Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I've always found it funny how when the issue of taking from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor comes up folks are up in arms as if the rich need lower class folks to champion an issue for them. On the other hand when money is taken from the lower classes and given to the rich you hear....a pin drop.

As they say in Star Wars to those who feel that way "your training-brainwashing is complete"

Well, it seems the rich and poor have the same problem: government. Government seems to benefit from whomever they take from.

No they don't because the lower classes have basically no representation in Govt (on paper only) while the rich control things and get what they want.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No they don't because the lower classes have basically no representation in Govt (on paper only) while the rich control things and get what they want.

That is how this poor fellow feels.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No they don't because the lower classes have basically no representation in Govt (on paper only) while the rich control things and get what they want.

So you admit that government is corrupt, yet the left seems to want more of it. That's why federal government was intended to be limited. The states were to deal with the ins and outs of individual lives. Not the federal. So why always the push for bigger, more powerful and invasive federal government?

Most folks forget that their local and state government are where you need to take the fight to get things done that most touch your lives. People focus so much on the presidency as if that office can fix all of our ills. It aint happening and wasn't by design to do so.

Originally Posted by honedright

So you admit that government is corrupt, yet the left seems to want more of it. That's why federal government was intended to be limited. The states were to deal with the ins and outs of individual lives. Not the federal. So why always the push for bigger, more powerful and invasive federal government?

Talking about big govt sounds cool and the words go down easy and it makes a great soundbite but forget the rhetoric and ask yourself how the Fed Govt got so big in the first place. Sure there are regulations and policies that need to be trashed but all in all if you do some research you'll find it's because of what states had in their purview and should have done and never did do that the fed Govt got bigger and bigger to get the job done for them.

Just think about Federal law Enforcement and I mean every agency. Before 1900 they didn't exist. States couldn't deal with organized crime so they had to create the FBI and since the rightees gave us prohibition ATF came about cause the states didn't control it. The IRS had to appoint agents cause the fat cats wouldn't pay their fair share. Just some examples.

Talk to folks in Flint or the folks in Charleston WVA or the ones in N Carolina or the ones who lived in the Buffalo area of N.Y. Where were the states, they should have acted and did nothing mostly because of political influence and corruption so the Fed had to come in enter the EPA back in Nixon's administration. Remember that river in Pittsburgh, I think, that used to catch fire every now and then? I grew up in NYC and the rivers were just open Cess Pools. Now they actually have fish in them.

How many Governors of Illinois went to prison?

You could go on and on and simply see why the Fed Govt got so big. You want to undo all that and go back to the old days?

You want states rights well fine and dandy but how do you ensure the states do their jobs and not be bought and sold by industrial interests? The track record is dismal

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Talking about big govt sounds cool and the words go down easy and it makes a great soundbite but forget the rhetoric and ask yourself how the Fed Govt got so big in the first place. Sure there are regulations and policies that need to be trashed but all in all if you do some research you'll find it's because of what states had in their purview and should have done and never did do that the fed Govt got bigger and bigger to get the job done for them.

Just think about Federal law Enforcement and I mean every agency. Before 1900 they didn't exist. States couldn't deal with organized crime so they had to create the FBI and since the rightees gave us prohibition ATF came about cause the states didn't control it. The IRS had to appoint agents cause the fat cats wouldn't pay their fair share. Just some examples.

Talk to folks in Flint or the folks in Charleston WVA or the ones in N Carolina or the ones who lived in the Buffalo area of N.Y. Where were the states, they should have acted and did nothing mostly because of political influence and corruption so the Fed had to come in enter the EPA back in Nixon's administration. Remember that river in Pittsburgh, I think, that used to catch fire every now and then? I grew up in NYC and the rivers were just open Cess Pools. Now they actually have fish in them.

How many Governors of Illinois went to prison?

You could go on and on and simply see why the Fed Govt got so big. You want to undo all that and go back to the old days?

You want states rights well fine and dandy but how do you ensure the states do their jobs and not be bought and sold by industrial interests? The track record is dismal

I suppose the Federal gov gradually got so big because someone(s) thought it (Program, agency, etc.) was a good idea at the time, and possibly solved an immediate problem. But as often happens, people tend to be short sighted, especially during a crisis, and forget to consider long term consequences of their quick fixes.

Originally Posted by honedright

BTW, according to Madison, he and the other framers fully anticipated corruption. History and experience had advised them. Their solution? Change the constitution? No. Instead, vote wiser the next time.

But isn't that exactly how things are where they are - people vote for their representatives, they make the laws, and people vote for them again.

AFIK the only time something was forced over the constitutionally prescribed path (Dred Scott vs. Sandford) was the abolition of slavery.

What am I missing?

To bad they don't have it on the ballots.... NONE OF THE ABOVE.
That is how I'd like to vote sometimes.

Pick another bunch next time.....lol

Originally Posted by Willisf

To bad they don't have it on the ballots.... NONE OF THE ABOVE.
That is how I'd like to vote sometimes.

Pick another bunch next time.....lol

Well, in representative democracies everybody can do the picking.
The problem is agreeing with others on the same pick. That's what the role of the political parties is - they provide a pretty good process to select individuals that more than a handful of people would vote for.

Anybody who doesn't like the available choices is completely free to found and build their own political party.