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?
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.
They have.
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.
-PJ
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.