Federal Government too large/powerful

There was a comment in the US presidential canidates thread which struck a cord near to my own struggle with modern America. I started this thread to avoid the risk of hijacking the OP's thread, should I start a firestorm.

The poster said that we are moving further and further into additional Federal control, points that the Federal Government have too much control and too many powers, and they rest mostly in the bureaucracy, which is beholden to the Federal Government for their funding.

Look at ACA, "Obamacare." Forget it you are for it or against it for what ever left/right wing reasons you have. Think about it this way, with it a government bureaucracy now subsudizes health care. It appoints people to manage the giant network of new businesses that have sprung up around it. They manage those businesses, conroling how they work, in an overall sense, true, but still they do.

There has been growth of government agencies controlling more aspects of the populations lives, not their daily actions, but thing they are "required" to do.

One way this has been accelerated is by the changing of the Consitution. The 17th amentment altered the way Senaters were sent to Congress. Instead of being selected by the State government they are now elected by popular vote. This takes power away from the state. The states power were meant to be a check agaisnt the masses and the federal government. The senate's power was meant to give the states governments a say in how the national legislation. Now it is conroled by the "mob" populace.

I don't think it is a sinister plan and conspiracy to deprived us of anything, I think it is a natural process of ensuring the Federals governemental powers. That being said, it is growing, and in time, as our freedoms and choices about things decline, the government will slowly shift away from a friend trying to help, into a protector doing things "for your own good."

At least that is my opinion of what might happen.

Commodore Oakius wrote:There was a comment in the US presidential canidates thread which struck a cord near to my own struggle with modern America. I started this thread to avoid the risk of hijacking the OP's thread, should I start a firestorm.

The poster said that we are moving further and further into additional Federal control, points that the Federal Government have too much control and too many powers, and they rest mostly in the bureaucracy, which is beholden to the Federal Government for their funding.

Look at ACA, "Obamacare." Forget it you are for it or against it for what ever left/right wing reasons you have. Think about it this way, with it a government bureaucracy now subsudizes health care. It appoints people to manage the giant network of new businesses that have sprung up around it. They manage those businesses, conroling how they work, in an overall sense, true, but still they do.

There has been growth of government agencies controlling more aspects of the populations lives, not their daily actions, but thing they are "required" to do.

One way this has been accelerated is by the changing of the Consitution. The 17th amentment altered the way Senaters were sent to Congress. Instead of being selected by the State government they are now elected by popular vote. This takes power away from the state. The states power were meant to be a check agaisnt the masses and the federal government. The senate's power was meant to give the states governments a say in how the national legislation. Now it is conroled by the "mob" populace.

I don't think it is a sinister plan and conspiracy to deprived us of anything, I think it is a natural process of ensuring the Federals governemental powers. That being said, it is growing, and in time, as our freedoms and choices about things decline, the government will slowly shift away from a friend trying to help, into a protector doing things "for your own good."

At least that is my opinion of what might happen.

http://www.ncpa.org/commentaries/govern ... case-study

There are those who embrace the concept that government can provide services better and be a fair competitor with the private sector.

True testing of any idea compares it to reality. Honestly!

Most western developed countries have a more centralized system than the USA. This includes a federal welfare net and universal healthcare that is coordinated or funded by their governments.

As often mentioned there are lies, damn lies and statistics; however an unemotional analysis of the varying systems indicates that the rest achieve better results than the USA in these areas.

We also have much lower levels of incarceration which adds to an economy's efficiency as more people are working and less have to have expensive keepers. It is reasonable to consider that a fairer welfare net leads to less crimes of desperation, and thus less prisoners.

To suggest that a strong federal government has reduced our freedoms is incorrect. We have free press, freedom of movement and religion, and we do treat our politicians with the disrespect they deserve. A developing trend is to change our governments more often, as we feel that like nappies (diapers) they need to be changed often to prevent sh*t building up.

Daryl wrote:Most western developed countries have a more centralized system than the USA. This includes a federal welfare net and universal healthcare that is coordinated or funded by their governments.

...snip...

And most western societies centralized governments populations are smaller than most US States.

With a few exceptions much more homogenized populations. And way different cultures. Possibly (not sure if this impacts or how), with existing governments that have not actually been around for as long.

As for the rest that I snipped to save scroll wheels as far as unemotional rational analysis. I would question what the various values are worth in that cost benefit analysis.

Did the race driver who died live a better or worse life than the guy who cut his own arm off while hiking or the guy who lived a safe life as a coach potato. Or the guy who couldn't control his food intake and died at 40 as diabetic. I got no clue. My life choices say that I have virtually no chance of making to national average.

Your statement points to the homily about intelligence is defined by those who agree with you.

For all of the above examples I really don't know. Though I consider some of them idiots (rock climbing in the desert by oneself ID10T,IMO). Their choice. Would I trade with any of them not really.

Have fun,
T2M

DDHvi wrote:

There are those who embrace the concept that government can provide services better and be a fair competitor with the private sector.

True testing of any idea compares it to reality. Honestly!

Very true, but who knows the best way to run a business? the government or the people who are in business for the last 40 years?

However, my argument is that the government has no right to be in the services they are getting into, not whether they can do it better.

Daryl wrote:Most western developed countries have a more centralized system than the USA. This includes a federal welfare net and universal healthcare that is coordinated or funded by their governments.

.....

We also have much lower levels of incarceration which adds to an economy's efficiency as more people are working and less have to have expensive keepers. It is reasonable to consider that a fairer welfare net leads to less crimes of desperation, and thus less prisoners.

.....

Instead of paying for prisons, you are paying taxes to fund the welfare programs. 6 and .5 dozen if you ask me.
Also, you are require the people who earn to pay for those who don't. How is that fair? There are genuine needs for welfare, many, but the number of babes are outnumbers the number of teets available, and soon the milk well will run dry, and all of these babes with resort to "other means" to get by in life.
Hopefully these "other means" will be to get back into the work force.

Commodore Oakius wrote:Instead of paying for prisons, you are paying taxes to fund the welfare programs. 6 and .5 dozen if you ask me.
Also, you are require the people who earn to pay for those who don't. How is that fair? There are genuine needs for welfare, many, but the number of babes are outnumbers the number of teets available, and soon the milk well will run dry, and all of these babes with resort to "other means" to get by in life.
Hopefully these "other means" will be to get back into the work force.

To hive off on a tangent...

The best way to get yourself out of the position of state welfare dependency is "Education, Education, Education".

Unfortunately, what often occurs is that those who are at the lowest levels of society effectively right themselves off and don't apply themselves sufficiently at school to get good grades to make them employable. They leave school at 16 with little or no prospect of employment, then a life of substance abuse and/or criminality ensues.

It's major problem in the former industrial areas of the UK. Too much population, not enough jobs to go around and many youngsters leave school and end up on society's scrapheap. They see no point in even trying as there aren't any jobs for them. Cultural bias also plays a part. Often those who were Working Class viewed an education as something "namby-pamby" - "Real Men" worked with their hands, not indulge in book learning. These attitudes still linger on.

How to fix that is an almost intractable problem. It can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians of course. The Honorverse's Havenite Dolists do have real world equivalents. Scottish Labour made great use of the phenomenon in Glasgow's sink council estates.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:
To hive off on a tangent...

The best way to get yourself out of the position of state welfare dependency is "Education, Education, Education".

Unfortunately, what often occurs is that those who are at the lowest levels of society effectively right themselves off and don't apply themselves sufficiently at school to get good grades to make them employable. They leave school at 16 with little or no prospect of employment, then a life of substance abuse and/or criminality ensues.

It's major problem in the former industrial areas of the UK. Too much population, not enough jobs to go around and many youngsters leave school and end up on society's scrapheap. They see no point in even trying as there aren't any jobs for them. Cultural bias also plays a part. Often those who were Working Class viewed an education as something "namby-pamby" - "Real Men" worked with their hands, not indulge in book learning. These attitudes still linger on.

How to fix that is an almost intractable problem. It can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians of course. The Honorverse's Havenite Dolists do have real world equivalents. Scottish Labour made great use of the phenomenon in Glasgow's sink council estates.

Mike.

And a good tangent it is, Michael.

I would edit your refrain to Training, Training, Training. There are still very good paying hands on jobs out there. Welders, electricians and plumbers are just three well paying professions that do not require a college education.

The lack of opportunity is something else. Many would argue that reducing government would reduce some of their smothering regulations and free the private sector to create jobs. I am sure others would argue that every human being deserves a Basic Living Stipend. Unfortunately, that would subsidize not working and exacerbate the problem of government dependency.

Part of the reason the idea of Welfare strikes such a chord in the US is the nature of our Federal Government. It is limited in what the Constitution allows it to do on our behalf. The 10th Amendment stipulates that unless it is granted by the Constitution a specific power to do so, it cannot perform a given activity. Such activities are the purview of the several States or the individual. There are those that believe the General Welfare clause does give the Federal Government the power to engage in Welfare. Other argue that the General Welfare clause means something completely different, that their fellow citizens are not obligated by the General Welfare clause to provide economic support for some subgroup of the citizenry.

Their state of residence can obligate them, but not the Federal Government. Of course, since a great many of those Founders were religious, they believed the individuals did have an obligation to care for the needy. That obligation was however, a personal religious one. Just as they did not believe the state could force anyone to believe or participate in religions that were inconsistent with their conscience, they did not believe government should enforce religious obligations like helping the needy.

PeterZ wrote:There are those that believe the General Welfare clause does give the Federal Government the power to engage in Welfare. Other argue that the General Welfare clause means something completely different

This is one of the rarely considered reasons why modern laws are so long. One that is often overlooked by the simplistic wordcount comparisons between the US constitution and modern regulations.

I personally believe that people worry unnecessarily about the welfare bill.
In my early working years most females didn't work. They either were young and waiting for their prince charming, or had married him and were "house wives". Up until the 1960s here a woman legally had to leave work in many cases once they got married.
Thus even with multi generational welfare we still have a higher percentage of our adult people in work than we did in the 1950s and 1960s.
Another way to look at it is that to dig a ditch you could either have ten labourers with picks and shovels or one plant operator with a bull dozer. Same result in the same time but only one worker. In theory the employer could pay one wage and nine doles and be no worse off.

Yes it is annoying to see people who don't work and intend to bludge on society all their lives, but they are not actually as damaging as some at the top end of town who use accountants and lawyers to rip much more off the system.

Daryl wrote:I personally believe that people worry unnecessarily about the welfare bill.
In my early working years most females didn't work. They either were young and waiting for their prince charming, or had married him and were "house wives". Up until the 1960s here a woman legally had to leave work in many cases once they got married.
Thus even with multi generational welfare we still have a higher percentage of our adult people in work than we did in the 1950s and 1960s.
Another way to look at it is that to dig a ditch you could either have ten labourers with picks and shovels or one plant operator with a bull dozer. Same result in the same time but only one worker. In theory the employer could pay one wage and nine doles and be no worse off.

Yes it is annoying to see people who don't work and intend to bludge on society all their lives, but they are not actually as damaging as some at the top end of town who use accountants and lawyers to rip much more off the system.

There is a higher % working but there is also a higer % of the total population on welfare now than then. if the number of the people on welfare were the same as the 50s and 60s your argument would make sense, but the number has gone up due to the fact that populations increase as well.
While I see your point about the top end people, at least they are trying to keep money they have earned, not getting money that people haven't earned. I feel they are more damaging to soceity like that. They create examples for others to follow. Shildren ten d to emulate parents and this could easily be one way these kids do so.