Federal Government - Resistance to

[captain.crazy]

I do believe that I have an erection! This is just the beginning!

[Neoteny]

I believe the rejection comes next, and then the depression.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I think you're missing my point. My point is that the federal government doesn't always act in the interest of the majority either. Your point that the reason Texas shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants is that it does not act on behalf of the majority. If that is your point, and the reason you want the federal government to take care of things, I propose that the federal government doesn't act on behalf of the majority either, as exhibited by my examples.

The Lend-Lease Act was an act during World War Two that effectively had us supplying equipment to the Soviet Union (and I believe England) while they were fighting the Germans (and before we were involved in the war). It was very unpopular.

Actually, you misunderstood my point. Time and again, when states are given more power, they use it to discriminate against select groups, whether it is religious objections to any who disagree with the majority or race inequality. Only the federal government has the power to ensure universal protection for all. This is definitely not about protecting the majority. The majority does not need governmental protection. It is about protecting the basic rights of the minorities against the majority.

But, I also disagree with the point you make about popularity directly. There is a BIG differance between doing what is momentarily popular with the majority and doing what is best, or necessary for a nation.

Welfare was established with barely an argument. Folks saw many widows needing support and no one questioned the need. Social Security, on the other hand, brought forth huge protests (it was socialistic). Taxes are always unpopular, but we need the things taxes provide.

The point is that many things need to be controlled by the federal government in today's world for efficiency and practicality.

[Nobunaga]

<PLAYER>The point is that many things need to be controlled by the federal government in today's world for efficiency and practicality.

... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

<PLAYER>The point is that many things need to be controlled by the federal government in today's world for efficiency and practicality.

... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its fun to rail against the government, but in reality, government workers are far more efficient than contractors and equal to or better than efficiency in large corporations.

The thing is, when you want to dump your waste in a creek, its "those nasty goverment officials". Then, when your neighbor wants to dump on your land... its "where is the government?"

A lot of the things government needs to do are just not inherently profitable and don't follow supply/demand economics. Take Yellowstone. How much economic value can you really place on hot springs? Now, we can, but when they were established... not much. Many things we value now will be worthless later. Many things we don't value now will become critical in the future. That makes government seem inefficient, when it is really doing exactly what government should -- protecting the future.

[Nobunaga]

<PLAYER>The point is that many things need to be controlled by the federal government in today's world for efficiency and practicality.

... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its fun to rail against the government, but in reality, government workers are far more efficient than contractors and equal to or better than efficiency in large corporations.

The thing is, when you want to dump your waste in a creek, its "those nasty goverment officials". Then, when your neighbor wants to dump on your land... its "where is the government?"

A lot of the things government needs to do are just not inherently profitable and don't follow supply/demand economics. Take Yellowstone. How much economic value can you really place on hot springs? Now, we can, but when they were established... not much. Many things we value now will be worthless later. Many things we don't value now will become critical in the future. That makes government seem inefficient, when it is really doing exactly what government should -- protecting the future.

... The argument is not about the "need for government", the argument is about the role of the federal government over state and local.

... I am quite sure folks have arguments concerning lack of local regulation and enforcement... ad nauseum, but that dodges the point. We're speaking about the Constitution, and about the extent to which the federal government is pissing all over it.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... The argument is not about the "need for government", the argument is about the role of the federal government over state and local.

... I am quite sure folks have arguments concerning lack of local regulation and enforcement... ad nauseum, but that dodges the point. We're speaking about the Constitution, and about the extent to which the federal government is pissing all over it.

...

Again, you miss the point. Its not local regulation, it IS national regulation, as it should be.

Many of the things regulated by the federal government were not even known at the time of the constitution. That's why it is a living document, changeable.

You wish to reset the clock as if that will somehow solve problems that were not even considered in the 1700's. Should we go back to a black person only counting for 3/5? No votes for women?

And sorry, when people start shouting "states rights" .. it is most definitely not OUR rights that are being argued, it is someone with a lot of money convincing others without so much money to do as THEY (the rich one) wish, either to put forward their philisophical agenda or (more often) to fill their pocket a little fuller.

[Nobunaga]

... It's a living document? Why? Because you say it is?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

... I believe this. This is from your Constitution. You don't believe in this? I really want to know.

... And I knew it was only a matter of time before the "Evil Rich" entered the argument here.

...

[captain.crazy]

Player, I think you're missing my point. My point is that the federal government doesn't always act in the interest of the majority either. Your point that the reason Texas shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants is that it does not act on behalf of the majority. If that is your point, and the reason you want the federal government to take care of things, I propose that the federal government doesn't act on behalf of the majority either, as exhibited by my examples.

The Lend-Lease Act was an act during World War Two that effectively had us supplying equipment to the Soviet Union (and I believe England) while they were fighting the Germans (and before we were involved in the war). It was very unpopular.

Actually, you misunderstood my point. Time and again, when states are given more power, they use it to discriminate against select groups, whether it is religious objections to any who disagree with the majority or race inequality. Only the federal government has the power to ensure universal protection for all. This is definitely not about protecting the majority. The majority does not need governmental protection. It is about protecting the basic rights of the minorities against the majority.

But, I also disagree with the point you make about popularity directly. There is a BIG differance between doing what is momentarily popular with the majority and doing what is best, or necessary for a nation.

Welfare was established with barely an argument. Folks saw many widows needing support and no one questioned the need. Social Security, on the other hand, brought forth huge protests (it was socialistic). Taxes are always unpopular, but we need the things taxes provide.

The point is that many things need to be controlled by the federal government in today's world for efficiency and practicality.

The government is absolutely piss poor at controlling things. Power at the top always topples. It always has, and it always will. It is time for a revolution in this country and it's about to start. Watch your local Tea Parties tomorrow folks.

[PLAYER57832]

... It's a living document? Why? Because you say it is?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

... I believe this. This is from your Constitution. You don't believe in this? I really want to know.

I do. However, you forget that there was also the inbuilt provision to add amendments, because the framers realized full well that things change over time and they wanted the constitution to be able to adapt.

... And I knew it was only a matter of time before the "Evil Rich" entered the argument here.

People who are greedy, who are willing to disrgard consequences to others often do gain power and wealth. That hardly means that everyone who is rich, or even the majority of the wealthy, are greedy power-hungry individuals.

You wish to paint me as somehow anti-wealth and probably anti-capitalism. I am not. I AM anti-abuse of power. And, yes, I do see the federal government as the entity that largely has the ability to reign in the greedy. On the other side, the government itself can be abusive, but that is where checks and balances and voter awareness come in.

I believe it was Japan that said America will never be conquered by direct force, but they can be conquered through the back door.

[captain.crazy]

... I AM anti-abuse of power. And, yes, I do see the federal government as the entity that largely has the ability to reign in the greedy. On the other side, the government itself can be abusive, but that is where checks and balances and voter awareness come in...

You need to realize that the government will be abusive, which is why they need extremely limited power... And its coming.

[Nobunaga]

... Yeah, as I was in the shower, soaping my chiseled chest, I thought, Amendents, what do you know. Foot in mouth disease.

... Be that as it may, please give me your opinion on the action which sees Texas now in an uproar. Do you (Player, anybody) believe the feds have the authority to force states to take stimulus? (along with whatever strings are attached).

...

[PLAYER57832]

... I AM anti-abuse of power. And, yes, I do see the federal government as the entity that largely has the ability to reign in the greedy. On the other side, the government itself can be abusive, but that is where checks and balances and voter awareness come in...

You need to realize that the government will be abusive, which is why they need extremely limited power... And its coming.

People are abusive. Without government to reign people in, we end up with a rule of despotes. THAT is what history shows.

And, per the US specifically, the wonderful thing about our system is that it can change... and it has, many times.

The government is absolutely piss poor at controlling things. Power at the top always topples. It always has, and it always will. It is time for a revolution in this country and it's about to start. Watch your local Tea Parties tomorrow folks.

There is a word for this. It's called "treason".

[PLAYER57832]

... Yeah, as I was in the shower, soaping my chiseled chest, I thought, Amendents, what do you know. Foot in mouth disease.

I believe we all suffer on occasion...

... Be that as it may, please give me your opinion on the action which sees Texas now in an uproar. Do you (Player, anybody) believe the feds have the authority to force states to take stimulus? (along with whatever strings are attached).

...

It depends. If it is for things vital for the nation, yes. If the Texas legislator, voted in though they are, is going very much against what the people of Texas need or want.. trickier. In either case, you will find plenty arguing that any action is not vital, not needed, etc.

However, last I heard, forcing states was not under real consideration.

[captain.crazy]

... I AM anti-abuse of power. And, yes, I do see the federal government as the entity that largely has the ability to reign in the greedy. On the other side, the government itself can be abusive, but that is where checks and balances and voter awareness come in...

You need to realize that the government will be abusive, which is why they need extremely limited power... And its coming.

People are abusive. Without government to reign people in, we end up with a rule of despotes. THAT is what history shows.

And, per the US specifically, the wonderful thing about our system is that it can change... and it has, many times.

The government is absolutely piss poor at controlling things. Power at the top always topples. It always has, and it always will. It is time for a revolution in this country and it's about to start. Watch your local Tea Parties tomorrow folks.

There is a word for this. It's called "treason".

Treason is abusing the power that the people of the land lend to you... that is what our politicians have done. Really, are you so blind that you can't see it?

[captain.crazy]

Also PLAYER, do bear in mind that the Founding Fathers of America were traitors, according to you!

[thegreekdog]

Player, as you probably know, people in the United States generally believe that more government control is bad, whether that control is exercised at a federal, state or local level. I don't know if that's because of our history (specifically the American Revolution and Civil War), but I suspect it is.

I think those attitudes are slowly changing, which I personally find unfortunate. I believe personal responsibility, not a government, should control our daily lives. For example, I think the FCC is an unnecessary evil. I think the First Amendment should be taken literally.

While I agree in theory that government control is necessary to protect the silent minority, which is why we have a Republic and not a true Democracy, I think the crux of our disagreement is that you think the people in Washington D.C. should decide everything that the people in Texas do. On the other hand, I think the people in Washington D.C. should decide what the people in Texas do if what the people in Texas do affects interstate commerce, but, otherwise, the Texas government should decide what the people in Texas do. I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't know why the federal government is so adamant about Texas taking bailout money. Frankly, if I were in the Obama administration, I'd be pleased and would put that money into another program.

But, again, I think this is a whole lot of posturing by Texas and conservatives. I also think it's a somewhat orchestrated plan by the Democrats to discredit conservatives.

[PLAYER57832]

Also PLAYER, do bear in mind that the Founding Fathers of America were traitors, according to you!

Traitors to England, of course. However, they were such because the government of England at the time was not responding to the colonies.

Now, I realize you will argue that the current government is abusing its power. However, there is a huge difference. Our officials are elected and each will have to be elected again in a few years. The colonies did not have such representation truly in England.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, as you probably know, people in the United States generally believe that more government control is bad, whether that control is exercised at a federal, state or local level. I don't know if that's because of our history (specifically the American Revolution and Civil War), but I suspect it is.

Actually, this is wrong. What is true is that the media protray it this way, largely because the numbers who oppose government are highly vocal, often more antagonistic and therefore make better stories. A guy shouting "kick them out" makes good press. A hundred people saying "gee, I think out government is doing a good job" don't.

I think those attitudes are slowly changing, which I personally find unfortunate. I believe personal responsibility, not a government, should control our daily lives. For example, I think the FCC is an unnecessary evil. I think the First Amendment should be taken literally.

Again, it is more media perception/coverage that is changing. Oh and the FCC is actually a special case. It is only partially governmental and highly secretive. There are, for example, no set standards for decency... it is up to a small committee to decide and they do not give out any set criteria for people to follow. This is the opposite of the way most non military functions of the government work, should work.

While I agree in theory that government control is necessary to protect the silent minority, which is why we have a Republic and not a true Democracy, I think the crux of our disagreement is that you think the people in Washington D.C. should decide everything that the people in Texas do. On the other hand, I think the people in Washington D.C. should decide what the people in Texas do if what the people in Texas do affects interstate commerce, but, otherwise, the Texas government should decide what the people in Texas do. I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't know why the federal government is so adamant about Texas taking bailout money. Frankly, if I were in the Obama administration, I'd be pleased and would put that money into another program.

No, I don't think the US government should decide everything by a long stretch, but the things the government should decide go well beyond commerce. Primary is preserving the rights of religious minorities. Secondary is preserving the environment, because, cliche though it is, we only have on earth. It may seem logical from a business perspective to put a shopping mall on prime farm land or a march. But, believe me, land is NOT equal! And, sorry, but your right to make a few bucks or my neighbors desire to buy things without driving a couple of extra miles IS usurped by ALL our children's need for agriculture and natural environments.

But, again, I think this is a whole lot of posturing by Texas and conservatives. I also think it's a somewhat orchestrated plan by the Democrats to discredit conservatives.

I think its a case of posturing for folks who want to only look at the surface of issues that affect them directly.

The economy, markets, money are responses to what happens in the "real" world. Too many bankers, politicians and the like seem to forget that..and THAT is the real problem.

[PLAYER57832]

Treason is abusing the power that the people of the land lend to you... that is what our politicians have done. Really, are you so blind that you can't see it?

You mean Bush .. yes, he did. Fortunately, we got him out already.

You see, in a way you were correct. The government was toppled... and probably will be again in 2-8 years (depending on whether its congress or the President of whom you speak).

[thegreekdog]

Actually, this is wrong. What is true is that the media protray it this way, largely because the numbers who oppose government are highly vocal, often more antagonistic and therefore make better stories. A guy shouting "kick them out" makes good press. A hundred people saying "gee, I think out government is doing a good job" don't.

Let me clarify my original point... compared to countries like China, England, and others, we have very limited government control. I think this is because, from an historical perspective, the citizens of the United States view greater government control as a bad thing. "Kick them out" does make good press, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about government control in the US relative to government control in other countries. Simply put, we're less about government control because that's been our history. Not sure where the media plays into that, considering many media members (Fox News excluded) seem supportive of the bailout and nationalizing health care (to use two examples).

Again, it is more media perception/coverage that is changing. Oh and the FCC is actually a special case. It is only partially governmental and highly secretive. There are, for example, no set standards for decency... it is up to a small committee to decide and they do not give out any set criteria for people to follow. This is the opposite of the way most non military functions of the government work, should work.

There seem to be a lot of special cases. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, is highly secretive and their laws, regulations, and rulings are not very clear. It's been my experience that the lower one goes on a governmental scale, the easier it is for the common person to understand the laws and regulations. So, for example, it is easier for me to understand my local property laws than it is for me to understand the tax laws of the United States.

No, I don't think the US government should decide everything by a long stretch, but the things the government should decide go well beyond commerce. Primary is preserving the rights of religious minorities. Secondary is preserving the environment, because, cliche though it is, we only have on earth. It may seem logical from a business perspective to put a shopping mall on prime farm land or a march. But, believe me, land is NOT equal! And, sorry, but your right to make a few bucks or my neighbors desire to buy things without driving a couple of extra miles IS usurped by ALL our children's need for agriculture and natural environments.

Why is the federal government best equipped to preserve the rights of religious minorities and the environment over a state government? As another example, let's use discrimination in the workplace. Congress, back in the 1960s I believe, passed a law regarding discrimination in the workplace. The law makes it very difficult for a plaintiff to prove discrimination. New Jersey, on the other hand, has a law that makes it significantly easier for a plaintiff to prove discrimination in New Jersey courts. I would argue that New Jersey, a state, has done a better job protecting the rights of racial minorities and women than the federal government has. On the environmental issue, I'm fairly sure that California and Vermont have much more stringent environmental protection laws than the federal government.

In sum, you are arguing specific issues relative to whether the federal government or state government should control, such as religion or the environment. There are discrete issues that many states have come down on harder than the federal government. By your reckoning, if the federal government should control things like discrimination because of race or gender or the environment, then we'd have less protection in those areas in stated like New Jersey and California, respectively. If the federal government offers less protection, do you still want the federal government controlling things?

Or is it just that you don't like what Texas is trying to do because they pander to special interests? If pandering to special interests is your concern, don't you think the federal government has a big problem with that as well? I fully agree with your statement regarding the real world. I think politicians want to get elected, and in order to get elected they have to raise money, and in order to raise money they have to pander to the people that have money. And Texas officials are certainly not the only ones who have to do this; if you recall AIG contributed the most money to two gentlemen's campaigns: Senator Chris Dodd and President Obama. Neither of these gentlemen are state government employees. Both of these gentlemen are currently in power. Both of these gentlemen supported laws that supported AIG. That's how our system works (for good or bad), but it's not just happening in state government, it happens in federal government as well.