We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[JamesMorrison]

Why not just pass legislation prohibiting any state from receiving more federal funds than it contributes?

Conservatives are opposed in principle to taxing the rich to help the poor, so why should the richer "blue" states have their taxes used to help the poorer "red" ones?

You are in luck, there already is a law, generally known, as the U.S. Constitution but specifically referenced as Article 1 Sec. 8 (Powers of Congress) that reads, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ( The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net )

You will be happy to know that the term 'general welfare' in the constitution meant that all were to benefit equally from the central government's few, enumerated, and constitutional efforts. So federal tax and spend legislation that produced this:

FY 2005 RANKINGS: THE RATIO OF FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED AS COMPARED TO FEDERAL FUNDS SENT

Ranking - State - Outlay to Tax Ratio
*******************************
1. New Mexico - $2.03

2. Mississippi - $2.02

3, Alaska - $1.84

4. Louisiana - $1.78

5. West Virginia - $1.76

6. North Dakota - $1.68

7. Alabama - $1.66

8. South Dakota - $1.53

9. Kentucky - $1.51

10. Virginia - $1.51

11. Montana - $1.47

12. Hawaii - $1.44

13. Maine - $1.41

14. Arkansas - $1.41

15. Oklahoma - $1.36

16. South Carolina - $1.35

17. Missouri - $1.32

18.Maryland - $1.30

19. Tennessee - $1.27

20. Idaho - $1.21

21. Arizona - $1.19

22. Kansas - $1.12

23.Wyoming - $1.11

24. Iowa - $1.10

24. Nebraska - $1.10

26. Vermont - $1.08

26. North Carolina - $1.08

28. Pennsylvania - $1.07

28. Utah - $1.07

30. Indiana - $1.05

30. Ohio - $1.05

32.Georgia - $1.01

states receiving more federal funds than they contribute

33. Rhode Island - $1.00

states contributing more federal funds than they receive

34. Florida - $0.97

35. Texas - $0.94

36. Oregon - $0.93

37. Michigan - $0.92

38. Washington - $0.88

39. Wisconsin - $0.86

40. Massachusetts - $0.82

41. Colorado - $0.81

42. New York - $0.79

43. California - $0.78

44. Delaware - $0.77

45. Illinois - $0.75

46. Minnesota - $0.72

47. New Hampshire - $0.71

48. Connecticut - $0.69

49. Nevada - $0.65

50. New Jersey - $0.61

The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

and made you wonder this:

" Conservatives are opposed in principle to taxing the rich to help the poor, so why should the richer "blue" states have their taxes used to help the poorer "red" ones?"

is simply unconstitutional. As is the present progressive tax system that taxes wealthy Americans on an unequal basis. Indeed, Little Jimmie Madison in, Federalist 10 I believe, called the above scheme "wicked". So, if we followed the Constittution as Amended your question would have been avoided in the first place.

It would not be irrelevant to mention here that taxes were, constitutionally, to be applied equally to all involved. This means the progressive income tax system is also unconstitutional. Further, a reading of the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Does not attempt or adjust in any way the understanding that taxes were to be applied equally to all Americans.

JM

 

[Flopper]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government .....

Before "Foxfyre" and "Forbes" get too carried away, it should be noted that "Texas" is the only "red" state that contributes more in federal taxes than it receives!

Before these "visionary conservatives" attempt to impose their collective will on those "blue" states who don't have their "noses in the trough," perhaps they should lead by example and start by getting the financial affairs of their own states in order.

My proposal for a whole new way of thinking about government is that the federal government be prohibited from collecting and dispensing the peoples money for ANY kind of charity and that necessary federal contracts be distributed in an equitable manner among the various states based on population. That should take care of the problem you cite.

So what's YOUR whole new way of thinking about government?

What do you consider equitable?

 

[saveliberty]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

Indeed, a free economy where states compete for the best and brightest of the economy. Instead an artificial "fairness" doctrine exists where it is the responsibility of better off states to support the weak, inefficient and inept.

 

[Flopper]

Can you name ANY federal government entitlement that has run for any time at all that has not substantially exceeded its advertised cost? That is not out of money? That is not obligated for unfunded payments totaling hundreds billions of dollars as far into the distance as we can imagine? Before you make another pitch for a public option, I would appreciate your addressing that question.

No. However, looking at the private sector, have you seen any health insurance company who has not exceeded it's advertised cost and thus not had to raise it's premium? Of course not. Healthcare costs rise and so does the premium. Looking at Medicare, premiums and Medicare taxes have not keep up with the rising healthcare costs. We have chosen to under fund it and so it will operate in the red. It does not mean that it operates less efficiently than the private sector. Only two percent of the Medicare and Medicaid premiums are spent on non-medical expenditures, something private insurances can't match. Non-group insurers run 25 to 40%, small groups run 15 to 25%, and large groups run 5 to 15%.

Only Two Percent of Premiums in Medicare and Medicaid Are Spent on Non Medical Expenditures - The Commonwealth Fund

Social Security is not out of money and never will be. If congress does not act which is very unlikely, the trust fund will be out of money in 2041 but Social Security we will still be collecting social security taxes and will be able to continue payments indefinably at 75%. All of this assume no increase in retirement age, no increase in social security taxes, and no decrease in benefits.
5 myths about Social Security - MSN Money

 

[Flopper]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

Indeed, a free economy where states compete for the best and brightest of the economy. Instead an artificial "fairness" doctrine exists where it is the responsibility of better off states to support the weak, inefficient and inept.

So we would have more competition between states? Those states that are less dependent on federal funds and rich in resources would be able to provide more services at lower cost than their neighbors. Poorer states, more dependent on federal funds would offer less services with higher taxes creating a division between wealthy and poorer states. It might be appropriate to change the name of the country from the United States to Federation of American States, something a little more descriptive.

 

[Foxfyre]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

I know what the situation is. And I know most of the efforts that have already been devised to deal with our situation. Most have fallen way short of their mark.

How do you know poor states would become poorer and wealthier states would become wealthier? Perhaps if they weren't so afraid of losing that federal funding, those poorer states might take some prudent and calculated risks that would provide more opportunity for their citizens so that all who want to could prosper more.

Why shouldn't some drugs be legal in some states and not in others if that is the way the people who live in each want it? The FDA would still be in effect because there is a realistic and practical reason that interstate commerce must be monitored and regulated from the federal level--that is necessary to secure the rights of the people. If one state wants unrestricted abortion on demand while another wants significant restrictions allowed under Roe v Wade, why should each have what they want? If one state wants a 55 mph speed limit and anothe an 80 mph speed limit, what would it be wrong for each to order what they want?

The one single principle behind the U.S. Constitution was that Americans would be a people that would govern themselves and would not be oppressed by an authoritarian king, monarch, feudal lord, dictator, pope, or totalitarian government. It was an experiment that had never ever been tried in the history of the world. And it produced the freest, most productive, most prosperous society the world has ever known.

We need to get back to that principle. These days, it would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

 

[Flopper]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

I know what the situation is. And I know most of the efforts that have already been devised to deal with our situation. Most have fallen way short of their mark.

How do you know poor states would become poorer and wealthier states would become wealthier? Perhaps if they weren't so afraid of losing that federal funding, those poorer states might take some prudent and calculated risks that would provide more opportunity for their citizens so that all who want to could prosper more.

Why shouldn't some drugs be legal in some states and not in others if that is the way the people who live in each want it? The FDA would still be in effect because there is a realistic and practical reason that interstate commerce must be monitored and regulated from the federal level--that is necessary to secure the rights of the people. If one state wants unrestricted abortion on demand while another wants significant restrictions allowed under Roe v Wade, why should each have what they want? If one state wants a 55 mph speed limit and anothe an 80 mph speed limit, what would it be wrong for each to order what they want?

The one single principle behind the U.S. Constitution was that Americans would be a people that would govern themselves and would not be oppressed by an authoritarian king, monarch, feudal lord, dictator, pope, or totalitarian government. It was an experiment that had never ever been tried in the history of the world. And it produced the freest, most productive, most prosperous society the world has ever known.

We need to get back to that principle. These days, it would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Wealthy states that depend less on the federal government for financial support benefit because their federal tax dollars are no longer flowing to poorer states. The opposite is true for poorer states. The wealthier states stand win, the poorer states loose.

What you favor seems to be the dismantling of the United States as we know it today, creating a federation of states for mutual defense. A nation in which the power of government is concentrated in the states which weakens and divides the nation. Loyalty is to state not the nation because the seat of power is in the states.

I guess I believe to much in one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all, to go along with an idea which would weaken the ties that bind our nation together, creating divisions between states and making liberty and justice dependent on where lived.

 

[JamesMorrison]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

There is, of course, no need to 'transfer' functions here or there. These are still where they constitutionally belong. Citizens, like those in the Tea Partys, need only hold their elected officials feet to the constitutional fire. I agree that most Americans would be surprised to learn how far off the constitutional reservation progressives have been able to carry us. True Conservatives are the keepers of the flame of individual liberty. RINOs feel the necessity of compromise thru the political process and this is understandable. Hell, Foxfyre has even given us the example of that conservative stalwart R.Reagan that 'kept spending down' by compromising and splitting the difference between a progressive effort to spend 70 billion and his to spend zero. That type of 'compromise' allowed 35 billion more of taxpayer money to be spent or added to the deficit. Simply put, this is a liberal/progressive tactic that must be stopped. Any compromise with the left moves the country to the left, period. As Fox, I, and others have pointed out, that very well may be changing. Sadly, the impetus for this, and its high probability of implementation, comes from the mere fact that we simply have no more freak'n money and recognize that we should not borrow any more. If there is any legitimacy to the tale that Obama's is a transformative presidency it lies with Americans shocked (via liberal Democratic profligracy) into our present financial position that may rival that of Greece, Ireland, and (soon) Spain that absolutley demands an anti-Social Democratic approach to government.

As far as us being "but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century." The first part of this describes the original 13 colonies under the Articles of Federation. It was the Constitution that made us a viable nation in the form of a democratic Republic. The comparison to the UK seems odd, but you are certainly welcome to flesh that out.

Assuming that "... this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today" refers to the loose federation of nations of yours, you would be wrong. The Preamble to the constitution is quite clear the entity to be created by it was a nation whose name was to be "The United States of America". The states were to function as an other roadblock to central tryanny that would further protect the individual rights of Americans...the ultimate deciders of their government and their own fate.

JM

 

[rdean]

The truth is it's sometimes difficult to explain a situation without it sounding like an insult.

Trillions in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires without a any guarantee that a single job will be created here means crushing debt so American companies can make jobs in China.

The only thing that will save this country is if we make something other countries will want to buy. That means investment in education. We have an entire political party that is hostile to government and hostile to education. It's not the government that needs to change, it's the leadership of a political party that supports damaging policies and frightens their base by saying government is the threat.

 

[mdn2000]

Government is not a threat, its an actual problem, the argument is the government needs more money to spend.

More money from anyone is the confiscation of private property, do you own yourself, do you profit from what you do, is your labor not your private property. What gives rdean or any other person the right to demand that our private property be confiscated.

 

[mdn2000]

Sounds Marxist to me, we have no private property, all we have is the governments, hence we are taxed yearly on our real estate property. We are taxed on our wages, we are taxed when we spend. We are given the privilege to drive. Even to leave the country we must pay a tax and apply for a document to leave called a passport.

More tax, more tax, more tax, the government confiscates more private property every year and its never enough, they need more, take more from the rich, the government will spend that money and want even more tax, after the rich its our turn. Thing the government has reached its limit of the amount they will spend, just give them more and see if they spend it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.

I know what the situation is. And I know most of the efforts that have already been devised to deal with our situation. Most have fallen way short of their mark.

How do you know poor states would become poorer and wealthier states would become wealthier? Perhaps if they weren't so afraid of losing that federal funding, those poorer states might take some prudent and calculated risks that would provide more opportunity for their citizens so that all who want to could prosper more.

Why shouldn't some drugs be legal in some states and not in others if that is the way the people who live in each want it? The FDA would still be in effect because there is a realistic and practical reason that interstate commerce must be monitored and regulated from the federal level--that is necessary to secure the rights of the people. If one state wants unrestricted abortion on demand while another wants significant restrictions allowed under Roe v Wade, why should each have what they want? If one state wants a 55 mph speed limit and anothe an 80 mph speed limit, what would it be wrong for each to order what they want?

The one single principle behind the U.S. Constitution was that Americans would be a people that would govern themselves and would not be oppressed by an authoritarian king, monarch, feudal lord, dictator, pope, or totalitarian government. It was an experiment that had never ever been tried in the history of the world. And it produced the freest, most productive, most prosperous society the world has ever known.

We need to get back to that principle. These days, it would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Wealthy states that depend less on the federal government for financial support benefit because their federal tax dollars are no longer flowing to poorer states. The opposite is true for poorer states. The wealthier states stand win, the poorer states loose.

What you favor seems to be the dismantling of the United States as we know it today, creating a federation of states for mutual defense. A nation in which the power of government is concentrated in the states which weakens and divides the nation. Loyalty is to state not the nation because the seat of power is in the states.

I guess I believe to much in one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all, to go along with an idea which would weaken the ties that bind our nation together, creating divisions between states and making liberty and justice dependent on where lived.

You cannot give something to Citizen B without taking something from Citizen A. The more you weaken Citizen A, the less he will be productive in ways that will utlimately benefit Citizen B. That is why a healthy GNP and individual prosperity don't last for long under socialist or totalitarian governments.

How did poor states become poor? What made them dependent on the federal government for their existence. And how do you square it as a healthy thing that they are dependent? States like individuals need to find out what their strengths are and prosper to the best of their ability on their own merits. In so doing it is a near certainty that far more will prosper than will be the case with continued dependence on the national teat.


We need to wean people off the national teat and return commerce and industry to the people wherever they are as the Founders intended. For many that would definitely be a whole new way of looking at government.

 

[Richard-H]

Isn't it weird that the wealthiest states are almost all Liberal states and the poorest states are all conservatives states?

Hawaii, New Jersy, Connecticut, Massachusetts...all wealthy.

Alabama, Mississippi etc. all poor.

Isn't it also so strange that the U.S. rates 12th in standard of living - out ranked by by almost all European style "Socialist" countries? ('cept for the Swiss - 'cause they get all of our money).

Isn't it strange how the U.S. producing 24% of the world's wealth, but doesn't have the highest average standard of living?

Get a clue - Liberal annd socialist economics work and work well. Dumb asses!

 

[Flopper]

Isn't it weird that the wealthiest states are almost all Liberal states and the poorest states are all conservatives states?

Hawaii, New Jersy, Connecticut, Massachusetts...all wealthy.

Alabama, Mississippi etc. all poor.

Isn't it also so strange that the U.S. rates 12th in standard of living - out ranked by by almost all European style "Socialist" countries? ('cept for the Swiss - 'cause they get all of our money).

Isn't it strange how the U.S. producing 24% of the world's wealth, but doesn't have the highest average standard of living?

Get a clue - Liberal annd socialist economics work and work well. Dumb asses!

I agree with you to a point.

There are no true socialist economies just as their are no true capitalist economies. Regulated capitalism is the economic system for vast majority of developed countries. Truer forms of capitalist existed in America and Europe in th 19th century which created boom or bust economics and intolerable social problems for all but the wealthy. Socialism which seems to work best in underdeveloped countries creates social equality at the expense of economic progress.

Socialism for a few services in society that capitalism does not produced the desired results and regulated capitalism for the remainder of society seems to produce the best results.

 

[saveliberty]

Isn't it weird that the wealthiest states are almost all Liberal states and the poorest states are all conservatives states?

Hawaii, New Jersy, Connecticut, Massachusetts...all wealthy.

Alabama, Mississippi etc. all poor.

Isn't it also so strange that the U.S. rates 12th in standard of living - out ranked by by almost all European style "Socialist" countries? ('cept for the Swiss - 'cause they get all of our money).

Isn't it strange how the U.S. producing 24% of the world's wealth, but doesn't have the highest average standard of living?

Get a clue - Liberal annd socialist economics work and work well. Dumb asses!

Isn't it weird that MORE socialist states are at the brink of bankruptcy or nearly have no economy at all (Greece, most African nations and a few other European states)

Isn't it strange most people would like to live in the US?

Isn't it strange how we share our wealth with the world?

Isn't it strange you can't understand this?

 

[mdn2000]

Isn't it weird that the wealthiest states are almost all Liberal states and the poorest states are all conservatives states?

Hawaii, New Jersy, Connecticut, Massachusetts...all wealthy.

Alabama, Mississippi etc. all poor.

Isn't it also so strange that the U.S. rates 12th in standard of living - out ranked by by almost all European style "Socialist" countries? ('cept for the Swiss - 'cause they get all of our money).

Isn't it strange how the U.S. producing 24% of the world's wealth, but doesn't have the highest average standard of living?

Get a clue - Liberal annd socialist economics work and work well. Dumb asses!

Is it not funny on how all Socialist economies had to receive money from the USA, much of it never repaid. Socialism is only working when they borrow or take, they borrowed billions from us to get to where they are today, a Euro in serious trouble. Is it not strange how we gave a market to all these socialist countries so they could prosper.

Take away the USA and there is no socialist countries, they all exist because of us.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we believe in unalienable rights, we have to accept that some people will CHOOSE to give up personal freedoms in order to live in a socialist state where they are guaranteed cradle to grave security. Such people I believe are in a distinct mnority.

According to 2010 statistics, the over all development or standard of living put Norway at #1, Australia at #2, New Zealand at #3, and the USA at #4. New Zealand has a population slightly less than Los Angeles; Norway about a million more. Australia's population is considerably less than that of the single State of Texas.

All three countries enforce much more strict immigration polices than we do, impose greater restrictions on what new immigrants may be entitled to, all enjoy a much more homogenous culture than we do, and all are struggling to provide social entitlements even as their populations are resisting higher and higher taxes to pay for them.

I read somewhere that the New Zealanders are looking at the Chilean model for social services. Chile began privatizing all its social entitlements in 1981 and that seems to have produced positive results and benefits as it is the most free country in all of Central and South America. The policy in Chile now is that if you don't work you don't eat. (Private charities, friends, and families take care of the truly helpless there.) Because of its leftist government, taxes are still burdensome there. If they correct that situation, Chile will be a shining model for the world.

We cannot continue as we are. I think any intelligent educated person knows that. But the solution to me is not to just keep tinkering with big government and allowing government more and more power in hopes that the problems will be fixed.

I think we need a whole new way of looking at government and begin the process of reversing the damage we have been doing to ourselves over the last hundred years.

 

[Flopper]

If we believe in unalienable rights, we have to accept that some people will CHOOSE to give up personal freedoms in order to live in a socialist state where they are guaranteed cradle to grave security. Such people I believe are in a distinct mnority.

According to 2010 statistics, the over all development or standard of living put Norway at #1, Australia at #2, New Zealand at #3, and the USA at #4. New Zealand has a population slightly less than Los Angeles; Norway about a million more. Australia's population is considerably less than that of the single State of Texas.

All three countries enforce much more strict immigration polices than we do, impose greater restrictions on what new immigrants may be entitled to, all enjoy a much more homogenous culture than we do, and all are struggling to provide social entitlements even as their populations are resisting higher and higher taxes to pay for them.

I read somewhere that the New Zealanders are looking at the Chilean model for social services. Chile began privatizing all its social entitlements in 1981 and that seems to have produced positive results and benefits as it is the most free country in all of Central and South America. The policy in Chile now is that if you don't work you don't eat. (Private charities, friends, and families take care of the truly helpless there.) Because of its leftist government, taxes are still burdensome there. If they correct that situation, Chile will be a shining model for the world.

We cannot continue as we are. I think any intelligent educated person knows that. But the solution to me is not to just keep tinkering with big government and allowing government more and more power in hopes that the problems will be fixed.

I think we need a whole new way of looking at government and begin the process of reversing the damage we have been doing to ourselves over the last hundred years.

I can agree with part of your post. We can not continue as we are. Half the people do not pay any income tax. Believe it or not, Americans enjoy some of the lowest income tax rates in the world.

When you look at the overall tax burden, the U.S. is quite low," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., and former director of the office of research for the Internal Revenue Service. For a family with one wage-earner and two children, only Iceland and Ireland have a lower income tax burden than the U.S., according to the most recent data for 2005.

I am not suggesting tax increases as a sole means of solving our deficit problems but rather a complete package of spending cuts coupled with increases in taxes.

Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Federal and State Government invite corruption when it dispenses charity
Government is too big, too intrusive, too expensive.
The Federal Government should secure our rights and then leave us alone.


Those were my choices

 

[Jackson]

I can see in the future a Nation Constitutional Convention that will outline specifically what will be the federal government obligations and the obligations of the states. More tax money will return to the states where they belong and the Congress can no longer make federal laws that involve state costs and do not include funding.