Who is the worst President ever?

[Ted King]

Dakota wrote:
As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks. They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them.

So then you agree that McCain wouldn't have likely picked the same faceless bureaucrats.

[Mac1337]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks. They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them.

So then you agree that McCain wouldn't have likely picked the same faceless bureaucrats.
Of course he would. Problem is with the positions they are filling, not themselves. Beyond, the State and Defense and a few others nobody really knows what the rest are doing. Name one thing that the Secretary of Labor has done for labor. How much corn can Agriculture secretary take credit for in a year?

[lafinfil]

Well perhaps McCain may have reached across the aisle if he had been elected but his first pick
of Sarah Palin showed him to have poor judgment and a total disregard for the office in the eye's
of the swing voters you like to disparage so much.

I still haven't decided if this was a FU pick because he couldn't have his first choice(s) or a matter
on Schmidt having his hand so far up McCain's ass coat that it was the Rove machine controlling things.

Either way he lost - so I guess you'll never know.

[Ted King]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Dakota]
As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks. They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them.

So then you agree that McCain wouldn't have likely picked the same faceless bureaucrats.
Of course he would. Problem is with the positions they are filling, not themselves. Beyond, the State and Defense and a few others nobody really knows what the rest are doing. Name one thing that the Secretary of Labor has done for labor. How much corn can Agriculture secretary take credit for in a year?
Yeah, right, of course.

Secretary of Labor - lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees OSHA. Lax enforcement leads to much more dangerous conditions for workers.

Secretary of Agriculture - also lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees inspection services to make sure food is safe. Kinda important, dontcha think.

[freeradical]

Ted King wrote:

Secretary of Labor - lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees OSHA. Lax enforcement leads to much more dangerous conditions for workers.

Secretary of Agriculture - also lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees inspection services to make sure food is safe. Kinda important, dontcha think.

None of which is political. All you need is some bureaucrat to oversee the worker bees.

[davester]

This just in...just because you can spell out the words on your keyboard doesn't make them true.

Dakota wrote: As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks.

Care to give any specifics or will you just continue to throw out indefensible generalized rubbish? Just as one example, Steve Chu is a brilliant, devoted and driven scientist who knows how to direct a large organization and has singlehandedly made a huge impact on government research directions already. He lives, eats and breathes environmental and energy policy/science.

They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them.

That is complete nonsense. Did they make you take american history and civics in school? Except for transportation and energy, most of those departments date from the 1800s and the country certainly would have been a train wreck without them. Care to disclose what planet you get your factoids from?

Oh wait, I understand. This is the standard right-wing tear-down-the-useless-government-and-give-us-back-our-taxes talking point.

Exxon finds the oil, refines it and delivers to the corner gas station and employs millions in the process. They are the department of energy.

You sure got that wrong. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela find and ship that oil to the US. Exxon (who employs 100,000, not "millions") just overcharges the american public and siphons their profits out of your (and my) pocketbook. The oil company monopoly on our future and security (not to mention huge amounts of our tax money) needs to be destroyed. Oh, and don't worry, the global environmental disaster that it's causing is just a ruse by those scientists to profit from their solar cell investments.

[Mac1337]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Dakota]
As for the rest, they are all faceless bureaucrats that will be forgotten within weeks. They are often presiding over departments that themselves have no useful function and the country did just fine for 200 years without them.

So then you agree that McCain wouldn't have likely picked the same faceless bureaucrats.
Of course he would. Problem is with the positions they are filling, not themselves. Beyond, the State and Defense and a few others nobody really knows what the rest are doing. Name one thing that the Secretary of Labor has done for labor. How much corn can Agriculture secretary take credit for in a year?


Yeah, right, of course.

Secretary of Labor - lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees OSHA. Lax enforcement leads to much more dangerous conditions for workers.

Secretary of Agriculture - also lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees inspection services to make sure food is safe. Kinda important, dontcha think.
50 billion dollars a year to oversea labor laws? 95 billion dollars to inspect meat? Come on. How much corn do you have to plant to just cover Ag department budget? Worse, they never have enough.

[Ted King]

freeradical wrote:
[quote=Ted King]

Secretary of Labor - lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees OSHA. Lax enforcement leads to much more dangerous conditions for workers.

Secretary of Agriculture - also lots of important stuff. Just one example of many: oversees inspection services to make sure food is safe. Kinda important, dontcha think.

None of which is political. All you need is some bureaucrat to oversee the worker bees.
Okay, you guys are trolling now. Either that or you are being more myopic than I have been considering you to be (I actually do try to be generous in my assessment of participants here - though I'm sure on occasion I don't give enough benefit of the doubt.)

[Mac-A-Matic]

Did someone really say that the secretaries of Labor and Agriculture are not political?

Perhaps one ought to look into the operations of companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland before making such comments.

Beyond agriculture, corporations and unions battle over everything labor and the regulations that control just what can and cannot be done with regards to employees.

While I agree that these two secretaries do not enjoy the public spotlight such as State and Defense, don't let that relative obscurity fool you.

[mikeylikesit]

Don't be fooled into thinking that they don't wield immense power either.