Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Normally I dont post from Salon as they're pretty biased. But I have been a fan of Robert Reich for a while, some things I agree with, some I don't. But this article discusses that a smaller government would be the result of the government representing the people. The right often goes on about how they want a smaller government, what do you think about what he says?
As for me.....While I think he is discussing a problem, I do not believe his solution "smaller government" would necessarily follow. To some degree yes, but I think a lot of the spending would move to other places. Thoughts?
No, he's off in la-la land as usual.
The "size" of government has to do with what areas in the economy, your life, and so on, that it spreads it tentacles.
The federal government is restricted to these things, and these things ALONE:
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Which is about about 20% of its current spending, and about 2% of its reach.
❏ I prefer the republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant. I like it when government secures rights, but only governs those who consent.
❏ But if folks want the democratic form of government, where the people are subjects and the government rules them, who am I to say they can't.
. . .
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's CONSENT. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
I have to say, I mostly agree with Reich on his assessment. He has written or said things I agree with more than once.
Thank you for linking it for me. I missed that totally and then got called away before noticing. I apologize to everyone. That was a mistake.
Its interesting to see how many folks here stick to attacking the messenger rather then discussing what he said. A couple obviously read it, and went after the message, but others just instantly went after the messenger.
Some believe the central political issue of our era is the size of the government. They’re wrong. The central issue is whom the government is for.
It's really not important which is the central issue, both are problems. If the government wasn't so large with their hand in everything they wouldn't be doing the things Reich complains about.
Yep; just more of his socialist same ole ;same ole.
Dunno, re-reading it he spends a lot of time pointing out that we aren't driving the government anymore, people of wealth are doing so, and making the rules to their benefit. While its always been this way to some degree, its getting worse. And many of the things in the current spending billl make it worse.
Calling him a socialist when he is pointing out that we are becoming increasingly a corporate ran government might not be a good long term plan. Well that is if you like your government to represent you to any degree at all. Because being against those things doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you someone who feels like the government should represent the people. Crazy idea huh?
The first paragraph points out who owns government and who it serves. It is not the common everyday Joe. The top 1% or the elite are always spoken of but it is they government serves as they own government. They are why government has it's hands in every aspect of our lives. They are progressives and the goal of progressives is total control.
Dunno, re-reading it he spends a lot of time pointing out that we aren't driving the government anymore, people of wealth are doing so, and making the rules to their benefit. While its always been this way to some degree, its getting worse. And many of the things in the current spending billl make it worse.
But conservatives pretty strongly believe wealthy people should drive the government, because they have sacrificed so much more to get where they got to, so very much so than people on welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for linking it for me. I missed that totally and then got called away before noticing. I apologize to everyone. That was a mistake.
