Do we need a federal government?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 25

Thread:
Do we need a federal government?

  1. #1
    Senior Member HavaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Havasu a real American town.
    Posts
    1,005

    Default Do we need a federal government?

    Do we need the fed for anything above what's is stated in the constitution?
    Couldn't you get rid of all those federal agencies and just let the states give us the governing that we seem to all need? Wouldn't this enter competition into the equation? Keeping things fair?
    I worry that we are so far left right now that even with a republican congress in 2010 and a republican pres in 2012 it will only put us back to the right just so far. And we'll still be screwed.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Red Blooded American The Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    14,669

    Default

    The Federal Government is essential for a number of things. First and foremost is the military. They must be unified in their purpose and operations which requires a central governing body as individual states' militias attempting to unify would be chaos at best.
    Interstate highways is another. It's already bad enough to pass from State to State on State Route roads and see the extreme difference in States' road maintenance. Without the Interstate roadways, this would probably be far worse.
    The Supreme Court (when staffed with non-agenda, constitutional loving, members) will be essential for deciding constitutional matters that exceed the States' jurisdictions.

    As far as education, welfare/social programs, taxation, law enforcement, etc. the States would not only do a much better job but they would compete amongst themselves in an effort to make theirs the better place to live which competition could be healthy. Case-in-point would be the states currently with no income tax. This competition could breed into better performing schooling, streamlined government and superior services.

    The greatest value would be reducing the power/authority of all three branches of Federal Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial could all use a healthy trimming to benefit our nation as a whole.

    It proved to be so during the first hundred and forty years where we prospered from a sprouting embryo of a nation into the greatest nation on earth with the most powerful military, wealthiest middle class and most stable constitution in the history of this earth. Why not go back to that??????
    Last edited by The Doctor; 08-01-2010 at 10:46 AM.
    The best things in life aren't things!

  4. #3
    Canatard
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Of course, you need a federal government. They run the military. You need federal run agencies to handle international and multi-state crime. I know most of you in here don't believe in international diplomacy, other than the diplomacy that comes out of the barrel of a gun, but many believe it is necessary. Interstate highways? Do you want your environment to look like China?

    The real question is: should a federal government portion out money on a per-event basis.

    The reason I say that is because when Katrina, gulf oil spill, earthquake, SoCal fires, etc. happen, if the fed is involved in helping with these disasters, it becomes a form of insurance that everyone pays for and then one state profits from. In other words, communism.

    Then again, if a fire starts in the hills of San Diego, why would California help? It's not like the fires are endangering the people of San Francisco who paid taxes into the system that might be used to help fight the fires. What about people who aren't in the direct path of the fires? Why should they pay? Anytime someone pays tax into a system that helps someone other than themselves, you've got communism and, of course, Hitler.

    Maybe it's best to let everyone fend for themselves. If a Mexican drug cartel attacks my neighbor, why should my tax dollars go toward the police helping that person?

    If you were to look into it, honestly, you'd find the United States is a hot bed of communism.

  5. #4
    Red Blooded American The Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    14,669

    Default

    Actually, it's a REPUBLIC.
    The best things in life aren't things!

  6. #5
    Senior Member HavaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Havasu a real American town.
    Posts
    1,005

    Default

    I do see the need for the fed in the above mentioned. It's that I see federal programs that could be doled out to each state. Not talking about getting rid of the fed as a whole. I also undertand centralising can bring costs down. It's just the concept of centralizing, too much authority. Like roads may get worse but you may not have the fiscal abuses.

  7. #6
    Senior Member eliminatedsprinter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lancaster Ca
    Posts
    3,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HavaPaul View Post
    Do we need the fed for anything above what's is stated in the constitution?
    No. The powers of the federal gov that are enumerated in the constitution are enough. There are many federal agencies and depts that either should not exist or should be greatly reduced.
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    C.S. Lewis

  8. #7
    "On the road again..." Old Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    9,328

    Default

    Getting rid of 90% of WH and Congressional aids would likly save big $$$$. If the numbers on Michelle O's staff are correct, there's a bunch of folks that are unneeded. And why all the high $$$$ Czars now running around circumventing Congress. Same with Congressional pensions, 6 years and out, thanks for your service......Oh this could go on all week finding waste in Washington.
    "Bottle by bottle, I'm clearing off that shelf...."

  9. #8
    Senior Member Boss460's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    The Federal Government is essential for a number of things. First and foremost is the military. They must be unified in their purpose and operations which requires a central governing body as individual states' militias attempting to unify would be chaos at best.
    Interstate highways is another. It's already bad enough to pass from State to State on State Route roads and see the extreme difference in States' road maintenance. Without the Interstate roadways, this would probably be far worse.
    The Supreme Court (when staffed with non-agenda, constitutional loving, members) will be essential for deciding constitutional matters that exceed the States' jurisdictions.

    As far as education, welfare/social programs, taxation, law enforcement, etc. the States would not only do a much better job but they would compete amongst themselves in an effort to make theirs the better place to live which competition could be healthy. Case-in-point would be the states currently with no income tax. This competition could breed into better performing schooling, streamlined government and superior services.

    The greatest value would be reducing the power/authority of all three branches of Federal Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial could all use a healthy trimming to benefit our nation as a whole.

    It proved to be so during the first hundred and forty years where we prospered from a sprouting embryo of a nation into the greatest nation on earth with the most powerful military, wealthiest middle class and most stable constitution in the history of this earth. Why not go back to that??????
    x2. But with the addition of international relations. 50 different embassies in each country wouldn't work.

    Without a federal government we would be basically 50 different countries.

  10. #9
    Impeachment! 75 TX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Culver City, Ca
    Posts
    3,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Texan View Post
    Getting rid of 90% of WH and Congressional aids would likly save big $$$$. If the numbers on Michelle O's staff are correct, there's a bunch of folks that are unneeded. And why all the high $$$$ Czars now running around circumventing Congress. Same with Congressional pensions, 6 years and out, thanks for your service......Oh this could go on all week finding waste in Washington.
    Their pensions are a joke. And we're the butt.
    What about health insurance for these turds? 2 terms and you get coverage for life? These scum are ALL rich and could more than afford to pay their own way.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Boss460's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 75 TX View Post
    Their pensions are a joke. And we're the butt.
    What about health insurance for these turds? 2 terms and you get coverage for life? These scum are ALL rich and could more than afford to pay their own way.
    The benefits that congress receives after service have loooooong been a myth. They can't just serve once and then receive the same pay for life. Just flat out wrong. Also, they do pay into social security which is usually part of this myth. This is all public record.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

    The pay I have no problem with. It's the expenses they incur that I have a problem with. Like Pelosi's jet.

  12. #11
    Senior Member scooooter7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    2,281

    Default

    Just add another committee, that'll fix it.
    HALEY: “I’m just worried about this house that’s on fire and I’m trying to keep it from burning down.” Well it looks like Haley's time in KC burned down, so off to the Steelers he goes. See ya!

    http://www.theworldwar.org/s/110/new...community.aspx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_IV

  13. #12
    Senior Member SBjet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vero Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Brown View Post
    Of course, you need a federal government. They run the military. You need federal run agencies to handle international and multi-state crime.

    Yes.

    I know most of you in here don't believe in international diplomacy, other than the diplomacy that comes out of the barrel of a gun,

    Nice.

    but many believe it is necessary. Interstate highways? Do you want your environment to look like China?

    The real question is: should a federal government portion out money on a per-event basis.

    Nicely said.

    The reason I say that is because when Katrina, gulf oil spill, earthquake, SoCal fires, etc. happen, if the fed is involved in helping with these disasters, it becomes a form of insurance that everyone pays for and then one state profits from. In other words, communism.

    Then again, if a fire starts in the hills of San Diego, why would California help? It's not like the fires are endangering the people of San Francisco who paid taxes into the system that might be used to help fight the fires. What about people who aren't in the direct path of the fires? Why should they pay? Anytime someone pays tax into a system that helps someone other than themselves, you've got communism and, of course, Hitler.

    Thank you for understanding that Hitler was a leftist. Most leftists don't.

    Maybe it's best to let everyone fend for themselves. If a Mexican drug cartel attacks my neighbor, why should my tax dollars go toward the police helping that person?

    If you were to look into it, honestly, you'd find the United States is a hot bed of communism.


    Look at this a different way:
    The real question is: should a federal government portion out money on a per-project basis?

    My city needs a 1 mile long bike path. Should money go to DC first, then back here to build it? I think not. If the fed govt. has that much extra, tax payments to it should be reduced. Maybe local taxes increased, I dunno. Then we wouldn't be paying for office space in DC, for somebody's brother in law. The brother in law would be here, pouring concrete.

    I've made this point again and again. There is plenty of money. If we "shrink" the fed govt. to, say, $2 trillion/yr. the world will not end.

    Quote Originally Posted by HavaPaul View Post
    Do we need the fed for anything above what's is stated in the constitution?
    Couldn't you get rid of all those federal agencies and just let the states give us the governing that we seem to all need? Wouldn't this enter competition into the equation? Keeping things fair?
    I worry that we are so far left right now that even with a republican congress in 2010 and a republican pres in 2012 it will only put us back to the right just so far. And we'll still be screwed.
    Stay worried.
    Let's talk about the BATF. Do we need them? Why? To collect taxes?
    Why don't we delete the Dept. of Education, and spend the $ on actual teachers?
    Last edited by SBjet; 08-03-2010 at 02:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Brown View Post
    I'm still chuckling at being "poo-pooed" for straying off topic. Awesome.

  14. #13
    Senior Member talkinghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    So. Cal.
    Posts
    777

    Default

    The question was do we need a federal gov't above what would be required in the constitution, not do we need a federal govt.

    Of course the answer is anything the federal gov't is involved in beyond what is defined in the constitution is illegal.

    But the federal gov't is in fact involved in matters way beyond what it should be, but because we as US Citizens have lost control of the gov't, the gov't currently acts primarily in it's own interests or those of (large) corporations.

    And recall that the merger of state and corporations is: fascism

    Ron Paul said we are moving towards fascism, and I believe he was correct.
    Last edited by talkinghead; 08-05-2010 at 09:15 PM.

  15. #14
    Canatard
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBjet View Post
    My city needs a 1 mile long bike path. Should money go to DC first, then back here to build it? I think not. If the fed govt. has that much extra, tax payments to it should be reduced.
    One of the issues with centralized everything is it tends to be the least efficient form of project management. It's the opposite of economy of scale. It's the bloat of people wanting to tag earmarks onto projects that are so large, the extra cost might go unnoticed.

    I like the idea of distributed government. The more the better. Minimize the federal presence wherever possible.

    That way, if one state wishes to innovate, they have the opportunity to do so.

    This isn't really part of the original question but I'd let AZ have a go at the immigration issue. I'd make them honor basic constitutional and human rights codes but let them take whatever approach they want beyond that. One size fits all solutions are not in appropriate for every state from AZ to Nebraska.

    If a state innovates a solution to a particular problem, other states can choose to copy it. A little competition is a good thing.


    By the way, Hitler was a right wing extremist. You're rewriting history to make him left because of your passionate hatred of the left and your need to paint everything you hate as both left and Hitleresque.
    Last edited by Tom Brown; 08-05-2010 at 09:28 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91