What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
242 Comments
- MotoFly, on 01/26/2009, -12/+115Well, electing a democrat is not going to lessen federal power, thats for sure.
- muckemuck, on 01/26/2009, -7/+79Read "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf to see where all this centralization of power is leading us. She wrote it mainly to point out the power grabs that the Bush administration made.. It's a small book, but well worth reading.
- CommonSense2k8, on 01/26/2009, -3/+71If you don't use your rights, if you don't protect your rights, if you don't care about your rights.... you will loose them
- rda1441, on 01/26/2009, -7/+70This is bad....the federal government is far to big.
- DAVENP0RT, on 01/26/2009, -5/+45Who is John Galt?
- azureskies88, on 01/26/2009, -6/+45I welcome this increase in governmental power. Over the past 8 years, the country has recognized that big government doesn't work under Republican control. When the country realizes that big government doesn't work under Democratic control either, gone will be the days of arguing, "Big government isn't the problem, those who control it are the problem." We will be well under way toward a more Libertarian society, as we have been headed over the past decade or so (particularly evidenced by Ron Paul's support in 2008 vs. 1988).
- cnot3, on 01/26/2009, -1/+34It's also what our founding fathers warned us about.
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." - James Madison - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -4/+37The States have lost and, in fact, probably lost a long time ago, only now it's official. This article needed writing 6-12 years ago, depending on where you want to draw the lines.
Membership in the Union is no longer optional as made clear by our "hero" Abraham Lincoln. I'm against slavery and central banking, but forcing those states to remain in the Union was the single greatest factor in undermining state's rights. All those states in the confederacy would have had to abolish slavery within 15-25 years of the Civil Wars beginning (think 1885-1890 at the latest). While their would have been human suffering on the part of the slaves during those years, the fate of their ancestors has been sealed for longer than a century. The net effect is that instead of the slaves being freed, now we are ALL OF US economic and political slaves of a huge, indifferent central gov't.
Much has been written about how Lincoln agonized over the human suffering and perhaps he was a very good person, but he put the first strong and deep nail in the coffin of US liberty. Add the Fed and Revenuers and that was the end. Everything since has merely been epilogue. - eurodele, on 01/26/2009, -6/+37The Washington scam is really quite obvious.
(1) Washington, wanting to spend huge amounts of money without having to get clearance from US citizens, sets up a criminal central bank, the so-called "US Federal Reserve", that will print and "lend" it all the money it asks for, agreeing not only to pay interest on the (effortlessly-created) money but to sign away an equal amount of publicly-owned collateral in the form of government bonds. This will end up bankrupting the people of the United States, but criminal politicians care only about their own power, so no problem. [Date: ~1913]
(2) Having fastened industrial-duty taxation siphons to the citizens in order to meet its obligations to the (largely foreign) central bankers to whom it has sold its soul, the government spends without limit, involving the nation in trillion-dollar wars from which special interests may benefit, but from which the people themselves stand to gain absolutely nothing.
(3) The flood of money pouring into the coffers of the central bankers allows them to control not only the government, but the financial markets, public infrastructure, and even the means of public indoctrination such as the media and the university system, which they use to ensure that the public can no longer keep track of its own best interests or develop a true consensus.
(4) The government, obeying the commands of its banker masters and bent on increasing its power under cover of disinformation, turns on its (now helpless) people and throws open US borders to unassimilable aliens, dooming the states to bankruptcy as they try desperately to provide social services to the newcomers. [Date: ~1964]
(5) Washington uses the resulting financial insolvency of the states to...you guessed it, steal more power from the citizens on behalf of their scheming, filthy-rich banker masters!
It's a self-reinforcing political-economic delusion, an interminable cycle that can only be interdicted by the people themselves, as implicitly authorized under the US Constitution. But do the people, having been falsely indoctrinated by their banker-controlled government, have the will and virtue to do their Constitutional duty on behalf of their descendants?
There's the real question. - tj111, on 01/26/2009, -1/+32The closing paragraph really sums it up well:
"Over time, those of us in the provinces may grow to resent all this, seeing in Washington's ascendancy something obtrusive, oppressive and contrary to the national ethos. But don't expect Washingtonians to care much. They'll be too busy running the country, when not chortling all the way to the bank. " - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -6/+36I think the Republicans have once and for all disproven the myth that voting for them actually results in smaller government. So I don't see the point in complaining about the only major alternative.
- PeppermintPig, on 01/26/2009, -5/+35It's not merely an issue of unification vs demise. It matters what you're unifying with, and forcing unity has never worked. Gandhi, for example, did his best work as a non-violent resister of authoritarians, but his final dark moments were spent trying to unify two groups that didn't want to be unified. It would not be morally acceptable to burden some people with the debts of others and claim we're in one big boat. That's what the false promise of bailouts has provided thus far.
Ok, so people used the ballot box to remove the crooks, but now have new crooks to deal with. They don't have a fundamental understanding of the problem, else they'd curtail the power and size of the government. - kemp34, on 01/26/2009, -2/+29Too much centralized power and control = tyranny and failure.
The localism and federalism of the Founding Fathers was very wise. - TheAdvent, on 01/26/2009, -1/+28"only major alternative"
This is the mindset that kills us at the voting booths. "I'll vote for the lesser of 2 evils" mentality will not work! If there is someone running for any office that you agree with over all others, then I BEG you to please vote for that person regardless of what political party he/she may be part of. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -2/+28If you think that small government wasn't already long dead, you clearly haven't been paying attention.
- slantyeyed, on 01/26/2009, -9/+35we voted in a democrat and now we're complaining? wtf?
- InternetCeleb, on 01/26/2009, -2/+26Which part of the government was small before Jan 20th?
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -3/+25"When the country realizes that big government doesn't work under Democratic control either,....."
The problem is, the people DON'T realize this. They continue to lap up the 'Change' Kool-aid every time someone offers it. Nearly every president has offered 'change' as part of their platform. - greendalek, on 01/26/2009, -2/+23Pretty self-evident thoughts, nevertheless it's good to read in a "mainstream" editorial. We've now decisively learned that Big Government under Republican rule doesn't work; I'm hopeful that in 4 to 8 years it will become equally clear that Big Government under Democrat rule doesn't work EITHER.
- AndrewMoyer, on 01/26/2009, -2/+21One need not read any further than George Orwell's "1984" to see where this is leading us.
I..... love.... big brother. - kemp34, on 01/26/2009, -0/+19Woodrow Wilson actually laid the ground work for FDR:
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Income Tax
- WWI
These were all major changes in policy at the time, that have led to massive expansion of central authority. - ladyattis, on 01/26/2009, -0/+19And this how it ends. Not with a clash of arms defending some rubble laden capital, but in the whimpers and grunts of those who have abandoned their minds.
- kspanks04, on 01/26/2009, -5/+24forced votes:
There's a reason why people like ron paul who truly understand the problems and have solutions don't make it. - davebg8r, on 01/26/2009, -0/+18What we dont need is everyone rushing to just do what Obama says under the guise of 'unifying'. I elected my representatives to actually represent me, not rubber stamp what Obama wants. I dont want them rushing this or any other bill through Congress ala the bailouts. I want them to actually read the legislation and understand how it works and how its going to solve the problem its supposed to. And if it doesnt, or its wrong, or its filled with pork, I expect my representative to do their job and oppose it.
- Chak2007, on 01/26/2009, -0/+18Don't forget all the crap that happen during the great depression, FDR added a few more nails with his plans. You can argue the pros and cons of those government programs, but they too greatly increased governments power.
- jcastillo81, on 01/26/2009, -9/+26B b b but...Obama!
- kemp34, on 01/26/2009, -2/+18Education should be financed at the state and local level. Why should the Feds be involved in this?
Additionally, what sense does it make to have the Federal Government administer a national retirement program? - MooseOfReason, on 01/26/2009, -1/+17Who's suggesting isolationism?
- kgblossom, on 01/26/2009, -2/+18"I am thankful that we ousted the crooks that got us here."
Which "crooks" are you refering to?
It has taken many years to get here. Little grabs along the way that people barely notice. FDR started the first real big grab. It has been coming a long time.
It appears another large grab is right at our doorstep. - rizzo2008, on 01/26/2009, -6/+22the transformation of the Republic to an empire is something we must stop. It destroyed Rome and it will destroy us unless we restrain ourselves. Smaller government, restoration of property rights (i.e. end the IRS and the 16th amendment), more power to the states, etc
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -4/+19LoL and we vote a democrat in. The VERY meaning of the party is big government and people living of Washingtons tit. This country was sunk long ago.
- honeybrass, on 01/26/2009, -2/+17The sky, blue it is,
Orange paintbrush of liberty,
Ron Paul holds onto.
Fixed it for him. - Obsidian743, on 01/26/2009, -0/+15How do you imagine we get back control once that's happened? This is why revolutionary wars are fought and I, for one, would rather just bypass all that and NOT give the government more control.
- Grok22, on 01/26/2009, -9/+24correction you voted for a socialist democrat
- omgwtflawl, on 01/26/2009, -2/+16New Deal and Great Society social programs. They already make up over 60% of the government, lets torch those first. We will have to settle with the people who are currently owed money, but those programs were already going to collapse, so might as well hasten the inevitable.
Then we can take some giant pruning shears to other wastes, like the "war on drugs" and everything surrounding it, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other money bonfires polluting the Federal Government.
As others have mentioned, we could start tearing down the overseas military bases we now posses, which are basically money firehoses spewing money away from America into local economies overseas. Actually, I bet some countries might bribe us to keep the bases open, as it is so financially beneficial to have them around. - mastersmite, on 01/26/2009, -0/+14Haiku's have 3 lines and follow a very particular structure of 5 syllables - 7 syllables - 5 syllables per line.
- omgwtflawl, on 01/26/2009, -2/+15Whoah there sparky. I'm no fan at all of Obama and his Democratic minions, but Bush and the Republicans were no fans of smaller government. Bush expanded government hugely, and regulated everything he could get his hands on. He did this while praising smaller government and deregulation. This puts actual fans of small government on the guillotine when things go to pot, as they have already done.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+13I think Plato covered this about 2300 years ago. Anyone who would want to become a career politician isn't they type of person that you would want to be a ruler.
- anthropodeus, on 01/26/2009, -1/+14i dont understand. is there anything the states CAN"T do by themselves, with the exception of defense, in which case they should be unified?
- noisician, on 01/26/2009, -0/+13Well, electing a republican certainly didn't lessen federal power, that's for sure.
- MooseOfReason, on 01/26/2009, -2/+14You're confusing her for Naomi Klein.
And yeah, she's pretty hot. - rizzo2008, on 01/26/2009, -2/+14Absolute power corrupts absolutely. An unconstitutionally large Federal government will no doubt abuse its power no matter how good the intentions of its leaders. Obama made an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States something I believe he is failing miserably at less than a week into his first term. The only way to limit the president's and congress's power is to limit the authority, size, and scope of the Federal government and restore states' rights
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+12I live and work in DC, for a political think tank that has some ties to the current administration. You wouldn't believe the people I've gotten to talk to off the record at parties and events...and those last two sentences are about 95% correct.
95% just don't care about "the people" and the other 5% do care, but have spent so long in the ivory towers of NGOs, non-profits and academia that they really don't *know* how to help the people as they are so far removed from the basic problems people face. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -2/+14The commitment to decreasing the size of government is dead. Government has been growing for some time but at least we had elected officials who were committed to at the very least minimizing its expansion. What we have now is a Congress and a President with no reservations about drastically increasing the size of government.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -1/+12Who was committed to minimizing government expansion? The size of the government ballooned after 9/11, with no hint of any reservations about it by those in power.
- azureskies88, on 01/26/2009, -2/+13I know it's idealistic to imagine a Congress that plays together nicely, and some good may even come out of it in the short term, but the day that Congress is united is the day when I would no longer like to live in the United States. Our country was designed to be partisan, where people of various opinions can work together toward compromise. It's a much slower process, but it's also much safer.
- skinnyskittles, on 01/26/2009, -0/+11Apparently you don't understand American law. There is no capitalism in America. It is all regulated.
- spyd3rweb, on 01/26/2009, -1/+12When you pass federal laws you can end up with 49% of the country not agreeing with a law, which is very dangerous. When someone doesn't agree with a city law, its maybe a few hundred people and they can easily work to get it changed, or move to another city. Moving to another country is not easy, and if global laws were passed that you didn't agree with it would be impossible to avoid. Corrupt individuals are drawn in to areas of power like a magnet, concentrating too much power in one location is how tyranny begins and why we have a 3 branch government with a Constitution and state and local governments, to distribute power as much as possible. Also government does not exist to serve business interests, but to protect the rights of PEOPLE.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 256 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is