Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be less money to go around for government spending, but also less money for the crooks to misappropriate.
Cutting spending by 2%, even 10% wont solve our problems. The only way we'll put a stop to the rampant corruption in our government is to seriously change the way it governs.
Federal taxes need to be cut by 80%, maybe more.
State taxes need to go up.
Local taxes need to go up.
That way folks can keep an eye on what their locals are actually DOING for THEM, vs. sending money off to DC on blind faith.
So I maintain that conservatives, to a degree, are right. We need lower taxes. Only we need MUCH lower taxes, and a total revamp of how we're taxed. Then we can keep a better eye on the bastards who spend the money.
You're on the right track. The more decentralization the better, best right down to the individual. State taxes and local taxes going up is not to my liking but if it was accurately balanced with the lowering of the federal budget I'd say it's an acceptable compromis. However, as long as the feds have access to the printing press you won't ever begin solving these problems
...but yeah, let the feds handle things they have to like
Defense
Social Security
Unemployment legislation
Civil rights legislation
etc...
In fact, other than defense and SS, the feds should be all about high level legislation and nothing else. Let the states decide on how to execute the high level stuff, and then their own low-level stuff. Because what works in Missouri, doesn't always work in NY City, and vice-versa.
At no time should the federal government be funding anything that is not germane to defense or social security.
It's a lot more complicated than that, but really, the status quo isn't working and never will.
Defense and Civil rights, YES, the others NO
Unemployment is a states issue (not mentioned in Constitution)
Social Security (retirement) ios a states' issue (not mentioned in Constitution).
Check out Article 1, Section 8, USC. Shows the powers the feds have, the rest being reserved, under 10th Amendment, for the States and the people.
Unemployment is a states issue (not mentioned in Constitution)
Social Security (retirement) ios a states' issue (not mentioned in Constitution).
Check out Article 1, Section 8, USC. Shows the powers the feds have, the rest being reserved, under 10th Amendment, for the States and the people.
I did check out Article 1, Section 8, USC. Nothing about maintaining an Air force or a nuclear deterrent. Those rights therefore must be rights reserved to the states or to the people.
I'm all giddy at the prospect of my having my own nuclear missle!
Power corrupts. All the beltway politiicans tend to suck.
Desire for reelection causes lots of bad laws and expenditures.
As an example:
Democrats spend like crack whores and all Republicans are going for is a 2% cut of a 1000% increase on our debt of the budget.
It is insane.
Maybe time soon to sink both parties and go for one who is going to impose a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Take the treasury away from politicians and lots will change for the better IMO.
And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In other words, the over-concentration of power attracts the corrupt.
Other quotes from Lord Acton:
Quote:
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
Quote:
The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.
Quote:
Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.
What I said, in other words, is we need some balance. Someone has to balance the forward thinking of the coastal states with the backward thinking of the rest. We can't have teenagers riding buses to NY City for abortions, and we can't have criminals from the Bronx running down to Oklahoma to buy guns with fake ID's because their new idea of a waiting period would be "give me a moment to box it up".
The forward thinking of the coastal states with the backwards thinking of the rest? Got a political bias much?
The problem with your opinion is, it stands on no principle whatsoever.
If 49 states are necessary to balance against a single state. Or if even a few states are necessary to balance against the rest. Then why not just make an entire world government, to balance against the potential abuses of the United States? Why don't we use those "forward-thinking" European countries to stop the relative "backwards-thinking" of New York or New Hampshire.
What you are really doing is creating or participating in the illusion that a single state cannot govern itself, and therefore needs influence from other states to prevent it from becoming despotic. Which could be drawn in the same way that a country like Finland should be incapable of being sovereign because it would become despotic or abusive. And in extension that all European countries should completely hand over their sovereignty to the European Union or the United Nations or some other world body. Because they cannot be counted on to govern themselves. But do you really believe that the United States is incapable of governing itself? Do you really believe that Texas, which has a population and land mass larger than almost every European country, would be incapable of governing itself?
It is already possible for Americans to travel to Mexico and Canada to do things that are illegal in this country. It is already possible for Mexicans and Canadians to come to America for things that are illegal in their countries. Does that mean all countries should conform to a single view of the world? Who gets to decide what that world should look like?
The truth is, while you may believe Oklahoma is "backwards". Many Oklahomans think that where you live in is "immoral and godless". And we do not want to become like you, just as much as you don't want to become like us. But the reality is, you want to force your views of the world onto everyone else. And that is in essence the cause for the expansion of the federal government. Not because it is actually necessary.
You make me sick. /puke
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
