Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forget all other issues and your own personal likes and dislikes. This is an "all talk and no action" vs "actual action" question.
Of all of the potential 2016 candidate names for President, which candidate once in office, and in your opinion, is most likely to really decrease the size of the federal government, by actually eliminating some federal government agencies and decreasing the size of others by at least 25 percent once in the White House?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Forget all other issues and your own personal likes and dislikes. This is an "all talk and no action" vs "actual action" question.
Of all of the potential 2016 candidate names for President, which candidate once in office, and in your opinion, is most likely to really decrease the size of the federal government, by actually eliminating some federal government agencies and decreasing the size of others by at least 25 percent once in the White House?
While there are many who will promise to do that there is NO ONE likely to do that.
The strongest contenders currently appear to be Rand, Jeb*, Cruz, Carson, and Walker. Of those five, I'd say the most likely one to reduce the size and power of government would be Cruz; his agenda is in that camp, he has the will to implement it, and he is not intimidated in the least by the establishment or special interests. The latter component gives him a leg up over Rand, who is more easily intimidated into going along to get along. Carson doesn't seem to have as fiery of a tack as Cruz; in part because of his lack of political experience and a voting record, we don't know for sure whether he'll be more effective or not. Walker is a garden-variety conservative; although he has teeth in his agenda, he doesn't do anything that is controversial within the Republican party, which in practice means doing next to nothing to reduce government. Jeb would likely actively work to increase the size and power of government like his brother, and he himself as Governor of Florida and post-Governorship.
A President just by him/herself can't implement a whole agenda, but there is the power of discretion in using powers delegated by Congress (c.f. the wars and Obamacare), the power of the veto, and the influence of the office which can be used to organize and mobilize mass movements. Prowess in these three areas is what you should look at after you consider the initial agenda, because that's how the executive branch can effect change.
*I don't think Jeb has much of a chance, but he does have the support of establishment cronies and the media, which will vault him into being considered "top tier".
Forget all other issues and your own personal likes and dislikes. This is an "all talk and no action" vs "actual action" question.
Of all of the potential 2016 candidate names for President, which candidate once in office, and in your opinion, is most likely to really decrease the size of the federal government, by actually eliminating some federal government agencies and decreasing the size of others by at least 25 percent once in the White House?
That's a Constitution Fail.
Presidents have no authority to decrease the size of government.
That authority rests solely with Congress.
Doesn't anyone remember all of the stupid idiot Ron Paul supporters who thought he was going to eliminate the Department of Education? Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. -- Plato
Yeah, go ahead and give presidents the dictatorial power to abolish cabinet positions and federal agencies with the stroke of a pen.
What you'll get is the Department of Education abolished and replaced with the Department of Re-Education.
If you want any hope of shrinking government, then you'll need to start electing 3rd Party Candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The relationship between Stupidity and Democracy is inversely proportional....as the level of Stupidity increases, the amount of Democracy decreases....
Presidents have no authority to decrease the size of government.
That authority rests solely with Congress.
Doesn't anyone remember all of the stupid idiot Ron Paul supporters who thought he was going to eliminate the Department of Education? Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. -- Plato
Yeah, go ahead and give presidents the dictatorial power to abolish cabinet positions and federal agencies with the stroke of a pen.
What you'll get is the Department of Education abolished and replaced with the Department of Re-Education.
If you want any hope of shrinking government, then you'll need to start electing 3rd Party Candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The relationship between Stupidity and Democracy is inversely proportional....as the level of Stupidity increases, the amount of Democracy decreases....
Aw, how cute...there are still people who believe that a politician will "help" them. Here's your answer, if you dare leave your fantasy land for a minute, NONE!
Presidents have no authority to decrease the size of government.
That authority rests solely with Congress.
Doesn't anyone remember all of the stupid idiot Ron Paul supporters who thought he was going to eliminate the Department of Education? Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. -- Plato
Yeah, go ahead and give presidents the dictatorial power to abolish cabinet positions and federal agencies with the stroke of a pen.
What you'll get is the Department of Education abolished and replaced with the Department of Re-Education.
If you want any hope of shrinking government, then you'll need to start electing 3rd Party Candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The relationship between Stupidity and Democracy is inversely proportional....as the level of Stupidity increases, the amount of Democracy decreases....
Mircea
Does the head of the Dept of Education allocate the funds for that department? Does all the money in the budget for the DoED have to be spent?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
