Politics: Time To Move?!?

[Thunderbroom]

 

Ok here's a question for all of you Stateside. Does ANYONE like the Federal Government? If not, are there any movements to secede from the Union?

 

 

I don't like nor do I dislike the Federal Government.

 

My issue with the Federal Government is that it has strayed so far from the scope of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

[lug]

 

Snopes

 

 

 

....reads article.....

 

So, Gore approves of murder 37% more than Bush does, interesting.

[Ender_rpm]

 

Ok here's a question for all of you Stateside. Does ANYONE like the Federal Government? If not, are there any movements to secede from the Union?

 

 

We played that game about 150 years ago. Not fun. Don't really want to do it again. I tend to think the US has too much government, layers upon layers of redundancy. But, its stable, reasonably responsive to public sentiment, and provides the basic services most people need. We bitch about our government because we can, and because we want it to do better and because we believe it can be better. While I agree that the federal gov't has gone beyond the scope of the original intent of the Constitution, I would argue that it has had to do so to keep up with the realities of a changing world. Our constitution is a great document, ahead of its time, but desperatley in need of a revision to accomodate a larger country, population, and role in the world. Kind of like the House of Lords going all elected. Things change.

[lug]

 

Our constitution is a great document, ahead of its time, but desperatley in need of a revision

 

 

My opinion (which normally = fact) is different. I believe the drafters of the constitution were possibley the greatest group of political minds ever assembled in history. I can think of very little in the constitution I would want changed and even then they were smart enough to leave a method of change that required serious effort as opposed to it getting banged around by the flavor-of-the-month thinkers.

[bassman1956]

No, and I bet in one form or another this message has been circulating since 1776.

 

 

 

Personally, I think the second half of that is bunk. But like I said, I copied the entire thing. However, I've been hearing about the lifecycle of a democracy being around 200 years since I was in high school, and I'm 50 now. Probably why this one got me without going through Snopes.

 

I think there's some truth to it.

[bassman1956]

 

My opinion (which normally = fact) is different. I believe the drafters of the constitution were possibley the greatest group of political minds ever assembled in history. I can think of very little in the constitution I would want changed and even then they were smart enough to leave a method of change that required serious effort as opposed to it getting banged around by the flavor-of-the-month thinkers.

 

 

 

+1!

 

 

I think maybe there should be more education that with the guarantees of freedom goes responsibility to ensure the longterm health of the system. Instead, there really does seem to be a sense of entitlement at this time, as if the government is an infinite reservoir, and it doesn't matter who takes what from it, because no one can really hurt it.

[Ender_rpm]

 

My opinion (which normally = fact) is different. I believe the drafters of the constitution were possibley the greatest group of political minds ever assembled in history. I can think of very little in the constitution I would want changed and even then they were smart enough to leave a method of change that required serious effort as opposed to it getting banged around by the flavor-of-the-month thinkers.

 

 

I agree. But the reform on issues like health care, gun control, and congressional districting, all of which have changed DRASTICALLY since 1779, is needed. Each of these is so contentious howver, that no one wants to touch them in any serious fashion.

[lug]

 

I agree. But the reform on issues like health care, gun control, and congressional districting, all of which have changed DRASTICALLY since 1779, is needed. Each of these is so contentious howver, that no one wants to touch them in any serious fashion.

 

 

All can be handled by constitutional amendment. If there isn't enough support for changing the constitution's original intent, then maybe is shouldn't be changed. Gun Control is a good example. There just isn't the support in this country by enough of the population for any serious gun control. Gun control advocates need to try to generate that support for change if they truely believe in a democracy rather than try to re-interpret or "skirt" around the issue. I don't know of anything in the Constitution that directly limits Health Care issues, at least that tries to keep government out of it, so it's not really a constitutional issue to most, but more a "Feds are crap at running things" issue. Congrssional districting is and SHOULD be handled by the states. I agree with the view that the Fed has grown to strong in relation to the states and can basically bully states to their view via tax redistibution. An example of this was the original Federal 55 MPH limit. Made a bit sense in urban areas with shorter commutes but not out in rural open areas with few drivers. When some states tried to keep 70 mph for long stretches, the Fed threatened to withhold that state's road repair money it collects in tax. Nothing more than blackmail on a grand scale.

[Ender_rpm]

I agree on gun control and districting, sorta. State control of districting has given us undefeatable positions for the 2 major parties, making any kind of real reform almost impossible. And gun control advocates need to be honest, as do gun ownership advocates, as to what weapons need to be in the hands of common citizens, which should be retained in the hands of trained militia (Military, Guard, Reserves, State Police, and Other Law Enf agencies) and which have no business being a part of anyones personal arsenal.

 

Re: the speed limit- IIRC, the limit was designed to improve the fuel efficiency of the american vehicle fleet. There is no support for higher fuel efficiency standards, especially in auto producing states, but capping highway funds can be done as a carrot and stick measure. If Detroit could make better, more efficient cars, we wouldn't be in this mess. Or at least as much of a mess)

[bassman1956]

 

Re: the speed limit- IIRC, the limit was designed to improve the fuel efficiency of the american vehicle fleet. There is no support for higher fuel efficiency standards, especially in auto producing states, but capping highway funds can be done as a carrot and stick measure. If Detroit could make better, more efficient cars, we wouldn't be in this mess. Or at least as much of a mess)

 

 

 

Well, the 55mph USA-wide was. Fact is, every vehicle, set of conditions, and driver gets the best milage at a different point. Most autos on flat road get better milage in the 65 to 75mph range. I had an old granny-geared Mustang that got it's best milage at 80 to 85mph, but my first Rambler did best around 50. Some old pickups used to get the best in the 35 to 40mph range.

 

What are the conditions? Where's the vehicle's power band in those conditions? Where's that on the efficiency curve? How's it geared? And what are the driver's habits?

[bassman1956]

So, say the US is at the end of it's life cycle. Say Illegal Imigrants overwhelm the authorities in some areas, and Jihad comes home to roost in others. Say the US breaks up into 5 smaller countries, 3 of which drop into severe unrest and turmoil, 2 that are relatively stable...

 

What happens to your wealth? Your real estate?

Your bank accounts?

Savings bonds? Municipal bonds?

401K's and 403B's?

CD's?

 

Hell, even your cash-on-hand isn't the same then.

 

Any way to plan it so that your wealth rides through somewhat?

[Ender_rpm]

 

What happens to your wealth? Your real estate? Your bank accounts? Savings bonds? Municipal bonds? 401K's and 403B's? CD's? Hell, even your cash-on-hand isn't the same then. Any way to plan it so that your wealth rides through somewhat?

 

 

Guns, land, and precious metals. About the closest thing to a guarantee. Works best if you have a group of like minded individuals, but then you get dangerously close to those militia guys, and well, thats just... whatever.

 

But I don't think it'll come to that. Most americans believe too strongly in the nation as a whole, and given the choice between inclusiveness and survival, would choose survival. I'd hate to be any more brown than I am in that case. (Half mexican).

[lug]

 

So, say the US is at the end of it's life cycle. Say Illegal Imigrants overwhelm the authorities in some areas, and Jihad comes home to roost in others. Say the US breaks up into 5 smaller countries, 3 of which drop into severe unrest and turmoil, 2 that are relatively stable... What happens to your wealth? Your real estate? Your bank accounts? Savings bonds? Municipal bonds? 401K's and 403B's? CD's? Hell, even your cash-on-hand isn't the same then. Any way to plan it so that your wealth rides through somewhat?

 

 

During caos and anarchy, where the transfer of goods and services virually cease, toilet paper will be the hot commodity.

[Ender_rpm]

During caos and anarchy, where the transfer of goods and services virually cease, toilet paper will be the hot commodity.

 

This man speaks the truth.

[Gfunkk44]

 

I don't like nor do I dislike the Federal Government. My issue with the Federal Government is that it has strayed so far from the scope of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

 

 

+1

 

But what worries me more is that most people living here do not even care.

[Gfunkk44]

 

My opinion (which normally = fact) is different. I believe the drafters of the constitution were possibley the greatest group of political minds ever assembled in history. I can think of very little in the constitution I would want changed and even then they were smart enough to leave a method of change that required serious effort as opposed to it getting banged around by the flavor-of-the-month thinkers.

 

 

 

Despite the flaws of the founding fathers they are still light years ahead of anything we have in office right now. What really bothers me is the recent "advancement" of the Judicial branch of both state and federal governments. Im all for Judicial Review to an extent, but judges are attempting to dictate legislation not it's legitimacy.

[takeout]

Despite the flaws of the founding fathers they are still light years ahead of anything we have in office right now. What really bothers me is the recent "advancement" of the Judicial branch of both state and federal governments. Im all for Judicial Review to an extent, but judges are attempting to dictate legislation not it's legitimacy.

Example?

[ThudMaker]

 

Despite the flaws of the founding fathers they are still light years ahead of anything we have in office right now.

 

That's because there weren't a lot of special interest groups hanging out in DC in 1789. Government revenues weren't big enough that they wanted to be in congress forever sucking off taxpayer's money like a bunch of welfare cases. Strict/short term limits and severe campaign finance reform along with close scrutiny of soft money and advertising would put an end to a lot of today's BS. Oh, and get rid of C-span. All it does is make sure these jesters. . .errr I mean public servants . . . want to speak longer so they can get their ugly mugs on TV for free. Geesh, they're worse than reality stars.

[Ender_rpm]

 

That's because there weren't a lot of special interest groups hanging out in DC in 1789. Government revenues weren't big enough that they wanted to be in congress forever sucking off taxpayer's money like a bunch of welfare cases. Strict/short term limits and severe campaign finance reform along with close scrutiny of soft money and advertising would put an end to a lot of today's BS. Oh, and get rid of C-span. All it does is make sure these jesters. . .errr I mean public servants . . . want to speak longer so they can get their ugly mugs on TV for free. Geesh, they're worse than reality stars.

 

 

+1

[bassman1956]

 

That's because there weren't a lot of special interest groups hanging out in DC in 1789. Government revenues weren't big enough that they wanted to be in congress forever sucking off taxpayer's money like a bunch of welfare cases. Strict/short term limits and severe campaign finance reform along with close scrutiny of soft money and advertising would put an end to a lot of today's BS. Oh, and get rid of C-span. All it does is make sure these jesters. . .errr I mean public servants . . . want to speak longer so they can get their ugly mugs on TV for free. Geesh, they're worse than reality stars.

 

 

So, are you saying the sense of entitlement begins with the crust?

 

I kind of agree with that. When people see their elected officials leading the country by misuse, scam and thievery of the system, it's hard not to think you deserve some of it.

[bassman1956]

 

I don't like nor do I dislike the Federal Government. My issue with the Federal Government is that it has strayed so far from the scope of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

 

 

 

To me, very very true.

[ThudMaker]

 

So, are you saying the sense of entitlement begins with the crust? I kind of agree with that. When people see their elected officials leading the country by misuse, scam and thievery of the system, it's hard not to think you deserve some of it.

 

That's not what I was trying to emphasize, but you are very correct. Lookin' out for Number 1.

[Gfunkk44]

 

That's because there weren't a lot of special interest groups hanging out in DC in 1789. Government revenues weren't big enough that they wanted to be in congress forever sucking off taxpayer's money like a bunch of welfare cases. Strict/short term limits and severe campaign finance reform along with close scrutiny of soft money and advertising would put an end to a lot of today's BS. Oh, and get rid of C-span. All it does is make sure these jesters. . .errr I mean public servants . . . want to speak longer so they can get their ugly mugs on TV for free. Geesh, they're worse than reality stars.

 

 

I agree that the specialist interest group wasn't there lobbying like they do in today's political landscape. However the ideas presented by those individuals is almost beyond comprehension by today's standards. For one thing government revenues weren't big because many of the founding fathers never intended them to grow to the proporitions they are now...

 

The government, specifically the federal government was never intended to be the great provider. People today, even politicians know that providing people services is the easiest way to maintain office, that would have been seen as tyranny in the early years. And your gonna tell me a politican with an entire army on his side would just give all that up for the union in todays world? I doubt that.

[ThudMaker]

I agree that the specialist interest group wasn't there lobbying like they do in today's political landscape. However the ideas presented by those individuals is almost beyond comprehension by today's standards. For one thing government revenues weren't big because many of the founding fathers never intended them to grow to the proporitions they are now... The government, specifically the federal government was never intended to be the great provider. People today, even politicians know that providing people services is the easiest way to maintain office, that would have been seen as tyranny in the early years. And your gonna tell me a politican with an entire army on his side would just give all that up for the union in todays world? I doubt that.

Is there some reason why you think you're disagreeing with me or am I just not reading your post correctly? You are in pretty much lockstep agreement with my post.

[Gfunkk44]

Is there some reason why you think you're disagreeing with me or am I just not reading your post correctly? You are in pretty much lockstep agreement with my post.

 

I took your post the wrong way.... it's been a long day and im a little on edge..

 

my apologies