Junior Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Do you think the situation I described where you constantly create more politicians every two terms will shrink government? This is important. I don't know if it would create more politicians or not, but I don't think the founders of our nation envisioned 40 year career politicians in the federal government. Thomas Jefferson first served as a delegate to the continental congress in 1775. He retired from politics after his presidency ended in 1809. I'm no math major, but that's damn near 40 years as a politician, being a governor, congressional delegate, secretary of state, minister to france, vice president, and president. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 Maybe it is the incremental presidency that we've come to wt the battle lines drawn in DC http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/obama-becomes-the-incremental-president-144607680.html Link to comment
NUinID Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 What natural advantages does the United States have not seen by other nations? the two big ones are vast natural resources and we are surrounded by an ocean, insulating us from our enemies. So this is the reason why the US has developed a stable republic that has used the same constitution for the last 225 years? Link to comment
Junior Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 John Adams first served as a delegate to the continental congress in 1774. He retired from politics after his presidency ended in 1801. He served nearly 27 years as a congressional delegate, minister to the netherlands, vice president, and president. Not that he is really a "founding father", but John Quincy Adams first served as the US Minister to the Netherlands in 1794. What makes him interesting is that unlike his predecessors, he didn't retire from politics after his presidential term (which ended in 1829). He went on to serve 17 years as a US Representative of Massachusetts, dying in office in 1848. His total as a politician? 54 years. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 So this is the reason why the US has developed a stable republic that has used the same constitution for the last 225 years? no. it is why we have seen economic success and other nations have struggled, regardless of their economic system. also, i wonder if people who claim the founders' intent as a defense for their position have ever read their writings or even the constitution. there was no broad consent over how the constitution should be drafted. it is not some divine work effortlessly pieced together by assenting statesmen because it represented the one true way. they fought over how to form the union and drafted a constitution that set the framework in which our government is to operate; so our country could change and progress. falling back on, 'that is how the founders want it!', is ridiculous. why should we live under the tyranny of men who lived 225 years ago when they fought for a system of self-government of the people currently existing. they got to argue over how they thought government should function, why should we not be able to do the same? it is just crazy to defer to men who lived 225 years ago whose only true legacy was creating the best system for self-government, not a government beholden to the tyranny of tradition or interpretation. 5 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 We're worried about teaching science in our schools (and we should be) in another thread topic in this forum, but the reality is that we desperately need to revamp how we teach history, too. Americans' understanding of even our own, relatively recent history is abysmal. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 We're worried about teaching science in our schools (and we should be) in another thread topic in this forum, but the reality is that we desperately need to revamp how we teach history, too. Americans' understanding of even our own, relatively recent history is abysmal. is this directed at me? is this still because i don't know much about thanksgiving? Link to comment
Ulty Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I didn't say we are moving towards a socialist state I said Obama would like to move towards a socialist state. Also don't forget, Obama would like to take our guns and force us all to marry gay people. Executive orders are on the way. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 also, i wonder if people who claim the founders' intent as a defense for their position have ever read their writings or even the constitution. there was no broad consent over how the constitution should be drafted. it is not some divine work effortlessly pieced together by assenting statesmen because it represented the one true way. Exactly. Not to mention that the constitutional convention was basically an illegal coup d'état. 1 Link to comment
NUinID Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 So this is the reason why the US has developed a stable republic that has used the same constitution for the last 225 years? no. it is why we have seen economic success and other nations have struggled, regardless of their economic system. also, i wonder if people who claim the founders' intent as a defense for their position have ever read their writings or even the constitution. there was no broad consent over how the constitution should be drafted. it is not some divine work effortlessly pieced together by assenting statesmen because it represented the one true way. they fought over how to form the union and drafted a constitution that set the framework in which our government is to operate; so our country could change and progress. falling back on, 'that is how the founders want it!', is ridiculous. why should we live under the tyranny of men who lived 225 years ago when they fought for a system of self-government of the people currently existing. they got to argue over how they thought government should function, why should we not be able to do the same? it is just crazy to defer to men who lived 225 years ago whose only true legacy was creating the best system for self-government, not a government beholden to the tyranny of tradition or interpretation. Wow, I think I will go out and dump some tea into Boston Harbor, or organize a march on Washington. I don't think I said that is how the founders wanted it. I said we have used the same constitution for the last 225 years. Aren't we arguing how government should function right now? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I don't think I said that is how the founders wanted it. I said we have used the same constitution for the last 225 years. Aren't we arguing how government should function right now? you kept mentioning that you did not believe the founders would want a 40 year career politician (in a thread about obama?): Do you think the situation I described where you constantly create more politicians every two terms will shrink government? This is important. I don't know if it would create more politicians or not, but I don't think the founders of our nation envisioned 40 year career politicians in the federal government. we do argue about how government should function, i was lamenting over the fact that the founders' intent gets brought up. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 John Adams first served as a delegate to the continental congress in 1774. He retired from politics after his presidency ended in 1801. He served nearly 27 years as a congressional delegate, minister to the netherlands, vice president, and president. Not that he is really a "founding father", but John Quincy Adams first served as the US Minister to the Netherlands in 1794. What makes him interesting is that unlike his predecessors, he didn't retire from politics after his presidential term (which ended in 1829). He went on to serve 17 years as a US Representative of Massachusetts, dying in office in 1848. His total as a politician? 54 years. Great job bringing my relatives into the conversation. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I have never been a conservative who went around preaching "our founding fathers wanted it this way" bla bla...... I have never understood it. There were as many different opinions back then as to how government should be as there is now. If you try to pin down the people who say that, my experience is that they pick and choose which "founding father" they agree with and run with it. And, sometimes they don't even understand the views of the founding father they claim to agree with. What the founding fathers did so well is put a structure in place for government to evolve into what the people of the country want it to evolve into. I completely agree with arguing every point we can as to what needs to change in the country and make it better. What I don't like is people who think we don't need to abide by the basic structure that we have. As to what has made this country great economically, obviously the resources we have along with access to the world on both coasts are huge. However, just as big is a stable economy laid out in a manner where people working in that economy know the rules and those rules change very slowly and methodically. Russia was and still is (to an extent) a disaster as far as an economic engine for its people. There are many reasons for that also. Corruption in government is one. In reality, America and almost any "free" country is a combination of capitalism and socialism. It is just a matter of percentage of each (no, I don't have exact percentages of what the US is). This has been fact since we first set foot in North America. 5 Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 It's in vogue and all to express dissatisfaction with our "broken system", but it's inefficient by design. Big overhauls, which this healthcare initiative most definitely is, are not supposed to be easy or quick to accomplish. Tradeoffs exist in everything, and ours is a government that trades caprice for cumbrousness. You cannot have more of one without less of the other. It's also in the nature of each branch of government to attempt to be as powerful as possible. And yeah, the executive branch has certainly increased its clout over the years. It hasn't really been a fair fight. The people disdain the balance of Congress, because it results in gridlock, and they clamor for an energetic executive with charisma, TV presence, and who is measured by how much he 'gets done' for them and for the country. So, without applying specifics to our present situation, it does worry me generally, that transformation of the presidency. One good man who accomplishes a lot of good, lays unwittingly the groundwork for a lot of other good men to accomplish a lot of bad in the future, all done with the best of intentions. We're worried about teaching science in our schools (and we should be) in another thread topic in this forum, but the reality is that we desperately need to revamp how we teach history, too. Americans' understanding of even our own, relatively recent history is abysmal. This! Carrying on America's civic tradition is a thousand times for important than scientific literacy, in my opinion. Link to comment
Recommended Posts