Tactics to limit the Federal Government

[☭proletarian☭]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Easy. By having a body in the federal govt that represents the interest of states it provides a natural check on the federal government because state and federal governments want CONTROL. Neither side wants to give it up so so a bill that threatens state sovriegnty will never make it through the Senate or not make it through the Senate easily.

Would not the People electing their representatives better ensure that those chosen represented the people of that State than having them selected by legislators who may not represent the masses? Is that not the point of a (representative) democratic form of governance?

I'm not seeing the problem. True, the legislature should ideally be chosen by the masses, but so too every member of the government. It seems to me that the new system helps prevent a small group from controlling the legislature in the States and, through that, the Senate. Is not a more direct means of choosing senators a better means of preventing such a thing?

Unless you're insisting the People are somehow not competent to choose senators, but that calls the entire concept of representative government into question.

Now if you are concerned that the people, through the direct vote, will not have any say in the federal government we can have another body in the federal government that represents them.

This body already exist and is called the house of representatives. They decide things that directly affect the people such as taxes and war while the Senate decides things that affect states such as treaties and supreme court appointees.

I'mma be honest. It's been a long time since I payed that much attention to the details. I thought both houses had to approve of most things?


Unless the Senate was supposed to be ruled by the few (wealthy) and the House representative of the masses (the proletariat), as with the House of Lords and House of Commons in England?

I can see a reason for that. but I don't recall such system of class division being intended in the US?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It comes down to the fundamentals of one's belief.
If one believes that the country should be a Union of states, as defined in the original constitution, one is for nullification, repealing the progressive income taxes, the 17th amendment ect.
If one believes that the federal government should holdd all power in a central location and dictate to the states, then one is against all those things.

There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking. The real fact is that this very discussion (minus some of the particulars like the 17th amendment) has been going on almost since the inception of the country.

I still don't grasp how the 17th amendment undermined the Union of States. It seems like the earlier system was begging for, in effect, an oligarchy, and the new system was intended to prevent such abuse.

 

[slackjawed]

It comes down to the fundamentals of one's belief.
If one believes that the country should be a Union of states, as defined in the original constitution, one is for nullification, repealing the progressive income taxes, the 17th amendment ect.
If one believes that the federal government should holdd all power in a central location and dictate to the states, then one is against all those things.

There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking. The real fact is that this very discussion (minus some of the particulars like the 17th amendment) has been going on almost since the inception of the country.

I still don't grasp how the 17th amendment undermined the Union of States. It seems like the earlier system was begging for, in effect, an oligarchy, and the new system was intended to prevent such abuse.

As i stated before, the political parties created that 'oligarchy' that caused the problem in the first place. These would have to be controled for it to work-no question.Even G. Washington warned about the political parties causing that very problem. Without limiting the power of the parties in some manner, repealing the 17th would put us in worse shape than we were befre, imho.(I said that before too)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So.... you don't support its repeal, then?

I thought you advocated changing things back in post #2?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How would you reduce the power of the parties? Are they not ultimately merely collections of individuals?

 

[Samson]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

In effect, the Feds "bribe" state elected officials to do their bidding.

Unable to print money, states must maintain a budget, or actually raise taxes, OR RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Some states, Wyoming for example, actually maintains a budget with little federal funding, and little taxation (having almost no population helps).

Other states, California, New York, Florida, are almost hopeless basket-cases even with massive federal funding

Most other states, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, are somewhere in between, but one thing is clear: They all rely heavily on Federal Funding, and the necessary expansion of Federal Debt.

If, at the state level, candidates could be elected on the basis of rejecting all federal funding, and raising state taxes to maintain reduced state services, then we can all begin drinking bubblr-up and eating rainbow stew.

LEADERSHIP at the Federal Level needs to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and simply reduce the size and expense of the Federal Government.

I would like to add to your post that a lot of that federal money goes to states, all states, to administer programs that are MANDATED by the federal government to exist.
In some states, that money wouldn't be needed if the mandate to provide those services was not there.
Bubble up and rainbow stew, hmmm, what time?

Yes, good point, in fact, I'd even say that many (all?) of the Fed mandates are not fully funded by the Feds, and States are forced to pay the balance.

 

[slackjawed]

So.... you don't support its repeal, then?

I thought you advocated changing things back in post #2?

I DO advocate it's repeal, but to make it work, political parties must be limited in their power. Otherwise, we would be worse off.

I guess that's "conditional support". lol

 

[ihopehefails]

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Easy. By having a body in the federal govt that represents the interest of states it provides a natural check on the federal government because state and federal governments want CONTROL. Neither side wants to give it up so so a bill that threatens state sovriegnty will never make it through the Senate or not make it through the Senate easily.

Would not the People electing their representatives better ensure that those chosen represented the people of that State than having them selected by legislators who may not represent the masses? Is that not the point of a (representative) democratic form of governance?

I'm not seeing the problem. True, the legislature should ideally be chosen by the masses, but so too every member of the government. It seems to me that the new system helps prevent a small group from controlling the legislature in the States and, through that, the Senate. Is not a more direct means of choosing senators a better means of preventing such a thing?

Unless you're insisting the People are somehow not competent to choose senators, but that calls the entire concept of representative government into question.

Now if you are concerned that the people, through the direct vote, will not have any say in the federal government we can have another body in the federal government that represents them.

This body already exist and is called the house of representatives. They decide things that directly affect the people such as taxes and war while the Senate decides things that affect states such as treaties and supreme court appointees.

I'mma be honest. It's been a long time since I payed that much attention to the details. I thought both houses had to approve of most things?


Unless the Senate was supposed to be ruled by the few (wealthy) and the House representative of the masses (the proletariat), as with the House of Lords and House of Commons in England?

I can see a reason for that. but I don't recall such system of class division being intended in the US?

I think a lot of people are incompetent to choose their elected officials but regardless of their competency they still retain that right to do so so its not a question of competency but a question of their right to do so. That I don't question.

You seem concerned that states legislatures would control the senate. Well that is the point. They should control it since it is their body but since any bill passed in the senate must also pass the house of representatives any bill passed will always have the approval of the people since the house of representatives is chosen by direct vote of the people of the states.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So we're back to how you limit the parties' power.

1)They're phecking huge

2)They control the congress that would pass any laws on the matter

3)If they're merely collections of people, how do you limit their power without violating the rights of the individual members?

 

[Samson]

It comes down to the fundamentals of one's belief.
If one believes that the country should be a Union of states, as defined in the original constitution, one is for nullification, repealing the progressive income taxes, the 17th amendment ect.
If one believes that the federal government should holdd all power in a central location and dictate to the states, then one is against all those things.

There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking. The real fact is that this very discussion (minus some of the particulars like the 17th amendment) has been going on almost since the inception of the country.

I still don't grasp how the 17th amendment undermined the Union of States. It seems like the earlier system was begging for, in effect, an oligarchy, and the new system was intended to prevent such abuse.

Correct: Repeal of the 17th amendment seems to be a minor concern, mainly of the anti-Hurst-Conservative-Wing-Nuts to throw a red herring (or at least an obstruction) into the Reform Debate.

A much more effective reform would be to limit the size of government: Let's say to an annual budget = $1,000 X the population of the USA = $300+ Billion. Adjust it every 10 years after the census.

Yeah, I know, that's just too goddamn simple.

 

[ihopehefails]

So.... you don't support its repeal, then?

I thought you advocated changing things back in post #2?

I DO advocate it's repeal, but to make it work, political parties must be limited in their power. Otherwise, we would be worse off.

I guess that's "conditional support". lol

Once we get rid of the 17th we can then hall all taxes taken directly out of the state treasuries. It can be a percent of revenue collected. Once that is done the Senate will make sure that that money is spent well or not at all.

 

[slackjawed]

I think the only way to limit the power of political parties, would be to control their spending. That presents constitutional questions that were even a concern of the founders.

There are no easy answers to this debate, none. The answers are all complex and all involve 'unintended consequences'.

But we should note that we are, at this moment, carrying on a tradition of debate/discussion that has been on-going since the country was founded.
We should celebrate the fact that we can do that, and that we are doing that. That is one of the things that makes the country 'great', although I admit it seems we are going downhill at the moment.

 

[ihopehefails]

It comes down to the fundamentals of one's belief.
If one believes that the country should be a Union of states, as defined in the original constitution, one is for nullification, repealing the progressive income taxes, the 17th amendment ect.
If one believes that the federal government should holdd all power in a central location and dictate to the states, then one is against all those things.

There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking. The real fact is that this very discussion (minus some of the particulars like the 17th amendment) has been going on almost since the inception of the country.

I still don't grasp how the 17th amendment undermined the Union of States. It seems like the earlier system was begging for, in effect, an oligarchy, and the new system was intended to prevent such abuse.

Correct: Repeal of the 17th amendment seems to be a minor concern, mainly of the anti-Hurst-Conservative-Wing-Nuts to throw a red herring (or at least an obstruction) into the Reform Debate.

A much more effective reform would be to limit the size of government: Let's say to an annual budget = $1,000 X the population of the USA = $300+ Billion. Adjust it every 10 years after the census.

Yeah, I know, that's just too goddamn simple.

That is a good idea. It would definately control how much taxes they want to take from us.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

 

[slackjawed]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

Perhaps that's all we should give them, and like most families, they make do.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

Perhaps that's all we should give them, and like most families, they make do.

You make do with what you have, but only so much as what you have is sufficient.


In 1884, making do with what you had was impossible. That's why the Left had to reform society so the proletariat ('the working class' in modern parlance) could imporve their condition.


In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

 

[Samson]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

No.

But I'm pretty Goddamn sure that a Government Budget of $10,000/per/year ($3 Trillion/yr), which is somewhere between 25-33% of the average annual income of an American, is too fucking much.

Perhaps we could add this into the equation?

Annual Government Budget = # americans X 10% X the average american's income based on the census every 10 years?

 

[ihopehefails]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

Perhaps that's all we should give them, and like most families, they make do.

You make do with what you have, but only so much as what you have is sufficient.


In 1884, making do with what you had was impossible. That's why the Left had to reform society so the proletariat ('the working class' in modern parlance) could imporve their condition.


In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

The progressive movement was the biggest mistake our country ever took upon itself. Its going to get undone. We are determined to do that.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

No.

But I'm pretty Goddamn sure that a Government Budget of $10,000/per/year ($3 Trillion/yr), which is somewhere between 25-33% of the average annual income of an American, is too fucking much.

Perhaps we could add this into the equation?

Annual Government Budget = # americans X 10% X the average american's income based on the census every 10 years?

A ten-percent tithe? Should suffice for anything we really need.


How would you structure the tax system to reflect this system? A 10% flat tax could be devastating for some of the working poor unless they are exempt. Now I'm no mathematician, but since we're dealing with an average, you'd have to have some kind of progressive tax to still raise that 10% once you exclude those at or below poverty, no?

 

[slackjawed]

Maybe we simply don't need as much government as some would like to think.