Is undermining a government agency the patriotic thing to do?

Question

Example 1: Bush appoints a guy who wants to privatize Social Security to the Social Security Administration.

Example 2: Bush appoints a woman to review government regulations who believes free market capitalism will protect us from car emissions and arsnick in the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06fri2.html

Answer 1

Bush is the King of Undermining.
Didn't he just undermined the Speaker of the House?

Answer 2

True 'free market' policy is laissez-faire. Government and business should not mix because they get along too well. I think they call it special interest?

SS should be voluntary. Meaning there should be competition. Bush's idea of privatization is a perversion of the idea.

The patriotic question is: what is the role of government?

I think Jefferson had it right when he said:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So the question is not about 'undermining' a gov't agency. The question is actually about the 'validity' of that gov't agency.

A republic is generally defined by what government should do and what it 'cannot do'. Many gov't programs are initially unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

Answer 3

Example 3, after being warned against it, the House Speaker went to the Middle East and met with the leader of this terrorist state, then told him outright lies and fabrications about an ally or our Country. She single-handidly set our progress in the Middle East back by years because, much like you, she thinks she knows more than the people who are already dealing with these matters. She sould be impeached and removed.

Answer 4

First, The New York Times lost their creditability. Therefore, their viewpoints or news reports should not be taken on face value.

The social security is not working as it was intended when it was first enacted. There should be reforms to improve on it. People are afraid of change.


The EPA will do better with free market solutions sometime but it is not the 100% answer. You should remember in state economy that they do not care about the environment.

Answer 5

Supporting government agencies is not patriotic. Patriotism is a badly misused term. Being patriotic means being faithful to the ideals and goals of the America PEOPLE not the American government.

Answer 6

Bush needs more money for his war in Iraq so why not appoint someone who will gladly take it from one source, social security, and put it in his war effort. I tell you, this administration has screwed up everything that they have touched and unfortunately for us they have another two years to screw it up even worse.

Answer 7

And, Bush didn't try to privatize SS. He suggested that we allow people to invest a small percentage of it in more aggressive funds. And, this percentage would be above and beyond the current level of taxation. Please read up on things before you "get bent out of shape."

For what it's worth, I think the Bush idea was a bad one. SS tax is socialism ... we should abolish the whole thing.

Answer 8

The Republican party needs to keep their hands off of Social Security.....the program is not a get rich quick scheme.

Answer 9

Having a different idea about how a agency should implement goals, is not undermining it.

Answer 10

This administration and patriotism have nothing in common. They are mortal enemies. Corrupt to the core.