[nolidad]

This is a thread started from the virtue of selfishness thread. There the argument was started that there is no real problem with the government expanding its powers and taxing more and more and expanding social welfare programs(my words).

This form of government was not the intent oft he founding fathers and was even warned against by the founders. The larger and more centralized the fed gets, the more it erodes state, local and individual liberties. Thanks to the tarp and subsequent programs the fed is now co owner and in some cases majority owner of banks, insurance companies and now Chrysler and soon GM. We need to wake up and stop this march to socialism.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought 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 everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

We n o longer have a real 2 party system but 2 parties intent on growing the fed even bigger. Texas gov. Perry could be right in threateneing their constitutional right to secede if the fed gets too intrusive.


Remember the words of I beleive Franklin "When people fear the govt. that is tyranny, when govt. fear the people that is liberty." America is more fearing the power of the FEd and its ability to take through the IRS.

[adamwagg]

I'm moving this to Government and Economics as I think its a better fit there.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

I'm moving this to Government and Economics as I think its a better fit there.

Thanks I am glad someone is there to help me get my stuff in the right place. (no sarcasm-real gratitude here

[JerryLove]

Both.

There are several areas I'd like to see moved to the Fed, and several more that the fed is half-controlling but through the back-door.

There are other areas where government in general (state, federal, and everyone else) is bloated.

How come no one complains about "big state government"? It seems anyone worried about excess would be worried about all excess.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How come no one complains about "big state government"? It seems anyone worried about excess would be worried about all excess.

California complains about big state government, and as a government employee (University of California) I complain about it as well.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by thesteve

California complains about big state government, and as a government employee (University of California) I complain about it as well.

Do you complain about specific things or government spending? Would you like to see your job removed in the name of smaller government?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you complain about specific things or government spending? Would you like to see your job removed in the name of smaller government?

Largely government spending. My job isn't bureaucratic, so I don't see it as representation of government waste.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Largely government spending. My job isn't bureaucratic, so I don't see it as representation of government waste.

This seems to be the pattern: everyone wants less spending, but not on the things that benefit them.

Maybe you are an exception, but you did say your complain was general and not specific. We see the exact same thing with "pork barrel spending". You can walk into the middle of a bunch of protesters of it, pick something that directly affects them, and that will be the one example of "good spending".

I generally give little credence to the people talking in such blanket terms as "big" and "little" government. I find it's usually more rhetoric than it is constructive criticism.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This seems to be the pattern: everyone wants less spending, but not on the things that benefit them.

Maybe you are an exception, but you did say your complain was general and not specific. We see the exact same thing with "pork barrel spending". You can walk into the middle of a bunch of protesters of it, pick something that directly affects them, and that will be the one example of "good spending".

I generally give little credence to the people talking in such blanket terms as "big" and "little" government. I find it's usually more rhetoric than it is constructive criticism.

From what I understand, my job isn't actually paid for by the state, it's paid for through NIH grant money, but I still visualize the bureaucratic end of my job as being state employees. Often I don't see current government spending as actually being "too much" as much as being "too little in the right places."

For example, I'm part of a workers union that is currently being offered a 0% raise over the next three years because the University of California says there is no money in the state budget. The problem is that (as I noted earlier) most employees in the union are paid through federal grant money (NIH), not the state budget. Additionally, the UC just appointed two new executives in 2009 who, from what I understand, will be paid salaries in the range of $200-$300K each with total compensation packages in the $1mil range (both together). This is a case where it appears the money is there, but IMO the UC is allocated funds poorly. Of course, this is something that directly affects me so it's something I've familiarized myself with.

That being said, I do understand what you are saying. i definitely think that there are things that the federal and state governments spend money on that is good use of taxpayer money (military, education, roads, healthcare, parks and rec) but there are also things that could be reduced and or completely cut out. Naturally what is good and bad will vary from opinion to opinion.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by thesteve

That being said, I do understand what you are saying. i definitely think that there are things that the federal and state governments spend money on that is good use of taxpayer money (military, education, roads, healthcare, parks and rec) but there are also things that could be reduced and or completely cut out. Naturally what is good and bad will vary from opinion to opinion.

And I'll go farther and say that nothing is completely efficient. There are certainly changes in most good spending that could improve cost-to-benefit. I just don't want (and don't think you are saying we should) to throw out the baby with the bath water. Not all spending is bad.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Both.

There are several areas I'd like to see moved to the Fed, and several more that the fed is half-controlling but through the back-door.

There are other areas where government in general (state, federal, and everyone else) is bloated.

How come no one complains about "big state government"? It seems anyone worried about excess would be worried about all excess.

Well I would enjoy seeing the fed move back to a much smaller role in the affairs of the nation. Provide for the common defense, establish an equitable judicial system and deal with disparities bewtween the states. I personally would like to roll back most of the progressive and intrusive things that began after Roosevelt and carried on by Johnson and pretty much all the presidents since with probably the exception of Reagan (He grew govt. pretty much the slowest)

The states should restrict themselves as well federal, state , and local boards for many areas are a wasteful thing. Education should belong to the communities- with state only interfering when discrimination or discrepencies become evident.

I realize this will not happen but the present form of the fed was only granted by progressive interpretations of the constitution. The vast majority of the founders intended federal rule to be as minimal as possible.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I would enjoy seeing the fed move back to a much smaller role in the affairs of the nation. Provide for the common defense, establish an equitable judicial system and deal with disparities bewtween the states. I personally would like to roll back most of the progressive and intrusive things that began after Roosevelt and carried on by Johnson and pretty much all the presidents since

Some of that was done. For example: we repealed the regulation which prevented commercial banks from investing in debt-backed securities. The trillion-dollar TARP is the result of that fiasco.

with probably the exception of Reagan (He grew govt. pretty much the slowest)

That would be the president who, at the time, held the record for the largest increase in government spending in US history.

The states should restrict themselves as well federal, state , and local boards for many areas are a wasteful thing. Education should belong to the communities- with state only interfering when discrimination or discrepencies become evident.

So to make sure I understand. A state-board is more wasteful than a hundred local boards to cover the same area? How so?

I realize this will not happen but the present form of the fed was only granted by progressive interpretations of the constitution. The vast majority of the founders intended federal rule to be as minimal as possible.

A necessary evil at the time. It's time to reconsider whether that makes sense in the modern US.

[nolidad]

[

So to make sure I understand. A state-board is more wasteful than a hundred local boards to cover the same area? How so?

Well if we are juyst simply talking economics- then one federasl board trumps even 50 local boards- but it is not the most efficiewnt to the needs of all communities. Our constitution was designed to limit federal govt. Is states opted to rid local school boards for ex., that at least is explicit constitutional authority.

Some of that was done. For example: we repealed the regulation which prevented commercial banks from investing in debt-backed securities. The trillion-dollar TARP is the result of that fiasco.

And the amazing thing is the glass steagal act itself was anaction that was not granted to the federal govt. by constitutional authority but by Supreme Court interpretation based onthe gymnastics using the commerce clause.

Now before you go too far and accuse m (like you like to do) of advocating something-- the govt. did hasve constitutional authority to go after those who created the mess.

That would be the president who, at the time, held the record for the largest increase in government spending in US history.

Yes and the largest portion of that increase was in a constitutional allowed way-- defense. Which is credited by many historians as winning the cold war by bankrupting the USSR.

A necessary evil at the time. It's time to reconsider whether that makes sense in the modern US.

Jerry -- I agree but what should be done is bring the change inthe way the law allows- have the constitution amended to allow it.

Instead of allowing courts to interpret the constitution- just simply amend it! That way we don't have to worry about whether liberal or conservative justices are in and change certain laws- then we have explicit mandates for expanded roel of Federal Authority. That is a far simpler way to do it.

[Folk_guy]

I don't think that it's a matter of bigger or smaller, but having the government be the right size for the task at hand. The Federal Government has certain responsibilities to the country as a whole, they need to defend us from agression from outside sources, help us in times of disaster (including economic disasters) provide a system of checks and balances that defend our freedoms. All of these things cost money, which means taxes. I don't like the terms big or little government, because the size of the government should change to meet the demands. I want to see the government run as efficiently as possible, keeping the tax burden to a minimum, while still providing us with those things we expect the government to take care of for us.

I wish the government had gotten more active in protecting us from unfair trade deals decades ago, before we got into this mess. Then we wouldn't have to bail out all of our industries. We shut down all of our steel mills years ago because we put a lot of expensive ecological clean air requirements on our smelting and refinery plants (this was a good thing), but then we let the Chinese import cheap steel they were making with virtually slave labor while their plants were putting more polution into the air than ours were just before they were forced to close because they could no longer compete. So all we did was export our polution to other nations, along with all of that industries jobs. I'm all for free trade, but let's level the playing field. If your going to import goods into the US then they should have to show that thier factories are meeting the same environmental requirements that ours have to. You should also have to show that you aren't using child labor, etc. There are some areas like protecting our workers from unfair trade competition that I wish the government had grown and developed. Obama, and the current legislators have inherited an economic mess, and I don't think that letting our major financial institutions, and industries go under is in our best interest at this time. It tooks many decades for us to get in this mess, I don't know what the solution is to our current situation, but I don't think that increasing the jobless rate by letting companies like GM and Crysler go under is going to help us. Forcing them to rethink and retool their manufacturing and business models, while at the same time keeping them afloat temporarily seems to be a decent strategy to me at this time.

I don't care if our government is big or small. I care that they are making the best use of our money to do what is right for the majority of our citizens. Although I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person, there are many countries who have tax rates that are much higher than ours. I don't want my tax dollars wasted, but I don't feel overburdened by taxes at this time either (and I live in New York one of the two highest taxed States in the US). I would just like to get the most out of what I do give them.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Folk_guy

I don't think that it's a matter of bigger or smaller, but having the government be the right size for the task at hand. The Federal Government has certain responsibilities to the country as a whole, they need to defend us from agression from outside sources, help us in times of disaster (including economic disasters) provide a system of checks and balances that defend our freedoms. All of these things cost money, which means taxes. I don't like the terms big or little government, because the size of the government should change to meet the demands. I want to see the government run as efficiently as possible, keeping the tax burden to a minimum, while still providing us with those things we expect the government to take care of for us.

I wish the government had gotten more active in protecting us from unfair trade deals decades ago, before we got into this mess. Then we wouldn't have to bail out all of our industries. We shut down all of our steel mills years ago because we put a lot of expensive ecological clean air requirements on our smelting and refinery plants (this was a good thing), but then we let the Chinese import cheap steel they were making with virtually slave labor while their plants were putting more polution into the air than ours were just before they were forced to close because they could no longer compete. So all we did was export our polution to other nations, along with all of that industries jobs. I'm all for free trade, but let's level the playing field. If your going to import goods into the US then they should have to show that thier factories are meeting the same environmental requirements that ours have to. You should also have to show that you aren't using child labor, etc. There are some areas like protecting our workers from unfair trade competition that I wish the government had grown and developed. Obama, and the current legislators have inherited an economic mess, and I don't think that letting our major financial institutions, and industries go under is in our best interest at this time. It tooks many decades for us to get in this mess, I don't know what the solution is to our current situation, but I don't think that increasing the jobless rate by letting companies like GM and Crysler go under is going to help us. Forcing them to rethink and retool their manufacturing and business models, while at the same time keeping them afloat temporarily seems to be a decent strategy to me at this time.

I don't care if our government is big or small. I care that they are making the best use of our money to do what is right for the majority of our citizens. Although I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person, there are many countries who have tax rates that are much higher than ours. I don't want my tax dollars wasted, but I don't feel overburdened by taxes at this time either (and I live in New York one of the two highest taxed States in the US). I would just like to get the most out of what I do give them.

Its amazing you write this for the trading between countries is one of the mandates of congress-- to promote and insure equity in our system of trade and to settle disputes within trade between stqates and other nations. My major contention has been and is that:

1: The constitution was designed to limit the federal government in how big it should be allowed to grow

2. If we are to have a bigger federal govt. Instead of growing the scope of the federal govt. by judicial interpretation-- we should amend the governing document to allow the fed the growth it takes.