• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gingrich Suggests Illegally Firing Federal Employees Over Liberal Views

gingern, check out this cite: Thomas Jefferson - Wikiquote

Here, I'll do it. Here's the full quote. Jefferson was saying that rebellions were to be expected, and are healthy, in a free society - but he wasn't saying they should actually succeed, nor that the rebels were right.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
 
if this thread were about the need for more efficient government, such that we could downsize the number of government workers, we would be in agreement
however, this topic is about crazy newt proclaiming that federal employees should be fired for no reason other than their politics being a different brand than his own
no thinking American could agree to that

Thats kind of what Newt is saying but he used partisan buzzwords and tripped the bull**** meters. He is saying that government service and structures need a change in mindset, governments current purpose seems to be to create more work for itself, from congress and the executive branch on down. That needs to change and it cannot be done with the same people in place that seem to keep moving the government engine forward onto bigger and bigger bureaucracy.

Newt overthought this and worded it terribly. But if we are going to change the philosophy of government and exact real change, people need to change their thinking or hit the road. Im not even talking liberal and conservative here but the nature and scope of government.
 
Here, I'll do it. Here's the full quote. Jefferson was saying that rebellions were to be expected, and are healthy, in a free society - but he wasn't saying they should actually succeed, nor that the rebels were right.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

OK so he didn't say "we need a revolution every 20 yrs", he said "God forbid we should ever be 20 yrs without such a rebellion". I believe if he saw what the fed has morphed into today he would be literally nauseated. And he would agree that we're 220 yrs behind schedule.
 
OK so he didn't say "we need a revolution every 20 yrs", he said "God forbid we should ever be 20 yrs without such a rebellion".

And then he said the rebels were wrong, and uneducated, and needed to fail.

I believe if he saw what the fed has morphed into today he would be literally nauseated. And he would agree that we're 220 yrs behind schedule.

I don't, because I think HE would have morphed alot in 220 years too.
 
In other news, the White House claims that Newt Gingrich suggested that ground puppy-burgers be fed to elementary school children and the elderly.

6eb85ec2-6277-4ed8-8e5f-50148f34e18c.jpg
 
Thats kind of what Newt is saying but he used partisan buzzwords and tripped the bull**** meters. He is saying that government service and structures need a change in mindset, governments current purpose seems to be to create more work for itself, from congress and the executive branch on down. That needs to change and it cannot be done with the same people in place that seem to keep moving the government engine forward onto bigger and bigger bureaucracy.

Newt overthought this and worded it terribly. But if we are going to change the philosophy of government and exact real change, people need to change their thinking or hit the road. Im not even talking liberal and conservative here but the nature and scope of government.
well, i will let newt speak for himself and what he says cannot be explained away
he appears to want to fire career civil servants who are not of his own political inclination
a stupid, stupid suggestion

what you have offered in an effort to explain away newt's foolish remarks actually exists
when the executive is elected into office, the president appoints the staff who will head the various agencies of government
that which was emphasized in a previous administration may now be de-emphasized in favor of another direction in which those appointees have pointed for their subordinates to follow as they perform the government's works
while they cannot direct the career civil service employees to violate any laws, rules or regulations they can and do direct them to focus their energies in a particular direction as decided by the executive office
these political appointees can also shape government direction by allocating their budgets such that the most funding flows in the direction of initiatives favored by the president and his advisors

those career rank and file employees who received their jobs based on merit rather than political affiliation are the ones who must heed the directives they are given by the political appointees and carry out the government's work
these career employees must execute the requirements imposed upon them by their supervisors even if doing so is in contradiction with their own political views
as a personal example, when i was hired into the federal service i was a capital "L" Libertarian, opposed to government intervention which was not in keeping with the invisible hand that libertarians are so fond of. and one of my first jobs was to decide which small businesses would receive government/taxpayer provided money to start or expand their businesses
my personal political views (since revised) had to subordinated to the task i was assigned to perform. clearly, i could not refuse to make government loans to all small business applicants, while my personal political persuasion would have dictated such inaction

and coming out of a long career spent in government and as a k street lobbyist, newt knows these things. this is yet another dog whistle he directs at those who are not so informed
 
Thats kind of what Newt is saying but he used partisan buzzwords and tripped the bull**** meters. He is saying that government service and structures need a change in mindset, governments current purpose seems to be to create more work for itself, from congress and the executive branch on down. That needs to change and it cannot be done with the same people in place that seem to keep moving the government engine forward onto bigger and bigger bureaucracy.

Newt overthought this and worded it terribly. But if we are going to change the philosophy of government and exact real change, people need to change their thinking or hit the road. Im not even talking liberal and conservative here but the nature and scope of government.

The line "need a change in mindset" is spot on. It goes down to local as well.

I have a sister who over the last yrs has gotten involved in her local township govt. At the end of 2009 they instituted a 3 yr "pay freeze". After some digging citizens found out that in 2010 out of 34 employees 7 received between 7 & 14% pay increases. 2011 saw another 9 get raises between 5 & 12%. 2012 there are raises scheduled for another 11. The rationale is that they are under contract and the contract calls for these "time in service" raises. I can't argue with that point if that's the agreed contract so be it. 27 out of 34 people get raises. That's a govt employees idea of a "pay freeze". I sometimes think they live in a different universe than the rest of us.
 
In other news, the White House claims that Newt Gingrich suggested that ground puppy-burgers be fed to elementary school children and the elderly.

Downplay the right wing's idiocy at your peril.
 
The line "need a change in mindset" is spot on. It goes down to local as well.

I have a sister who over the last yrs has gotten involved in her local township govt. At the end of 2009 they instituted a 3 yr "pay freeze". After some digging citizens found out that in 2010 out of 34 employees 7 received between 7 & 14% pay increases. 2011 saw another 9 get raises between 5 & 12%. 2012 there are raises scheduled for another 11. The rationale is that they are under contract and the contract calls for these "time in service" raises. I can't argue with that point if that's the agreed contract so be it. 27 out of 34 people get raises. That's a govt employees idea of a "pay freeze". I sometimes think they live in a different universe than the rest of us.

No, they live in a universe where contracts must be honored.
 
No, they live in a universe where contracts must be honored.

I have no problem with that. But don't try to tell me how much they're "sacrificing" with their "pay freeze".
 
I have no problem with that. But don't try to tell me how much they're "sacrificing" with their "pay freeze".

I doubt anyone told you that. You just didn't look at the details.
 
And then he said the rebels were wrong, and uneducated, and needed to fail.

I'll accept that in regards to the specific rebellion he was speaking of. It doesn't seem to me he's speaking to all dissent and all future uprisings.

I don't, because I think HE would have morphed alot in 220 years too.

I believe anyone credited with the following would not be pleased with the our present state. "democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not".
 
I'll accept that in regards to the specific rebellion he was speaking of. It doesn't seem to me he's speaking to all dissent and all future uprisings.

He VERY CLEARLY meant all future uprisings! He was talking about the future!

I believe anyone credited with the following would not be pleased with the our present state. "democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not".

Jefferson never said that though. It has never been found in any of his writings.

The democracy will cease to exist... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

He did say similar things though.
 
He VERY CLEARLY meant all future uprisings! He was talking about the future!

I'm not seeing the "clearly meant all future..."


Jefferson never said that though. It has never been found in any of his writings
.

The democracy will cease to exist... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

He did say similar things though.[/QUOTE]

I kinda like this better anyway much more eloquent, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, -€˜the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3]
 
I doubt anyone told you that. You just didn't look at the details.

Actually it was the main selling point to a local levy on the ballot last fall. Govt employees already sacrificed now it's everyone else's turn.
I hear from a lot of govt employees complaining about having to pickup more of their healthcare costs. When I inform them that the increases they have experienced recently
have almost caught them up to where I was 15yrs ago they don't want to hear it. They feel they are "entitled" to lower costs than the rest of us. After all they're the govt.
 
I'm not seeing the "clearly meant all future..."

Seriously? He's talking about what might happen in the future. It couldn't be more clear.


The quote is not found in any of his writings. Just because someone says he said it doesn't mean he did. Lots of errors and fake quotes are out there.

I kinda like this better anyway much more eloquent, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, -€˜the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3]

I like it better because it's actually a documented quote and not a fabrication.
 
Actually it was the main selling point to a local levy on the ballot last fall.

And were there details offered?

I hear from a lot of govt employees complaining about having to pickup more of their healthcare costs. When I inform them that the increases they have experienced recently
have almost caught them up to where I was 15yrs ago they don't want to hear it. They feel they are "entitled" to lower costs than the rest of us. After all they're the govt.

No, they complained because they are losing something. Did you complain 15 years ago? You should have. Maybe you're a wimp who can' stand up for yourself. Maybe the private sector is getting screwed, and now government workers are. Why would you be so eager to make everyone as worse off as you are? It's astounding what the right wing has done with this argument - they screw private workers over, and instead of private workers saying they ought to get it back, they say they want government workers to suffer too. So everyone will be poor and without benefits - great!
 
And were there details offered?

On a political commercial? 3 second blurbs. You're missing the point, the citizens had to dig the information out of them. The govt was more than happy to stick with the "pay freeze" picture.

No, they complained because they are losing something. Why would you be so eager to make everyone as worse off as you are? It's astounding what the right wing has done with this argument - they screw private workers over, and instead of private workers saying they ought to get it back, they say they want government workers to suffer too. So everyone will be poor and without benefits - great!

Losing something? If that's not the perfect entitlement mentality. The cost of your familys healthcare has been rising 6-12% a year and after a decade or 2 of those increases you have to go from paying 15% of your healthcare costs to paying 25%. Oh the poor dears. Tell me, when those costs rose year after year did you consider those increased costs to be increased compensation? I'm betting not. After all they're entitled to it. I wonder if the increased costs of healthcare in anyway impacted the govt scheduled pay raises. I'm betting not.

Did you complain 15 years ago? You should have. Maybe you're a wimp who can' stand up for yourself. Maybe the private sector is getting screwed, and now government workers are.

I couldn't stand up for myself, I would have had to stand up to myself. It was my company. And yes, my costs went up right along with everyone else.

Why would you be so eager to make everyone as worse off as you are?

I tend to look at it as paying your fair share. I owned the company and I can assure you my benefits never came close to those of my best friend whose been working for a state university for about the same time frame. His HC was far superior to mine and for 20 of the last 25 yrs he paid virtually nothing. I along with my employees paid his healthcare. How about time off? He gets more time off in 1 year than I did in a decade or my employees took in a 5yrs. As a matter of fact he's about to go N Orleans to an annual conference. I'll be getting a call from Bourbon St in a couple of weeks to rub it in. Oh, by the way, I and my employees pay for that too.

Why would you be so eager to make everyone as worse off as you are?

As worse off as I am? How about standing up and help pay for your own healthcare? The private sector has been providing the public sector with cadilac benefits forever, while I and my employees pay twice as much and get cavaliers.

It's astounding what the right wing has done with this argument - they screw private workers over, and instead of private workers saying they ought to get it back, they say they want government workers to suffer too. So everyone will be poor and without benefits - great!

First I'm hardly right wing. And how in the world the world has the right wing screwed private sector workers? The left sees this all through the prism of Wall St investment bankers and GM. Most people work for small businesses and small business is not sitting on the oft sited 2 Trillion that the left says business is sitting on. They're trying to survive. Private sector workers have figured out that their employer is not necessarily the enemy. In a small business it's very easy to sit folks down and say guys "I just can't cover HC as I did before", and show them the numbers. People get it. Unfortunately for the left I also made a point to mention what their public counterparts were paying and the fact we were all paying for it. It astounds me that public employees receive better benefits than 99% of the private sector and all they do is complain about it.
 
On a political commercial? 3 second blurbs. You're missing the point, the citizens had to dig the information out of them.

Life's tough.

I wonder if the increased costs of healthcare in anyway impacted the govt scheduled pay raises. I'm betting not.

You wouldn't want to go "dig the information out of them" or anything.
 
Last edited:
Losing something? If that's not the perfect entitlement mentality...

So if you were employed, and got a pay cut, you wouldn't complain one bit?

Sure.
 
I tend to look at it as paying your fair share. I owned the company and I can assure you my benefits never came close to those of my best friend whose been working for a state university for about the same time frame. His HC was far superior to mine and for 20 of the last 25 yrs he paid virtually nothing. I along with my employees paid his healthcare. How about time off? He gets more time off in 1 year than I did in a decade or my employees took in a 5yrs. As a matter of fact he's about to go N Orleans to an annual conference. I'll be getting a call from Bourbon St in a couple of weeks to rub it in. Oh, by the way, I and my employees pay for that too.

When I see a friend who is doing better than me, I think I want to do better, not that I want to bring his salary and benefits down.

As worse off as I am? How about standing up and help pay for your own healthcare? The private sector has been providing the public sector with cadilac benefits forever, while I and my employees pay twice as much and get cavaliers.

So let's make the private sector benefits better.
And how in the world the world has the right wing screwed private sector workers?

Really?

And yes, small businesses are often in survival mode. But then they succeed, and thrive, and grow. If they can only lower wages and benefits, that's not success.

Overall, Americans' wages haven't risen past inflation for 30 years (except the top 10%). Despite being more productive. There's something wrong. THAT is what "fair share" is about.
 
When I see a friend who is doing better than me, I think I want to do better, not that I want to bring his salary and benefits down.

As I've told him I don't begrudge him anything, we(the citizens) made the deal with him. He also gets the notion that HC costs have been exploding and the levels of his contribution
are going to have to be more realistic. He's a big dog so I'm not remotely worried about him. He and I disagree on one issue. Govt retirement has traditionally included lifetime defined benefits as far as healthcare. Think about someone 25yrs old starting to work in the govt right now. We are promising that 25 or 30yrs from now we're going to provide lifetime HC. My grandchildren are on the hook for those future costs, whatever they maybe. The private sector figured out that defined benefit programs for retirees are unsustainable, ask GM.



So let's make the private sector benefits better.

Sounds good. The only question is how.

And yes, small businesses are often in survival mode. But then they succeed, and thrive, and grow. If they can only lower wages and benefits, that's not success.
Overall, Americans' wages haven't risen past inflation for 30 years (except the top 10%). Despite being more productive. There's something wrong. THAT is what "fair share" is about.

Today, survival is success.

I agree wage stagnation is a major problem. The question again is what to do about it. The lefts answer seems to always be more govt. It seems to me most business people would have a 2 word answer to what the govt could do to help, "Go Away". Whether we like it or not we are in a global competition. It's tough to compete when you spend a large part of your time and resources navigating the myriad of fed, state, county, city, interstate regional, intrastate regional (I could go on), bureaucracies. None of which have your companies well being at heart. And all of whom grow every day. Years ago I heard a line "today you can't swap pocket knives without 2 lawyers, six bureaucrats and $40k". It's much worse now and getting more so by the day.
 
Back
Top Bottom