- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The US Federal Government - It's Not Supposed to Expand Easily
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:22 am
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:22 am
a big picture view of all of these debates going on seem to all come back to the views of how powerful government should be, and how hard should it be to expand government. there should be no debate that our current governmental framework was established to decrease the power of the federal government. it is supposed to be difficult to pass laws, amend the constitution, etc.
there has been "gridlock" in Congress the past few years, and that is in the spirit of our governmental history. socialist-inspired statists have done everything they can to expand both the power of the federal government (via expanding the definition of the commerce clause) but also the ease of which our federal government may expand itself.
now, this is not solely for those on the "left", as the "right" uses any moral panic they can imagine to impose draconian legal systems of their own (see: the war on drugs for the best example). however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution. what little remains to protect individuals (and it is very little) is absolutely detested by this ilk...even when the policy hurts them too. i'll give a great example: bill maher. he loves to talk shite about our constitution, as it was written a long time ago and doesn't allow our government to act more easily, and how it needs to be easier for the feds to act (typically for immigration and the environment). however, he hates the WOD. the irony is dripping. how did such a terrible law get passed so easily and how did it remain so powerful? uh...maybe the ease of government expansion that he's cheerleading?
the reason Obama's EO on immigration is receiving such vitriol is because the number of people who are opposed to more government expansion has grown (thanks to George Bush). it doesn't matter that previous presidents on the "other side" have expanded government, just as it doesn't matter than Nixon, a member of the "other side" started the WOD. using an EO to get around the safeguards of individuals is now a repugnant idea, and would be seen the same if a person with "GOP" by their name proposed it. the policy is unpopular, but the process is the part that is truly detestable.
people need to pull back and see the meta view of this whole argument. yes, there is gridlock, but our federal system is supposed to be primarily gridlock, with a difficult bar to stripping the rights and property of its citizenry. in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing.
...the only thing better would be actions to decrease/erode the power of the federal government
there has been "gridlock" in Congress the past few years, and that is in the spirit of our governmental history. socialist-inspired statists have done everything they can to expand both the power of the federal government (via expanding the definition of the commerce clause) but also the ease of which our federal government may expand itself.
now, this is not solely for those on the "left", as the "right" uses any moral panic they can imagine to impose draconian legal systems of their own (see: the war on drugs for the best example). however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution. what little remains to protect individuals (and it is very little) is absolutely detested by this ilk...even when the policy hurts them too. i'll give a great example: bill maher. he loves to talk shite about our constitution, as it was written a long time ago and doesn't allow our government to act more easily, and how it needs to be easier for the feds to act (typically for immigration and the environment). however, he hates the WOD. the irony is dripping. how did such a terrible law get passed so easily and how did it remain so powerful? uh...maybe the ease of government expansion that he's cheerleading?
the reason Obama's EO on immigration is receiving such vitriol is because the number of people who are opposed to more government expansion has grown (thanks to George Bush). it doesn't matter that previous presidents on the "other side" have expanded government, just as it doesn't matter than Nixon, a member of the "other side" started the WOD. using an EO to get around the safeguards of individuals is now a repugnant idea, and would be seen the same if a person with "GOP" by their name proposed it. the policy is unpopular, but the process is the part that is truly detestable.
people need to pull back and see the meta view of this whole argument. yes, there is gridlock, but our federal system is supposed to be primarily gridlock, with a difficult bar to stripping the rights and property of its citizenry. in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing.
...the only thing better would be actions to decrease/erode the power of the federal government
10
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
Awesome.
Awesome.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:27 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
some problems are not the government's job to fix, or, even worse, are problems created by prior governmental action
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:30 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
Awesome.
Gov has never and will never fix a gov caused problem by getting larger Fact. It is like trying to get healthier by eating fried chicken it just don't work like that.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:32 am to WeeWee
quote:
It is like trying to get healthier by eating fried chicken it just don't work like that.
Well shite. If Popeye's goes to serving spinach, I'm gone.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:34 am to WeeWee
the current immigration problem is an example of results of federal action from the past creating incentives
the economic issues that incentivizes immigration (and from teh domestic side, hiring immigrants) are a direct result from the establishment of the welfare state and the minimum wage for american workers.
if you make it illegal for workers to receive market wages AND provide a system of wealth redistribution to support this market inefficiency, then you're going to create a worker gap. immigrants, not requiring min wage and with our market rates being higher than their state's, are then given incentives to illegally immigrate.
the economic issues that incentivizes immigration (and from teh domestic side, hiring immigrants) are a direct result from the establishment of the welfare state and the minimum wage for american workers.
if you make it illegal for workers to receive market wages AND provide a system of wealth redistribution to support this market inefficiency, then you're going to create a worker gap. immigrants, not requiring min wage and with our market rates being higher than their state's, are then given incentives to illegally immigrate.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
When the Constitution was adopted, there were heavy regional differences of opinion just as there are today. It took quite a bit of coaxing, assurances, and arm twisting to get everyone on board. No one seems to understand this.
You see liberals today talk about the unfairness of the senate because states like Idaho get the same influence as California. None of them want to acknowledge that this was never supposed to be a pure democracy. Many states would never have joined the Union if that were the case.
This means that some problems just don't get solved by the massive federal entity. There are limits to its power and it should be hamstrung fairly often because it was always meant to come second to the authority of the independent component states. For the federal government to act, it should have the consent of those states through representation. That representation is NOT purely based on majority opinion of the entire population of the republic.
Better minds have called this notion "Our Federalism," which enshrines the value of comity between a state, other states, and the federal government. It is "Our" federalism because it is unlike other systems that came before. Unfortunately, no one seems to like those principles today and see it only as a form of weakness. They would prefer a (more) autocratic executive.
You see liberals today talk about the unfairness of the senate because states like Idaho get the same influence as California. None of them want to acknowledge that this was never supposed to be a pure democracy. Many states would never have joined the Union if that were the case.
This means that some problems just don't get solved by the massive federal entity. There are limits to its power and it should be hamstrung fairly often because it was always meant to come second to the authority of the independent component states. For the federal government to act, it should have the consent of those states through representation. That representation is NOT purely based on majority opinion of the entire population of the republic.
Better minds have called this notion "Our Federalism," which enshrines the value of comity between a state, other states, and the federal government. It is "Our" federalism because it is unlike other systems that came before. Unfortunately, no one seems to like those principles today and see it only as a form of weakness. They would prefer a (more) autocratic executive.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
Good post. One minor thing I disagree with:
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
quote:
in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
the expansion of government, largely concentrated in the executive branch, is occurring naturally, regardless of which Party is in control. Now they may expand in different areas, but its on the margins. For the most part, fiscal outlays for various policies tend to lack a lot of volatility and are fairly consistent y/y.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 11:16 am
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:31 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:And we all know the only entity capable of fixing any problem that anyone can dream up is the government.
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 11:32 am
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
I'm no expert but they're probably not many statist governments in history that have voluntary decreased their power.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:51 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
Awesome.
what's awesome is that all these "problems that need fixing" are the result of politicians that dimwits like you vote for who drum up things like "healtcare crisis" which didn't exist until they fabricated it, and then you nitwits believe those same politicians actually want to "fix it".
yea, nitwits like you are awesome all right.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:52 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
See my last post in your other thread.
Barring a collapse, the size of FedGov will never appreciably reduce in our lifetimes.
Don't believe me? How many of your fellow 'conservatives' rely on a government provided paycheck?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution.
Couldn't we say the same thing about incorporation? Wasn't the clear intent of the "founding fathers" that the Constitution would only apply to the feds and not to the states? I don't see many "non-statists" clamoring to have the 2nd Amendment fully unincorporated, e.g.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:17 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
i don't think this is really going to be attempted. maybe in name only with the ACA stuff, but that's it
the GOP loves it some big fedgov
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:22 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
You see liberals today talk about the unfairness of the senate because states like Idaho get the same influence as California. None of them want to acknowledge that this was never supposed to be a pure democracy.
yes
again, bill maher always brings this up. it's not only that he is ignorant of why it is constructed that way, but he is making the point of why it's made that way when he goes down this road. the system is not designed for easy legislation.
you know what the system is supposed to prevent? shite like the Patriot Act or authorizing War against Iraq in the 00s
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:26 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Couldn't we say the same thing about incorporation?
yup
quote:
I don't see many "non-statists" clamoring to have the 2nd Amendment fully unincorporated, e.g.
in practical effects, it largely is. look at the vast difference in regs for guns in Cali/NY and LA or TX
there is not a long history of 2nd A jurisprudence regarding incorporation, and it's fairly recent
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
FDR fixed all of that - most presidents (Dem and Rep) since then have followed his model to varying degrees - if only Goldwater had been elected, it might have reversed the trend.
Big government, reaching everywhere is the norm now and it was the exception, at the federal level, prior to the election of FDR.
Big government, reaching everywhere is the norm now and it was the exception, at the federal level, prior to the election of FDR.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:40 pm to Ace Midnight
It's the norm because the argument for sensible restraints loses to the emotional plea that "Government must do something!"
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:42 pm to LSUgusto
quote:
It's the norm because the argument for sensible restraints loses to the emotional plea that "Government must do something!"
Only Reagan passionately argued for the government "getting out of the way" - however, the expansion of the DoD and a massive growth of the Military Industrial complex is a legacy that works against his ideals.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News