| reply to I Use Dial
Re: Granting the power to giveth, also to taketh. said by I Use Dial:This is the fault of people who believe that the federal government has the power create such legislation in the first place. You grant this power and they will use it for nefarious purposes. This is the way it has always ended under such systems. That is why the Constitution was written to prevent our federal government from having such powers. The state governments have the power, just not the federal government. That horse left the corral a LONG time ago. The states are just more beggars to be handed Federal money. When you are on the welfare teat like the states are, any real power is gone.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by fAcEtIOUs:That horse left the corral a LONG time ago. The states are just more beggars to be handed Federal money. When you are on the welfare teat like the states are, any real power is gone. There was no real power the moment the Constitution was ratified. The contradiction between federal supremacy and so-called state's rights, 3/5 representation of slaves (without actual representation), responsibility to force states to provide a republican form of government, etc.
The real problem was slavery. The creation of a supreme, federal government would ultimately lead to states finding out who is "sovereign." You can't ratify a constitution embodying principles of free will and autonomy while enslaving your residents. Insisting they count in terms of representation, but can't be represented.
The question is whether things would be better with sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation. One doesn't have to look very hard to see how that was working for 12 years. We might not have survived either world war, etc. Not when one state can simply withdraw because it's in their self-interest to charge their neighbors impost fees than to work for a common good.
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by I Use Dial:This is the fault of people who believe that the federal government has the power create such legislation in the first place. You grant this power and they will use it for nefarious purposes. This is the way it has always ended under such systems. That is why the Constitution was written to prevent our federal government from having such powers. The state governments have the power, just not the federal government. That horse left the corral a LONG time ago. The states are just more beggars to be handed Federal money. When you are on the welfare teat like the states are, any real power is gone. Like you are sucking on the welfare teat by accepting Medicare? |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by digitalfreak:Like you are sucking on the welfare teat by accepting Medicare? The constitution was, to a large degree based upon the same principle MMH complains about. It involved some states losing, and some winning. For example, commercial states (like New York with a deep harbor) losing the ability to impose fees upon less fortunate states.
Basically a "redistribution of wealth." Why else would New York offer to stop taxing (and refund past taxes to) New Jersey in return for New Jersey opposing the proposed federal government?
The whole "socialism" and "welfare teat" rhetoric usually has to do with who's on the losing side. It's just a game of ox goring. When someone gets to gore someone else's ox, it's "in the national interest." When it's their ox, suddenly it's "welfare."
|
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Most people forget the United States was set by some of the most wealthy men in the North American. They did not like the heavy taxes with little or no representation in Parliament. It worked out for individual rights over the years but the government was set up for the rich by the rich. For years you had to own land to even vote. The were not interested in the unwashed except for cheap labor and soldiers.
What makes has made this country great is almost everyone comes from families that had a malcontent that did not like the status quo where they lived. They had that get up and go urge and they got up and left from where ever or they were invited to leave or go to jail because they did not make life for those in power easy.
The only problem I have with Corporations being treated as a person is how do you send a corporation to jail. You can fine it out of business but Humans make the decisions yet in many cases there is a wall the decision makers hide behind. In my State a few decades ago a big corporation pleaded guilty to having a political slush fund but no individual was punished. All but one of the 11 executives that may have done some jail time if the Corporation had not taken the criminal hit were promoted to high level jobs over the years.
Take Enron the top all played to it was the corporation card I didn't know. Yes most went to jail but they may not today with the recent ruling from the SC on the good services law. In the company I work for the mangers complain about the encouragement they give to the company political PACs. They know if they don't their career will stall or they will be shown the door for something else. It is no different then a Union doing the same thing. There should be no bundling of donations where one person or company get credit. If you can persuade those same people to send in donations with their on stamp great but getting a picture with a President because you handed a big chunk of money you "raised" does not get it with me. |
|
