Re: Exciting New Birth Control Method Called “S ocialism”

On 8/1/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/1/26 10:54 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/1/2026 1:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:44:34 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/31/2026 5:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:18:26 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about the deep state functionaries who are virtually
>>>>>> unfireable wanting to maintain their system of permanent 
>>>>>> employment and control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Himbo has demonstrated that no such level exists in government.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, in terms of control, the election of himbo twice confirms
>>>>> that.  If they had control, that would not have happened.
>>>>
>>>> Influence =/= control.
>>>
>>> Significant influence is lacking then.  Himbo's presidency proves that
>>> much.
>>>
>>> You are hedging now.  Tara might even say fudging.  Now put that
>>> marble back where it was.
>>
>> The right answer is to make all of the executive branch employees 
>> fireable by the person in charge of the executive branch. The congress 
>> won't do that but they should.
> 
> i'm not really sure how firing and rehiring the entire govt every 4 
> years could ever be efficient... these aren't orgs that can be replaced 
> by competition dud. they run integral systems within society that we 
> actually do depend on
> 
> besides... this is not really really the point of electing a president. 
> the president does not set policy, the president just leads the org that 
> enacts the policy set by congress. if the bureaucrats are making 
> decision, then policy needs to change, and congress should be doing 
> that, not the president
> 
> ofc, no one guarantee a govt ideals from the 1700s would scale forever. 
> i don't think inducing fed employee churn is a meaningfully resolution 
> to our problems wilson

The president is not inferior to the congress. He does get to set the 
policies of his administration and that's what the people elected him to 
do. If his policies conflict with what congress wants, the congress can 
pass laws, override his veto, and set the budget to fund what they want 
to happen. And the president has to live within those confines.

No one wants to fire the entire federal bureaucracy every time a new 
president is elected. But what the president should be able to do is 
replace those he sees as opposing what the people elected him to do.

That's not the way it is now. People in the executive branch bureaus 
literally cannot be fired if they actively oppose the president's 
policies and try to roadblock them. That's the current law.

That's anti-democratic. Because those people are hardly answerable to 
anyone, actually. Their jobs are protected. It's very difficult for them 
to be fired individually. They are practically beyond the control of the 
elected government, unless the entire bureau is ended.

That permanent administrative apparatus isn't coequal to or above the 
president. It wasn't supposed to be outside of his purview. The congress 
gets to approve executive branch cabinet level positions. Those cabinet 
officers then get to run the bureaus that congress gave them 
responsibility for. The president can later fire any of the cabinet 
officers at any time without approval by congress. It's set up that way 
because, while they need to be approved by congress, they work for him.

Those administrative bureaus were deliberately put inside the executive 
branch under the cabinet officers instead of being under the direct 
control of congress. They literally work under the president and that's 
the way the congress set them up.

That specific organizational structure was created for a reason. Those 
orgs need to be directed and managed and the congress didn't want that 
responsibility. They knew then and they know now they can't do that job 
because they can hardly effectively manage themselves.