Abolish the 16th Amendment and return power to the people

[Iriemon]

This isn't high on my list, but as a general point, I would repeal ALL of the laws and amendments that the "Progessive Era" brought us. After we do that we can have a review and re-enact the ones we think still make sense. My feeling is that most of what was done was destructive to the long-term survival of the country. It, instead, set us on downward slope.

If you really want to change the power of the federal government, you would have the Wicker and the Darby decisions overturned. Just doing that would deprive the current federal government of more than half of its power.

A nation without SS and medicare to provide for the aged and disabled, laws protecting against pollution, unsafe labor practices, child labor, overtime abuses, equal voting rights, protection against bank failure or broker fraud, sex discrimination in the workplace, etc.

Sounds wonderful.

Why did you post that in response to my post? What relevance do you think there is in what you wrote vis-a-vis my post?

Maybe I misunderstood you. The laws I mentioned were passed in the "progressive era" and I thought you point was to repeal them.

 

[sealybobo]

This isn't high on my list, but as a general point, I would repeal ALL of the laws and amendments that the "Progessive Era" brought us. After we do that we can have a review and re-enact the ones we think still make sense. My feeling is that most of what was done was destructive to the long-term survival of the country. It, instead, set us on downward slope.

If you really want to change the power of the federal government, you would have the Wicker and the Darby decisions overturned. Just doing that would deprive the current federal government of more than half of its power.

A nation without SS and medicare to provide for the aged and disabled, laws protecting against pollution, unsafe labor practices, child labor, overtime abuses, equal voting rights, protection against bank failure or broker fraud, sex discrimination in the workplace, etc.

Sounds wonderful.

Why did you post that in response to my post? What relevance do you think there is in what you wrote vis-a-vis my post?

You said you want to repeal all progressive era laws, so he listed some.

 

[NOBama]

Instead of watching some biased movie for your information, why don't you look directly at the source.

Both the US Treasury and CBO provide statistics on things like the cost of interest relative to the entire debt.

The total interest cost is about $500 billion a year, roughly 1/6 of all expenditures. Total interest includes things like interest payments to the SS trust fund, so some of that (less than half) is intra-govt transfers.

Let me know if you want to look it up I'll provide the URLs

As usual.​

 

[Tech_Esq]

A nation without SS and medicare to provide for the aged and disabled, laws protecting against pollution, unsafe labor practices, child labor, overtime abuses, equal voting rights, protection against bank failure or broker fraud, sex discrimination in the workplace, etc.

Sounds wonderful.

Why did you post that in response to my post? What relevance do you think there is in what you wrote vis-a-vis my post?

Maybe I misunderstood you. The laws I mentioned were passed in the "progressive era" and I thought you point was to repeal them.

Here is what I posted about progressive era laws. Note especially the second sentence.

I would repeal ALL of the laws and amendments that the "Progessive Era" brought us. After we do that we can have a review and re-enact the ones we think still make sense.

What's the problem? You think that the things you mention are in danger of not making the grade on "making sense?"

 

[Tech_Esq]

A nation without SS and medicare to provide for the aged and disabled, laws protecting against pollution, unsafe labor practices, child labor, overtime abuses, equal voting rights, protection against bank failure or broker fraud, sex discrimination in the workplace, etc.

Sounds wonderful.

Why did you post that in response to my post? What relevance do you think there is in what you wrote vis-a-vis my post?

You said you want to repeal all progressive era laws, so he listed some.

On another note, Social Security was not a "progressive era" reform. That was "New Deal" wrong Roosevelt. Medicare was Great Society not Progressive Era, not sure where you came up with that. They didn't understand "pollution" that would probably be Nixon. Now, child labor you got right as well as women's suffrage.

Banking reforms, also Roosevelt, Frank not Ted. Sex discrimination, Great Society not Progressive era.

So, most of what you identified, were not reforms that I was talking about in the first place.

 

[Iriemon]

Why did you post that in response to my post? What relevance do you think there is in what you wrote vis-a-vis my post?

Maybe I misunderstood you. The laws I mentioned were passed in the "progressive era" and I thought you point was to repeal them.

Here is what I posted about progressive era laws. Note especially the second sentence.

I would repeal ALL of the laws and amendments that the "Progessive Era" brought us. After we do that we can have a review and re-enact the ones we think still make sense.

What's the problem? You think that the things you mention are in danger of not making the grade on "making sense?"

OK, but if they make sense why do we need to repeal them?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Maybe I misunderstood you. The laws I mentioned were passed in the "progressive era" and I thought you point was to repeal them.

Here is what I posted about progressive era laws. Note especially the second sentence.

I would repeal ALL of the laws and amendments that the "Progessive Era" brought us. After we do that we can have a review and re-enact the ones we think still make sense.

What's the problem? You think that the things you mention are in danger of not making the grade on "making sense?"

OK, but if they make sense why do we need to repeal them?

Because you did not list MOST of what was passed in the Progressive Era. Most of it was wrong headed and did damage that we are still trying to patch today.

Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Direct election of US Senators - (We're still screwing with Campaign finance and other undemocratic fixes to that one. In addition, it make people think that US Senator "represent" them. See how confusing it is. You probably thought they did too.)
Prohibition - We fixed that already
Permanent Income tax - The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

I could go on, but those are some high points.

 

[sealybobo]

Here is what I posted about progressive era laws. Note especially the second sentence.

What's the problem? You think that the things you mention are in danger of not making the grade on "making sense?"

OK, but if they make sense why do we need to repeal them?

Because you did not list MOST of what was passed in the Progressive Era. Most of it was wrong headed and did damage that we are still trying to patch today.

Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Direct election of US Senators - (We're still screwing with Campaign finance and other undemocratic fixes to that one. In addition, it make people think that US Senator "represent" them. See how confusing it is. You probably thought they did too.)
Prohibition - We fixed that already
Permanent Income tax - The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

I could go on, but those are some high points.

Yes, abolish those!

I/We misunderstood you.

 

[NOBama]

I am not for abolishing the ability of the government to collect income taxes... we're not going to be able to fund our government on just tariffs, etc

But I am ALL for laws that change and simplify HOW taxes are collected.. ensuring a completely equal % burden on all tax collection.... taking the tax code to be centered around equal treatment and making it so that we do not need such a huge sized government agency that is responsible for tax collection

I'm for abolishing the government from collecting taxes based on income.

The question is; as you elude too: How to do it so that it's fair?

I start moving away from people like Beck and Napolatono when they say abolish this, or abloish that, without offering up an alternative plan for scrutiny. It's like having a car without fuel; it isn't going to take you anywhere.

 

[Iriemon]

Here is what I posted about progressive era laws. Note especially the second sentence.

What's the problem? You think that the things you mention are in danger of not making the grade on "making sense?"

OK, but if they make sense why do we need to repeal them?

Because you did not list MOST of what was passed in the Progressive Era. Most of it was wrong headed and did damage that we are still trying to patch today.

Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Direct election of US Senators - (We're still screwing with Campaign finance and other undemocratic fixes to that one. In addition, it make people think that US Senator "represent" them. See how confusing it is. You probably thought they did too.)
Prohibition - We fixed that already
Permanent Income tax - The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

I could go on, but those are some high points.

The Fed was created in 1913 - was that the "progressive era"?

But thanks for clarifying. I think you are saying you only want specific laws repealed, not including the ones I mentioned.

If you don't raise revenues from a progressive income tax, what is your proposed alternative?

 

[midcan5]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[Tech_Esq]

OK, but if they make sense why do we need to repeal them?

Because you did not list MOST of what was passed in the Progressive Era. Most of it was wrong headed and did damage that we are still trying to patch today.

Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Direct election of US Senators - (We're still screwing with Campaign finance and other undemocratic fixes to that one. In addition, it make people think that US Senator "represent" them. See how confusing it is. You probably thought they did too.)
Prohibition - We fixed that already
Permanent Income tax - The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

I could go on, but those are some high points.

The Fed was created in 1913 - was that the "progressive era"?

But thanks for clarifying. I think you are saying you only want specific laws repealed, not including the ones I mentioned.

If you don't raise revenues from a progressive income tax, what is your proposed alternative?

Just so we are all on the same sheet of music: (from Wikipedia)

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920's.[1]

So yes, 1913 was in the progressive era.

As to the Income tax and it's potential replacement, I'm not a big "tax guy," it isn't where I spend most of my time thinking about policy alternatives. That said, I think most European countries have gone with a Value Added Tax (VAT) to support their governments. So, that is clearly something that could work. If my brief perusal of alternatives currently being marketed is right, that would be similar to the FAIR tax.

Although I like the sound of the flat tax, I think it is a mistake to tax income. Once it's "flat" then a party could come to power and just raise that MFer to suit their needs. Too dangerous.

A consumption based tax would decrease spending by the citizen and increase saving. In Germany and Japan for instance, they save 30% of wages. We spend at least 90 to 100% of everything we make. We have the lowest savings rate of any industrialized country (or at least we did.) It really isn't a good place to be.

 

[sealybobo]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

You will find that Republicans like to quote the Founding Fathers when they were warning us about government, but then they want to ignore when they warned us about Corporations/Bankers/Robber Barons/Oligarchi's,/Fascism, Feudalism, etc.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

What in the hell are you talking about? Who said abolish government? That's just stupid.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

You will find that Republicans like to quote the Founding Fathers when they were warning us about government, but then they want to ignore when they warned us about Corporations/Bankers/Robber Barons/Oligarchi's,/Fascism, Feudalism, etc.

Not sure what you'll hear from "Republicans" but striking the balance is the key. It isn't that people on the right are not aware of the dangers posed by out of control corporations or other forms of tyranny, but advocates for more government are a more pressing threat, than the others. Make no mistake, people on the right should not be apologists for corporate misdeeds. If a corporation acts poorly, it should be punished within the stated rules and laws that govern it. However, runaway government is not the answer.

 

[Iriemon]

Because you did not list MOST of what was passed in the Progressive Era. Most of it was wrong headed and did damage that we are still trying to patch today.

Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Direct election of US Senators - (We're still screwing with Campaign finance and other undemocratic fixes to that one. In addition, it make people think that US Senator "represent" them. See how confusing it is. You probably thought they did too.)
Prohibition - We fixed that already
Permanent Income tax - The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

I could go on, but those are some high points.

The Fed was created in 1913 - was that the "progressive era"?

But thanks for clarifying. I think you are saying you only want specific laws repealed, not including the ones I mentioned.

If you don't raise revenues from a progressive income tax, what is your proposed alternative?

Just so we are all on the same sheet of music: (from Wikipedia)

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920's.[1]

So yes, 1913 was in the progressive era.

OK, I misunderstood "progressive era" -- thrown off a bit by your cite to Darby, which was an FDR era decision, I believe.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Fed was created in 1913 - was that the "progressive era"?

But thanks for clarifying. I think you are saying you only want specific laws repealed, not including the ones I mentioned.

If you don't raise revenues from a progressive income tax, what is your proposed alternative?

Just so we are all on the same sheet of music: (from Wikipedia)

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920's.[1]

So yes, 1913 was in the progressive era.

OK, I misunderstood "progressive era" -- thrown off a bit by your cite to Darby, which was an FDR era decision, I believe.

Sorry about the misdirection. You are correct, Darby and Wicker were decisions that were handed down in Roosevelt's 3rd term.

My point in my original post was that the way to limit central government power effectively, isn't to repeal the income tax, it's to overturn those two decisions. Combined, they are much more harmful to the balance of power than the income tax.

 

[midcan5]

What in the hell are you talking about? Who said abolish government? That's just stupid.

The underlying assumption here is some people good - government bad. When you do not support government and seek to enfeeble it, you can call it whatever nonsense floats your boat, but it is still wrong. In this case, simply a matter of bad losers, who not once in the past eight and even longer years mentioned the same BS as government supported corporations and war and waste. You guys are so hypocritical I wonder how it is you trust yourself. And the likes of Beck et al are really the anti Americans as they seek in their bitterness to destroy Obama and their imagined evil government.

"Thomas Jefferson pointed out, in an 1816 letter to William H. Crawford, "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association." He also pointed out in that letter that some people - and businesses - would prefer that government not play referee to the game of business, not fix rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good.

We must, Jefferson wrote to Crawford, "...say to all [such] individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens [like corporations], on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.""

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

 

[sealybobo]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

You will find that Republicans like to quote the Founding Fathers when they were warning us about government, but then they want to ignore when they warned us about Corporations/Bankers/Robber Barons/Oligarchi's,/Fascism, Feudalism, etc.

Not sure what you'll hear from "Republicans" but striking the balance is the key. It isn't that people on the right are not aware of the dangers posed by out of control corporations or other forms of tyranny, but advocates for more government are a more pressing threat, than the others. Make no mistake, people on the right should not be apologists for corporate misdeeds. If a corporation acts poorly, it should be punished within the stated rules and laws that govern it. However, runaway government is not the answer.

First off, I don't know who's crying for more government. Bush neglected America for 8 years and still grew the government thru things like FISA, FEMA and Dept of Homeland Security. You didn't complain then? Why? Because chances are you didn't want to seem unpatriotic or weak on terror, because Bush grew government in the name of defense. That's how he kept you conservatives and independents quiet.

Now that its Dems in control, the GOP will cry for smaller government. Thats because the corporate lobbyists want less regulations. They pay the GOP to fight for less regulations, IE "Smaller Government"

I believe if you are not a Republican, then you are a libertarian or independent who leans right.

Anyways, now you aren't going to like the programs that Obama is going to implement. And there lies the difference between conservatives and liberals. I want the government involved in jobs, poverty, protecting workers, welfare, nafta, etc. And I believe the masses are with Obama too. If it works, we won't give a shit if government grew or shrunk. If I'm working and saving and buying things. PS. Remember Cheney said "deficits don't matter"? We told you they do. They especially do if you just go and blow the money. The gop just blew all the money they spent the last 8 years. Need proof? Just look at the economy. I shouldn't have to prove the GOP caused this mess. The election speaks for me.

So now 100 days in, you gotta give Obama a chance. He's doing as much as he can, and doing a fine job too.

But you want him to bring jobs home? Then tell him.

You want the government to abolish the Federal Reserve? Tell them. Sign Ron Paul's petition!!!!

But to say the government is the key problem, is EXACTLY what the bankers would want you to believe. Are you a banker? Because they would like to throw us off by first having us go after the government. GOOD LUCK. Once you have completely reformed the government, then we'll talk about the bankers. Fucking morons. Not just you, but most people.

I don't want them to grow the government, but that might be what it takes to tackle some of these issues. They need to appoint someone to oversee tarp funds, for example. You'll call that growing government.

Bush created a bunch of spy czars and torture czars.

Did Clinton grow government?

Anyways, I think that the most pressing issue is the corporations and their strangle hold on our government. All the lobbyists. Republicans didn't decide they want NAFTA, they want to send jobs overseas/they want to break unions/they want to cut corporate taxes. They didn't do that on their own. They did that because thats what the lobbyists told them to do.

And if you want to talk about big government, the GOP grew government too, only in the name of defense. And most right wingers didn't have a problem with it. And they didn't mind funding the iraq war, even though Cheney promised that Iraq oil would pay. But Iraq oil goes to the oil companies. And the American tax payers pay for reconstruction, Haloburton and Iraq.

Now doesn't it seem stupid that we put an oil man (Bush) and Cheney (Defense) in charge of the country?

What, government so small it can't take on the bankers?

 

[Immanuel]

This demonizing of government is such nonsense who would really want the chaos that would ensue? The same people complain that government does not do enough when roads are bad, bridges fall down, forests are destroyed by fire. Imagine no police or no overriding authority? What hokum! Law is what keeps us a civilized nation and government is the only authority that can do that.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

It is not the government that is the problem but rather those who govern. Our leaders are corrupted by the system. Who can blame them? But, it is a fact that the system we have in place to day is corrupting the good hearted people that enter politics. It starts small, but if you are going to play the game in a way that will get you into Washington, you have to sell your soul a thousand times over.

I would never call for the abolishment of our government, but the power of those who govern needs to be curtailed in order to save this country.

Immie