About Do you support a large national government?
|September 15th, 2004||#1|
| || |
Do you support a large national government? info
Do you support a large or small nationalized government?
I do not agree with the concept of a large government. Today's government is giving out cash to the masses in large numbers. Both Bush and Kerry talk about giving more money to social programs that will cost in the $100 billions. Here is a quote to enlighten everyone
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." Alexander Fraser Tyler 1770
Our government is turing into a machine that hands out money freely and I cannot stand it. Who needs to work hard when the government is there to pay the way.
I do not know about you, but I do not feel represented by my congressman or senator. Those people do not know what it is like for the average american. They make around $100,000 a year, have every benefit known to man, get a pension only after working 2 years (house) or 6 years(senate), get a raise every year unless they vote otherwise and don't pay the social security tax. Name me a job that gives you all that.
The state government would much better represent the people. The representatives there would know the needs of their state. I must ask why my federal income tax goes to highway projects in California? Shouldn't my taxes go to benefit the state I am in? There was a time when the states managed almost everything. Over the years, the federal government has taken control of things. It is my opinion that they have too much power today.
Now don't think of me as a raging idiot who hates all forms of government. I am just starting to see that our government is steering the US in the wrong direction.
"The best form of taking care of troops is first-class training, for this saves unnecessary casualties." Erwin Rommel
|September 16th, 2004||#2|
| || |
I do agree to an extent. A large government can support the masses, but there is usually more corruption within large nationalized governments.
WO2 Trevor Perry,
Squadron Deputy Commander
746 Lightning Hawk RCACS
|September 16th, 2004||#3|
| || |
I do not think the US government hsould be large. We live in a system of federalism, decentralized control.
A large government is not flexible, responsive to the populace. In essence, they try to be all things to all people and can't seem to accomplish the more routine tasks.
I've spent years in government service and have seen some success stories, but considering the amount of money, not enough success.
How many trillions have we put (via the fed gov) into the War on Poverty? Education?
But then look what happened earlier in Wisconsin. Link Link is to a conservative think tank research piece. I realize there are a number of skeptics to the reform on the Left. I'm also sure folks from the Left can find links to liberal think tanks, blasting the initiative. However, I was a welfare worker for PA for a couple years after the federal welfare reform passed (somewhat mirroring WIsconsin) and can attest the initiatives did help. Not magic bullets, but a clear step in the right direction.
Back on topic. Wisconsin re-structured their program and found success. WElfare numbers dropped.
Now, the merits can be debated. However, what you get with the decentralized model is fifty ways to solve problems. Fifty ways to solve prison over-population. Fifty ways to solve welfare dependency. Fifty ways to reduce crime and recidivisim.
Not one way.
If a government is decentralized (block grants with general guidelines given to states, rather than Departmetns spending it their way), you create opportunities for initiative.
And one more thing. Taking specific pork project power from the US Congress can lead to lower budgetss and more likely balanced budgets. If block grants are given and a specific pig fertilization program is no longer allowed in federal budgets, the Congressmen and women would feel less pressure to boost funding here and there.
|September 17th, 2004||#4|
| || |
Well a large government is good..
They provide the backbone to the country.
You need to have a big and strong team to hold the country together, especially during crisis.
WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE NEED TO FIGHT SO OFTEN? HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE BABIES?
|September 17th, 2004||#5|
| || |
The Founding Father would agree with you whole heartedly SAINT. They believed that the main function of the federal government was security and foreign relations. My problems with the federal government are with the issues that the state governments can decide and MONEY.
I know for a fact, the Founding Fathers did not want the federal government meddling with everyday life. That's why after the Revolutionary War, the state government had 10 times more power than they today. Over time, that power has been taken by the federal government. I believe that a state governments should have the right to decide how life should be in their state. State governments should regulate issues such as smoking, drinking, gun control, education, crime, marriage, health care ect. I will always believe that states know how to handle issues of their state better than the federal government.
Oh yes, this one is a biggie. The 2005 budged is slated to be about $2.4 trillion. Take out defense, $400 billion, and there is $2 trillion (give or take) being spent here in the USA.
A good chunk of that $2 trillion is spent on social entitlements. Some of these entitlements are needed, but most of them need to go. We should not create a society that relies on the government to LIVE. Thomas Jefferson agrees with me on this issue. "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases" - Thomas Jefferson. If we continue to give out money to the masses, no one will want to work hard and accomplish anything in life. America is a great place to live if you are willing to work hard and devote yourself. No one succeeds by sitting on your 6.
Have you ever noticed that many states depend on federal dollars? Why can't we just cut out the federal government when it comes to running a state? A highway project in California shouldn't be given a bunch of federal dollars. The funds should come from the state. Instead of giving the federal government tax dollars that only come back to the state, why can't states just have that money to begin with.
ummmm, I am becoming a raving lunatic.
I agree Airborne Eagle, having 50 governments try to solve one problem is better than one government trying to solve a problem. Some states may fail, but then they can use the examples of the states that succeeded.
Don't get me started on pork barrel spending. There is nothing like completely wasting $10 billion on useless crap.
|September 21st, 2004||#6|
| || |
States should not have more power than the federal government. If that happens, the whole country will fall into pieces as the states are no longer united and become independent in their governance.
at that time, there will be many US 'taiwans' to deal with, so to speak
|September 25th, 2004||#7|
| || |
I am not suggesting that the States have more power than the Federal Government, just more power than they have now. I fell that a state government is going to know what is best for its state.
Lately, the message from Washington is "we will give you everything you need to live." That message is wrong and is going to hurt the US. The people who have been successful in the US are the ones who work hard and devote themsleves. My problem is the government is saying it's ok to kick it back becuase big brother will pay the way.