Skip to comments.Are all the federal bureacracies controlled by the Democrat Party?
Posted on 04/26/2013 8:05:04 PM PDT by cradle of freedom
Is it my imagination or are ALL of our federal bureacracies controlled by the Democratic Party? Look at immigration--it is all about what Democrats want--more uneducated poor immigrants who will vote for them. Welfare--who controlls welfare? We can't find out what happens to our money even when it is going to terrorists. What is going on here and why haven't the Republicans put their foot down? Aren't they half of the government? How long have the Democrats owned our national bureaucracy?
If not, then enough Republicans are liberal enough to go along with the agenda. It’s not down to political parties here.
Because they seem to like Democrats in charge just fine (at least the Establishment wing does).
The overwhelming majority of those who draw US Government paychecks (apart from uniformed members of the Armed Forces) are filthy,worthless supporters of the Rat Party and have been for years.So even with a Republican President you basically have a Maoist government.
“How long have the Democrats owned our national bureaucracy?”
At least since FDR
The Democrat Party is turning into the "Government Party," especially as Gov't gets bigger and bigger. Why do you think the home of all bureaucrats, Washington DC, votes 90% democrat every election?
EPA probably gave their workers taxpayer paid time off to attend OWS events.
0dumb0 (aka Big Ears) IS in charge of the Executive.
Do you see those offices of bureaucracy de-funded or closed, when Republicans occupy the White House and both houses of Congress? No.
Those bureaucracies are controlled certain constituents who support both political parties—one only a little more than the other. Most incomes come either directly or indirectly from government debt/revenues.
i fear far too many perfumed princes of the pentagon including some non-flag officers also fall into this category.
look, we could have overcome the fraud last election, but we didn't....we failed...we had self appointed saints among us who just couldn't vote for Romney..well, that's that....
its starts again with the ragging on Marco.....pathetic....
today, I find myself wondering where we will have to move....maybe its the tax season thats got me done, or the Pigford farce, but I no longer feel America is fair,right,moral,ethical,or God fearing....
Well of course they are...along with most state and county bureaucracies, the "education" system, the media, the film industry and most of secondary education.
It should be called the BureaucRAT Party.
By Jove, I think you're getting it! This is what is meant by "elections have consequences!"
As if all the years of Republican control changed anything.
Actually, that's a little misleading. Overall, the bulk of the military, active duty and retired, are conservative. At the upper ranks, however, more of the senior officers tend to support the Dems because the upper echelon of the military is more political than anything else. And, it's pretty much always been that way.
Do you see those offices of bureaucracy de-funded or closed, when Republicans occupy the White House and both houses of Congress? No.When has the GOP ever controlled the White House and both houses of Congress?
They had a majority in the Senate for a short time during the Bush administration, in addition to holding the House, but it wasn't nearly enough to pass any sort of transforming legislation.
Even if they wanted to.
They would have had to (and should have) voted to decertify the federal employee unions and then fired all the drones...which would be most of them.
The entire US government, for all practical purposes, is composed of a variety of alphabet agencies not sanctiond by the constitution and staffed by unemployables who owe their paychecks to the Democrats.
Perhaps the government isn’t “controlled” by the Democrats, but it’s certainly generated and staffed by endless lines of otherwise useless characters - or, worse yet, characters who simply obstruct law-abiding citizens and their activities for a living - who all know which side their bread is buttered on and vote accordingly.
Maybe some people need a civics lesson? The bureaucracies come under the Executive branch of government. At the moment, that branch is in fact held by Democrats. Every Department Secretary and Agency head is appointed by the president. That’s just how it works.
The GOP controls 1/2 of 1 of the government’s 3 branches, i.e.m the House of Representatives. The Judiciary is the 3rd branch, and again its judges (who hold lifetime appointments) are appointed by the president with the advise and consent of the Senate (controlled now by the Democrat).
So, no, the GOP does not control half, but only one-sixth of the government and, yes, the Democrats basically do control the government.
MAYBE folks would remember that for the next election when they are too high minded to vote for someone not quite conservative enough for them. But not likely.
Many conservatives work in government bureaucracies, but they tend to function as if they were liberal because the institutional purpose of most government bureaucracies is to implement the modern welfare state and its regime of regulations and transfer payments. As the old line went about Nixon as President, his personal conservatism counted for nothing because that was not how he conducted himself at work.
I think we have passed the tipping point.
The takers now vastly outnumber the makers.
Witness the recent government induced theatrics of the “sequester”.
We are all, worldwide, going to be thrown back into the stone ages.
May God have mercy on those of us who value our souls!
No, we lost because the elites pushed Romney on the rest of us. They picked the worst person, someone so close to Obama politically, that it would make no difference and that is why they lost.
D & R is the same team, Rs are second stringers that’s all.
Historically, DOD members (Military and civilian) and defense contractors tend to be mostly conservative, but the political appointees and top generals promoted by this administration are trying their very best to change that.
That is a silly statement. I worked for decades for three of the military services and an investigative agency. The tenor of the employees both blue collar and white was definitely culturally conservative and pretty much politically the same. Areas that had lots of dem voters such as Pensacola in the 50’ and 60’s were conservative bluedog dems typified by the man who pretty much ruled the panhandle, Bob Sikes. These people shifted to the GOP during the 70’s. In other areas I worked such as Dayton, Ohio were the feds at HQ AFLC, as it was then, were majority traditional Ohio GOP. About 70% of the regular employees of Uncle Sam are either in the military departments or in law enforcement. Whatever stupidities these agencies engage in, rank and file seem to tilt towards the GOP. In the last years i was a fed i did notice a distinct change beginning in the uniformed service personnel. They were much more socially liberal and increasingly politically liberal also. Black and other minority junior officers and younger enlisted articulated frankly radical sentiments of the sort any white service member saying things of opposite rightwing radical sentiments would have had their career ended. There has been (at least in 2006/07) very very little new hiring of civilian GS personnel for years so the average age of the white collar work force was growing higher each year. During the Bush years a flood of contractors were brought in rather than hiring more feds (this does make some economic sense). These people were generally quite young and kept their mouths firmly shut about politics and social attitudes (they had obviously been told to do so by their employers). From friends I have in regulatory agencies it is clear they have a much more liberal tilt but in numbers of employees they have relatively few people. The notice frequently articulated here that rank and file feds are a group of leftists is an erroneous presumption. However, our culture is changing, and it is tilting left very rapidly. The next generation of feds will have a lot more cultural and political leftists and liberals in it. That just reflects the changes in the larger culture which are underway.
Yes. Next question?
Yes. They created almost all of them.
It's just that it's been the feet of Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Denny Hastert, and John Boehner.
What you see was perfectly predictable.
Actually, they did. All the federal bureaucracies were controlled by Republicans when the Republicans were in control.
The Dems were DEEPLY upset that their socialistic schemes were delayed by the 'Pubbies!
Only since they were unionizd on top of being "civil serviced".
See if you still have your old High School Social Studies textbook around. Re read the chapter on “Executive Branch”.
The bureaucratic mindset is the liberal mindset by definition....
Not really the case for two reasons: First is the entrenchment of life long bureaucrats, and second, Bush after the close 2000 result did not come in and clean house the way most Presidents do.
Keep telling yourself that - it probably rolls off the tongue easier than admitting that you chose Obama as punishment to the elites that gave us Romney. Anyone who thinks it would have made no difference, especially in the months after the election, is doubly delusional.
Then explain the voting patterns of Maryland...Virginia..and DC,particularly in Presidential elections.Then you can move on to Austin,Texas.Why would such a hotbed of Marxist filthy be found in a state that's quite conservative.Wake up and smell the coffee...if you get a government check you very probably vote Rat.Not always true...but far more often than not.
That’s just not correct. I watched it with my own two eyes.
Here's a question no Romney supporter has ever answered to my satisfaction: why should I vote for a Statist and a Socialist when I hate those philosophies?
Moreover, why the hell do you say that a vote for someone else is a vote for Obama? That is only telling me that my vote does not count (unless it's for your anointed candidate).
Anyone who thinks it would have made no difference, especially in the months after the election, is doubly delusional.
Really? How much does the president control -- or, to put it another way, how much of the government stays in-place when the President changes?
That's one strike against a Romney presidency changing things.
How much would there be any change even if he wanted to effect it, keeping in mind that politically Romney is Obama [that is there is no difference large enough to matter policy-wise]?
That's two strikes against him.
How about the vaunted "supreme court appointment" argument? If you look at the appointments Romney made as Gov then you'll see a bunch of statist, socialist law-reinterpreters.
That's three strikes against him.
The “Democratic Party” is a myth, and so is the “Republican Party”.
If you are still trying to figure out what is happening to your country by thinking of it as a sporting event between two teams named “Democrats” and “Republicans”, you aren’t getting it at all.
I feel your pain.....but it's hard to vote for someone that wants to take my freedoms away at a “slower pace” then the previous guy in the seat.....going slower in the wrong direction is still THE WRONG DIRECTION!
Think of it from another perspective....if u find yourself in a sea of quick sand up to your waist and look ahead to see people in up to their noses.....Do you follow blindly thinking that everything will be ok if the leaders just marched a little slower?
.....Do you follow blindly thinking that everything will be ok if the “HIGH MINDED” leaders just marched a little slower?
Maybe the solution is for us to get off our duffs and find people to run who DO meet our specifications. Failing that, we are still better off with someone who’s 80% with us than someone who’s 0% with us.
The quicksand and all other rationalizing analogies fail in that at least one is still alive under one scenario with hope for a knight in shining armor to come along and save the day vs. being totally dead and beyond any hope at all.
but your right in one respect...you'll have lost most of your “high minded” Troops when YOU finally see the light and feel the quicksand tickling your nose!!
Its time YOU changed your direction!...not us....become a “Force Multiplier”....not a “Force Splitter”.....(all IMHO of course)
I guess I should have posted a “/sarc” for y’all. I was kidding when I posted that.
I’m well aware of the difference between the political elites and the bureaucrats.
Last time they pulled the amnesty scam on us, I wrote down the numbers of all of the senators and I called every one. I wrote down my talking points listed and numbered so that I would remember them clearly and I started calling with lots of emotion in my voice. I didn’t have to fake that emotion, I really felt it. Here I go again, and again and again as many times as I have to.
Bush didn’t exactly turn out to be one of us either.
I am totally in agreement with you, we have to vote for whoever is on the ballot and I don’t think that means George Washington. Our best chance is to financially support and vote for the best candidate in the primaries then if your candidate does not win, you have to vote for the Republican that is on the ballot. If you do not like that Republican you can still try to influence him by citizens’ action.
It is frustrating to have people say that voting for a lesser evil is still an evil. Well, what choices do we have? We can count our choices on the fingers of one hand: we can vote for a democrat, we can vote for a republican, we can refuse to vote or we can vote for a third party. If you refuse to vote because you are too pure to vote for the lesser evil than you are in effect voting for the greater evil because that is the effect that you are having on the election, if you vote for a third party that does not stand a chance of winning then you are wasting your vote. Voting for a third party candidate would only be feasible if the candidate is polling close enough to the Democrat to win.
I think the republicans could have won in 2012 and 2008 if some of these stubborn conservatives would have actually gotten out and voted. But no they kept their political purity and let the country go into the hands of a marxist, when the country was in a 16 trillion dollar debt. I read some people saying that they want things to collapse and get really bad. Are they crazy? Do they know what really bad could look like? What if we sink to the bottom and just sit there. I keep thinking about the mess of the Weimar Republic and how it paved the way for the Nazis and Hitler. This is what happens when things get really bad because people are not thinking clearly when they are in a panic, they will vote for the devil himself to get them out of their suffering, which is exactly what the people did when they voted for Hitler.
Also look at how the Great Depression brought Franklin Roosevelt into power. People were hungry and desperate and he was just the kind of false hero who rose to the occasion with many big government programs. We still have not gotten over FDR and many of the Republicans have an inferiority complex because they are not the party of FDR. The Great Depression was over 70 years ago and we are still not out from under the mind and tax enslavement of FDR. Bad stuff usually just brings about more bad stuff, it is better to just hang on by a thread if necessary, than to let go and suffer the consequences.
Bush kept lots of Clinton’s old baggage. Nice guys finish last.
I hate those philosophies too - at least Romney knew that what could be done at State level, could not be done at Nation level because of that pesky thing that we call the Constitution. I didn't say that a vote for someone else was a vote for Obama, but it really might as well be - all them votes for others helped put Obama back in the WH - your vote did count, but not for anything useful. When your choice has a chance to actually make a difference, then the vote is worthwhile. When all your vote does is send a message to those who do not listen, your vote says that you prefer Obama to anyone who can't walk on water. The Dims are very happy with folks with your mindset because they know that it will keep giving them extra opportunities.
Really? How much does the president control -- or, to put it another way, how much of the government stays in-place when the President changes? That's one strike against a Romney presidency changing things. How much would there be any change even if he wanted to effect it, keeping in mind that politically Romney is Obama [that is there is no difference large enough to matter policy-wise]? That's two strikes against him. How about the vaunted "supreme court appointment" argument? If you look at the appointments Romney made as Gov then you'll see a bunch of statist, socialist law-reinterpreters. That's three strikes against him.
Haven't you been paying attention to all the "czars" and folks like Holder/Napolitano and oh-so-many more? How about a HHS department that was no elected but will have the latitude to decide exactly how much additional pain must be exacted for the "HealthCare" deal? Go ahead and rail at Romney, but he understood that it was unconstitutional. How about the EPA that ignores Judges? If you don't think that Obama is doing much more damage than Romney, I suggest you move to Colorado and take advantage of the legal pot.
You can rail all you want about how flawed Romney was, but it doesn't change that you couldn't vote for a paler shade of Gray so you opted to let Inky Black continue to rule the roost - great strategy and if you keep working hard at it, you can continue to justify it. Of course you come across like Nancy or Harry when you do - everyone knows its just a way to make you sound like you have the upper hand in morality as you aid and abet the evil side. When the other side will stick together to gain millimeters, we will never stop them if we demand someone who is superior to us in every way.