Lets talk about what we think the -Federal- government is responsible for

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
We all have our opinions of what the Federal government should and shouldnt spend money on. I'd like to discuss what you guys think is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Federal government. Now, Im not talking about how much is budgeted, but rather what programs or expenditures do you think shouldnt even be IN the federal budget. Of course I'll start.

1. Department of Education. IMHO this is a state issue, not a federal one. Education needs are different for each state.

2. Department of Social and Health Services. Again, not a federal issue, but a state one.

3. HUD. Same as above.

4. Corporation for National and Community Service

5. National Labor Relations Board. Unions gotta go.

6. Department of Agriculture

7. Department of Labor (to some extent). I believe we need federal monitoring and intervention in some areas, but the scope of this department is too far reaching. Much of what DOL does should be done at the state level.


Thats about it for me I think. I truly take a minimalist view in regards to responsibility of our Federal money. I would be all for nixxing these programs, cutting federal income tax, and raising state income take with states that have it, and creating state income tax in states that dont.

Now, can we have a mature discussion about this? I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Our National Defense. And that's about it.

What about regulation of our currency? Regulation of public markets? Immigration? Economy issues? Justice Dept? Foreign affairs?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Our National Defense. And that's about it.

What about regulation of our currency? Regulation of public markets? Immigration? Economy issues? Justice Dept? Foreign affairs?

Okay, I'll give you currency.

Immigration is a Defense issue

Justice Department is a Defense issue, including those issues that attack our consititution. However, I feel there are many "Federal" laws that should be left to the state.

Foreign affairs is a Defense issue (primarily)

Public Markets should be a state issue.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
There's really no debate. The constitution lays it all out. The only debate is in interpreting the constitution. The current government elite seem to think the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses give the feds carte blanche to create any agency they want.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Full Control: Defense, Intelligence, International Diplomacy, Federal Taxes, Law Enforcement, Judiciary, Currency, Immigration.
Moderate Control: Infrastructure, Transportation.
Very Limited Control: Health, Science and Research, Welfare, Education.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Full Control: Defense, Intelligence, International Diplomacy, Federal Taxes, Law Enforcement, Judiciary, Currency, Immigration.
Moderate Control: Infrastructure, Transportation.
Very Limited Control: Health, Science and Research, Welfare, Education.

Right now, we have a federal government in which BOTH parties are trying to gain too much control of all of the above, and the agencies assigned to each item are growing bloated and inefficient... IMO, our government should be cut to at least half as large as it is today.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Our National Defense. And that's about it.

What about regulation of our currency? Regulation of public markets? Immigration? Economy issues? Justice Dept? Foreign affairs?

Okay, I'll give you currency.

Immigration is a Defense issue

Justice Department is a Defense issue, including those issues that attack our consititution. However, I feel there are many "Federal" laws that should be left to the state.

Foreign affairs is a Defense issue (primarily)

Public Markets should be a state issue.

OK I didnt realize you were putting so much into Defense...given. About public markets...out of curiosity...how would states regulate NASDAQ, Dow Jones, commodities, etc?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
My view about government spending in general:

There are two primary reasons for government activity:

- Investment. Long term and/or short term, spending to help the nation's general economy, prosperity and welfare. This can include a wide variety of activities from regulating business to providing basic human needs to funding the development of the internet (or putting a man on the moon).

- Moral obligations. This is spending that's an expense, where it's to do something we value as a society. It includes things like health care for the elderly.

The main concern I have with the government's spending is what has long been a problem, but a larger one recently, where the powerful few wealthy in the nation are able to use the government to help them get yet more, at the public's expense. It's when the government stops representing the public interest, and represents these wealthy donors.

The thing is, big corporations are well-organized with lobbyists; while a program might benefit millions of average families, those families are politically not organized, and so they get little representation. They are simply the targets of the well-funded lies in propaganda by the wealthy interests.

On your question about the dividing line between the federal government and the states, I'm a bit of a pragmatist - what works well? Some others are ideologues who want the dividing lines drawn based on the desire for a very limited federal government, and they don't care a lot whether it gets things done.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Our National Defense. And that's about it.

What about regulation of our currency? Regulation of public markets? Immigration? Economy issues? Justice Dept? Foreign affairs?

Okay, I'll give you currency.

Immigration is a Defense issue

Justice Department is a Defense issue, including those issues that attack our consititution. However, I feel there are many "Federal" laws that should be left to the state.

Foreign affairs is a Defense issue (primarily)

Public Markets should be a state issue.

OK I didnt realize you were putting so much into Defense...given. About public markets...out of curiosity...how would states regulate NASDAQ, Dow Jones, commodities, etc?


The main regulations for public markets come primarily from the Securities Act of 1933 and 1934, as well as Sarbanes-Oxley. All of these could be accomplished through state regulation and enforcement. In fact, most states have regulations for public companies incorporated in the state.

I guess that's where my issue is with who should regulate it. Public companies incorporate in a state, not with the Feds, so why is their public offerings and financial data regulated by the Feds?

Nasdaq, Dow Jones, etc are public companies like any other. The regulations are not specifically on them, it's on the companies that use their services.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK I didnt realize you were putting so much into Defense...given. About public markets...out of curiosity...how would states regulate NASDAQ, Dow Jones, commodities, etc?

nasdaq and the NYSE are pretty good at regulating companies listed on the respective exchanges (and actually are much tighter than state or federal regulations, generally [yes, i know NYSE is an organ of the state of new york]), and so are a private version of the SEC (and could probably do very well if the SEC were to be sunset, which should happen as it's a useless organization that adds no value to anyone but some lawyers who are all a bunch of leeches anyway).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK I didnt realize you were putting so much into Defense...given. About public markets...out of curiosity...how would states regulate NASDAQ, Dow Jones, commodities, etc?

nasdaq and the NYSE are pretty good at regulating companies listed on the respective exchanges (and actually are much tighter than state or federal regulations, generally [yes, i know NYSE is an organ of the state of new york]), and so are a private version of the SEC (and could probably do very well if the SEC were to be sunset, which should happen as it's a useless organization that adds no value to anyone but some lawyers who are all a bunch of leeches anyway).

It's funny how people don't see the deterrent value of organizations.

If the police and courts do so well that people started being deterred from crime, what would the public say? 'Why do we need police and courts, there isn't any crime'.

The SEC was created by FDR when the laisse-faire policies of republicans in the 1920's failed to effectively regulate the markets from the wealthy stockbrokers who could manipulate the system to make profits that were not based on activities that benefitted the economy. The first Chairman of the SEC was Joseph Kennedy, father of President Kennedy, who had made a large amount of money using these legal but objectionable techniques - and then used his abilities to shut them down in the public interest.

There's an old *conservative* saying about not tearing down a fence until you know why someone put it up. Consider the deterrence value of the SEC.

Admittedly, it's not that effective in an era when the boss who appoints its leaders is corrupt; George Bush committed criminal insider trading at Harkin, and was let off over the protests of the SEC investigators because the head of the investigators was Bush's personal attorney who had arranged his purchase of part of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and the head of the SEC had been appointed byhis father, President George H. W. Bush. But that's a reason to fix it, not get rid of it.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
My view about government spending in general:

There are two primary reasons for government activity:

- Investment. Long term and/or short term, spending to help the nation's general economy, prosperity and welfare. This can include a wide variety of activities from regulating business to providing basic human needs to funding the development of the internet (or putting a man on the moon).

- Moral obligations. This is spending that's an expense, where it's to do something we value as a society. It includes things like health care for the elderly.

The main concern I have with the government's spending is what has long been a problem, but a larger one recently, where the powerful few wealthy in the nation are able to use the government to help them get yet more, at the public's expense. It's when the government stops representing the public interest, and represents these wealthy donors.

The thing is, big corporations are well-organized with lobbyists; while a program might benefit millions of average families, those families are politically not organized, and so they get little representation. They are simply the targets of the well-funded lies in propaganda by the wealthy interests.

On your question about the dividing line between the federal government and the states, I'm a bit of a pragmatist - what works well? Some others are ideologues who want the dividing lines drawn based on the desire for a very limited federal government, and they don't care a lot whether it gets things done.

Thanks for the comments Craig...good perspective. I guess Im one of those "ideologues" desiring a very small Fed. But I do realize the same problem could, and in some cases WOULD be true as far as stagnation that is inherant with a large government. But I do think most services would be better served, and regulated, at the state level.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
too much regulation by the federal government is entirely unacceptable.

now, what constitutes "too much"?

DOH!
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
I'm gonna throw this out there...

Distribution of monies from rich regions to poorer ones to provide a consistant level of government services in all areas.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Kntx
I'm gonna throw this out there...

Distribution of monies from rich regions to poorer ones to provide a consistant level of government services in all areas.

Socialism! There's a solution!
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
OSHA Labor Issues Chemical Hazards, Required Training, Inspections, Fines. They actually do this pretty well.

First of all I think we need Federally enforced Department of Education Standards for testing. Every State should be forced to the same standard, but should be allowed to improve on the standard if they want to deal with it. How can we compare anything if we dont have a Federal standard? Also there needs to be rewards for surpassing standards as in increased funding or grants for Advanced Educational Institutions. Instead of penalizing schools for lower scores just tie the money to the scores. However, a minimum amount of funding should be guaranteed. I understand that some educators may need to be replaced, so there should be stiff punishment for fraud or misappropriating govermnet funds for education.

Drivers Licenses. We should have one Federal standard for all drivers licenses and driving laws. I dont care what they charge for taxes or license fees, but the driving regualtions should be Federal. What we have now is a smorgasboard of driving laws. People tend to be mobile and move around so you should not be able to force new residents to get a new driver's license just because they moved to your state.

Unions vs Labor: I do not think Unions have to go. What I see is there are lots of instances of abuse of power by employers. Without unions there is no protection for the employee. The employer has too many advantages in this power struggle. They can say whatever they want and it is hard to prove them wrong. A formula should be used to determine maximum allowable income. No Union should be able to skyrocket the wages of their members till it becomes out of control. We need rules to control our own greed, both on the side of the union and on the side of the company they work for. Pensions of large corporations should be separate from both the Union and the company. Too much possibility for abuse on both sides. If any organization that has a retirement fund or package files bankruptcy, the employees should be paid first, before one creditor gets a dime.

EPA should have some of its power stripped away. I do not think it is proper or fair or it does any good to make people have an EPA inspection on their vehicle. I say it does not make the air cleaner, it is only one more way to harass the average citizen. Also they should not be able to go around willy nilly and declare a lot of different states and areas be required to have different formulations of gasoline. This is counter-productive. It creates a crunch on supply and demand and can have dangerous consequences on the environment. Certain additives have actually contaminated ground water. A more sensible approach with some common sense is needed. Let them monitor factories and chemical companies but keep them away from Gasoline and Consumer harassment.

Military. Needs to be larger. We need less Reserve and national guard and more active Military Personnel. Let them patrol our southern border when they are in country. Need more bases along the border that are smaller in nature like camps for one or two companies or squad sized patrol units. They should have shoot to kill (if necessary) orders for anyone crossing the border illegally. If someone crosses our border with a weapon they should automatically be considered an invading military force and if caught tried by military tribunal and shot as a spy. In fact there should be a bounty for every person they capture or kill crossing the border.

The Evil Tax Man. . .
IRS. This is the worst government agency of all. Our tax code is a joke. We have too many stupid tax laws, with too many exceptions and special cases. We should probably just scrap what we have and start over. I say a 10% tax on income with no exceptions. Does not matter if the income is form interest, or any other source. Income is Income. All public institutions should be required to have an external audit every year. This includes schools, colleges, and universities.

Social Security - Take SS out of the general fund and have some kind of Commission to run it, which has complete autonomy. It will still be required to have audits. Remove it from the hands of the evil elected officials. Make it a felony for anyone to ask you for your SS number to put on a check or to use the Social Security Number for Identification, or to store in a file as the primary Identification number. Set up a separate account for each person. Allow people to save more in their account as needed. When a US Citizen is born whose parents have legal status in this country put a $5,000 deposit into their account. This will ease the taxation burden on the average citizen. Interst alone will compound the money enough to pay for their retirement. We will still need some taxes to take care of Orphans and Widows. Encourage people to save more.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
It's funny how people don't see the deterrent value of organizations.

If the police and courts do so well that people started being deterred from crime, what would the public say? 'Why do we need police and courts, there isn't any crime'.

The SEC was created by FDR when the laisse-faire policies of republicans in the 1920's failed to effectively regulate the markets from the wealthy stockbrokers who could manipulate the system to make profits that were not based on activities that benefitted the economy. The first Chairman of the SEC was Joseph Kennedy, father of President Kennedy, who had made a large amount of money using these legal but objectionable techniques - and then used his abilities to shut them down in the public interest.

There's an old *conservative* saying about not tearing down a fence until you know why someone put it up. Consider the deterrence value of the SEC.

Admittedly, it's not that effective in an era when the boss who appoints its leaders is corrupt; George Bush committed criminal insider trading at Harkin, and was let off over the protests of the SEC investigators because the head of the investigators was Bush's personal attorney who had arranged his purchase of part of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and the head of the SEC had been appointed byhis father, President George H. W. Bush. But that's a reason to fix it, not get rid of it.
i think that in the era of instant information the required SEC filings are antiquated and can be better accomplished in a market-driven manner, such as being a requirement of the exchanges. and the information required for the primary market is completely worthless because the only thing a buyer in the primary market needs to know is that if they don't buy they'll be blacklisted by their broker and not invited to buy in the primary market ever again.

fraud can be investigated by someone other than the SEC.




as for your other concern about whether the federal government can get things done, ask yourself this: if the federal government has a limited number of things it can get done, would it be such an attractive target for capture by the 'wealthy interests'?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Full Control: Defense, Intelligence, International Diplomacy, Federal Taxes, Law Enforcement, Judiciary, Currency, Immigration.
Moderate Control: Infrastructure, Transportation.
Very Limited Control: Health, Science and Research, Welfare, Education.

:thumbsup:

And with the banning of Democrats and Republicans from ever serving in office again. We need a fresh start from these two hopelessly corrupt groups.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I look at many things in the world but what strikes me is that there is no capitalist or socialist countries that have ever been successful, all the successful countries are mixed economies on varying degrees.

This leads me to the same conclusion that any analysation i do of any system does, extremism never works, it's the balance and tolerance that makes successful societies into successful societies.

So instead of being ashamed over the fact that the US, as the UK and every other successful country, is partially socialist, be proud of it, you're not extremists, nor should you ever be, there has only been one truly capitalist country in the world, it was much like all communist dictatorships have ever been. Anyone who can tell me which that country was gets a +1 for knowledge.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I look at many things in the world but what strikes me is that there is no capitalist or socialist countries that have ever been successful, all the successful countries are mixed economies on varying degrees.

This leads me to the same conclusion that any analysation i do of any system does, extremism never works, it's the balance and tolerance that makes successful societies into successful societies.

So instead of being ashamed over the fact that the US, as the UK and every other successful country, is partially socialist, be proud of it, you're not extremists, nor should you ever be, there has only been one truly capitalist country in the world, it was much like all communist dictatorships have ever been. Anyone who can tell me which that country was gets a +1 for knowledge.

I agree, although the definition of successful is in the eyes of the beholder. There will never be a majority world view on what it means. We assume it means independance, wealth, freedom. Doesnt mean its right or wrong, just our definition.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Full Control: Defense, Intelligence, International Diplomacy, Federal Taxes, Law Enforcement, Judiciary, Currency, Immigration.
Moderate Control: Infrastructure, Transportation.
Very Limited Control: Health, Science and Research, Welfare, Education.

:thumbsup:

And with the banning of Democrats and Republicans from ever serving in office again. We need a fresh start from these two hopelessly corrupt groups.

Thats right. Replace two corrupt groups with two others. /nod. The reason Dems and GOP havent been replaced as the two parties of power in this country is because 99% of the people dont want it. Period. People who complain about governemnt being corrupt, parties being corrupt, etc seem to forget one election can remove them. It's not like if the majority of the country voted for Libertarians somehow the Dems and GOP can say Sorry, we're not leaving.

We have what we want. We have what we elect. The vote is still stronger than any PAC or special interest group.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I look at many things in the world but what strikes me is that there is no capitalist or socialist countries that have ever been successful, all the successful countries are mixed economies on varying degrees.

This leads me to the same conclusion that any analysation i do of any system does, extremism never works, it's the balance and tolerance that makes successful societies into successful societies.

So instead of being ashamed over the fact that the US, as the UK and every other successful country, is partially socialist, be proud of it, you're not extremists, nor should you ever be, there has only been one truly capitalist country in the world, it was much like all communist dictatorships have ever been. Anyone who can tell me which that country was gets a +1 for knowledge.

which truly capitalist country was that?
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I look at many things in the world but what strikes me is that there is no capitalist or socialist countries that have ever been successful, all the successful countries are mixed economies on varying degrees.

This leads me to the same conclusion that any analysation i do of any system does, extremism never works, it's the balance and tolerance that makes successful societies into successful societies.

So instead of being ashamed over the fact that the US, as the UK and every other successful country, is partially socialist, be proud of it, you're not extremists, nor should you ever be, there has only been one truly capitalist country in the world, it was much like all communist dictatorships have ever been. Anyone who can tell me which that country was gets a +1 for knowledge.

which truly capitalist country was that?

One could argue that the lack of government in Somalia lead to an effectively capitalistic system. Much of the infrastructure was created and is run by private companies, like the phone system. Of course, we can all see how successful Somalia has been in created a stable, peaceful environment.