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

[CADsortaGUY]

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?

I'll take JOS is FOS for $100 Alex.

 

[Rainsford]

I never quite got this idea of a weak federal government and state's rights as a fundamental part of the conservative political view. It might have been a good idea once, when the states really WERE different, but this is the 21st century...I think the differences between the states are greatly exaggerated. Sure, CULTURE is different, but that's not something the government should be regulating anyways. Can anyone tell me why the education needs of Texas are fundamentally different than the education needs of Minnesota? Because if they aren't, it makes sense to have the federal government running things, as there are economies of scale that the states just can't reach (especially the smaller ones).

Now I'm all for the government not doing things it doesn't need to be doing at all, I just think this state vs federal argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edit: And I have to single out the "unions got to go" comment. If the government can support capital, it can support labor. Anti-labor sentiment aside, it's just as vital to a healthy economy as businesses are.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CPA
Our General Welfare. And that's about it.

Fixed for ya.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

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.

Indeed, because at the end of the day, most people are smart enough to realize that while the government isn't perfect, it's not bad either. Nobody likes paying taxes, but everyone likes having nice roads to drive on and good schools to send their kids to. Everyone likes to bitch, but most people understand that there are a lot of benefits as well. For example, while rural folks tend to be pretty conservative, I don't hear them complaining about their government supported electricity.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I never quite got this idea of a weak federal government and state's rights as a fundamental part of the conservative political view. It might have been a good idea once, when the states really WERE different, but this is the 21st century...I think the differences between the states are greatly exaggerated. Sure, CULTURE is different, but that's not something the government should be regulating anyways. Can anyone tell me why the education needs of Texas are fundamentally different than the education needs of Minnesota? Because if they aren't, it makes sense to have the federal government running things, as there are economies of scale that the states just can't reach (especially the smaller ones).

Now I'm all for the government not doing things it doesn't need to be doing at all, I just think this state vs federal argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edit: And I have to single out the "unions got to go" comment. If the government can support capital, it can support labor. Anti-labor sentiment aside, it's just as vital to a healthy economy as businesses are.

Yeah, the founding fathers really didn't have a clue. They should have put a sunshine clause in all that defer to states stuff, I mean really who did they think they were not wanting a smothering central gov't.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I never quite got this idea of a weak federal government and state's rights as a fundamental part of the conservative political view. It might have been a good idea once, when the states really WERE different, but this is the 21st century...I think the differences between the states are greatly exaggerated. Sure, CULTURE is different, but that's not something the government should be regulating anyways. Can anyone tell me why the education needs of Texas are fundamentally different than the education needs of Minnesota? Because if they aren't, it makes sense to have the federal government running things, as there are economies of scale that the states just can't reach (especially the smaller ones).

Now I'm all for the government not doing things it doesn't need to be doing at all, I just think this state vs federal argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edit: And I have to single out the "unions got to go" comment. If the government can support capital, it can support labor. Anti-labor sentiment aside, it's just as vital to a healthy economy as businesses are.

Yeah, the founding fathers really didn't have a clue. They should have put a sunshine clause in all that defer to states stuff, I mean really who did they think they were not wanting a smothering central gov't.

They did have a clue, that's why they put "General Welfare" in the list of things Congress can collect taxes to pay for.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

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.

We have been saying this for decades... yet they grow fatter and fatter.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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?

I'll give you a hint, the whole system was set up by an American.

It was a dictatorship.

The international way of measuring free market economics which is what captitalism is involves measuring the regulations the government puts on the free market, the US doesn't come last but it would if all regulations such as SW/music/movie restrictions would be incorporated, dead last even, the least captitalist county in the world in fact.

But that would be taking things to an extreme and i'd rather discuss this for what it is, i mean, come on, you know that you are not completely capitalist right?

 

[Craig234]

Without agreeing with John's description, the country that may fit his post most closely is Argentina under Pinochet after we arranged for the 'removal' of the elected president.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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?

I'll take JOS is FOS for $100 Alex.

I'll take CsG doesn't have a clue for £1000 Beatrice.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Without agreeing with John's description, the country that may fit his post most closely is Argentina under Pinochet after we arranged for the 'removal' of the elected president.

It involved an American study of pure capitalism.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I never quite got this idea of a weak federal government and state's rights as a fundamental part of the conservative political view. It might have been a good idea once, when the states really WERE different, but this is the 21st century...I think the differences between the states are greatly exaggerated. Sure, CULTURE is different, but that's not something the government should be regulating anyways. Can anyone tell me why the education needs of Texas are fundamentally different than the education needs of Minnesota? Because if they aren't, it makes sense to have the federal government running things, as there are economies of scale that the states just can't reach (especially the smaller ones).

Now I'm all for the government not doing things it doesn't need to be doing at all, I just think this state vs federal argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edit: And I have to single out the "unions got to go" comment. If the government can support capital, it can support labor. Anti-labor sentiment aside, it's just as vital to a healthy economy as businesses are.

Yeah, the founding fathers really didn't have a clue. They should have put a sunshine clause in all that defer to states stuff, I mean really who did they think they were not wanting a smothering central gov't.

Regardless of what the founding fathers did or did not say, how is the state government doing something OK, but the federal government doing the exact same thing "smothering"? That's what we're really arguing here, not the extent of government in general, but which PART of the government holds that power. I can't see as how it makes much difference.

And with all due respect to the founding fathers (if they were indeed thinking what you suggest), the world has become a lot smaller since they were around. They also supported isolationism on the global stage, which really doesn't work as well when communications can cross the world in less than a second instead of weeks or months. And the same goes for states, our country is more interconnected than it used to be...what happens in Texas concerns people in California, and the other way around. The founding fathers would never have gone with the idea of "city rights", for the same reason "state rights" seems a little questionable today.

On a more individual level, it also helps balance things out a little bit. The country averages out to be pretty moderate, but there are pockets of extremes one way or the other. While you might argue that it's everyone's right to be as extreme with their state as they want, that kind of sucks for the ideological minorities in the state. Gun owners in California and gay people in Texas aren't really benefiting from it a whole lot.

Now I realize my position on states' rights is pretty unconstitutional, which is all the more reason why I support things that are WITHIN the federal government's powers...like pretty much everything the states' rights people are whining about now.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I never quite got this idea of a weak federal government and state's rights as a fundamental part of the conservative political view. It might have been a good idea once, when the states really WERE different, but this is the 21st century...I think the differences between the states are greatly exaggerated. Sure, CULTURE is different, but that's not something the government should be regulating anyways. Can anyone tell me why the education needs of Texas are fundamentally different than the education needs of Minnesota? Because if they aren't, it makes sense to have the federal government running things, as there are economies of scale that the states just can't reach (especially the smaller ones).

Now I'm all for the government not doing things it doesn't need to be doing at all, I just think this state vs federal argument is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edit: And I have to single out the "unions got to go" comment. If the government can support capital, it can support labor. Anti-labor sentiment aside, it's just as vital to a healthy economy as businesses are.

Yeah, the founding fathers really didn't have a clue. They should have put a sunshine clause in all that defer to states stuff, I mean really who did they think they were not wanting a smothering central gov't.

Regardless of what the founding fathers did or did not say, how is the state government doing something OK, but the federal government doing the exact same thing "smothering"? That's what we're really arguing here, not the extent of government in general, but which PART of the government holds that power. I can't see as how it makes much difference.

It makes a huge difference. With federal government comes federal laws in which all states must abide by. A sweeping control. Contrary to that, with state control, each state could make its own laws for its own people. Each state being diverse in people and politics, would in effect reflect those who reside in that state. Allowing more power to the people.

Back to government laws, once set forth, no matter how the states people or politics think, they would not have the right to say contrary to a centralized government. In essence, the power of few over the power of many.

And with all due respect to the founding fathers (if they were indeed thinking what you suggest), the world has become a lot smaller since they were around. They also supported isolationism on the global stage, which really doesn't work as well when communications can cross the world in less than a second instead of weeks or months. And the same goes for states, our country is more interconnected than it used to be...what happens in Texas concerns people in California, and the other way around. The founding fathers would never have gone with the idea of "city rights", for the same reason "state rights" seems a little questionable today.

What state presidence (Spelling?) does is allow a more diverse people more control over their lifestyle and/or liberty. If something happens in another state, which could happen in their own, then that state could pass legislation to prevent the situation, in accordance with its localized population. Again this is about people having more power over a centralized government then the other way around.

On a more individual level, it also helps balance things out a little bit. The country averages out to be pretty moderate, but there are pockets of extremes one way or the other. While you might argue that it's everyone's right to be as extreme with their state as they want, that kind of sucks for the ideological minorities in the state. Gun owners in California and gay people in Texas aren't really benefiting from it a whole lot.

I'm not sure what your getting at with this part, may be my own reading comprehension that needs work. But I'll take a stab nonetheless.

And this is the beauty of state law, where it truly shines! If you are in a state that does not support or allow for things you wish, you can simply move to a state that does. Each state having its pluses and minuses, would give more freedom to individual liberty than a broad sweeping law from federal government.

Now I realize my position on states' rights is pretty unconstitutional, which is all the more reason why I support things that are WITHIN the federal government's powers...like pretty much everything the states' rights people are whining about now.

Hmm, so you don't like the Constitution? I'm confused at what you are getting at here so I'll refrain from comment.

Short and sweet of it:

States laws = More power to people

federal laws = More power to the few

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Short and sweet of it:

States laws = More power to people

federal laws = More power to the few

You'd think more "liberals" would understand and embrace that concept, but sadly they're under the delusion that might is right. And the state, having more might than anyone, is de facto right. As long as those running the state are "liberals".

Liberals today are anything but. They believe in the state as though it were god, not unlike the religious right sees Bush. Too bad they're blind to their own zealotry.

 

[Craig234]

One other thing to remember is that the constitution ws written at a time when the 13 colonies were basically separate countries, and they had to tread softly to get them agree to make the US at all. Recall that the first attempt was such a weak federal government that it didn't last, the Articles of Confederation. That hardly reflects the current situation. What's best for the nation can change.

It doesn't mean to go outside the constitution, but it means that the choices under the constitution might change.

 

[her209]

Regulation of narcotics?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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?

I'll give you a hint, the whole system was set up by an American.

It was a dictatorship.

The international way of measuring free market economics which is what captitalism is involves measuring the regulations the government puts on the free market, the US doesn't come last but it would if all regulations such as SW/music/movie restrictions would be incorporated, dead last even, the least captitalist county in the world in fact.

But that would be taking things to an extreme and i'd rather discuss this for what it is, i mean, come on, you know that you are not completely capitalist right?

Thanks Alex, I'll now take JOS is even more FOS for $200.

BTW, if it was a "dictatorship" then it by default rules out "true" capitalism. Sheesh. I swear some of you don't have a clue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Short and sweet of it:

States laws = More power to people

federal laws = More power to the few

You'd think more "liberals" would understand and embrace that concept, but sadly they're under the delusion that might is right. And the state, having more might than anyone, is de facto right. As long as those running the state are "liberals".

Liberals today are anything but. They believe in the state as though it were god, not unlike the religious right sees Bush. Too bad they're blind to their own zealotry.

Bingo. That what it seems to boil down to.