Jasongreat said:So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.
Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.Angry Citizen said:Federalism/devolution is for the birds.
Char. Limit;3740599]A quick question I thought up while reading this. Would you agree with the following statement?
"Social security and the FDIC are unnecessary, and FDR was wrong for instituting them."
What about this one?
"The economy was working fine until FDR came along."
Just wondering.
Reagan was a big defense guy, not a big government guy otherwise.Jasongreat said:We have tried the big government solution far more, ... Reagan
mheslep said:Reagan was a big defense guy, not a big government otherwise.
Yes, Hoover was a big spending Republican, There were quite a few times, IIRC, that FDR stated that what he was doing was no differnt than hoover did, so he didnt understand why conservatives were upset about his policies. Calvin Coolidge made a statement to the effect that I have never been a spender, if you want a spender I am not your man, Hoover was then elected.
So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.
I agree government has a role to play, Paul and his supporters are not anarchists, it has a role well defined in a thing called the constitution and it doesn't matter wether we are in an agrarian society or a manufacturing society, a technical society, or a service society.
I am well aware, that what was once called a classical liberal is now called a libertarian or anarchist, and that those who support larger government are called Republicans and Democrats.
State rights was the base of our government, and I believe can be again. In a federlist/republican system each state is free to do whatever they want, except for those things enumerated to the federal government in the constitution such as defense, treaties, etc;. In doing so we would have fifty different tries at solving our problems, if one state becomes oppressive we are free to move to another state where we may find a better fit, if one state finds a solution others are free to follow or to tweak it to their beliefs. When we are formed as a nation, and everything gets settled at the national level, we get one try to solve a problem, if we don't like the outcome we are stuck with it since how are we going to vote with our feet? Where else is there to go? I like how some think that it is more efficient to take money from the states, send it to washington, pay the beaurocrats, than send what's left back to the state. Wouldnt it be more efficient to leave the whole amount in the state, for those citizens to do as they will. The only thing a national government is more efficient at is force.
A non-interventionist = an isolationist
the civil war was fought to end slavery
that our founders founded a nation
that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.
That the Federalists were right, since we now have over two hundred years of history which prove most of the anti-federalist claims were spot on.
That our government is not a voluntary agreement, one which can be negated at any time by any member for reasons of non-compliance by other members of the federal government itself.
That our government can do anything the people want, without ammending the constitution.
That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.
That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.
That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).
mheslep said:Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.
A decade later we had another depression, the government made huge investments in the economy and the depression lasted a decade, Keynesian economics have never worked, never will IMO.
Agreed. He was not a libertarian on drugs. But on net, he tried to shrink the overall size of government, though he failed.Jasongreat said:Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing.
Not to get too far off topic, but just to offer an alternative view, I was in my 30's during Reagan's presidency, and, to me, he seemed like an incompetent stooge. An actor playing a part. We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office. As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.Jasongreat said:Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held a lot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)
ThomasT said:As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.
Ok, we can agee to disagree on this -- except for the height thing, which I concede.Jasongreat said:Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)
=Angry Citizen;3740684]He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.
I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.
Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.
Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.
Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!
This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.
The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.
The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...
That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).
Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.
I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.
What do you mean by "anti-American"?Jasongreat said:Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):
What's the difference?A non-interventionist = an isolationist,
Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.the civil war was fought to end slavery,
They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.that our founders founded a nation,
I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.
Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.
It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.
Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).
How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.
Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?
And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve a lot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.
Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson.
Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law.
Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?
So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.
I think a national sales tax would work
I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.
So no business can possibly do bad things? As Angry Citizen noted, it's possible to build a monopoly by legitimate business practices, like buying the competition. It's also possible to use less-legitimate practices, like demanding that business partners not deal with rivals. That's what Microsoft has done with operating-system preloads. Make it significantly more expensive to preload Windows on 99.99+% of a company's PC's than to preload Windows on 100.00% of them. This makes it much more difficult for that company to offer preloaded alternates. There are even less legitimate practices, like physically attacking rivals, as in the frog wars between railroad companies in the 19th cy., and between rival criminal gangs. One might argue that that's not true capitalism, but that seems to me the No True Scotsman fallacy.Jasongreat said:Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?
Commerce with no military involvement? That's idealistic nonsense that only works with friendly nations. Even in the early years of the US, that policy could not be made to work.Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesn't want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.
If the other states agree to secession, then I'm sure that national-level politicians will go along. That's an interesting historical riddle -- why was the North reluctant to let the South secede? Could it be the attack on Fort Sumter? Or concern about being weakened by division?So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.
To get protected, for starters.I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.
Well, "there you go again". :tongue: At best all you will find are anecdotes about senility. As to being a 'stooge', Reagan was a prolific writer. You can judge for yourself from his ample letters and radio speeches.ThomasT said:...We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office.
.Narrator: What Baker's transition team was told by Don Regan's White House staff that weekend shocked them. Reagan was "inattentive," "inept," and "lazy" and Baker should be prepared to invoke the 25th amendment to relieve him of his duties.
Edmund Morris, Official Biographer: The incoming Baker people all decided to have a meeting with him on the Monday morning, their first official meeting with the President and to cluster around the table in the Cabinet Room and watch him very, very closely to see how he behaved, to see if he was indeed losing his mental grip. They positioned themselves very strategically around the table so they could watch him from various angles, listen to him and check his movements and listen to his words and look into his eyes. And I was there when this meeting took place. And Reagan who was, of course, completely unaware that they were launching a death watch on him, came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly. At the end of the meeting they figuratively threw up their hands realizing he was in perfect command of himself.
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): Ladies and gentlemen, is this president fully in control of his Presidency? Is he alert? Is he fully engaged? Is he in contact with the problems? And I'm telling ya, it's just one day's experience and maybe that's not enough, but today he was superb.
Reporter (archival): And Mrs. Reagan? The issue of Mrs. Reagan's involvement in West Wing decisions?
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): I haven't talked to Mrs. Reagan today. I intend to do that later today. I intend to do that later today. But let me say, I've known Nancy Reagan a long time too. And I did speak to her on Friday, and I expect -- there's the phone now.
Howard Baker, Chief of Staff: From moment one at the White House with Ronald Reagan, I came away convinced not only was he fully in command -- fully competent -- but that -- he was not being well served by the arrangements in the White House -- but that he was fully capable of discharging that job in a very, very effective way. And I still think that
lpetrich said:I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.
lpetrich said:What do you mean by "anti-American"?
What's the difference?
Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.
In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.
You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.
But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.
They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.
Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.
I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.
Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.
A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.
It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.
Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;
Angry Citizen said:I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.
I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.
However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!
Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.
No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.
Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.
I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.
Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.
. That whenever the form of government becomes destructive it is the right of the people to abolish said government. Sounds to me like the founders beilieved in seccession. I stated in my earlier post that one of the first proposals in the convention was the use of Nation, they chose United States instead.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
It was a blink of the eye in long-term historical terms, and practically yesterday for any Southerners who hold a grudge against the "War of Northern Aggression". Most of the $$$$$$$$ artifacts that I auctioned in my years in selling military artifacts were sold to wealthy southerners who had collections.MarcoD said:Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.
Does it matter? It was centuries ago.
Tosh5457 said:Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.
JasonGreat said:Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):... the civil war was fought to end slavery
Alexander Stephens said:Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
Angry Citizen said:Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.
Tosh5457 said:In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Angry Citizen said:Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
The gold standard brings stability and sound money.
The Fed was created specifically to be a lender of last resort. It was supposed to be there to provide loans to otherwise healthy banks when there was a run on them so that they wouldn't collapse and cause a financial panic.Tosh5457 said:Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue.
Angry Citizen said:Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.