TOO much Government?

[sunshyne]

When people stop relying on themselves, and depend on the Government for everything. When the government controls large businesses, "for the good of the people". That is when Communism begins to take place.

Since when did being free and having liberties take a back burner to being "taken care of"? The American way of Building Dreams has become "take what you can, the government owes me". If anyone has done any type of reading, you would know that the founding fathers of America wanted the government to be controlled by the people, not vice versa.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression." - Thomas Jefferson


Do you feel like the government is getting too powerful for its own good? Do you feel like everybody should be "taken care of"? What do you think the "New World Order" of government, the idea of a global government would do to your way of life, for your future/ your children's future?

[lokizilla]

Very good points, I agree with all. Most people use the government to restrict others. The country is far away from what the founders brought it to light with. I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am a Conservative Constitutionalists voter. I pity the way we are going. It's going to make us a third world country that will get conquered

[beckyp]

then let's do A Day Without A Government and see how we all feel then.

appreciate that you have a goverment. no matter how Effed up it may be.

[plungerhand]

then let's do A Day Without A Government and see how we all feel then.

that place already exists...It's called Kentucky....

[-Jiggy-]

Our government was set up so that the people could take control if it started to get too big. Unfortunately I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated us handing it over.

[lokizilla]

Our government was set up so that the people could take control if it started to get too big. Unfortunately I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated us handing it over.

Which we did. We may vote. We may protest. But the politicians do what gets them money. Our constitution has great merits to it, but more and more people are pushing things in to laws that aren't for the government to control. Some people are going over what is need to 'protect' people. Zero policy is stupid.

[sunshyne]

then let's do A Day Without A Government and see how we all feel then.

appreciate that you have a goverment. no matter how effed up it may be.

yeah, could you go to any more of an extreme here? the title of the thread is Too much government, not, "I wish there was no government" .

I believe there needs to be a governing body, but there is a point where it becomes over bearing to our rights. and a point where people depend on it to provide for them rather than work for themselves and maintain their liberties.

There is such a thing as too much government, and I feel that we are on the brink, if not already there. The bigger it gets the more problems will arise. When the government runs things versus the people, the programs are not successful; cost a lot of money, and fail to improve the situations.

[lokizilla]

There is such a thing as too much government, and I feel that we are on the brink, if not already there. The bigger it gets the more problems will arise. When the government runs things versus the people, the programs are not successful; cost a lot of money, and fail to improve the situations.

Look at half the things that goes on in business now. I can't say this or that, because someone will sue. Come on, it's like having a big baby sitter. There are points and guidelines, but when you sue all the way up to the Supreme Court, which is appointed by the President. That's going a little to far.

If the Supreme Court is making their decisions based on their views, their feelings, not on the Constitution, then the government is not working as our Founders created it. Making decisions on your views isn't a way to live. I usually don't say what I think, when I do, at my liberal dominated work, I get in trouble stating I wasn't being politically correct. The founding Fathers would roll over if they saw how much their people are being controlled.

[beckyp]

yeah, could you go to any more of an extreme here? the title of the thread is Too much government, not, "I wish there was no government" .

let's see you do a better job before you bitch about it, all i'm saying.

don't like it? start doing something about it instead of opening your mouth. that's why we're so Effed up, we're lazy people that talk a lot but are willing to take it up the ass from the government.

[professorpinasheep]

let's see you do a better job before you bitch about it, all i'm saying.

don't like it? start doing something about it instead of opening your mouth. that's why we're so effed up, we're lazy people that talk a lot but are willing to take it up the ass from the government.

There are lots of people who try to do something about it. The problem lies in the fact that the vast majority do exactly as you said. And as long as we're using quotes from the Founders, I find this to be the most accurate and most depressing:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin

Politicians no longer have to actually try to accomplish very much.. so no matter who's voted for, very little actually changes. They simply try to get something done, and if it doesn't pass it.. blame it on any number of things like partisian politics, too much pork, not enough benefit to enough people, etc. Politicians simply pander to the largest group with the lowest common denominator and win. And what's the best way to win votes in a society of people who have become more interested in feeling they're entitled to a way of life rather than earning your way through? Promise them easy money.

[beckyp]

exactly.

i want to see action againest all this, playing monday morning quarterback and criticizing the government gives us nothing but the mindset of "yeah, verbally lashing them is really showing them!"

right now is a perfect storm of anger, fear, panic, and uncertainty. i keep expecting a movement where we stand up to government but i think we're all too comfortable with sitting in our recliners watching Tivo and eating a double cheeseburger to bother.

our founding fathers would be disgusted.

[lokizilla]

But what action should be taken. Certain things keep coming up again and again. The fight over borders, language, and culture is a fight I have seen won again and fought again. Even though many people stand up against blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, again they are trying to force it down our throats. Just a point, where the people threatened their votes against congress and they voted it down, but it is still coming back up. How long can a person fight a corrupt government official?

[goodmorningwow]

So I take it everyone here likes their socialized police and firefighters?

[hotzester]

This debate is one of my all time favorites - large, intrusive government vs. small, minimal impact government.

We do need a government. We need a government to protect us from enemies, crime, disaster, etc. We need a government to establish sensible laws and penalize those who break them.

What we do NOT need, nor should we have, is a government that protects us from ourselves while giving us everything we could ever want. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to create wealth and/or success for themself. We ALL have the same opportunities. We can get a high school education, and if you want, a college education. If you're poor, those opportunities are even more available, because you can get it handed to you.

It is not government's job to provide companies with a check to correct the company's poor business practices or give everyone health insurance.

What this country needs is fewer elected officials who want to establish or change law through litigation, and more who want to get laws written/modified by the ballot.

[lokizilla]

Good points, Zester. The government as become more intrusive. People have become more whiny. Most people think, "if I don't like what you say, I can sue you." It's getting to a point where everyone thinks they can get what everything they want do to government making laws that restrict the freedoms of people.

[cashmoney]

I don't think MOST people think that. I think they are the minority, but it's from them you hear the biggest noise.

[hotzester]

Well I don't even necessarily mean just civil suit litigation. I'm specifically thinking of things like the gay marriage debacle. Let's put that on the ballot, and let the American people decide (or better yet, state by state). I'll go with whatever the outcome of the vote is. But to repeatedly challenge it in court, and have a JUDGE write law...that's completely unconstitutional. The judicial branch is not in place to ESTABLISH law. Same thing with abortion and Roe v. Wade. The courts wrote that law. It's supposed to be the legislative branch that legislates.

[lokizilla]

Well I don't even necessarily mean just civil suit litigation. I'm specifically thinking of things like the gay marriage debacle. Let's put that on the ballot, and let the American people decide (or better yet, state by state). I'll go with whatever the outcome of the vote is. But to repeatedly challenge it in court, and have a JUDGE write law...that's completely unconstitutional. The judicial branch is not in place to ESTABLISH law. Same thing with abortion and Roe v. Wade. The courts wrote that law. It's supposed to be the legislative branch that legislates.

Very true. It has to be found in the Constitution to make law. They keep sending judgments not of the people, but by their thoughts. Proposition 8 passed, because as liberal as California is, the majority voted to ban gay marriage. The people spoke, let it be written, not challenged.

[lokizilla]

I don't think MOST people think that. I think they are the minority, but it's from them you hear the biggest noise.

Very true, but they encroach on peoples liberties, and the government cowardly gives in to them.

[Mad Dog]

exactly.

right now is a perfect storm of anger, fear, panic, and uncertainty. i keep expecting a movement where we stand up to government but i think we're all too comfortable with sitting in our recliners watching Tivo and eating a double cheeseburger to bother.

our founding fathers would be disgusted.

Don't worry Becky, The Messiah has been elected. He will calm all our fears, Fix all our problems and wipe all our collective asses.

[lokizilla]

Mad, I take it your not an Obama supporter.

[professorpinasheep]

So I take it everyone here likes their socialized police and firefighters?

I don't think anyone has said we need zero government help/protection/aid or whatever. Anarchy doesn't work.. There must be someone who has the final say and someone who will take the blame for failure (though in reality, it's rare that anyone does). The gripe here is that there's too much government, and I think it's a rather valid one.

[Mad Dog]

Mad, I take it your not an Obama supporter.

I didn't vote for him, however I'm not necessarily rooting against him, It's just that there is a large segment of America that thinks Obama will part the Red Sea. I think it's funny.

[lokizilla]

Mad, I take it your not an Obama supporter.

I didn't vote for him, however I'm not necessarily rooting against him, It's just that there is a large segment of America that thinks Obama will part the Red Sea. I think it's funny.

At my work, if you speak anything that isn't rosy and glowing about him, you get turned in for creating a hostile environment in the work place. I'm in nerves right now about maybe losing my job, because they put me on a verbal for stating I worry for him. Said it was offensive to my black co-workers.

[potthole]

Very true. It has to be found in the Constitution to make law.

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

[lokizilla]

Very true. It has to be found in the Constitution to make law.

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point. I dislike working at a place that automatically thinks I'm racist, because I am white. Just to make clear, half of my friends are black, between the other half it is a mix of any color. If you are nice to me I don't care. Here's my point:

The writers of the Constitution only allowed slavery to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution. The South was actually upset that the Constitution restricted importing slaves in to our country in 1808. The best thing about the Constitution, if you don't like something, it can be repealed, because it is left open for that, it is for the living, not for the dead. By the first part of the Constitution, we couldn't go back to slavery anyway. You can't import them in, and by it you can't order someone to be slave, how would you get a slave in the first place? Laws protect people, there is no way to go back to that horrid way of life.

Edit: If you are nice to me I don't care. Fixed from your....

[-Jiggy-]

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point. I dislike working at a place that automatically thinks I'm racist, because I am white. Just to make clear, half of my friends are black, between the other half it is a mix of any color. If you are nice to me I don't care. Here's my point:

The writers of the Constitution only allowed slavery to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution. The South was actually upset that the Constitution restricted importing slaves in to our country in 1808. The best thing about the Constitution, if you don't like something, it can be repealed, because it is left open for that, it is for the living, not for the dead. By the first part of the Constitution, we couldn't go back to slavery anyway. You can't import them in, and by it you can't order someone to be slave, how would you get a slave in the first place? Laws protect people, there is no way to go back to that horrid way of life.

Edit: If you are nice to me I don't care. Fixed from your....

If people would take the time to research they would know what you're saying is true. Slavery was tolerated for a time from our gov't to try to get everyone on board with our newly developed country. If you look back at certain speeches and documents from most of our founding fathers they hated the idea of slavery and were trying to abolish it from the very beginning.

By the way, yes I know a lot of them owned slaves themselves. If you were a slave would you rather have been owned by someone who hated you or was fighting to make you a legal citizen.

[lokizilla]

Thank you, Jiggy.

[sunshyne]

yeah, could you go to any more of an extreme here? the title of the thread is Too much government, not, "I wish there was no government" .

let's see you do a better job before you bitch about it, all i'm saying.

don't like it? start doing something about it instead of opening your mouth. that's why we're so effed up, we're lazy people that talk a lot but are willing to take it up the ass from the government.

I try to at least inform people of things that are going on in the government, especially when there is something to vote on, but for your information I've at least ran for city council. I was on my old city's council, but couldn't run this term because I just moved. You gotta start somewhere.

What have you done, since you realize how "effed we are", besides say "oh well, its the best we have, its better than nothing"

[hotzester]

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point.

Especially when all you need is about 30 seconds to research the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery on December 6, 1865, making the entire argument of "it's not in the Constitution, so should we bring it back" pretty much pointless.

[potthole]

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point.

Especially when all you need is about 30 seconds to research the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery on December 6, 1865, making the entire argument of "it's not in the Constitution, so should we bring it back" pretty much pointless.

I never said that the outlawing of slavery isn't part of the Constitution. I know damn well that the 13th banned it, and I knew that without having to do any research.

The way I was interpreting some of the posts made was that some individuals were under the feeling that once a law is written, it shouldn't be changed. Which is why I brought up the slavery issue.

Also, never did I accuse anybody of being a racist, so please don't put those words into my mouth.

[hotzester]

Where in my post did I say you're a racist? I actually did NOT include the statement in that post about how the poster is sometimes made to look like one....I left that out intentionally.

What you did ask, albeit rhetorically, was if slavery should be allowed because it wasn't in the original, ratified version of the Constitution. My point was that no, it should not, and that it's a ridiculous argument because it's already been prohibited with an amendment.

Now, if you're talking purely hypothetical, and that the laws should only reflect what was in the Constitution in 1789 (I believe that's the year it was ratified), and there are no amendments banning something, I think you could make the argument. I wouldn't even remotely agree, but I think the case could be made for such a position.

[potthole]

Where in my post did I say you're a racist? I actually did NOT include the statement in that post about how the poster is sometimes made to look like one....I left that out intentionally.

What you did ask, albeit rhetorically, was if slavery should be allowed because it wasn't in the original, ratified version of the Constitution. My point was that no, it should not, and that it's a ridiculous argument because it's already been prohibited with an amendment.

Now, if you're talking purely hypothetical, and that the laws should only reflect what was in the Constitution in 1789 (I believe that's the year it was ratified), and there are no amendments banning something, I think you could make the argument. I wouldn't even remotely agree, but I think the case could be made for such a position.

Mentioned this to you in PM, but I figure I should put it out there for all to see. Not to long after I made my initial post, I realized I had missed the point I was hoping to make, and that what I had said was actually pure bunk.

The "racist" point wasn't directly in response to your specific post... your post was just the "lucky" one I happened to quote. We're all good.

[lokizilla]

Also, never did I accuse anybody of being a racist, so please don't put those words into my mouth.

If is is directed at me, I never once stated anyone was calling me a racist. In my post, I was clarifying, my stance on how I felt, also clarifying where I stood, before making my post. That way when I gave my statement it wouldn't be read wrong.

[krystal]

I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah. Economics is cyclical and all that junk. So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

[Mad Dog]

I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah. Economics is cyclical and all that junk. So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

I'm sorry to disagree but we need more businesses to get healthy enough to start hiring people to actually make things to sell. And we just elected someone who's party's base philosophy is to add regulations to businesses and take capitol from businesses. Then give that capitol directly to the masses who did nothing more to earn it than to want it and think they deserve it. I like free money as much as anybody, but taking form a have and giving it to a not for political reasons is ultimately destructive.

[hotzester]

So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

First of all, if you honestly believe that these benefits are free to the French, you're sadly misguided and desperately naive. The French pay out the ass in taxes to cover all of these expenses. Don't believe me? Here's a link to their tax page:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.cic.fr/en/bank/personal-banking/settling-in-france/tax-system-in-france/index.html">https://www.cic.fr/en/bank/personal-ban ... index.html</a><!-- m -->

I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah.

We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

Which is it? High unemployment results in the collapse of the financial sector, or you want five weeks off? It can't be both.

Third, why is it that the only jobs you're allowing for are government jobs? What has the government run efficiently in the 200+ years we've had one?

Fourth, and most important - if you want that stuff that the French have, but don't have the fortitude to move to France where you can get it, might I remind you that you can get almost anything you want right here in this country. Go get it. Start a company that is successful enough that you're able to take five weeks off. Go for it. You can do anything you want. Why does the government have to provide it for you?

Fifth, it is imperative to always remember: GOVERNMENT HAS NO ASSETS OF IT'S OWN. Any time the government wants to provide you with something, I want you to remember that it's being paid for by the taxpayers. Government doesn't OWN anything, so they can't GIVE YOU anything. If you're getting it "for free", it is because you've already paid for it.

[Rock Monster]

Government doesn't OWN anything, so they can't GIVE YOU anything. If you're getting it "for free", it is because you've already paid for it.

No... it's because someone with a job already paid for it....

[hotzester]

+1

[sunshyne]

Doesn't the government have anything better to do than further destroy the economy?

By Alana Semuels
January 2, 2009

RETAIL
New safety rules for children's clothes have stores in a fit

A Goodwill store in Los Angeles is among those that will be required to pay for private testing for lead and phthalates of all clothing for those under age 13.

Some owners say the cost of testing for toxic lead and phthalates will shut their businesses. The law goes into effect Feb. 10.

Barring a reprieve, regulations set to take effect next month could force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away trunkloads of children's clothing.

The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children, mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger -- including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead.

"They'll all have to go to the landfill," said Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.

The new regulations take effect Feb. 10 under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress last year in response to widespread recalls of products that posed a threat to children, including toys made with lead or lead-based paint.

Supporters say the measure is sorely needed. One health advocacy group said it found high levels of lead in dozens of products purchased around the country, including children's jewelry, backpacks and ponchos.

Lead can also be found in buttons or charms on clothing and on appliques that have been added to fabric, said Charles Margulis, communications director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland. A child in Minnesota died a few years ago after swallowing a lead charm on his sneaker, he said.

But others say the measure was written too broadly. Among the most vocal critics to emerge in recent weeks are U.S.-based makers of handcrafted toys and handmade clothes, as well as thrift and consignment shops that sell children's clothing.

"We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy," said Shauna Sloan, founder of Salt Lake City-based franchise Kid to Kid, which sells used children's clothing in 75 stores across the country and had planned to open a store in Santa Clara, Calif., this year.

There is the possibility of a partial reprieve. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the law, on Monday will consider exempting clothing and toys made of natural materials such as wool or wood. The commission does not have the authority to change the law but can decide how to interpret it.

But exempting natural materials does not go far enough, said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear Assn. Clothes made of cotton but with dyes or non-cotton yarn, for example, might still have to be tested, as would clothes that are cotton-polyester blends, he said.

"The law introduces an extraordinarily large number of testing requirements for products for which everyone knows there's no lead," he said.

Clothing and thrift trade groups say the law is flawed because it went through Congress too quickly. By deeming that any product not tested for lead content by Feb. 10 be considered hazardous waste, they contend, stores will have to tell customers that clothing they were allowed to sell Feb. 9 became banned overnight.

These groups say the law should be changed so that it applies to products made after Feb. 10, not sold after that date.

That would take action by Congress, however, because the Consumer Product Safety Commission's general counsel has already determined that the law applies retroactively, said commission spokesman Scott Wolfson.

The regulations also apply to new clothing. That won't be a problem for large manufacturers and retailers, industry experts say, but it will be a headache for small operators such as Molly Orr, owner of Molly O Designs in Las Vegas.

Orr has already produced her spring line of children's clothes. She says she can't afford the $50,000 it would cost to have a private lab test her clothing line, so she's trying to sell her inventory at a steep discount before Feb. 10. After that, she is preparing to close her business.

"We have a son with autism, so we are all about cleaning up the toxins that our children are exposed to," she said. "But I think the law needs to be looked at more closely to see how it is affecting the economy in general."

Thrift store owners say the law stings because children's garments often come in new or nearly new, because children typically outgrow clothing quickly.

Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose Consignment in New Port Richey, Fla., said her store stocks barely used brand-name clothing from places such as Limited Too and Gymboree.

"We really provide a service to the community to help people get clothes for their children they otherwise couldn't afford," she said.

Families have been bringing more clothes to consignment stores, where they get a chunk of the proceeds, to earn a little cash this winter, she said. She plans to contact her congressional representatives and senators to ask them to amend the law but says there's not enough awareness about the repercussions of the law to force anything to change.

Many retailers and thrift stores appear to be unaware that the law is changing. Of half a dozen Southern California children's thrift stores contacted by The Times, only one had heard of the law. Organizations such as Goodwill say they're still investigating how the law will affect them because there is so much confusion about what will be banned.

Cynthia Broockman, who owns two consignment stores and a thrift shop in Virginia, recently stopped accepting children's products for resale. That raised the ire of a man who was trying to sell his son's castoffs there and had not heard of the new rules.

"I think it's not understood by people how sweeping and far-reaching this is," she said. "The ripples that are going to go forth from this are just astonishing"

This is another brilliant, well thought out piece of crap legislation. We could just ban items that come from the factories in countries **cough china cough, cough ** but no, we have make people pay tens of thousands of dollars to test their products. Walmart and other big chains might be able to work around this, costs will probably go up. But little non chain, ma & pop stores, thrift stores, consignment stores... like it said in the article, "We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy,"

Tack those businesses and all their workers on that unemployment number that keeps rising.

I hope Obama is a miracle worker, hes getting into a huge mess.