think it's a fine idea. Sometimes I forget 'em.
-
Mark Levin refers to the bureaucratic state as the 4th branch of government. He's right about that. The regulatory bureaucracy is more of a threat to liberty than any of the official branches. There's no real accountability, and they even have the nerve to claim that they're not political hirelings, but "civil servants". They issue regulations with the full force of law, but there's no check and balances there. They have a perfunctory public comment period, and aren't bound to abide any of it anyway.
We have to return to first principles: the Congress cannot give away power that it does not itself possess. A lot of what they have theoretically authorized the bureaucracy to do was not theirs to delegate in the first place.
The bureaucracy is definitely the most dangerous element of government. What real accountability is there? They're not elected, and even if you sue them all they do is bring to bear the virtually unlimited legal resources that your taxes paid for. If they lose in court, awards likewise come from your taxes. No skin off their noses.
-
Val Jar has always been the power behind Owebama, making decisions Owebama claims as his own. Ii's been rumored she ordered the stand down when Benghazi happened and that she was opposed to the bin Laden raid and tried to stop it. She's a crony Chicago thug slum lord. I put nothing past that Iranian born scrunt.
-
I am presently re-reading "The Inheritance of Rome" by Chris Wickham. it is a recent analysis of the area encompassing what had been the roman empire from 500 - 1000 ad. What is striking is that as the empire faded in the west but continued strong in the east the bureaucracies of both were the most lasting. In the east, it was the efficiency of the bureaucracy that maintained the empire an extra 1000 years, and in the west it was the vestiges of the bureaucracy, assimilated into the hierarchy of the christian church that provided the merging of barbarian cultures with what was left of roman culture.
It just goes to show you that while emperors/presidents may come and go and governments rise and fall, those arcane bean counters and tax collectors go on and on and on and on......
-
Yes, our other thread left out the bureaucrats...glad that oversight is corrected here, their complicity will not be forgotten.
-
Yes, I do know.
OT: I've been thinking of starting an acronym thread and pinning it. What say y'all.
That would be great! ::thumbsup::
-
Yes, I do know.
OT: I've been thinking of starting an acronym thread and pinning it. What say y'all.
That would be great! ::thumbsup::
Ditto
-
Term limits will not further empower the bureaucracy. Congress as presently constituted has proven itself completely incapable of controlling it. Rotation in office couldn't make it any worse, and offers hope of change, which we really don't have now.
-
Term limits will not further empower the bureaucracy. Congress as presently constituted has proven itself completely incapable of controlling it. Rotation in office couldn't make it any worse, and offers hope of change, which we really don't have now.
By not making it worse that is a win? A push is still a loss...it's just a lag in recognition...there is no such thing as a static Federal bureaucracy...it will always grow larger because spending always increases one year over the previous...always...and anybody hear of a Federal program ever being axed? Yeah me neither, and I see little term limits will do to prevent any of that.
-
I'm not against term limits outright, but there are inherent downsides, such as time-limiting the input of effective and decent people - few though they may be.
And Libertas is right about the nature of bureaucracy. If the only people in government who have job security, longevity, and experience are bureaucrats, I shudder the thought.
-
Term limits will not further empower the bureaucracy. Congress as presently constituted has proven itself completely incapable of controlling it. Rotation in office couldn't make it any worse, and offers hope of change, which we really don't have now.
The founder never intended politics to be a career.
-
I'm not against term limits outright, but there are inherent downsides, such as time-limiting the input of effective and decent people - few though they may be.
It seems to me the really good ones term-limit themselves at this point; see Jim DeMint. I understand the inherent downsides, such as if there's no chance of re-election, the bad ones are free to totally go rogue. On the other hand, the good ones are free as well to do the right thing. And the perpetual campaigning for re-election will end as well.
And Libertas is right about the nature of bureaucracy. If the only people in government who have job security, longevity, and experience are bureaucrats, I shudder the thought.
Congress ceded too much of its authority to all of these agencies and that needs to be rectified.
-
I am 100% Pro-Term Limits.
-
Term limits would encourage even more politicians to say whatever they need to to get elected, and have no fear of doing exactly the opposite once in office. The ONLY leverage the people have over politicians is the threat of electoral consequences, and that leverage is a twig under a boulder as it is. Term limits would give politicians all the leverage to act with impunity.
That is one downside among the many up and down sides.
-
Maybe once, but that should educate the voters regarding who to elect.
-
OK, now perhaps it was unintentional on your part but that really made me chuckle!!!
-
Oh, no! Yer catchin' my drift! ::hysterical::
-
Just going with the tide... ;D
-
So are you ripping or ebbing? ;)
-
I probably rip more than I ebb! ;D
-
back to the original topic, how would term limits affect the bureaucracy? Have you watched any of the congressional hearings, there is a visible, palpable disdain for the elected people's representatives. They don't need to listen to any representative or congressman, they feel impervious.
Unless we can find a way to elect sufficient representatives and executives who would literally gut the bureaucracy and deny them the funding they need to exist, there is little elected government can do to deny the power to the unelected government.
hey, maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea, someone should run on a ticket of exposing the "unofficial and unelected government" that truly controls your lives.
-
Set aside, for the moment, the pros and cons of term limits. Just consider what impact a successful Article V convention would have. The states, and the people, would be asserting and exercising their primacy, just as the Founders intended. It's a political earthquake. Term limits is the issue most likely succeed under Article V.
-
Get rid of direct election of US Senators and return it to state legislatures.
-
Grant me a carve out from the Universal Socialist-States of Amerika and you could really see a convention take off!
(Call me the John Adams of the convention...damned hot-headed fire-breathing New Englander prodding the timid!)
-
Set aside, for the moment, the pros and cons of term limits. Just consider what impact a successful Article V convention would have. The states, and the people, would be asserting and exercising their primacy, just as the Founders intended. It's a political earthquake. Term limits is the issue most likely succeed under Article V.
I think it would be totally worth the inherent risks. Absolutely.
-
Set aside, for the moment, the pros and cons of term limits. Just consider what impact a successful Article V convention would have. The states, and the people, would be asserting and exercising their primacy, just as the Founders intended. It's a political earthquake. Term limits is the issue most likely succeed under Article V.
I think it would be totally worth the inherent risks. Absolutely.
Unfortunately, the libs will never allow it to progress to that point.
-
There's lot of mechanisms that could be tried, some might help, others might have bad unintended consequences. Ultimately our problem is that we have a depraved population. Who is it that said if every man was an angel, we wouldn't need government at all? We've never had a population of all angels, but there was certainly more moral and ethical fiber in the average person at one time.
One mechanism I favor is an automatic sunset provision. Almost any act of Congress should have an automatic sunset, requiring another act of Congress to postpone the sunset. You could tinker with this idea so that the most fundamentally obvious statutes can be enacted without sunset if there's a supermajority or something, but most of their legislation should be required to demonstrate its continued necessity every 10 years or so.
I think something similar should apply to the creation of agencies within the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats have accumulated far too much power, and as mentioned earlier in the thread their power in many cases rivals that of elected officials. That is intolerable. The entire bureaucracy needs to be made to know its inferior status at all times. This condition of the bureaucracy coincides with the evolution of the imperial presidency, the concentration of power in the executive. They'll say it was to fast track this or that, create flexibility here and flexibility there. Pragmatism is a dangerous thing in government.
-
"is obama still president?"
He never was my president.
-
"is obama still president?"
He never was my president.
Oh ditto that!
-
What's the definition of "IS"?
Presidential usurper, most definitely. I will not comply with anything these assholes put into place. Somebody is going to get a snootful of lead sooner or later.
Revolution is the key folks. Win it decisively and you can put those changes in place today instead of thirty or forty years. The Republic is dead becasue it made way for the dictatorship. Yelling it needs to stop without a threat to do mans nothing to these assholes.
-
"is obama still president?"
He never was my president.
Roger that shipmate.
-
The office is vacant.
I don't know who that dude is.
-
It's a door stop, a choom recepticle, a Reggie plaything, something that keeps Valerie on a long leash...
Whatever it is that sh*t has got to go!
-
Not only do we need term limits on elected clowns, we need time limits on individual bureaucrats as well.
The founders never intended full careers in government for both elected and non elected "public service". No one, and I mean NO one should have a government only career. As we can see, problems result from allowing people to be insulated from reality. A decade is long enough. The longer someone remains, the worse they get.
And it should limit the time in all levels in government. So you don't just get folks going from local to state to federal.
Working in the private sector would do a lot of good for those short careers in government. We would have far less stupid.
-
Not only do we need term limits on elected clowns, we need time limits on individual bureaucrats as well.
The founders never intended full careers in government for both elected and non elected "public service". No one, and I mean NO one should have a government only career. As we can see, problems result from allowing people to be insulated from reality. A decade is long enough. The longer someone remains, the worse they get.
And it should limit the time in all levels in government. So you don't just get folks going from local to state to federal.
Working in the private sector would do a lot of good for those short careers in government. We would have far less stupid.
I would think we would have far more welfare recipients.
-
Not only do we need term limits on elected clowns, we need time limits on individual bureaucrats as well.
The founders never intended full careers in government for both elected and non elected "public service". No one, and I mean NO one should have a government only career. As we can see, problems result from allowing people to be insulated from reality. A decade is long enough. The longer someone remains, the worse they get.
And it should limit the time in all levels in government. So you don't just get folks going from local to state to federal.
Working in the private sector would do a lot of good for those short careers in government. We would have far less stupid.
I would think we would have far more welfare recipients.
If we had a less stupid government, there wouldn't be welfare from the government.
-
Lobbiests should be outlawed, too.
-
Lobbiests should be outlawedgunned-down, too.
FIFY!
-
Lobbiests should be outlawedgunned-down, too.
FIFY!
I love being corrected when it's due! Thanks!!! ::rimshot::