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.
It's precisely because they're efficient at force that the federal government should remain the most powerful entity. Bureaucrats will exist regardless. Do you believe that people can send money to states and no one take a cut off it? Ridiculous. You either have one agency taking up all the inefficiency, or fifty separate ones.
Furthermore, the 'efficiency' argument is untrue. What about companies that wish to operate across state lines? Instead of one set of rules that applies nationally, they have to follow two, three, ten, maybe even fifty different sets of rules. As for the 'experiments' argument, I think that too is not borne out by history. We have ample precedent that single payer health care is an incredibly good system of health care, yet only one state currently practices it (Vermont - and I don't believe it has been fully implemented yet). We can use other countries for experiments. And we can experiment ourselves. It's not hard, and it's not disastrous.
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.
What did they found, then? They certainly didn't found a vacuum cleaner!
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...
Given that a proper application of Federalist mentality (taken to its logical conclusion) would result in a country like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, it stands to reason that this is patently false. I would urge you to conduct a thorough study of Scandinavian welfare states. These represent the most left-wing nations on Earth that still maintain a foundation in capitalism, and they are without a doubt the most egalitarian, most humane, most democratic, and most liveable nations. Their debt's pretty low too, just in case you were about to mention that.
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.
No, but the last hope of states rights supporters is a racist:
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.
Not gonna argue this one.