RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State

RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It comes as no surprise to discover that their objections are rooted in a quaint but dated ideological belief that the quality and/or efficiency of government is somehow a function of its size, and that therefore small government is necessarily better government. There is also a quasi-libertarian complete distrust of any form of government discernible in the argument advanced. The irony inherent in arguing that a particular minimalist model of government is preferable/superior from a premise that all government is to be distrusted seems lost on the OP. However the real reason I find it odd it is that there are far more real and immediate threats to your Constitution that are omitted from the discussion altogether. I am referring to the growth of the surveillance/security State in the last decade or so. For example one could point to issues such as passing the so-called Patriot Act, the NSA spying on private citizens, communications intercepts or the attempts to muzzle the media through the hounding of Wikileaks and the extraordinary espionage charges laid against whistleblower Snowder. (No matter what one may think of Snowden's actions, he is most definitely not a spy) quote: ORIGINAL: joether Then you are still left with the position of needing to define this 'limited government' since you can not point out any realistic examples. Your the one that brought this thread up, so its rather expected you have a very well defined idea of what 'is' and 'isn't' within the realm of limited government in exact terms. "Limited Government" isn't a defined phrase, though. It's not necessarily a specific (no matter what you might think, Joether) size or breadth, either. A "limited" something or other, is a something or other that is limited in scope. In the case of the US Federal Government, it's limited by the US Constitution. The authorities granted to the Federal Government are limited to those that are listed in the Constitution, and include any of those things that are considered "necessary and proper" in executing those authorities listed. A Government that has greater authority than another will very likely be of greater size and scope, and that would be expected. Even though the Founders are dead, we can still find out what they intended and meant with the words they used in the Constitution, by reading other works, including The Federalist Papers. And, what you are ignoring, tweakabelle, is that there are many, many Conservatives, Tea Party members, etc., that are opposed to the Patriot Act. As a matter of fact, the first time I heard anything negative about the Patriot Act was around 2004 (which is when I started to pay attention to politics) while listening to Glenn Beck. Yep. Glenn Beck. The Patriot Act was a big deal to limited government folks, as it should have been. And, it's a big fail for Obama for continuing (and expanding) it.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 5:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions. So what? It doesn't make it any less true. And it's not like you can deduct more than you contribute. Are you going to try to convince everyone now that just because people can deduct what they contribute that it removes any notion of actually being charitable?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 5:58:43 PM)
It's amazing to me how many folks have an opinion....diametrically opposed to the OP. Some are polite....some are abrupt....here's what I surmise: If you don't agree with me (seems fairly obvious.....seems somewhat obvious frankly)....well....you're just stoooopit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 6:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions. So what? It doesn't make it any less true. And it's not like you can deduct more than you contribute. Are you going to try to convince everyone now that just because people can deduct what they contribute that it removes any notion of actually being charitable? I wonder if I can claim my taxes as charitable deductions...

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 7:08:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions. So what? It doesn't make it any less true. And it's not like you can deduct more than you contribute. Are you going to try to convince everyone now that just because people can deduct what they contribute that it removes any notion of actually being charitable? I wonder if I can claim my taxes as charitable deductions... Hey, you might be on to something. [:)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 10:43:20 PM)
quote: And, what you are ignoring, tweakabelle, is that there are many, many Conservatives, Tea Party members, etc., that are opposed to the Patriot Act. As a matter of fact, the first time I heard anything negative about the Patriot Act was around 2004 (which is when I started to pay attention to politics) while listening to Glenn Beck. Yep. Glenn Beck. The Patriot Act was a big deal to limited government folks, as it should have been. And, it's a big fail for Obama for continuing (and expanding) it. Hey, DS I am not "ignoring" conservative or right wing opposition to the Patriot Act. In fact, I welcome it. I wasn't trying to make a partisan point. I was pointing out that, as far as threats to the Constitution go, the threats to individual liberties, freedom of speech , and freedom of the media from the growth of the surveillance/security State seem to me to pose a significantly greater danger than the threats to the Constitution made in the argument presented in the OP. In terms of practical politics, I would imagine that most Americans would regard these dangers as far more relevant to their lives, and far more immediate that the OP's 'threats' to the Constitution too. So, in theory, it ought to be far easier to build mass opposition to these dangers.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 2:49:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: And, what you are ignoring, tweakabelle, is that there are many, many Conservatives, Tea Party members, etc., that are opposed to the Patriot Act. As a matter of fact, the first time I heard anything negative about the Patriot Act was around 2004 (which is when I started to pay attention to politics) while listening to Glenn Beck. Yep. Glenn Beck. The Patriot Act was a big deal to limited government folks, as it should have been. And, it's a big fail for Obama for continuing (and expanding) it. Hey, DS I am not "ignoring" conservative or right wing opposition to the Patriot Act. In fact, I welcome it. I wasn't trying to make a partisan point. I was pointing out that, as far as threats to the Constitution go, the threats to individual liberties, freedom of speech , and freedom of the media from the growth of the surveillance/security State seem to me to pose a significantly greater danger than the threats to the Constitution made in the argument presented in the OP. In terms of practical politics, I would imagine that most Americans would regard these dangers as far more relevant to their lives, and far more immediate that the OP's 'threats' to the Constitution too. So, in theory, it ought to be far easier to build mass opposition to these dangers. A wholesale reining in of government back to it's Constitution-limited format, though, would also impact the Patriot Act. Increasing the administrative parts of government insulates those parts from the voters. Thus, it further insulates the Federal Government's limitations from the voters. Having bureaucrat make the decisions rather than elected officials, while it may be more efficient, takes those decisions away from the voters. If Mayor Bloomberg gets re-elected, it will be, in part, because the people like what he brings to the table more than they dislike the policies he puts in place (ie, the soda size limit). However, placing those decisions at the behest of some bureaucrat rather than on Bloomberg's shoulders may keep Bloomberg in office even though the people may not have liked the policies he's put in place.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 3:49:35 AM)
I understand where you're coming from DS, but you are ignoring one very major fact. And that is, the beaurocrats don't vote themselves in, they are voted in by the voters and as such are supposed to reflect what the voters are wanting - just as much as any local official voted in by the local people. So... by whining that you you hate the beaurocrats ruling the place, you are directly opposing who the voters put there in the first place; are you not? And seeing as the beaurocrats got there in the first place by popular vote, perhaps you ought to get yourself a better party to vote for and get someone else to sit in the beaurocratic chair. So where is your 'democracy' then? You support the results of a local vote but not a country-wide vote? Surely that's double-standards at least. Seems to me like you wanna shoot the horse you bought to pull the cart then whine when it pulls too hard for you.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 4:28:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri While there aren't things specifically named in the Constitution the Federal Government does do, most of them fall under the "necessary and proper" category of one of the thing specifically named. "Necessary and proper" leaves a lot open to interpretation. That's what I was getting at earlier when I said the Constitution was more open-ended. quote: This is precisely why I think the Obamacare issue is going to end up with a defining (at least a more specific defining) of the "General Welfare of the United States" clause. Obviously, Obamacare isn't Constitutional according to the ICC, but is it considered "necessary and proper" under the General Welfare clause. I don't think the Founding Fathers would think it is, but we'll have to wait and see what happens here. One thing I keep in mind is that the Founding Fathers did not have access to the same kinds of technologies we have today, and "healthcare" back in those days might have been some guy who bled patients with leeches and got paid in whiskey. Medical care was a lot cheaper back then, so I'm sure the Founding Fathers would wonder why healthcare is so expensive these days, just as many of us do. In any case, I don't think that the basic idea of the government providing healthcare would go against the Constitution any more than government-provided police and fire protection would go against the Constitution. I see healthcare as being analogous, so I never could understand why people readily accept police and fire protection from the government but not healthcare. My main problem with Obamacare is that we've given a virtual blank check to the medical profession and insurance industries, and I don't think it will really work without firm price controls. That may be the only way to keep it from busting the budget. quote: quote: Moreover, is this even a political issue at all? Haven’t both parties contributed equally to the rise of the administrative state? I don’t see where either side has any room to talk in criticizing the other over the issue of limited government. Political? Absolutely. Partisan? Not so much. Well, it's clearly political in the sense that everything is political, strictly speaking. But what I was getting at is that, while both parties have contributed to the expansion of the administrative state, neither party is willing to take ownership of what they've done. I'm hard-pressed to think of any politician who has actually argued for a big, intrusive government which wastes money. quote: You are correct in your statements. But, the Constitution is still the framework for the Federal Government, and should only have one mode of alteration. Setting up the bureaucracies to control the nation isn't within the authorities of the Federal Government's Republican format. It separates government from the people more than what was intended. I can see what you're saying, although it seems you're addressing something along the lines of a systemic or organizational matter, not something directly related to what the government can or can not do, nor does it address the rights of citizens (which is really the most important component of the Constitution anyway). I don't think the bureaucracies actually "control" the nation, since Congress still has the power to impeach and/or get rid of any bureaucrat who gets out of line or violates the law, up to and including the President. It's not as if they've handed power over to some military junta which can't be removed.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 5:06:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A wholesale reining in of government back to it's Constitution-limited format, though, would also impact the Patriot Act. Increasing the administrative parts of government insulates those parts from the voters. Thus, it further insulates the Federal Government's limitations from the voters. If the issue is the federal government's insulation from the voters, then there may be another solution to that problem. In many ways, the Constitution was designed and intended by the Founding Fathers to do just that, to insulate the federal government from the people. That's why Cabinet posts are appointed and not elected. That's why the Supreme Court and other federal judges are appointed and not elected. That's why we have an Electoral College. Heck, the Founding Fathers only wanted white males who own property to be allowed to vote. Talk about being insulated! But if the federal government's insulation from the voters is a problem (and I agree that it is), then I would propose an Amendment to the Constitution which would call for all Cabinet-level positions to be elective offices, as well as making the President and Vice-President elected separately, not on a single ticket (just as it's done for Governors and Lieutenant Governors in some states). Perhaps certain key bureaus could also be elected posts, such as the directors of the NSA, CIA, and/or FBI (just as we elect county sheriffs). Maybe even the Supreme Court and other federal judges can be elected, too, just as judges are elected in some states. Another way to remove the insulation of the federal government is to allow national referendums and ballot propositions on the federal level, just as it's done at the state level. Could it be that the reason for the rise of the administrative state might be due to weaknesses within the Constitution itself? Are there loopholes in the Constitution which need to be closed? What, exactly, is being proposed here? What can We The People do to rein in our own government?

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 5:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Limited Government" isn't a defined phrase, though. It's not necessarily a specific (no matter what you might think, Joether) size or breadth, either. A "limited" something or other, is a something or other that is limited in scope. In the case of the US Federal Government, it's limited by the US Constitution. The authorities granted to the Federal Government are limited to those that are listed in the Constitution, and include any of those things that are considered "necessary and proper" in executing those authorities listed. It is most certainly a defined phrase. However the DEFINTION of the phrase is as subjective as molecules of oxygen floating over Montana right now. I believe I was quite specific in my question. What you have given is simply dodging the question entirely. An this is NOT an acceptable definition. Since the time the US Government came into existence, we have been following the US Constitution. The size, scope, and reach of the government has remains relative to the size, scope and reach of the people under the government's area of domain. When the nation was formed, the government at the federal level was tiny....just like the colonizes. Limited resources, limited landmass, and limited people that defined themselves as US Citizens. As the nation grew in population and land coverage, so too did government. An last I checked, the US Constitution does NOT state government must be limited government. So 'yes', I would like you to precisely define 'Limited Government'.....pretty please with sugar on top! So that we know what your specific definition is; otherwise we'll just start assuming things.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A Government that has greater authority than another will very likely be of greater size and scope, and that would be expected. Even though the Founders are dead, we can still find out what they intended and meant with the words they used in the Constitution, by reading other works, including The Federalist Papers. Oh I'm sorry, you never heard of the 1st amendment, DS? [:D]. My apologizes. Here allow me: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Notice the bold part. Yes, stating we should hold true to federalist papers like its a metaphorical bible is taking things down a religious route pretty quickly. The material within the federalist papers is fine for a history lesson on how people in that day and age looked at government. Unfortunately it is also limited by those times. The technology, the knowledge of planet Earth, and history before that moment. How much of the world's knowledge base did the founding fathers have access to? Likewise, none of them ever had to contend with any of the problems this nation faces on a daily basis in 2013. Does the US Constitution or the federalist papers cover the Internet? Since its a pretty big concept in 2013; I don't recall Jefferson tweeting to Washington about the British running away from North Bridge in Concord, MA. How would Washington have handled getting several thousand death threats a day? For the last few US Presidents that is the 'norm'. What I'm trying to convey here is that the federalist papers are good, but they are very limited and should not be taken like the 10 Commandments. The founding fathers were against religious zealotry in all its colorful forms, right? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, what you are ignoring, tweakabelle, is that there are many, many Conservatives, Tea Party members, etc., that are opposed to the Patriot Act. As a matter of fact, the first time I heard anything negative about the Patriot Act was around 2004 (which is when I started to pay attention to politics) while listening to Glenn Beck. Yep. Glenn Beck. The Patriot Act was a big deal to limited government folks, as it should have been. And, it's a big fail for Obama for continuing (and expanding) it. An what did those 'limited government' conservatives do in 2004? They re-elected President George W. Bush to office. What does this mean? They toss their principles and voted on the guy that increased the size and scale of government rather than elect his competitor, Sen. John Kerry to protest events. When things were not being drawn quick enough in Iraq, Americans voted more Republicans into office in 2010 to 'send a message' to President Obama to keep a campaign promise. An the President drew down Iraq and Afghanistan quickly after that. An he got re-elected. Is it the sole reason? No more than the idea that all 'limited government' types want to limit things across the board. A sizable number have used 'limited government' to cut down on Democrat's political power (i.e. unions, Medicare, Social Security) and leave their own sacred cows intact.

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 6:19:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions. So what? It doesn't make it any less true. And it's not like you can deduct more than you contribute. Are you going to try to convince everyone now that just because people can deduct what they contribute that it removes any notion of actually being charitable? It is not charitable; it is a pass through expense to the American people, many of whom are themselves in need of help. If it were not a tax dodge it is likely the 'charity' would dry up. Basically, the charitable deduction is an upward redistribution of wealth.

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 6:48:42 AM)
quote: I wasn't trying to make a partisan point. I was pointing out that, as far as threats to the Constitution go, the threats to individual liberties, freedom of speech , and freedom of the media from the growth of the surveillance/security State seem to me to pose a significantly greater danger than the threats to the Constitution made in the argument presented in the OP. The dilemma is that since the attack on the trade towers no appointed, elected, or hired public employee wants to be in the line of blame fire if another successful attack occurs. While it is easy to lament the growth of the surveillance/security State there is this dynamic to contend with: who failed to connect the dots? What the US went through with 9/11 and London went through with 7/7 have scared our memories. Now some will quote Ben Franklin or some other Enlightenment sage, whoever, that the price of safety should not be the cost of liberty but in such largely populated cities liberty is constrained without safety. As I said it is a dilemma and not so easily solved until the momentum of the days of terror is tempered. The English voted away the Churchill government after the threat was done. That people are now questioning the s/s State may indicate they feel safe again. It will be interesting to see how many pols will stand for election on the 'safe again' platform. The ship will right itself in due course.

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 6:53:02 AM)
quote: Notice the bold part. Yes, stating we should hold true to federalist papers like its a metaphorical bible is taking things down a religious route pretty quickly. The material within the federalist papers is fine for a history lesson on how people in that day and age looked at government. Unfortunately it is also limited by those times. The technology, the knowledge of planet Earth, and history before that moment. How much of the world's knowledge base did the founding fathers have access to? Likewise, none of them ever had to contend with any of the problems this nation faces on a daily basis in 2013 Excellent points. It is time we stopped making a political fetish of the Founders.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 9:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions. So what? It doesn't make it any less true. And it's not like you can deduct more than you contribute. Are you going to try to convince everyone now that just because people can deduct what they contribute that it removes any notion of actually being charitable? It is not charitable; it is a pass through expense to the American people, many of whom are themselves in need of help. If it were not a tax dodge it is likely the 'charity' would dry up. Basically, the charitable deduction is an upward redistribution of wealth. With some groups, you're probably right. But you're taking a very myopic view. That's more the exception than the norm. There are plenty of large organizations out there doing excellent work and countless small, local groups scattered around the country helping the needy.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 1:19:12 PM)
And of course; that's why we have none. The needy, i.e.

Phydeaux -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 1:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And of course; that's why we have none. The needy, i.e. Equally valid. We have no needy despite spending billions at the federal level to eradicate. And trillions since the war on poverty. Just curious. We spent a trillion on the war in afghanistan before admitting defeat. How long before we admit defeat in the war on poverty?

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 1:47:36 PM)
we probably should all lese majeste and noblisse oblige aside admit defeat in spreading our brand of enlightenment to the world, long before we admit defeat on the war on poverty against american citizenry, particularily since more has been spent on the war against it than on it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 3:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I understand where you're coming from DS, but you are ignoring one very major fact. And that is, the beaurocrats don't vote themselves in, they are voted in by the voters and as such are supposed to reflect what the voters are wanting - just as much as any local official voted in by the local people. So... by whining that you you hate the beaurocrats ruling the place, you are directly opposing who the voters put there in the first place; are you not? And seeing as the beaurocrats got there in the first place by popular vote, perhaps you ought to get yourself a better party to vote for and get someone else to sit in the beaurocratic chair. So where is your 'democracy' then? You support the results of a local vote but not a country-wide vote? Surely that's double-standards at least. Seems to me like you wanna shoot the horse you bought to pull the cart then whine when it pulls too hard for you. First of all, I'm not whining. Secondly, the bureaucrats are the administrators, which are not the elected representatives. That is how the Administrative State insulates it from the voters to some extent. Marini's assertion is that through the erection of the Administrative State, Congress is allowing it's power to be eroded (or giving it's power away) to an unelected bureaucrat. The screams of "death panels" were so rampant because the "death panel" was supposedly made up of unelected bureaucrats, and, therefore, insulated to a degree from the public. The Senate does confirm Presidential appointees to many posts, and the new Senate rules are making that even easier to do. These appointees are nominated and confirmed by elected officials, but the general public can't remove from office one of thse appointees directly, and may have to wait up to 6 years before being able to vote enough Senators in that will remove the appointee from office.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/5/2013 3:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we probably should all lese majeste and noblisse oblige aside admit defeat in spreading our brand of enlightenment to the world, long before we admit defeat on the war on poverty against american citizenry, particularily since more has been spent on the war against it than on it. No. What we should be admitting is that no matter how hard we may try, we're never going to completely end poverty, war, despotism, hubris, greed, or any other negative side effects of human civilization. There is no such thing as Utopia. And let's not forget those who seek us out in order to live as we do instead of attempting to say that we only force ourselves on others.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875