Maybe things are getting a little out of control...

Random Ramblings
41

I don’t think anyone is calling for no govt or no taxes here.But when the govt interjects into the private sector is when there’s massive waste and corruption.The govt had just as much of a hand in the housing crash as wall street,period.And does anyone remember how well "cash for clunkers"went?

The govt is suppose to regulate and makes laws for the welfare of the economy,not interject itself into a business thinking it can fix it.These lawyers(aka politicians)are lazy and don’t offer laws to solve any problems anymore.It’s so much easier to throw our money away(bailout)then attach a takeover to something they have no idea about,then to actually figure out how it happened and avoid it with LAWS AGAINST IT.

What a stupid cycle this govt is in.Which proves they have never ran any type of business.Normal business has a limit of loss and knows when something does’nt work,YOU DON’T CONTINUE TO DO IT.

42

Bickering over whether an FDA, FAA, CIA, FBI, and all other government 3 letters is constitutional, is a mute point by now. I am sure there will be some unintended consequences by closing these inefficient agencies, but what is the alternative? Can the private sector do these things? Probably, but we will never know. We do know now that the bigger our federal government gets, the smaller our private sector becomes. They go hand in hand.

Our government cannot continue to do the things it is doing for a simple reason, the money will inflate to nothing. Unfortunately to people like us, there is too much to be made in the current system of government for it to stop. The best you can do is prepare at this point. Stockpile food, silver, drill a well if you don’t have one, plenty of guns and ammo…basic survival stuff.

Not because I a stranger on an internet forum is telling you so, but because there are way too many smart creditable people out there telling you so. A basic understanding of Austrian economics goes a long ways too.

Here is a guy with a warning you can’t ignore:

http://www.abc6.com/news/41131932.html

43

Perhaps you missed this part…

In McCulloch vs Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall notes that the Constitution is not a statute, and suggests that it should be read more liberally and flexibly than a statute so that it might serve the ages.

Do you see the part serve the ages…

Things change over 200 years and while I appreciate all the time you spent cutting and pasting those quotes the simple fact is that times change. To advance as far as this country has over the last 200+ years the federal government has had to step in more often. Jake Rodgers make a great point. If we abolished all of the services provided by the federal government would individual states be able to step in and fill the void? Would private businesses? The answer is no! And everytime a person or a family moved from one place to another it would be like starting over unless you were in the military.

44

I can’t believe you keep posting one of the worst supreme court decisions of US history, on this website.

What is the point of having a constitution if you can interpret it “liberally and flexibly”?? The problem you should have with this, whether you are a democrat, republican, libertarian, etc. You may like how one particular person or a group of people interpret the constitution at any given time, but what about the next guy, who now has just as much right to interpret it the way he feels in the future. What if this guy is completely against everything you stand for, do you now like the way the constitution is being “liberally and flexibly” interpreted??

BOTTOM LINE: The constitution was written to control the human element, something that has not changed in 200 years. I thought everyone knew this.

45

The constitution was based on PRINCIPLES. That is why we have the supreme court. To intepret it. Perhaps you could explain to us why it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ever?

46

What I find to be even more incredulous is that you talk about following the Constitution to the letter, but when it comes to something you don’t agree with (like the 16th and 17th amendments) you want to change it.

You can’t have it both ways.

47

[i][b]"Perhaps you missed this part… In McCulloch vs Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall notes that the Constitution is not a statute, and suggests that it should be read more liberally and flexibly than a statute so that it might serve the ages.

Do you see the part serve the ages…"[/b][/i]

Christopher, what you fail to realize is that the Constitution is the BASIS for the laws of the land… laws are written based on their constitutionality and are challenged all the time… expect that to be the case if mandated heathcare passes… if it were “flexible” like you say, there would be no NEED for ammendments nor for limiting the powers and size of government… they could just make the law…

Re-read the quotes, and you will see this is in direct contrast to the people who WROTE it… they did not view it as “flexibile”, and WARNED AGAINST it…

“Things change over 200 years and while I appreciate all the time you spent cutting and pasting those quotes the simple fact is that times change. To advance as far as this country has over the last 200+ years the federal government has had to step in more often.”

Gradualism… exactly my point, and what was WARNED AGAINST by the Founding Fathers… In addition to ammendments (which make it HARDER for the govnernment to usurpe authority), it also provides for a Constitutional Convention… They provided the tools…

“Jake Rodgers make a great point. If we abolished all of the services provided by the federal government would individual states be able to step in and fill the void? Would private businesses? The answer is no!”

I disagree… if history teaches us nothing else, it is that the more you increase the size of government, the MORE corruption that ensues (which currenrly costs us HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS and soon to be in the TRILLIONS of dollars annually), and the loss of freedom is the victim, resulting in eventual tyranny… it has never beem different through history… people are watching history repeat itself… the Founding Fathers used words like - calamity, subversive, submission, contrary, confined, etc… in warning against what you say…

“And everytime a person or a family moved from one place to another it would be like starting over unless you were in the military.”

It is that way now… Go from New Jersey, where guns are frowned upon to Texas, where they bear arms, and you have to ask, which one is more consistent with the Constitution… there was a reason they said “arms”, and not specifically muskets, or cannons, etc…

48

Its funny that you say they “warned against it” yet Thomas Jefferson used the principle of implied powers to complete the Louisiana purchase.

It was impossible for the founding fathers to look 200 years into the future and see how far this country has come. That is the reason this was put into the Constitution. To prepare for the future.

Some of these men were so far ahead of their time. I wonder why we don’t have people like that in our Government now?? Seriously who could be considered a modern day Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin??

49

Ron Paul.

50

At least you didn’t say Lyndon Larouche.

51

Glenn Beck is another. lol… jk

52

Christopher,

“Its funny that you say they “warned against it” yet Thomas Jefferson used the principle of implied powers to complete the Louisiana purchase.”

It is not me saying it… it is their quotes… I was just quoting them on it… your argument is with them…

"It was impossible for the founding fathers to look 200 years into the future and see how far this country has come. That is the reason this was put into the Constitution. To prepare for the future. "

The reason WHAT was put into the Constitution? Implied powers? No, they accomodated for the future through the Ammendment Process and Constututional Convention…

“Some of these men were so far ahead of their time. I wonder why we don’t have people like that in our Government now?? Seriously who could be considered a modern day Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin??”

When it became a career as opposed to a duty, it imbedded the corruption… it just presents itself more and more over time and the larger the government gets…

I have a question… how big of a government do we need?

53

That is the question. We need a government that is big enough. We have to remember that this is a big country. You can’t run it with the size government that runs Luxemburg. We need to decide what we want our government to do for us and then size it accordingly. There are a lot of things that I don’t need to government to do for me but you may need it done for you. Does that mean I should fight to have that taken away? I believe that the government can’t be everything for everybody but invariably we will have a program that I have no use for whatsoever that the government will need to be doing. You would argue that only the programs that you need should stay and all others need to go. I say it is like saying the government needs to only pave the street in front of my house. I say that all the roads need to be paved (using my money also) although I will never drive in front of your house. Were it not for rural electrification the Hoosier would be reading his college books by candle light .

54

Why cant we just follow the Constitution, giving only a few neccessary powers to the Federal Government, and leaving the rest to the States?

Military and Post Roads can all be done be the Fed Gov. But your making it seem like the States couldnt handle building roads and supplying electricity, and I couldnt disagree more. The larger the Government, the less accountable people can be held.

Its the same principle with a business. If a business only had 5 employees, its REALLY hard to get away with slacking, but if you work for a business with 5000 employees, you can sleep at work. (GM is a good example, you know, the guys our OVERPOWERED Federal Government bailed out!)

What I bolded… YES you should fight against it. If I dont need something, I shouldnt pay for it on the Federal Level.(unless the Constittion calls for it. We MUST give the States more power. If a State wants National Health Care, Big Government Programs, whatever it is, let them debate it on the State level.

55

Hoosier,

Finally a good solid post. You didn’t call anyone a marxist or a liberal. Bravo!!

You make some good points, but what will happen is that you will have the exact same thing that is happening in Major League Baseball. You will have the HAVE states like Texas, and the HAVE NOT states like Michigan. And eventually the Federal Government will be bailing out entire states instead of just select industries. I agree with you that the Federal Government does not need to have its hand in everything. Like you I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Obama (believe it or not) even though I do find him to be very polarizing. The Constitution is an incredibly complex document for its size (it is the shortest constitution in the modern world), and while you are arguing that the Government should only have the powers given in the Constitution there are others that believe that the Federal government also has powers not expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

56

Christopher,

“The Constitution is an incredibly complex document for its size (it is the shortest constitution in the modern world), and while you are arguing that the Government should only have the powers given in the Constitution there are others that believe that the Federal government also has powers not expressly forbidden in the Constitution.”

My problem with that is then there is no limited powers for the Federal Government, only what people can dream up, and what was warned against… There is an infinite number that are not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, so unless we stick with the limited powers, we end up go down the road we are now… it’s just a matter of time before your ox is gored…

57

Glenn Beck is another. lol… jk

Just as long as you don’t say Alex Jones. :bs

58

I think the heart of the problem is people think America is a Democracy, rather than a Republic.

I think today we DO live in a Democracy instead of a Republic, which is sad. Our Founding Fathers DID NOT WANT THIS. They warned MANY times against it. I was reading the Federalist papers and James Madison in the Federalist Papers #10 talks about why America needs to be a Republic instead of a Democracy.

John Adams in 1814 said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

But on the other hand, two individuals who thought a democracy essential were Vladimir Lenin who said: “Democracy is indispensable to Socialism”, and Karl Marx who said: “Democracy is the road to Socialism.”

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep.

We need to understand that just because the majority of people want something, that doesnt give them the right to take it away from the few who have it.

Ask yourselves, do the politicians we’ve had the last 20 years even appreciate what a Republic is? This is what made our country great. Why are we settling for Socialists/Marxists? None of the loons today in Washington are even 1/2 as intelligent as Ben Franklin/Thomas J./ James M., yet we listen to there philosophies and vote for them, even when they’ve never worked in any Government throughout history.

59

What!! Did your buzz wear off? You actually made since. The problem with a democracy is that eventually the masses realize that they can vote to give themselves the key to the treasury.

That is what we have now.

60

Bluemoon,
A "key"to treasury,?More like a revolving door,lol.Did any of you see Bawnee fwank(aka barney frank,aka the banking queen)'s speech on taking over more than the banks.As geitner(turbo tax einstien)grins happily.Sick puppies are lose in Washington.