It's already past time to panic

[fossten]

I'm convinced that it is already past time to panic.

I'm going to establish a premise and then make a point based on that premise.

The Democrats have historically sought to incrementally grow the Federal Government, in size and scope. But the Republicans have NOT historically sought to DECREASE the size and scope of the Fed. They have only sought to SLOW the growth of the Fed. There is no hope that a radical conservative will ever take office and have enough power to quickly undo much of the damage that has already been done.

Given that incrementalism is the key to changing government, there's no way to get it back through the electoral process. Even with 8 years of Bush, the government GREW!! It would take 100 consecutive years of conservative government to reduce the government down to a manageable level. That won't happen.

It's already too late to panic. This isn't a political pendulum, it's a ratcheting noose. We have already lost our liberties.

So what are we supposed to do, move to Antarctica?

You say, but what about the Constitution?

The Constitution is powerless to stop these people. It has the commerce clause loophole in it which is being exploited to the Nth degree. And you can forget about the SCOTUS, they are a PART of the FED! They're unelected officials with limitless power who have been appointed by the Executive Branch. Who are they going to be loyal to?

We have three branches of government, and ALL THREE are on the same side. That's not checks and balances, that's simply three foxes guarding the henhouse. Occasionally they bicker about who gets to eat how many chickens, but in the end the chickens all get eaten.

 

[shagdrum]

I must say, I think we are seeing a change building. I may very well be wrong, and it is hardly something that can be proven, but it is my opinion.

There is a populist rage building against inside-the-beltway elites. This is due to the dominance of liberals since FDR (which was a culmination of a populist anger against big business, among other factors). Goldwater was the first gasp of a revolt against it, then Reagan. I think this is the last gasp of the push toward euro-socialism. If they get the public option, it will push us over the edge, if not, then I think this administration and congress may be the straw that broke the camel's back on liberalism here. I think you will start to see a gradual turn away from euro-socialism and back toward founding principles.

Again, I may be wrong, but that is my opinion.

 

[fossten]

You're talking about a physical, mob-like revolt. The problem with that is, there aren't enough statesmen in this country to take charge and do the right things. The likely result of a vacuum is a dictatorship/oligarchy.

Even Reagan didn't shrink the size/scope/power of the Fed.

The government itself, not the parties, not the Congress, not the Senate, not the Executive, but the Federal Government, is too big and too powerful to allow itself to be rolled back. Even if the Libertarians won 60 Senate seats, 300 House seats, and the Presidency, it couldn't be done. It would be too drastic and there are voting blocs that wouldn't allow it. Incrementalism is the only way to change government, and we're 100 years toward socialism. We've already lost our freedoms. The next step is absolute tyranny.

The only way I see it happening is an absolute physical revolt by the individual states. And remember what Lincoln did the last time that was tried. We're talking major bloodshed.

 

[Calabrio]

...you're familiar with the Cloward Piven Strategy, and how it seeks to collapse the system to then impose the marxist principles. Perhaps there's a way to reverse that and, following the collapsed system, traditional Americanism is used to fill the void.

The economic collapse is essentially inevitable, and undeniable. If anyone here thinks that a 12T defecit that will DOUBLE in 10 years, without factoring cap&trade and socialized medicine, is sustainable, you're mental. But that doesn't necessitate physical revolts.

It can be saved at the grassroots and states level. Through political and judicial challenges.

But that means people need to start educating their neighbors. Not even on the "what's going on right now stuff," but more importantly on the philosophy and debate that formed this great country. WHY do/did we have these rights. What was limited government about. What are states rights. What is federalism. What is freedom. What is American exceptionalism. All the great philosophical and intellectual stuff that they don't teach in schools and kids don't think they'll ever "need to know in real life."

If there is robust STATE level action, a lot can be accomplished, especially if it's done through the courts. Provided the federal courts stay reasonable.

But even the best case scenarios are going to be rough.

A GOP victory in 2010 will improve things, but not dramatically enough.
The rights candidate and winner, from the GOP or 3rd party, could fix things, but not without discomfort. Pain is inevitable now.

All those wonderful "progressive" policies of the past century have bankrupt us. In eras of excess, we could afford them. When most of the world lie in the shambles and destruction that followed WW2, we had the luxury of being able to briefly afford them. That was a half century ago.

 

[fossten]

If there is robust STATE level action, a lot can be accomplished, especially if it's done through the courts. Provided the federal courts stay reasonable.

That's a pretty big 'if.'

There is no way to reverse the tide of fascism through the political or judicial process. All branches of government are on the same side. The SCOTUS itself is a Fed branch, and there is no way to reverse SCOTUS decisions, other than the SCOTUS itself. It's like students grading their own tests. Federal judges are appointed by Obama now. You think they're suddenly going to start siding with the Libertarians?

And this 'checks and balances' baloney is nothing more than staggered elections which makes it impossible for public sentiment to enact quick or radical changes in government.

We don't have a 'federal' government, we have a 'national' government. There's a difference.

The Constitution itself is the problem. It's written so that the National government ends up seizing power and growing to a totalitarian state. The Constitution as written needs to be scrapped. We need to go back to the Articles of Confederation and reestablish the rights of the States instead of giving unassailable power to the National government.

When people begin to starve after the economy collapses, there will be a physical revolt. The real question is, do we want to wait for that or do we want to do it now while we still have a country to save.

Yeah, I said it.

 

[foxpaws]

So, shag, how do you feel about Foss's statement...

The Constitution as written needs to be scrapped.

Foss - I know you wanted to move to Estonia (or some ex soviet satellite), maybe now is a good time...

 

[foxpaws]

The economic collapse is essentially inevitable, and undeniable. If anyone here thinks that a 12T defecit that will DOUBLE in 10 years, without factoring cap&trade and socialized medicine, is sustainable, you're mental. But that doesn't necessitate physical revolts.

Cal - were you this vocal and this frightened when Reagan tripled the deficit in 8 years?

Do you think that your 're-education' program really has a chance - can the majority of Americans really grasp what made America great?

The pendulum will swing - I think we will see a return to Reaganism type policies in the next 8 years... But, Reagan didn't really push states rights - it has become a rather difficult thing to grasp. We are a nation of people, not a populace of states. I think it would be too hard to redefine that viewpoint at this juncture to create any impetus of change down that road.

 

[PetesSweets86]

Panic at yo disco!

 

[fossten]

Cal - were you this vocal and this frightened when Reagan tripled the deficit in 8 years?

I'll address this RED HERRING. Um...who passes budget bills again? If you give Reagan criticism for this, surely you must also give him credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union by outspending them on defense. If the President takes full responsibility for spending and all.

Do you think that your 're-education' program really has a chance - can the majority of Americans really grasp what made America great?

Probably not. You don't.

The pendulum will swing - I think we will see a return to Reaganism type policies in the next 8 years... But, Reagan didn't really push states rights - it has become a rather difficult thing to grasp. We are a nation of people, not a populace of states. I think it would be too hard to redefine that viewpoint at this juncture to create any impetus of change down that road.

This isn't a pendulum. It's a ratcheting noose. Please name for me any year when our National Government actually shrank in size, scope, spending, and/or power. Kthx.

 

[foxpaws]

I'll address this RED HERRING. Um...who passes budget bills again? If you give Reagan criticism for this, surely you must also give him credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union by outspending them on defense. If the President takes full responsibility for spending and all.

Yep - I credit Reagan for spending us almost into oblivion to bring down the Soviet Union which couldn't keep up with us. Probably a whole 4 or 5 years before the Soviet Union would have collapsed because it was on the way to capitalism anyway.

Probably not. You don't.

I happen to think the constitution is a great basis for a federal government - you obviously don't. Our founding fathers also thought it was a rather good document to base a nation on, who do you think understands what made this nation great? Someone who thinks the constitution should be struck down - or someone who thinks it should be upheld?

This isn't a pendulum. It's a ratcheting noose. Please name for me any year when our National Government actually shrank in size, scope, spending, and/or power. Kthx.

Under Madison - but I can't remember particulars - I'll have to look them up. And of course the years following almost every war we have waged spending goes down along with the size of government... But I think Madison did it without the cache of less spending because cessation of a war, I think he actually decreased the size of government.

So - off to Estonia soon?

 

[fossten]

Yep - I credit Reagan for spending us almost into oblivion to bring down the Soviet Union which couldn't keep up with us. Probably a whole 4 or 5 years before the Soviet Union would have collapsed because it was on the way to capitalism anyway.

So you don't believe that the legislative branch is responsible for budgets? How quaint. By the way, do you know the ratio of defense spending to entitlement spending vis-a-vis the Federal budget?

I happen to think the constitution is a great basis for a federal government - you obviously don't. Our founding fathers also thought it was a rather good document to base a nation on, who do you think understands what made this nation great? Someone who thinks the constitution should be struck down - or someone who thinks it should be upheld?

That's where you're wrong. The Constitution is a great basis for a NATIONAL government, not a federal government. There's a difference, not that you'd know it. Oops!

Actually, very few of our founding fathers had a say in how the Constitution was written, and the states were basically frozen out. Most of those who wrote the Constitution were politicians, lawyers, and writers. While I admit that I was taught 'document worship' as a child, now that I've examined the evidence, I have realized that it was designed with a coup de'tat in mind.

Quick quiz for you, fox - what percentage of state delegates that were selected to go to the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 actually voted on the Constitution?

Argument ad hominem and argument by authority? Weak, fox. Sorry you are unwilling to listen, but maybe somebody else here has an open mind.

Under Madison - but I can't remember particulars - I'll have to look them up. And of course the years following almost every war we have waged spending goes down along with the size of government... But I think Madison did it without the cache of less spending because cessation of a war, I think he actually decreased the size of government.

You 'think.' So, without any cites or evidence, your best 'guess' is that the only time the government actually shrank was around 200 years ago?

I rest my case.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - were you this vocal and this frightened when Reagan tripled the deficit in 8 years?

No, but in fairness, I was pretty busy starting elementary school.

And it's interesting how your repeating the claim that Reagan "tripled the national debt." First, this fails to recognize the responsibility of the Congress for the increase in spending. Revenues doubled while Reagan was in office, the Democrat congress continued to spend recklessly.

Second, it's not true, it's an exaggeration.
And worse yet, the context in which your making this claim is deceptive.

Right now, the OMB is anticipating that the recognized debt will be nearly $24 Trillion dollars by the end of the next decade. And that figure is without calculating the cost of the health care or cap and trade, or whatever government takeovers this administration has in mind.

Is doubling the deficit from $1 to $2T, or tripling it to $3T, the same as doubling it from $12T to $24T. Is adding 2T to a 1T debt the same kind of emergency or cause for concern as adding another $24T to a $12T debt?

The budget deficit under Obama so far THIS YEAR ALONG is almost equal to the entire deficit following 8 years of Reagan and the Democrat congress, the cold war, and the revival of the armed forces.

And none of those numbers take into account the unfunded liabilities and hidden debt.
That's a separate set of books and another hundred plus trillion dollars.

Do you think that your 're-education' program really has a chance -

I wasn't aware that I had a program... I can really only hope to influence those people around me, and maybe a handful of people on the internet.

can the majority of Americans really grasp what made America great?

They absolutely can... and need to.

The pendulum will swing - I think we will see a return to Reaganism type policies in the next 8 years... But, Reagan didn't really push states rights - it has become a rather difficult thing to grasp. We are a nation of people, not a populace of states. I think it would be too hard to redefine that viewpoint at this juncture to create any impetus of change down that road.

If the status quo was sustainable, you might be right.
And in the past, you were right.


And to address the broader tone of this thread,
there is nothing glamorous, romantic, or desirable about any kind of armed revolution, bloodshed, or the like.
That is a horrible nightmare. It will destroy generations and the outcome of such things are never guaranteed and rarely turn out as expected.

And in stark, glaring contrast to Fossten, I DO think the Constitution is an inspired document.
I absolutely DO NOT think it should be scrapped.
The Articles of Confederation did not work, that's why the Constitution was written.
It was the result of compromise, but the outcome was one of magnificent balance and foresight.

You can read the federalist and anti-federalist papers online for free.
Clearly, Fossten would have been more closely aligned with the anti-federalists.

 

[foxpaws]

So you don't believe that the legislative branch is responsible for budgets? How quaint. By the way, do you know the ratio of defense spending to entitlement spending vis-a-vis the Federal budget?

to quote Truman - the buck stops here... And yes I do know what the ratio of defense spending in peace time is compared to the entirety of the Federal budget, and also what the ratio of defense spending during the Reagan years (peacetime) compared to the entirety of the Federal budget.

That's where you're wrong. The Constitution is a great basis for a NATIONAL government, not a federal government. There's a difference, not that you'd know it. Oops!

Actually, very few of our founding fathers had a say in how the Constitution was written, and the states were basically frozen out. Most of those who wrote the Constitution were politicians, lawyers, and writers. While I admit that I was taught 'document worship' as a child, now that I've examined the evidence, I have realized that it was designed with a coup de'tat in mind.

It shouldn't be worshiped - I have stated that on this site many times before - but, it is an exceptional basis for a Federal form of government. Not 'National' but 'Federal'. There is a huge difference between how our constitution outlines government in comparison to how the laws that set up the government in England or France which advocate a strong national government. Whether or not it is followed currently is a whole different matter -

What is the coup de'tat that lies within its language Foss?

Quick quiz for you, fox - what percentage of state delegates that were selected to go to the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 actually voted on the Constitution?

gosh, 39 of the 55 deputies signed it, but not all 55 actually participated, some of them never even showed up - because some disagreed with the convention, and others were just neglectful, I don't know how many were actually present for the 'vote' - however - all 13 states ratified it....

Argument ad hominem and argument by authority? Weak, fox. Sorry you are unwilling to listen, but maybe somebody else here has an open mind.

it isn't perfect - nothing written by man could be- but foss, would you really destroy the constitution in your quest for a more perfect 'America'?

You 'think.' So, without any cites or evidence, your best 'guess' is that the only time the government actually shrank was around 200 years ago?

I rest my case.

Yep - I think - I don't have government size at my fingertips, especially back to the time of Madison - and it would have to be in the years 1809 to 1811, before the war of 1812 and the years following, which would give a false peak and valley because of the war.

heck - a better view would be in the early years of this country there was about 1 government 'employee' for every 120 people (approx), now I believe it is 1 government employee for every 28 people. Government is too big... but is that the fault of the constitution? How do you lay blame at its doorstep?

 

[shagdrum]

4 posts and she has already made the thread about her...

 

[foxpaws]

No, but in fairness, I was pretty busy starting elementary school.

And it's interesting how your repeating the claim that Reagan "tripled the national debt." First, this fails to recognize the responsibility of the Congress for the increase in spending. Revenues doubled while Reagan was in office, the Democrat congress continued to spend recklessly.

Second, it's not true, it's an exaggeration.

it is true - and not an exaggeration - - it is easy to go to the government budget office and look at historical data

And worse yet, the context in which your making this claim is deceptive.

Right now, the OMB is anticipating that the recognized debt will be nearly $24 Trillion dollars by the end of the next decade. And that figure is without calculating the cost of the health care or cap and trade, or whatever government takeovers this administration has in mind.

Is doubling the deficit from $1 to $2T, or tripling it to $3T, the same as doubling it from $12T to $24T. Is adding 2T to a 1T debt the same kind of emergency or cause for concern as adding another $24T to a $12T debt?

The budget deficit under Obama so far THIS YEAR ALONG is almost equal to the entire deficit following 8 years of Reagan and the Democrat congress, the cold war, and the revival of the armed forces.

And none of those numbers take into account the unfunded liabilities and hidden debt.
That's a separate set of books and another hundred plus trillion dollars.

There are many, many ways to look at the deficit - heck - you are looking at those trillions in reagan's years as 80s dollars... but, you are right- 12 trillion is a scary, scary number - the almost 7 trillion that Bush added in 8 years was frightening, and that 7 trillion doesn't include those 'unfunded liabilities' of the war and all of its hidden costs which will be continued to be felt over many many years. It will be hard to stop the train that Bush started - a trillion a year to the deficit - that is pretty much what is projected for Obama - Bush added slightly under 1 trillion each year, Obama will add slightly over 1 trillion each year. I don't think there are simple answers, and I don't think 'state-ism' is going to solve that problem.

How do you solve it Cal - I would really like to know.

There won't be any easy way out - other than the idea of invading Canada - something that probably needs to be done, sooner than later.

And to address the broader tone of this thread,
there is nothing glamorous, romantic, or desirable about any kind of armed revolution, bloodshed, or the like.
That is a horrible nightmare. It will destroy generations and the outcome of such things are never guaranteed and rarely turn out as expected.

And in stark, glaring contrast to Fossten, I DO think the Constitution is an inspired document.
I absolutely DO NOT think it should be scrapped.
The Articles of Confederation did not work, that's why the Constitution was written.
It was the result of compromise, but the outcome was one of magnificent balance and foresight.

Violent revolution with no clear leader - no clear endpoint is a recipe for disaster. The founding fathers had a vision, along with a clear idea of how to practically end up at the place they desired. I certainly don't see that anywhere on the current horizon.

Plus, in this day and age with the disparity of firepower between the government and the populace, unless you involve a military coup as well, the government would crush most revolutions early on.

Madison was quite aware how weak the Articles of the Confederation were - that was the impetuous for the Constitution. And I do agree with you Cal - although maybe I don't put it quite on a pedestal - it is an amazing document - to think it was written in only 100 days - and the brevity and clarity of it's words are inspired, and inspiring, along with the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were exceptional men, during an exceptional time, and they crafted a nation that truly is the model for all modern day democracy. The nation might be flawed at this point, but that isn't the fault of the constitution. Unfortunately mere mortals have to lead this country, and they make mistakes, or in some cases - are just wrong. The constitution actually allows for those mistakes, perhaps in the spirit of 'experiment' - but, it also gives us the tools to correct them.

There may be a lot wrong with this country - and there is plenty of blame to go around, but we do have those ideals laid out in the late 1700s, and I think we will find our way back. Will it be exactly the same, no, history has already dictated that, but those ideals still burn bright.

So, you do think that the majority of Americans can really understand what made this country great? That is pretty optimistic of you Cal - I actually didn't expect that of you. I certainly think that they can, and I think that if you dig a little deeper, most do know already what made this country great, they just need to be nudged into action.

On - a tiny aside for Foss - did you perhaps read this - my chocolate plying source seems to think that the tone of this thread sounded a bit familiar...

 

[Calabrio]

it is true - and not an exaggeration - - it is easy to go to the government budget office and look at historical data

I don't want to get side tracked with this statistic, because whether it doubled during his Presidency or tripled is irrelevant. I just haven't seen your claim supported anywhere but on the Huffington Post and I've looked. Simply to be thorough, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a link, for my own benefit.

. but, you are right- 12 trillion is a scary, scary number - the almost 7 trillion that Bush added in 8 years was frightening, and that 7 trillion doesn't include those 'unfunded liabilities' of the war and all of its hidden costs which will be continued to be felt over many many years.

Which are a drop in the bucket compared to the entitlement programs that have been created over the past century that are guaranteed to bankrupt us- and that's without the addition of Obamacare or other expansions of the federal government.

We can play games with these numbers all you'd like. The spending during the 00s is inexcusable. Bush was negligent for not vetoing the spending bills proposed during the period the GOP had control. And the GOP betrayed the trust of the electorate and abandoned the principles they were elected for by engaging in such behavior. However, it should be noted that spending became even more out of control after the Democrats took control after the 2006 election.

And it has been an orgy of government deficit spending this year.

It will be hard to stop the train that Bush started -

That's ridiculous.
First, the President doesn't spend money, the legislature has the check book. So what you probably meant to say was "it was hard to stop the train that the Democrat controlled congress." The GOP were driving the train at one dangerous speed towards the ravine, the Democrats took control and stoked up the engines and sped up.

Obama will add slightly over 1 trillion each year. I don't think there are simple answers, and I don't think 'state-ism' is going to solve that problem.

That isn't right either. This year, the debt will be about $12 trillion.
Next year, the debt is projected to be $14.4 Trillion dollars.

And it's going to continue. Even if your projection of "only" a trillion more dollars in debt a year is true, that's simply not sustainable. We've already begun to monetize our debt. In ten years, what country or investors are going to loan us another trillion dollars? How can that possibly ever be paid back.... without massive hyper-inflation?

How do you solve it Cal - I would really like to know.

You first recognize that the progressive policies of the past century DID NOT work. The entitlement culture is not sustainable.

Then you make drastic cuts to the federal budget.
You aggressively begin to eliminate and gradually cut most of the entitlements. And you put a freeze on all new spending.

And then you get ready for some hard times, because someone has to pay for the mistakes of the past. And it's going to be painful.

There won't be any easy way out - other than the idea of invading Canada - something that probably needs to be done, sooner than later.

No, there is no easy way out.
You can't spend your way out of debt. And these efforts to delay it only serve to make the ultimate consequence much worse.

We, collectively, all need to rediscover what America is and return to those unique American values.

So, you do think that the majority of Americans can really understand what made this country great?

Despite the best efforts of the public education system, the media, and the "intellectuals" and politicians, yes I do. Though I have my doubts about some people in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and L.A.

That is pretty optimistic of you Cal - I actually didn't expect that of you. I certainly think that they can, and I think that if you dig a little deeper, most do know already what made this country great, they just need to be nudged into action.

Government didn't make this country great, individuals do.
But the declaration of independence and the Constitution are world changing documents that express concepts that most people have come to take for granted.

 

[PetesSweets86]

4 posts and she has already made the thread about her...

you should see her bedroom!

I enjoy a woman who "wants" control ;-) sometime I'll submit for the hell of it

 

[hrmwrm]

4 posts and she has already made the thread about her...

they can't all be about you shag.

 

[fossten]

gosh, 39 of the 55 deputies signed it, but not all 55 actually participated, some of them never even showed up - because some disagreed with the convention, and others were just neglectful, I don't know how many were actually present for the 'vote' - however - all 13 states ratified it....

Wrong. There were 74 original delegates selected. Only 55 showed up. 14 left when they realized it was a coup, and 3 of the remaining delegates abstained. That means only 38 out of 74 delegates represented the states. That's 53%. Very significant.

Cal, I understand you think the Articles of Confederation didn't work, but I doubt you understand why. The fact is that the Articles didn't give the Federal government enough power to suit the elite wing of our founding fathers, such as Hamilton, John Jay, and George Washington. The Convention was supposed to amend the Articles, not scrap them. The Convention went behind closed doors for 4 months and the elite writers and lawyers scrapped the whole thing.

Cal, read this quote:

We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power.

Many are of the opinion, that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant, humble toone of requisition in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. ...If you tell the [State] legislatures they have...invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face.

- George Washington to John Jay, 1 August 1786

In short, the Articles of Confederation created a Congress which had to go begging to the States, hat in hand, and the control-mongers were champing at the bit.

 

[fossten]

It shouldn't be worshiped - I have stated that on this site many times before - but, it is an exceptional basis for a Federal form of government. Not 'National' but 'Federal'.

Absolutely wrong, and you don't even know why. Let me educate you since you're too ignorant and lazy to find out for yourself. A National government governs the people directly, whereas a Federal government loosely aligns the states, but only the states govern the people directly.

There is a huge difference between how our constitution outlines government in comparison to how the laws that set up the government in England or France which advocate a strong national government. Whether or not it is followed currently is a whole different matter -

Actually, there isn't. Wrong again. Do you know the difference between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan?

What is the coup de'tat that lies within its language Foss?

Straw man. Never said that. Nice try. However, if you want to learn something, answer this question: How many states had to ratify the Articles vs. how many states had to ratify the Constutiton? According to John W. Burgess (look him up, he's prominent), if Napoleon had tried that, it would have been pronounced coup de'tat.

it isn't perfect - nothing written by man could be- but foss, would you really destroy the constitution in your quest for a more perfect 'America'?

I'm not certain yet what the best solution is. But the reality is that the Constitution isn't being subverted, it was designed to allow for a behemoth National government.

Yep - I think - I don't have government size at my fingertips, especially back to the time of Madison - and it would have to be in the years 1809 to 1811, before the war of 1812 and the years following, which would give a false peak and valley because of the war.

You cannot deny that the growth of the National government has been ever steadily upward and outward. Outliers are just that - outliers. The bottom line is that there have been no significant, lasting reversals.

heck - a better view would be in the early years of this country there was about 1 government 'employee' for every 120 people (approx), now I believe it is 1 government employee for every 28 people. Government is too big... but is that the fault of the constitution? How do you lay blame at its doorstep?

As I've already said, it gives too much power to the National government and doesn't allow for direct pressure by the electorate except in the House. For example, the Senate has elections every 2 years, but only 1/3 of the Senate is under pressure during any election cycle. That means the public cannot make any radical changes to government. Even if the public got fed up and threw out all incumbents in one election, that still leaves 2/3 of the Senate incumbents intact. So the gov can grow incrementally with no fear of reprisals.

Another example is that the SCOTUS has no oversight. There is absolutely no way to overrule a SCOTUS decision. All power is in the hands of the Government.

 

[foxpaws]

Absolutely wrong, and you don't even know why. Let me educate you since you're too ignorant and lazy to find out for yourself. A National government governs the people directly, whereas a Federal government loosely aligns the states, but only the states govern the directly.

Foss - of the 19 deputies that were selected that didn't show up - do you know why? did they just not care, or die, or why... how many deputies voted or not isn't all that significant - all 13 states ratified it Foss...

And the constitution sets up a Federal Government - not a national government - any government that uses state delegates as the section of government that creates the laws is a federal government. The constitution very specifically allows the states to act as one - but it protects the sovereignty of each state.

Actually, there isn't. Wrong again. Do you know the difference between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan?

Virginia plan - Madison's plan, governed by both the states and national - which is a federal system, with proportional representation for states... two houses, but both proportional, unlike what we have today, this was rather well liked by the big states. New jersey plan - small states wanted only one house - with equal representation for all states so all states had the same power -

So, in the end, two houses - one with proportional representation, one with equal representation.

The constitution does set up a federal government Foss -despite what you say.

Straw man. Never said that. Nice try. However, if you want to learn something, answer this question: How many states had to ratify the Articles vs. how many states had to ratify the Constutiton? According to John W. Burgess (look him up, he's prominent), if Napoleon had tried that, it would have been pronounced coup de'tat.

The Articles required all 13 states to ratify.

The Constitution needed 9 out of 13. It is how all things regarding the constitution are ratified - 3/4 of the states - in Article V. However all 13 states ratified the constitution.

How practical is it to make a document that needs to govern many states and many people have to have 100% agreement to get anything done? But 3/4 is hardly a coup de'tat...

I'm not certain yet what the best solution is. But the reality is that the Constitution isn't being subverted, it was designed to allow for a behemoth National government.

So - the founding fathers purposely designed the constitution to create a National government, not a Federal government - you really did get this from Rivera - didn't you? You really want to strike down the constitution and place the Articles of the Confederation in its place?

You cannot deny that the growth of the National government has been ever steadily upward and outward. Outliers are just that - outliers. The bottom line is that there have been no significant, lasting reversals.

Our Federal government has grown - and unfortunately not proportionally. It is destined to grow - but the rate has skyrocketed, and really is becoming unmanageable and a burden. And it hasn't happened in just the last 9 months, since Lincoln it has snowballed.

As I've already said, it gives too much power to the National government and doesn't allow for direct pressure by the electorate except in the House. For example, the Senate has elections every 2 years, but only 1/3 of the Senate is under pressure during any election cycle. That means the public cannot make any radical changes to government. Even if the public got fed up and threw out all incumbents in one election, that still leaves 2/3 of the Senate incumbents intact. So the gov can grow incrementally with no fear of reprisals.

You are wrong Foss - you can completely change the House every two years - which does give you direct pressure by the electorate - along with the president every 4 years. The senate was created to not even be answerable to the people, but to the states - it wasn't suppose to be under any pressure by the electorate, but became a strange battle unto its own when the state's legislatures began to become colored by the states' representative's choices on who would be elected into the national senate... it actually was allowing the federal government a 'say' within the state legislatures - so it was changed (for better or worse depending on your point of view) by the 17th amendment. And do we want radical change in all branches of government - government of the moment? The founding fathers didn't want that - for good reason. Government by the moment is actually a true democracy - not a republic - a republic government already is removed from direct pressure by the electorate. Every 2 years we have the opportunity to change out almost 1/2 of our elected branches - every 4 years we have the opportunity change out almost 3/4 of our elected branches.

Another example is that the SCOTUS has no oversight. There is absolutely no way to overrule a SCOTUS decision. All power is in the hands of the Government.

The Supreme Court often 'overrules' itself. Not directly, because it can't review the same case, but it often reviews other cases that have the issues that are identical to those discussed in the original case. Many cases have been 'changed' due to similar cases being seen, with different decisions.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't want to get side tracked with this statistic, because whether it doubled during his Presidency or tripled is irrelevant. I just haven't seen your claim supported anywhere but on the Huffington Post and I've looked. Simply to be thorough, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a link, for my own benefit.

Cal - Huffington - why? I almost never read Huffington - blick...
From the US Treasury deficit numers
January 1981-934,073 (reagan sworn in - January 20, 1981)
January 1989-2,697,957 (bushI sworn in - January 20, 1989)
Increase - 2.88 times... almost triple Cal...

That's ridiculous.
First, the President doesn't spend money, the legislature has the check book. So what you probably meant to say was "it was hard to stop the train that the Democrat controlled congress." The GOP were driving the train at one dangerous speed towards the ravine, the Democrats took control and stoked up the engines and sped up.

You can play the numbers game - but I really do like Truman's adage - the buck stops here - If you go down that road with your reasoning complete lt - you really do have to look at Foss's statement regarding the ending of the cold war - then it really wasn't Reagan at all - but it was Tipp's congress that created the scenario that brought down the wall. They approved the defense spending - they held the purse strings...

The president is on watch... Truman understood that - I think most 'good' presidents understand that.

That isn't right either. This year, the debt will be about $12 trillion.
Next year, the debt is projected to be $14.4 Trillion dollars.

the projection is in 10 years the increase will be about 12 trillion dollars, or averaging about 1.2 trillion a year... some bigger - like next year - some smaller...

You first recognize that the progressive policies of the past century DID NOT work. The entitlement culture is not sustainable.

Then you make drastic cuts to the federal budget.
You aggressively begin to eliminate and gradually cut most of the entitlements. And you put a freeze on all new spending.

And then you get ready for some hard times, because someone has to pay for the mistakes of the past. And it's going to be painful.

No, there is no easy way out.
You can't spend your way out of debt. And these efforts to delay it only serve to make the ultimate consequence much worse.

People don't like suffering - it is all about me, me, me. The teabag party is about me, me, me, so are the Dems and Reps. You chose the candidates that closely resemble 'me'. Do you actually think we will vote in representatives that promise misery and pain?

Other options - Privatize a lot of government programs - real balanced budget reform. And I do like your moratorium on new spending. Also look at where capitalism is failing - health care does need reform or it will bankrupt Americans, which in turn will bankrupt the government. Both bills are very flawed, and not what I was promised in the last election - but you do have to have reform. Just because the government gets involved in reform shouldn't mean that government takes over the issue.

We, collectively, all need to rediscover what America is and return to those unique American values.

Despite the best efforts of the public education system, the media, and the "intellectuals" and politicians, yes I do. Though I have my doubts about some people in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and L.A.

Why, are they not 'good' Americans? Why chose just those cities? How about Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. I have my doubts about some people in Salt Lake City and in Dallas.

Government didn't make this country great, individuals do.
But the declaration of independence and the Constitution are world changing documents that express concepts that most people have come to take for granted.

Individuals have and continue to make this country great... But, the government of 'we the people' gives individuals that opportunity - they work together, I have always thought that was the vision of the founding fathers - a government that reflected the populace - and the Constitution does give us just that. I think the government we have is a reflection of 'us' - albeit a few years in arrears... The people wanted easy street - so we got it. The people wanted promises and not a lot else, so that is what we are now saddled with. As you said a populace that has come to take for granted the Constitution and the Declaration, and basically wants to be catered to.

 

[fossten]

Foss - of the 19 deputies that were selected that didn't show up - do you know why? did they just not care, or die, or why...

When asked why he didn't attend Patrick Henry said, "Because I smelt a rat."

how many deputies voted or not isn't all that significant - all 13 states ratified it Foss...

Misdirection. You really are a propagandist. You can't answer a direct question.

The question was, how many states had to ratify the Articles vs. how many states had to ratify the Constitution? Do you know the answer? Do you know when the Constitution actually went into effect, and how many states had ratified it up to that time? Be careful how you answer. I'll give you a hint: Groupthink.

And the constitution sets up a Federal Government - not a national government - any government that uses state delegates as the section of government that creates the laws is a federal government. The constitution very specifically allows the states to act as one - but it protects the sovereignty of each state.

Once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the difference between a National Government and a Federal Government, despite my even bothering to define it for you. Hint: Proof by assertion doesn't help your case, nor does it help your waning credibility.

Virginia plan - Madison's plan, governed by both the states and national - which is a federal system, with proportional representation for states... two houses, but both proportional, unlike what we have today, this was rather well liked by the big states. New jersey plan - small states wanted only one house - with equal representation for all states so all states had the same power -

So, in the end, two houses - one with proportional representation, one with equal representation.

Who is governed? Critical answer, here, fox. Think carefully.

The constitution does set up a federal government Foss -despite what you say.

Despite what I say? Then how did we end up with a National government that rules all the people? Was it an accident? Is the Constitution being subverted or ignored? How about we examine what the writers of the Constitution said? Or are you too closed minded? Surely you are not so naive to believe that the states have power today? The truth is that Hamilton and his cronies weren't federalists - they were nationalists.

Oh wait - you'll agree with me a little further down -

The Articles required all 13 states to ratify.

The Constitution needed 9 out of 13. It is how all things regarding the constitution are ratified - 3/4 of the states - in Article V. However all 13 states ratified the constitution.

How practical is it to make a document that needs to govern many states and many people have to have 100% agreement to get anything done? But 3/4 is hardly a coup de'tat...

It's practical if you want to make sure that the government can't grow too big and powerful. Big clue for you - and this is a philosophical difference between me, the small government, freedom type, and you, the big government, control freak type - it's supposed to be hard for governments to 'get things done.' That's how you protect liberty. The founders didn't like that, so they softened the requirements in order to RUSH THROUGH ratification, behind closed doors, in total secrecy, before too many people raised too much of a fuss. Sounds like our current Congress, actually, with this healthcare debacle. But I digress. Or do I?

Back on point. The Articles required 13 votes. That was the LAW. The LAW, fox! And the Philly convention was ostensibly to REVISE the Articles. So first, they scrap the entire document, and second, they change the rules to allow for just NINE states. And who is 'they?' FIFTY-THREE PERCENT of the delegates. That's illegal usurpation of power that resulted in a change of government. Or, as the French say, a coup d'etat, despite your fuzzy math.

Of course, Madison later dismissed this outrageous illegality in Federalist #43:

To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen states would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member.

Yeah - the hell with the LAW, right? We got a government to take over! Of course, this had been planned for months.

The New Jersey Plan would have given each state equal voice in government - just like the Swiss system.

By the way, did you know that Alexander Hamilton voted 'in witness whereof' for the entire state of New York, because the other two delegates went home? Yeah, he voted for three people. Oh, but this isn't a coup, right?

So - the founding fathers purposely designed the constitution to create a National government, not a Federal government - you really did get this from Rivera - didn't you?

Right on the first part, wrong on the second. You don't read much, do you?

You really want to strike down the constitution and place the Articles of the Confederation in its place?

You mean in the same fashion that Hamilton and his 'federalists' STRUCK DOWN the Articles? Tsk, tsk, fox, you're a victim of document worship, as was I, as is everyone else. But it's not too late, unless of course you have a closed mind.

Our Federal government has grown - and unfortunately not proportionally. It is destined to grow - but the rate has skyrocketed, and really is becoming unmanageable and a burden. And it hasn't happened in just the last 9 months, since Lincoln it has snowballed.

By design, not in spite of the Constitution. Thanks for agreeing with me. And here, you all but admit that the central government has overtaken the states, starting most notably with Lincoln.

You are wrong Foss - you can completely change the House every two years - which does give you direct pressure by the electorate - along with the president every 4 years. The senate was created to not even be answerable to the people, but to the states - it wasn't suppose to be under any pressure by the electorate, but became a strange battle unto its own when the state's legislatures began to become colored by the states' representative's choices on who would be elected into the national senate... it actually was allowing the federal government a 'say' within the state legislatures - so it was changed (for better or worse depending on your point of view) by the 17th amendment. And do we want radical change in all branches of government - government of the moment? The founding fathers didn't want that - for good reason. Government by the moment is actually a true democracy - not a republic - a republic government already is removed from direct pressure by the electorate. Every 2 years we have the opportunity to change out almost 1/2 of our elected branches - every 4 years we have the opportunity change out almost 3/4 of our elected branches.

Blah blah blah...never mind that 4 years isn't 'direct pressure' - you're trying to stretch the meaning of the phrase now. But thanks for agreeing with me again, that the founders didn't want the populace to be able to exert direct pressure on the electorate. So in one breath you say I'm wrong, and then you end up agreeing with me. Unfocused much? You're really a sad parody of yourself. If you could just speak to the merit of the argument instead of filibustering a bunch of fluff, conversing with you would be productive. But you blabber and ramble like a 12 year old, and it's just not worth it to answer every one of your random yammerings. Can you please try to stay on point? Thanks.

In answer to your question about 'radical change' - the founders answered that by scrapping the Articles and then making sure it couldn't be done again. Freedom for me, but not for thee, subjects! Oops! You can't have it both ways, fox.

The Supreme Court often 'overrules' itself. Not directly, because it can't review the same case, but it often reviews other cases that have the issues that are identical to those discussed in the original case. Many cases have been 'changed' due to similar cases being seen, with different decisions.

First, the Supreme Court often overrules itself? Often? Really? Nice try. Also, cases don't get 'changed.' They get vacated, confirmed, remanded, or reversed. Either way, I'm right. Again, it's the students grading their own tests, or the patients running the asylum, or the inmates running the prison, or the fox guarding the henhouse. Any analogy you like. The people have no way to put any pressure on the court.

Thanks for making my point for me.

I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary. But I need to see evidence disproving these two contentions:

1. Federal expansion and intrusion is subject to no real, practical, enforceable constitutional limits

2. The circumstantial, historical evidence clearly supports the Constitution being conceived, planned, debated, ratified, and executed with the goal of relentless, unstoppable federal expansion at the expense of the States, the people, and freedom in general.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to make my points, mostly by using the quotes of the writers and founders.

 

[fossten]

The people were worried about the Constitution

This is from the Boston Gazette, 19 November, 1787.

Boston Gazette, 19 November

As much has been said in favour of the proposed New Constitution,—and as little is allowed to be said against it,—I now send you, for the information and consideration of your readers, the ideas the people had of a Constitution in the year 1776, contained in a number of serious questions and answers, published in the Pennsylvania Evening Post, at a time when the whole people were contending with a powerful nation for the security of their Liberties and a free Constitution, with a determined resolution to transmit the same to succeeding generations. And as we are now about to establish the free Constitution which they then fought and bled for, shall we not be allowed to examine it?—shall we not be allowed to give our sentiments upon it, with the same manly freedom with which they were inspired while the bayonet was held at their breasts?—we will. BOSTONIANS.

Serious QUESTIONS proposed to all friends to the rights of mankind, with suitable ANSWERS.

Q. What is government?

A. Certain powers vested by society in public persons for the security, peace and happiness of its members.

Q. What ought a society to do to secure a good government?
275

A. Any thing. The happiness of man, as an inhabitant of this world, depends entirely upon it.

Q. When ought a new government to be established?

A. When the old becomes impracticable, or dangerous to the rights of the people.2

Q. Who ought to form a new constitution of government?

A. The people.

Q. From whom ought public persons to derive their authority to govern?

A. From the people whom they are to govern.

Q. What ought to be the object of government?

A. The welfare of the governed.

Q. How is such a government to be obtained?

A. By forming a constitution which regards men more than things, by framing it in such a manner that the interest of the governours and governed shall ever be the same; and by delegating the powers of government so that the people may always have it in their power to resume them, when abused, without tumult or confusion, and to deliver them to persons more worthy of trust.

Q. Should the officers of the old constitution be entrusted with the power of making a new one when it becomes necessary?

A. No. Bodies of men have the same selfish attachments as individuals, and they will be claiming powers and prerogatives inconsistent with the liberties of the people. Aristocracies will by this means be established, and we shall exchange a bad constitution for a worse, or the tyranny of one for the tyranny of many.

Q. Who ought to have such a trust conferred upon them, as it is the highest and most important which men can delegate?

A. First, Men of the greatest wisdom and integrity, who have as much, if not more, natural than acquired sense and understanding. Secondly, Men who can be under no temptations to frame political distinctions in favour of any class or set of men. Thirdly, Men who the moment the constitution is framed, must descend into the common paths of life, and have as great a chance to feel every defect in the constitution as any man. And lastly, Men who regard not the person of the rich, nor despise the state of the poor, but who prefer justice and equity to all things, and would go any lengths to establish the common rights of mankind on the firmest foundation.

Q. Ought the constitution which a proper number of such persons agree upon to be immediately adopted?

A. No. After agreeing upon a constitution, or form of government, they ought to adjourn for six or nine months, publish the plan, request 276every man to examine it, with the utmost seriousness and attention, make remarks upon it, point out any defects which may appear in it, and offer amendments. Then let the same body of men who framed it, joined by an additional number of new members, meet at the time fixed in their adjournment, canvass the whole again, take the defects pointed out into consideration, and finally agree.—N. B. This frame of government, when agreed upon, should be intituled the Social Compact of the People of ——, &c. and should be unalterable in every point, except by a delegation of the same kind of that which originally framed it, appointed for that purpose.

Q. What should be done after this compact is finally agreed upon?

A. The same, or another body of men, should be appointed to draw up what I shall call a charter of delegation, being a clear and full description of the quantity and degree of power and authority, with which the society, vests the persons intrusted with the powers of the society, whether civil or military, legislative, executive or judicial.

 

[foxpaws]

Misdirection. You really are a propagandist. You can't answer a direct question.

The question was, how many states had to ratify the Articles vs. how many states had to ratify the Constitution? Do you know the answer? Do you know when the Constitution actually went into effect, and how many states had ratified it up to that time? Be careful how you answer.

Foss - is this a civics test -
Constitution became law, March, 1989. It was ratified by the needed 9 states in June 1988 when New Hampshire ratified it. Virginia, New York, No. Carolina, and Rhode Island had yet to ratify it, but all did. The founding fathers could enact it into law after 9 states - so they did. The remaining states could have not ratified it as well - but they didn't, it was a unanimous ratification.

And your point....????

Once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the difference between a National Government and a Federal Government, despite my even bothering to define it for you. Hint: Proof by assertion doesn't help your case, nor does it help your waning credibility.
You really don't know the difference, do you? How sad. You are so naive to believe that the states have power today? The truth is that Hamilton and his cronies weren't federalists - they were nationalists.

I don't think they have much power today - they have rolled over and played dead many, many times - you lay that at the states' door, not the Constitution Foss... because you give up your rights willingly, doesn't mean you can blame someone else or something else for your actions. The constitution isn't to blame - the blame lies at the states who started to clamor for federal money... they willing gave up their rights one by one...

It's practical if you want to make sure that the government can't grow too big and powerful. Big clue for you - and this is a philosophical difference between me, the small government, freedom type, and you, the big government, control freak type - it's supposed to be hard for governments to 'get things done.' That's how you protect liberty. The founders didn't like that, so they softened the requirements in order to RUSH THROUGH ratification before too many people raised too much of a fuss. Sounds like our current Congress, actually, with this healthcare debacle. But I digress. Or do I?

You bemoaned the fact that it is almost impossible to move an amendment through in the modern age in the past Foss - now you think it would be even better to make it more difficult - when did that change? When we have been talking about fetus' rights, and the fact that to truly protect them there would need to be a constitutional amendment, you were all over that (negatively) because the amendment process was so long and involved. Have you changed your mind? Do this often? Read some wacked out 'legal' expert and you then worship them like the demigod they aren't?

Back on point. The Articles required 13 votes. That was the LAW. And the Philly convention was ostensibly to REVISE the Articles. So first, they scrap the entire thing, and second, they change the rules to allow for just NINE states. That's illegal usurpation of power that resulted in a change of government. Or, as the French say, a coup d'etat.

Of course, Madison later dismissed this outrageous illegality in Federalist #43:

They were crafting a nation - they certainly saw that a 100% consensus was a ridiculous way to try to form or even to try to give a country any set of laws, so they changed. Guess what, they could do that - they were making up the rules...

Yeah - the hell with the LAW, right? We got a government to take over! Of course, this had been planned for months.

??????? ranting now?

The New Jersey Plan would have given each state equal voice in government - just like the Swiss system.

Ah the swiss - compulsory insurance, an immense welfare system, anti-individualist politics, embodied in the Federal Council, just your sort of place Foss -

You want the swiss form of government - you are welcome to it - live in Zurich for a few months - immerse yourself in local politics - see how well extreme taxation, constant voting and 'one state one vote' really works.

By the way, did you know that Alexander Hamilton voted 'in witness whereof' for the entire state of New York, because the other two delegates went home? Yeah, he voted for three people. Oh, but this isn't a coup, right?
DEE DEE DEE! Wrong, fox. Want to try for Double Jeopardy? You don't read much, do you?

Yep - knew that - but once again - the states still had to ratify the constitution. It could have been written by rabbits on toilet paper - it didn't make any difference on who voted on it at the convention - it wasn't law until the states ratified it.

By design, not in spite of the Constitution. Thanks for agreeing with me. And here, you all but admit that the central government has overtaken the states, starting most notably with Lincoln.

You really want to scrap it? You really believe that the founding fathers put in a back door so the federal government could become what they 'envisioned' 100 years later - after Lincoln? They were patient men...

Blah blah blah...never mind that 4 years isn't 'direct pressure' - you're trying to stretch the meaning of the phrase now. But thanks for agreeing with me again, that the founders didn't want the populace to be able to exert direct pressure on the electorate. So in one breath you say I'm wrong, and then you end up agreeing with me. Unfocused much? You're really a sad parody of yourself. If you could just speak to the merit of the argument instead of filibustering a bunch of fluff, conversing with you would be productive. But you blabber and ramble like a 12 year old, and it's just not worth it to answer every one of your random yammerings. Can you please try to stay on point? Thanks.

blah yourself - you are the one rambling all over - do you know how hard it is to keep up with a conspiracy theorist - which is what you are stating Foss - that the founding fathers conspired to create a document that would, long after their deaths, create a government that was nothing like what they purported, or what they lived under. They were content knowing that their great, great (and many more greats) grandchildren would live in a 'national' government instead of the Federal government that they just gave lip service to, died for? That they created a whole government to create a false sense of federalism? Heck, they were probably hoping by this time we had collapsed from their unrealistic Constitution, and truly could finally see their vision - nationalistic fascism...

Are you nuts?

And I'm right again. Again, it's the students grading their own tests. The people have no way to put any pressure on the court. Thanks for making my point for me.

You stated that SCOTUS had no way to overrule - it does - I showed how - however you have some sort of blind rage blinders on at this point - Do you really think it would be good to allow the people to pressure the court - the constitution would be in shambles if that were allowed.... it would become a document of the moment - you really don't understand that do you - how you can't have government that is answerable only to the moment... that becomes anarchy.

How is that packing for Estonia going? Or have you decided on Bern - good luck - happen to know what the cost of living is in Switzerland?

You gotta quit reading Rivera...