So when they say they hate big government, does that include their state governments also?
I mean how big of a government is too big? Since most of the legislation that effects your day to day life is passed by your state legislatures... do republicans want to abolish their state governments as well?
dot... Are you anti big government? If you are than THEY would be you.... riiiiigggghhhhhttttt???
Charli, i think you are fundamentally wrong on most of what you just wrote and i think the prior posts disagree with your assessment as well.
Actually, you are soooo misinformed on the size of State government that it would take me too long to dissect your argument.
Charli, it's a matter of common knowledge. If you don't know you just don't know. it's not my job to educate you! Well for starters, your first paragraph is all opinion. It can be argued six ways to Sunday. It eventually would fall into a common circular argument that goes something like... yes it is , no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't etc etc. That's why I say... If you don't know you simply don't know. I think most of us would be in agreement that State governments are big governments as well arguing that point would be an insult to one's intelligence. The prior two answers hit the nail on the head.
Senora alta... tu eres muy intelligent. Muy bien!
Of course the less intelligent would disagree with you...tsk tsk, you tried!
Charli, the constitution is kinda like the bible, you can take out of it what ever you want and make it fit whatever you want it ti fit. A good case in point would be the Patriot Act or for my republican friends the so called socialization of the American banking system.
You see.., this is what happens when you try to follow a document verbatim and you do not have the common sense to apply the document. This is the same type of logic that failed our economy. People like yourself are still running around quoting Economics 101 text book formulas but can't make the adjustment that what has happened is not in the text book!
It's a common sense argument charli, you either have it or you don't!
- srdongato2Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
If the state that I live in gets too big I don't like it. The federal government has certain powers as named in the constitution. Anything beyond what the constitution gives them the power to do is "reserved to the states respectively or to the people". The federal(not national) government was formed mainly for the defense of the original colonies. None of them could stand alone against the British, but as United States they were strong enough to defeat the British and establish their independence from the crown. The framers of the constitution, however, did not want a powerful central government. Each state already had their own separate government with it's own constitution. They were separate, but united.
Constitution- the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization.
The constitution, by definition, is not something that you can just "take out of it what ever you want and make it fit whatever you want it ti fit". It is the supreme law of the land. It names, in the "Bill of Rights", the rights that we are born with. Some would call them our God given rights, some would say our birth rights, some others would just say our human rights. No matter what you call them they are the rights that no man or government can take away from us and they are the rights that our federal government is sworn to defend. THAT is their number one job. And there is a provision in the constitution which would allow something like the Patriot Act in a time of national emergency and a time of war. The President is allowed expanded powers in his role as commander in chief. Some things which would be considered unconstitutional in peace time may be necessary for keeping the country safe. Congress still has the power to oversee what he does so that he can't assume too much power.
The "logic" that failed our economy was our federal government forcing banks to make loans that they never would have made if they were left to do THEIR business instead of politics. That is why the federal government has no business getting involved in business. They aren't motivated by sound business ideas, they're motivated by what is going to get them votes. Our constitution does not allow them to take over businesses. It does not allow them to set limits(minimum or maximum) on wages. The whole idea of the federal government "regulating" interstate commerce was to promote and facilitate trade between the states. It was not meant to allow them to run or manage businesses.
"People like yourself are still running around quoting Economics 101 text book formulas"
And people like you run around and ignore fundamental truths instead of building on them. These are the things you learn so you can face future problems and come up with creative solutions. BUT you start with basics. With a strong foundation. Otherwise whatever you build will surely collapse.
- R.Lv 51 decade ago
Didn't you know the government in each state has a governor that why the president does come to california to help the crisis of the budget that the governor's job. and I think that the governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is terminating California that he need to be total be recall as governor since he cutting more schools and cutting help for the disable in home care services and to make the tax raise go up for thing that the tax payer should pay like sending people into space. make more freeways digging holes in the street then latter just patching it up with some tar.and paying for the legislatures to go on luxury trips with their family I don't think so. That's what I hate that the government will never show what they spend on a tax payers monies but the government like to know about us even our bank statement on how much were make. We all need too stick together on how they spend on all the tax payers money or our they putting it in their pocket for themselves.
- Mujer AltaLv 71 decade ago
Most people want the government to spend on them but not on others, to meet their needs but not the needs of others. It's an incredibly infantile way of thinking. A baby only knows its own needs.
It's inane to think that a big country with a large, diverse population would have the same size government and the same budget it did 100 or 200 years ago. Government is not some distant thing. It's us. So don't talk about "them" and what "they" do to us. If you don't keep yourself informed, if you don't participate, if you choose not to let your representatives know what you think and why, then you've given up your birthright, your citizenship.
Ask yourself what kind of place you want to live in and then ask yourself how much it's worth to you. Most people want to live in the best possible United States but nobody wants to pay for it. Many people don't want to pay for immigrant health care even if they're the ones who hire the immigrants but no one will stand at the emergency room door and turn away people arriving with sick kids. No one wants the park or beach they use closed but no one wants to pay to keep it open. Americans need to do some serious thinking about what they want: a third-world backwater that's cheap to run or a top-of-the-line country where everyone pays their share of the expenses.
- Neptune.SkyLv 61 decade ago
state and federal governments are 2 completly different things. the individual state voters can decide what they want to fund, based on the amount of taxes they want to pay. the individual state governmet can be a big or as small as the voters request.
the federal government was ONLY given the constitutional authority to coin our money (not a private bank) provide interstate travel and a military defense...ALL other legislation such as income assistance programs, school districts, police, firefighters, libraries, and all social issues (gay marriage, abortion) were intended for the individual states to legislate on..to keep government constitutionally fiscal, and held accountable.
100% of what is collected federally is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.
if you dont have time to write your facts..then just provide me a link that is supported by the US constitution. thanks
Your right, the constitution is a matter of common knowledge...you are only stating a heated opinion, backed by absolutly zero fact. I am quoting constitutional law.Source(s): US Constitution
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
nicely, comprehend, inner maximum charity can continuously greater advantageous... in 1887 Congress handed a invoice that gave money to farmers in Texas who have been suffering via a drought. Grover Cleveland became into president then, he replied to the request ~"i think obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by using this invoice, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment throughout the time of the appropriation of public money for that purpose. i will locate no warrant for such an appropriation in the form, and that i don't think that the potential and accountability of the final government could desire to be prolonged to the alleviation of guy or woman suffering that's in no way precise touching directly to the commonplace public provider or income. A time-honored tendency to push aside the constrained project of this potential and accountability ought to, i think of, be steadfastly resisted, to the top that the lesson must be consistently enforced that although the persons help the government the government shouldn't help the persons." He continued "“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can continuously be relied upon to alleviate their fellow electorate in misfortune. This has been lower back and lower back and rather presently validated. Federal help in such situations encourages the expectancy of paternal care on the element of the government and weakens the toughness of our national character, collectively because it prevents the indulgence between our human beings of that kindly sentiment and habit which strengthens the bonds of a elementary brotherhood.” So, what do you think of occurred? those fellow countryman donated 10 cases. TEN cases additional funds to the farmers than Pres. Cleveland had vetoed Or, after typhoon Katrina, one month later, inner maximum donations exceeded $a million billion money, (confident, with a b) the government sent out money to inmates, positioned up workplace packing containers, cemetaries etc. we don't could desire to recycle by using regulation, yet maximum do. we are in a position to smoke in our very own properties (it is, your homestead, which you very own) CCTV, confident, regrettably we are starting to be further and further of them
- BabaBrightLv 51 decade ago
Not abolish, but limit the size and spending. How many states are now enacting tax increases instead of limiting their out of control spending? Government, in all forms, pisses away more money than can be imagined.
- 1 decade ago
Not abolish, reduce, and yes, state government too.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Who is they?