Should big government be the answer to all of our problems?

[Boris The Animal]

With a subsidy for this and a program for that, with the Federal government's extraconstitutional overreach into areas that clearly belong to the states, here is the inevitable question. Should the United States Federal government be the ultimate problem solver in all of the concerns that affect America and her citizenry?

[KC]

No, absolutely not. I think decentralization is usually a better approach when the government does need to intervene, but in doing so no level of government should infringe on the rights of the people.

[Boris The Animal]

I wonder what Cigarette or one of the other big nannystaters will say?

[Morningstar]

I don't even like small government...

[Chris]

Abolish government!

[Boris The Animal]

Abolish government!Totally abolish government then you have no law and order. The name of the game is to get the US Federal government back to its original Constitutional duties. And let the states handle their own social welfare concerns.

[Morningstar]

Totally abolish government then you have no law and order. The name of the game is to get the US Federal government back to its original Constitutional duties. And let the states handle their own social welfare concerns.

The only contact that most US citizens had with their national government in the 1790's was at the Post Office...

[Chris]

Totally abolish government then you have no law and order. The name of the game is to get the US Federal government back to its original Constitutional duties. And let the states handle their own social welfare concerns.

So you're an authoritarian.

Governance without government is not no law and order it is governance by natural social order.

[Adelaide]

Depends on the definition of "big government". The US has a serious problem with regards to big government, but other countries with more social programs and more spending and taxing have far superior outcomes. A lot of that has to do with smarter planning, and an organized and audited (externally) system.

[Morningstar]

So you're an authoritarian.

Governance without government is not no law and order it is governance by natural social order.

The Injuns seemed to be able to live together without a government for thousands of years...

[Chris]

Depends on the definition of "big government". The US has a serious problem with regards to big government, but other countries with more social programs and more spending and taxing have far superior outcomes. A lot of that has to do with smarter planning, and an organized and audited (externally) system.

Many of those countries are actually more conservative fiscally than the US I think. The trick, if you're going to have government, is regulating the regulators.

[Chris]

The Injuns seemed to be able to live together without a government for thousands of years...

Again, I recommend Brafman and Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations as a good explanation to that with examples from American Indian tribes like the Apache.

[Morningstar]

Many of those countries are actually more conservative fiscally than the US I think. The trick, if you're going to have government, is regulating the regulators.

If we taxed the PEOPLE for the government they have elected, things would change in a minute. But we tax the rich, and borrow the rest.

[Morningstar]

Again, I recommend Brafman and Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations as a good explanation to that with examples from American Indian tribes like the Apache.

On my to-do list...

[zelmo1234]

The Injuns seemed to be able to live together without a government for thousands of years...

OH! I like the Idea of No govenrment, but I doubyt the people that lived around me would! It would nto be long before you had war lords and kingdoms being set up.

[Morningstar]

OH! I like the Idea of No govenrment, but I doubyt the people that lived around me would! It would nto be long before you had war lords and kingdoms being set up.

The only governments that work are based on kin/clan/family/tribe.

That's it. Nothing else works.

[oceanloverOH]

I voted HELL NO!.....though I probably would have put it in stronger terms than that!

The U.S. must have a Federal Government.....no government at all would not work in a society as large and diverse as the United States. But the Feds should stick to the Fed stuff (per the Constitution), as somebody else said....and let the States take care of the State stuff. Our current Federal Government has overstepped and the lines are too blurry.....bad, bad thing.

[Chris]

OH! I like the Idea of No govenrment, but I doubyt the people that lived around me would! It would nto be long before you had war lords and kingdoms being set up.

It might be unrealistic, but it's the better direction to head. We've been going in the wrong direction for some time now.

[Dr. Who]

It might be unrealistic, but it's the better direction to head. We've been going in the wrong direction for some time now.
So do you support the rich that move their money to offshore accounts to avoid taxes and move their jobs to offshore countries, in other words do nothing whatsoever to support the country?

[Chris]

So do you support the rich that move their money to offshore accounts to avoid taxes and move their jobs to offshore countries, in other words do nothing whatsoever to support the country?

If government policies drive business out of the US, then government needs to be regulated, not business. The US should be turned into a tax and reg haven to keep business here, bring those who left back, and even attract foreign businesses. Here's what's been happening your way:

http://i.snag.gy/FmkgB.jpg

[Dr. Who]

If government policies drive business out of the US, then government needs to be regulated, not business. The US should be turned into a tax and reg haven to keep business here, bring those who left back, and even attract foreign businesses. Here's what's been happening your way:

http://i.snag.gy/FmkgB.jpg

As your graph begins with the global economic crisis, which started in 2008 in the US, don't you think there may be some correlation?

[zelmo1234]

The only governments that work are based on kin/clan/family/tribe.

That's it. Nothing else works.

OH! I think that I could put together one hell of a tribe! But I actually might have to move to a different state! Mr Prince (Blackwater - X's) would quickly be in charge of MI But working for him as "tribal council" might not be a bad job!

Trust me you do not want the strongest make the rules! Wolves ten to be very intolerant of the sheep!

[zelmo1234]

It might be unrealistic, but it's the better direction to head. We've been going in the wrong direction for some time now.

You don't want to set the wolves loose, they need fences (laws). If you abolish the rule of law, then the one with the biggest stick gets to make the rules! I would not want that responsibility. Only one tme in the worlds history has a group of people been able to pass the test of limiting their power and control over the people, and that group wrote the US constitution!

Every other time, it has failed, and the strong forced their will on the weak. In the name of progress for sure, but still, I don't think that I would make great choices for those around me, if I get to make the rules. And I would get to make the rules!

[zelmo1234]

So do you support the rich that move their money to offshore accounts to avoid taxes and move their jobs to offshore countries, in other words do nothing whatsoever to support the country?

Really?

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

71% of all federal income tax.

They move off shore because regulations, taxations, unions. have driven up the price of manufacturing, and the IUS consumer is not willing to pay more for made in the USA!

So they aer faced with a choice!

Many, my self included move corporate headquarters off shore, to reduce their tax burden and use that money to invest in expansion.

When you have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, business is going to find a way around it, so they can survive. You can not put tarrifs on the land lord (china) so you are faced with policies that cause business to shelter, The Democats keep calling for higher taxes, which produce lower revenue, And they know it, but can not resist the power of class warfare!

[zelmo1234]

As your graph begins with the global economic crisis, which started in 2008 in the US, don't you think there may be some correlation?

Also happens to begin with a President that is the enemy of business in the USA!

[Guerilla]

Trust me you do not want the strongest make the rules! Wolves ten to be very intolerant of the sheep!

Then we will have a world of wolves! no sheep allowed!

[zelmo1234]

Then we will have a world of wolves! no sheep allowed!

Ahh! if only that were possible, but just look on this forum. we have wolves and sheep. Take away all governement and those with the biggest stick and take what those with smaller, or no sticks have and put it to better use in their opnion.

Like I said only one time in history has a group of people passed the unlimited power test. I really think we need to return to the document that they wrote. I know that I would fail the test. sure it would start out as nobel, to protect the weak. but then the weak would complain about this and that and piss me off! And it would be all down hill from their

[Guerilla]

Ahh! if only that were possible, but just look on this forum. we have wolves and sheep. Take away all governement and those with the biggest stick and take what those with smaller, or no sticks have and put it to better use in their opnion.

Like I said only one time in history has a group of people passed the unlimited power test. I really think we need to return to the document that they wrote. I know that I would fail the test. sure it would start out as nobel, to protect the weak. but then the weak would complain about this and that and piss me off! And it would be all down hill from their

The constitution is good, but whenever you place someone in power things go bad eventually. It's just a fact. You say only one passed the test, and I say look at what a mockery the country has become of it's formal self! So their's your "one", even the best end up bad. Any way you look at it, the only logical conclusion is to simply not have any government. Society is better off if people started taking care of themselves, being independent, and basically becoming wolves - or at least not sheep for the wolves to prey on.

[zelmo1234]

The constitution is good, but whenever you place someone in power things go bad eventually. It's just a fact. You say only one passed the test, and I say look at what a mockery the country has become of it's formal self! So their's your "one", even the best end up bad. Any way you look at it, the only logical conclusion is to simply not have any government. Society is better off if people started taking care of themselves, being independent, and basically becoming wolves - or at least not sheep for the wolves to prey on.

And what is your plan for preventing people that have the ability to make others submit from taking power?

In other words, if I was to put together a band of happy campers. how do you intend to stop them from taking all of your camping supplies and making you put up the tent?

[Chris]

As your graph begins with the global economic crisis, which started in 2008 in the US, don't you think there may be some correlation?

The crisis was global, who, while we went down, other nations went up--see rank chart.

[Chris]

You don't want to set the wolves loose, they need fences (laws). If you abolish the rule of law, then the one with the biggest stick gets to make the rules! I would not want that responsibility. Only one tme in the worlds history has a group of people been able to pass the test of limiting their power and control over the people, and that group wrote the US constitution!

Every other time, it has failed, and the strong forced their will on the weak. In the name of progress for sure, but still, I don't think that I would make great choices for those around me, if I get to make the rules. And I would get to make the rules!

Rule of law should protect and enforce contacts, not manage them. What we have, as government grows increasingly powerful, is rule of man. Never forget that the same sort of men who run businesses run governments.

[zelmo1234]

Rule of law should protect and enforce contacts, not manage them. What we have, as government grows increasingly powerful, is rule of man. Never forget that the same sort of men who run businesses run governments.

You are correct, that is why I don't think that abolishing government is a great Idea! I know that I would not handle power well.

Returning to the founding documents as much as possible is the only choice. At least that is what I beleive will save us.

If you abolish goverment then you have the rule of man, and then those that have the power will weild it!

[Chris]

Power begets power. A republic imposes limits but still eventually gives way. Jefferson called for a revolution every 20 years.

[nic34]

Jefferson and Madison, who understood the importance of dissent and periodic revolution, would be horrified at the way peaceful Americans had been treated since the Occupy Movement started.

It's time to throw banksters in jail, not activists.

[Guerilla]

And what is your plan for preventing people that have the ability to make others submit from taking power?

In other words, if I was to put together a band of happy campers. how do you intend to stop them from taking all of your camping supplies and making you put up the tent?

As I said, we need to become wolves. We need to become independent. If people are independent and in control of their own sovereignity for maybe a generation, the way people think will be changed. People will not bow down as easily, because a wolf does not just turn back into a sheep. They will fight and you have to go in knowing that this guy is probably going to fight back. If their was anarchy that guy would need to be in control of his own safety and you would need to attack people knowing that you could die, and still be willing to take the risk. How big of a band are you talking about by the way? An army or just some mercenaries? Cuz if your thinkin mercenaries, I'm thinkin the old west, with little bandits. Which really wouldn't be too much of a problem. When law first breaks down I believe their may be people like you attempting to prey on the weak like a bunch of assholes. I also believe that naturally these people will fade from society, because they will live a very risky life and end up dead like most bandits often did.

[Chris]

Jefferson and Madison, who understood the importance of dissent and periodic revolution, would be horrified at the way peaceful Americans had been treated since the Occupy Movement started.

It's time to throw banksters in jail, not activists.

I agree, throw the banksters who violated the law in jail. Then throw in with them the politicians and bureaucrats who let them get away with it.

As for Jefferson, in what way, nic? Why? Without projecting your feelings onto him. When he wrote things like:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."

[Chris]

As I said, we need to become wolves. We need to become independent. If people are independent and in control of their own sovereignity for maybe a generation, the way people think will be changed. People will not bow down as easily, because a wolf does not just turn back into a sheep. They will fight and you have to go in knowing that this guy is probably going to fight back. If their was anarchy that guy would need to be in control of his own safety and you would need to attack people knowing that you could die, and still be willing to take the risk. How big of a band are you talking about by the way? An army or just some mercenaries? Cuz if your thinkin mercenaries, I'm thinkin the old west, with little bandits. Which really wouldn't be too much of a problem. When law first breaks down I believe their may be people like you attempting to prey on the weak like a bunch of assholes. I also believe that naturally these people will fade from society, because they will live a very risky life and end up dead like most bandits often did.

Re wolves: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" ~not Franklin

[zelmo1234]

As I said, we need to become wolves. We need to become independent. If people are independent and in control of their own sovereignity for maybe a generation, the way people think will be changed. People will not bow down as easily, because a wolf does not just turn back into a sheep. They will fight and you have to go in knowing that this guy is probably going to fight back. If their was anarchy that guy would need to be in control of his own safety and you would need to attack people knowing that you could die, and still be willing to take the risk. How big of a band are you talking about by the way? An army or just some mercenaries? Cuz if your thinkin mercenaries, I'm thinkin the old west, with little bandits. Which really wouldn't be too much of a problem. When law first breaks down I believe their may be people like you attempting to prey on the weak like a bunch of assholes. I also believe that naturally these people will fade from society, because they will live a very risky life and end up dead like most bandits often did.

You don't understand how it would work at all, the Wolves that take over will come in sheeps clothing.

Yes when it breaks down there will be a bunch of little gangs running around terrorizing people. What I would do is recruit the police and military that had lost there jobs and restore control and safty! There would be loss of life on the part of my band as well and that would poiss me off.

The people would be happy that order was restored, and I would employ a type of marshal law on them for there own safty.

They will submit to this because it is in their best interest. And eventually the lust for power would have me being their master rather than helper.

My force would consist of hundreds of trained people not just a few. and they would end up ruling with an iron hand.

It would be much better to return to the constitution and the rule of law, not of man. absolute power corupts absolutly, and that is what would happen!

Teh people would be out of the frying pan and into the fire!

[Dr. Who]

The crisis was global, who, while we went down, other nations went up--see rank chart.
Some, not many, had their ducks in a row with strict banking regulations. What they certainly didn't have were banks lending money to people without jobs because they had Freddie Mac extending credit to support the loans, AIG insuring them and pension funds being conned into buying supposed AAA paper. They also didn't have deductible mortgage interest which simply creates incentives to borrow more and not pay down mortgage debt. The countries outside of the US that are floundering now are the ones whose banks bought up vast amounts of the counterfeit AAA paper. These countries were already living in a house of cards, so it didn't take much to upset the apple cart.

[Morningstar]

As I said, we need to become wolves. We need to become independent. If people are independent and in control of their own sovereignity for maybe a generation, the way people think will be changed. People will not bow down as easily, because a wolf does not just turn back into a sheep. They will fight and you have to go in knowing that this guy is probably going to fight back. If their was anarchy that guy would need to be in control of his own safety and you would need to attack people knowing that you could die, and still be willing to take the risk. How big of a band are you talking about by the way? An army or just some mercenaries? Cuz if your thinkin mercenaries, I'm thinkin the old west, with little bandits. Which really wouldn't be too much of a problem. When law first breaks down I believe their may be people like you attempting to prey on the weak like a bunch of assholes. I also believe that naturally these people will fade from society, because they will live a very risky life and end up dead like most bandits often did.

People have always been able to govern themselves. The Old West is a perfect example. It wasn't nearly as "wild" as some people think.

[Mister D]

I have no problem with government per se. I have a problem with distant, unaccountable government.

[Chris]

Some, not many, had their ducks in a row with strict banking regulations. What they certainly didn't have were banks lending money to people without jobs because they had Freddie Mac extending credit to support the loans, AIG insuring them and pension funds being conned into buying supposed AAA paper. They also didn't have deductible mortgage interest which simply creates incentives to borrow more and not pay down mortgage debt. The countries outside of the US that are floundering now are the ones whose banks bought up vast amounts of the counterfeit AAA paper. These countries were already living in a house of cards, so it didn't take much to upset the apple cart.


Some, not many, had their ducks in a row with strict banking regulations....

So did we:


Regulators, too, fell victim to the combination of cognitive hubris and radical ignorance. They believed in the quality of bank risk management using the new tools.4 They also believed in the effectiveness of their own rules and practices.

A common post-crisis narrative is that banking was de-regulated in the Reagan-Greenspan era. Some pundits make it sound as if regulators behaved like parents who hand their teenagers the keys to the liquor cabinet, leave for the weekend, and say “Have a good time.” In fact, regulators believed that they had stronger regulations in place in 2005 than they did in the pre-Reagan era.

—Before 1980, mortgage loans held by banks were illiquid assets subject to considerable interest-rate risk. These problems were alleviated by the shift toward securitization.

—Before 1980, insolvent institutions were opaque because of book-value accounting. This problem was addressed with market-value accounting, enabling regulators to take more timely corrective action to address troubled institutions.

—Before 1980, banks had no formal capital requirements and there were no mechanisms in place to steer banks away from risky assets. This problem was addressed with the Basel capital accords (formally adopted in 1988), which incorporated a risk-weighted measure of assets to determine required minimum capital. In the 2000s, these risk weightings were altered to penalize banks that did not invest in highly rated, asset-backed securities.

Thus, it was not the intent of regulators to loosen the reins on banks. On the contrary, from the regulators' point of view, it was the environment prior to 1980 that amounted to leaving the teenagers with the keys to the liquor cabinet. The post-1980 regulatory changes were believed to be in the direction of tighter supervision and more rational controls.

@ The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance)

[Dr. Who]

So did we:



@ The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance)

So the suggestion is that all of the cognitively hubristic players failed to consider that the housing bubble might pop? The statistics were great, but they ignored any possibility of a change in the landscape? That's why they employ actuaries. The tools employed by the American financial sector are also used in other countries, but some with much better results.

[Chris]

So the suggestion is that all of the cognitively hubristic players failed to consider that the housing bubble might pop? The statistics were great, but they ignored any possibility of a change in the landscape? That's why they employ actuaries. The tools employed by the American financial sector are also used in other countries, but some with much better results.

He wasn't talking about financial tools, but regulatory tools, tools in place, that could have prevented the crisis, but the regulators themselves failed. The hubris is the fatal conceit that man can design and manage economies, thus the need for greater tax and reg freedom if we as a nation wish to compete and prosper.

[Dr. Who]

He wasn't talking about financial tools, but regulatory tools, tools in place, that could have prevented the crisis, but the regulators themselves failed. The hubris is the fatal conceit that man can design and manage economies, thus the need for greater tax and reg freedom if we as a nation wish to compete and prosper.

Rather than focus on incentives, Friedman's narrative would emphasize what I have been calling cognitive hubris. Mortgage lenders believed that new underwriting tools, especially credit scoring, allowed them to assess borrower risk with greater accuracy than ever before. Such knowledge was thought to enable lenders to discriminate carefully enough to price for risk in subprime markets, rather than avoid lending altogether. On top of this, financial engineers claimed to be able to build security structures that could produce predictable, low levels of default even when the underlying loans were riskier than the traditional prime mortgage.

These are not regulatory tools, but rather computer software.

[Chris]

These are not regulatory tools, but rather computer software.

Those are, but what I cited were regulatory tools--if you're changing the focus, let me know to what for I thought you were referring to the post you quoted.

I will agree the banksters (as some like to call them) suffered the same hubris as the regulators. Of course the banksters were encouraged by legislation that promoted such risks and knew they could get with because they'd be bailed by the government.

[Adelaide]

I have no problem with government per se. I have a problem with distant, unaccountable government.

Exactly. The American big government is the wrong kind of big government. There are ways to have an effective and accountable big government if it's something the people want, but it takes a lot of work to establish it and to establish it in a way that works.

[Boris The Animal]

Exactly. The American big government is the wrong kind of big government. There are ways to have an effective and accountable big government if it's something the people want, but it takes a lot of work to establish it and to establish it in a way that works.But why not take the Constitutional approach, meaning a weak Federal Government except in its original mandates of Defense, treaties, and interstate commerce; and let each individual state handle their own social welfare issues?

[Adelaide]

But why not take the Constitutional approach, meaning a weak Federal Government except in its original mandates of Defense, treaties, and interstate commerce; and let each individual state handle their own social welfare issues?

That would seem to make the most sense in the US.

[Peter1469]

That would seem to make the most sense in the US.


Yes, for a country so large and diverse, most "one size fits all" solutions are going to piss more people off than they satisfy. Let local governments tailor solutions to local needs.

[Adelaide]

Yes, for a country so large and diverse, most "one size fits all" solutions are going to piss more people off than they satisfy. Let local governments tailor solutions to local needs.

Within reason, yes. Some issues require federal oversight.

[Peter1469]

Within reason, yes. Some issues require federal oversight.

Yes. The enumerated clauses in Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const. are a good place to start. :wink:

[Seriy]

The Big Brother is in fact not a brother, but a ferocious enemy to American people.

[Dr. Who]

Those are, but what I cited were regulatory tools--if you're changing the focus, let me know to what for I thought you were referring to the post you quoted.

I will agree the banksters (as some like to call them) suffered the same hubris as the regulators. Of course the banksters were encouraged by legislation that promoted such risks and knew they could get with because they'd be bailed by the government.
But the problem was that the regulations allowed loopholes that the 'banksters" exploited. IMO the regulations were not sufficiently well crafted, otherwise how did others avoid these pitfalls?

[zelmo1234]

regulations are usually crafted well enough, they are rarely inforced! Look at even the BP spill in the gulf?

had the regulators don their job, it need not ahve happened.

[Seriy]

Nanny state is disgusting.

[Chris]

Nanny state is disgusting.

Really? What about the nanny state enforcing your personal definition of marriage?

[nic34]

Yes, for a country so large and diverse, most "one size fits all" solutions are going to piss more people off than they satisfy. Let local governments tailor solutions to local needs.

Tell Social mobility goodbye....

[Mister D]

Tell Social mobility goodbye....

Why?

[Chris]

Tell Social mobility goodbye....

Peter's suggestion of local government is what would allow for more social mobility. People would, besides voting in a polling booth and voting with their pennies also be able to vote with their feet, you know, the way Californias are as they migrate to Texas: Texas Experiences Meteoric Rise Of Relocation Inquiries From California Companies (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2013/02/21/texas-experiences-meteoric-rise-of-relocation-inquiries-from-california-companies/).

[Peter1469]

Tell Social mobility goodbye....

You have it backwards. If politics is local, you can easily move to a location that suits you. If politics is federal and one size fits all, you have very little options.

[nic34]

So 50 different little countries is better than Europe ..... how?

[Chris]

So 50 different little countries is better than Europe ..... how?

Europe is 50 little countries. Their trying to unite under a EU is failing them.

Anyway, following the spirit of the Constitution would not disband the country, just return a healthy balance of power to the states--who need to return more power to counties, etc.

[Boris The Animal]

I'm reviving this thread because I see that none of the Leftist apologists have answered.

[darroll]

The Injuns seemed to be able to live together without a government for thousands of years...

So could we.

[Adelaide]

Big government can do a lot of good for people, when it is set up properly and there are proper checks and balances and a level of accountability exists (and this is all possible).

The US lacks this. I'd be wary of big government, too, if I lived in the US.

[Boris The Animal]

Big government can do a lot of good for people, when it is set up properly and there are proper checks and balances and a level of accountability exists (and this is all possible).

The US lacks this. I'd be wary of big government, too, if I lived in the US.
This is why the US Constitution was set up the way it's supposed to be. With a weak federal government and states able to take care of their own social ills.

[Mainecoons]

With a subsidy for this and a program for that, with the Federal government's extraconstitutional overreach into areas that clearly belong to the states, here is the inevitable question. Should the United States Federal government be the ultimate problem solver in all of the concerns that affect America and her citizenry?

There's only one problem with your question: It assumes that the Federal government actually solves problems, not makes them far worse.

Though I'll admit they seem to have done a great job of solving these problems:

1. Not enough illegal immigrants, entice more.

2. Not enough guns killing people in Mexico, send more.

3. Not enough debt, double it in one President's term.

4. Not enough Federal "workers" making six figure salaries. Triple those.

5. Not enough high dollar vacations for the POTUS.

6. Not enough people on food stamps and welfare. Set a new record.

7. Not enough part time workers and McJobs.

8. Not enough income gains going to the one percent. Double that.

9. Not enough abuse by the IRS.

10. Not enough spying on the people.

11. Not enough waste, fraud and abuse in all their programs.

OK, Boris, I stand corrected. Clearly we have some mega-problem solvers in D.C. these days. Can I change my vote?

:rofl:

[Boris The Animal]

There's only one problem with your question: It assumes that the Federal government actually solves problems, not makes them far worse.

Though I'll admit they seem to have done a great job of solving these problems:

1. Not enough illegal immigrants, entice more.

2. Not enough guns killing people in Mexico, send more.

3. Not enough debt, double it in one President's term.

4. Not enough Federal "workers" making six figure salaries. Triple those.

5. Not enough high dollar vacations for the POTUS.

6. Not enough people on food stamps and welfare. Set a new record.

7. Not enough part time workers and McJobs.

8. Not enough income gains going to the one percent. Double that.

9. Not enough abuse by the IRS.

10. Not enough spying on the people.

11. Not enough waste, fraud and abuse in all their programs.

OK, Boris, I stand corrected. Clearly we have some mega-problem solvers in D.C. these days. Can I change my vote?

:rofl:
I was referring to the overall mentality of the Leftist who thinks that the "solution" to a societal ill is (drum roll, please) another wasteful government program.

[Adelaide]

This is why the US Constitution was set up the way it's supposed to be. With a weak federal government and states able to take care of their own social ills.

I agree, that's how the US should largely do it. The size and diversity of the US makes it hard for the federal government to be able to truly function in a way that would be most beneficial.

[Adelaide]

I was referring to the overall mentality of the Leftist who thinks that the "solution" to a societal ill is (drum roll, please) another wasteful government program.

I'm a "leftist". Some people have common sense. There are matters that the US federal government should be involved in but, otherwise, as you said it should be done at state-level.

[Boris The Animal]

I'm a "leftist". Some people have common sense. There are matters that the US federal government should be involved in but, otherwise, as you said it should be done at state-level.
And the ONLY matters are those specifically outlined in the Enumerated Powers Clause as stated in Article I Sec. 8.

[Chris]

Big government can do a lot of good for people, when it is set up properly and there are proper checks and balances and a level of accountability exists (and this is all possible).

The US lacks this. I'd be wary of big government, too, if I lived in the US.



If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

~Madison, Federalist 51.


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

~anon

[Carlsen]

Big government can do a lot of good for people, when it is set up properly and there are proper checks and balances and a level of accountability exists (and this is all possible).

The US lacks this. I'd be wary of big government, too, if I lived in the US.

this is problem many countrys have in USA and Europe is with immigration. there are to many immigrants come to the country to take advantage of welfare and free education for there children. these governments should keep better check on this.


.

[Libhater]

With a subsidy for this and a program for that, with the Federal government's extraconstitutional overreach into areas that clearly belong to the states, here is the inevitable question. Should the United States Federal government be the ultimate problem solver in all of the concerns that affect America and her citizenry?

So who was the lone communist/idiot that voted in the poll to have big government hold our hands through life?

[Boris The Animal]

So who was the lone communist/idiot that voted in the poll to have big government hold our hands through life?I wonder that too.

[Mainecoons]

I'll bet on Nic.

:grin: