Is the government...?

[RetiredGySgt]

A citizen neither "owns" Government nor is separate from it. Government is a construct the people granted LIMITED power to, to act on our behalf with the Individual States, the Foreign Governments and other entities we have no power or control over.

Our current Government has usurped power that it was not given and expanded Government power and authority Unconstitutionally beyond the LIMITS established by the Constitution.

We vote for Representatives to act in our stead IN that Government. We have no power or authority over them except the ballot box, which has proven to be no real control at all.

We have no authority, no ownership and no power over Government employees no matter what department they work for). And we have people that think our labor, our lives and our time are somehow property of said Government.

Several of the posters in this thread have stated for the record that if the Government wanted to, it has the power to take all our labor and then chose to give us what it feels we need. This implies also that the Government owns our time and our lives.

That is not Representative Democracy. It is Communism.

The poll is useless. It does not even ask intelligent questions. Unless of course the poster wishes to clarify what he means one can not properly answer it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Vidi gone off to another wedding and left us to pound sand. Typical...

I'm not sure what the topic is yet -- But the GunnySgt made me salute with that last post.

I'm DYING here to hear how this question is gonna change OUR REALITY. (since VIDi's Reality is in his footer and so permanent and solid)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course the people own the government. We live in a representative democracy. The government is simply the embodiment of the public's collected will.

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

 

[Polk]

Of course the people own the government. We live in a representative democracy. The government is simply the embodiment of the public's collected will.

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course the people own the government. We live in a representative democracy. The government is simply the embodiment of the public's collected will.

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

Citizens do not own the Government. We elect representatives to run the Government legislative and Executive functions. We do not own either, we do not own the Judiciary and we certainly do not own the millions of employees and thousands of Government agencies.

To own something means you have control over it. We have zero control. We can elect ( as an individual) one Representative of 438 and 2 Senators of 100. We can help elect the President. This does not give us any control. We have zero control over the Judiciary and zero control over the thousands of Government agencies or their employees.

Or perhaps you can explain how we own any part of the Government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course the people own the government. We live in a representative democracy. The government is simply the embodiment of the public's collected will.

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

The part between of and will.

 

[Polk]

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

Citizens do not own the Government. We elect representatives to run the Government legislative and Executive functions. We do not own either, we do not own the Judiciary and we certainly do not own the millions of employees and thousands of Government agencies.

To own something means you have control over it. We have zero control. We can elect ( as an individual) one Representative of 438 and 2 Senators of 100. We can help elect the President. This does not give us any control. We have zero control over the Judiciary and zero control over the thousands of Government agencies or their employees.

Or perhaps you can explain how we own any part of the Government?

We do have control over it. We elect the people who run it.

 

[Polk]

Congratulations. I didn't think anyone could be more wrong than the OP, yet you managed it.

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

The part between of and will.

I figured that's the part you'd dispute, but it doesn't make much sense to do so. Are you denying that elect the people who make decisions?

 

[martybegan]

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

Citizens do not own the Government. We elect representatives to run the Government legislative and Executive functions. We do not own either, we do not own the Judiciary and we certainly do not own the millions of employees and thousands of Government agencies.

To own something means you have control over it. We have zero control. We can elect ( as an individual) one Representative of 438 and 2 Senators of 100. We can help elect the President. This does not give us any control. We have zero control over the Judiciary and zero control over the thousands of Government agencies or their employees.

Or perhaps you can explain how we own any part of the Government?

We do have control over it. We elect the people who run it.

The problem is the people we elect often cannot control parts of it, due to the gigantic sizes of some of the buracracy. Parts of this remain in place due to sheer inertia.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?

The part between of and will.

I figured that's the part you'd dispute, but it doesn't make much sense to do so. Are you denying that elect the people who make decisions?

Yes.

As an example, the decision about whether Obamacare is a tax or not, and thus justifiable, came down to one man. Unless you know something I don't, Roberts never ran for any office in his life.

Then we have the decisions about what Obamacare actually does. The law contains a lot of vague guidelines, but no actual decisions were made about what is, and is not, covered by Obamacare. Those decisions are delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services because Congress is to $#!^**# lazy to actually make hard decisions. That is why we are now spending tax dollars defending the birth control mandate that Sebelius threw in, and why that decision will, ultimately, be made by the courts.

The bureaucrats in Washington, and the judges, are not elected by anyone.

 

[Polk]

The part between of and will.

I figured that's the part you'd dispute, but it doesn't make much sense to do so. Are you denying that elect the people who make decisions?

Yes.

As an example, the decision about whether Obamacare is a tax or not, and thus justifiable, came down to one man. Unless you know something I don't, Roberts never ran for any office in his life.

Then we have the decisions about what Obamacare actually does. The law contains a lot of vague guidelines, but no actual decisions were made about what is, and is not, covered by Obamacare. Those decisions are delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services because Congress is to $#!^**# lazy to actually make hard decisions. That is why we are now spending tax dollars defending the birth control mandate that Sebelius threw in, and why that decision will, ultimately, be made by the courts.

The bureaucrats in Washington, and the judges, are not elected by anyone.

Roberts was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are elected. If the people are angry enough, they could elect a Congress that would remove Roberts from office. Same principle applies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If people don't like his/her decisions, elect a new president who will then appoint a new secretary who will claw back all the provisions you don't like.

 

[Polk]

There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.

 

[martybegan]

There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.

Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.

 

[Polk]

There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.

Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.

Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.

 

[martybegan]

There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.

Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.

Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.

Thats how its supposed to work, however they have become so massive that there is a burecratic inertia that cannot be controlled from the elected offical level.

If that were the case every time a republican came into office every single in progress action would probably stop. That doesnt happen.

 

[Polk]

It doesn't happen because they don't want it to happen (either for policy reasons, or because doing so would violate some statute, or because some interest group they want the support of wants the change).

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.

Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.

Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.

You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.

 

[Polk]

Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.

Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.

You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.

Rules which ultimately have to be approved by the leadership, which are appointed positions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.

You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.

Rules which ultimately have to be approved by the leadership, which are appointed positions.

No. I doubt the average congressman or senator even knows what rules are being applied. I have friends in high places in government. They assure me there is little or no congressional oversight of any kind in the day to day operations of the government agencies and/or in the rules and regs they issue.

That is one of the things that makes Obamacare so scary. Dozens/hundreds of new agencies are being created to administer it, and most of the rules and regs to administer it have not even been written yet. And it won't be Congress writing those rules and regs.

 

[Polk]

I never said members of Congress know which rules are being implemented, but the leadership of the agencies do, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If Congress was unhappy with a rule the agency has passed, they'll repeal or amend the statute.