Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to Rasmussen, "When it comes to money and power, politicians want the government to have more of it, while voters want the government to have less. At least that’s what most Americans think..."

Some of the numbers from Rasmussen's survey:
62% of Adults nationwide say most politicians want more power and money for the government.
13% believe the opposite is true.
58% believe that most voters want the government to have less power and money.
22% believe most voters hold the opposite view and want a bigger role for government.
21% of voters nationwide believe the government today has the consent of the governed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _and_money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps the scariest results from Rasmussen's survey is the alarming statistic that only 21% of voters believe that "the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... e_governed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think there is another option that you missed...but really would be hard to put into a poll...

Because it depends...the Federal Government has Constitutional duties, and I for one, want those duties carried out to the fullest...thuse, more power and money in those areas...

But the Federal government, through various Congresses and Presidents, have ignored or usurped the COnstitution and taken on powers (and thuse funding) for things the Framers specifically left out of the Federal duties (see the 10th Amendment)...those things need to be removed, thuse removing power and moeny from the Federal Government...

90% of Americans dont know what Hell they want. It changes with the wind. You want less power and less money for the Fed, but you bitch about not being able to build and buy 5 billion Fighter Jets. Lets grow up people.

Col Hogan wrote:I think there is another option that you missed...but really would be hard to put into a poll...

Because it depends...the Federal Government has Constitutional duties, and I for one, want those duties carried out to the fullest...thuse, more power and money in those areas...

But the Federal government, through various Congresses and Presidents, have ignored or usurped the COnstitution and taken on powers (and thuse funding) for things the Framers specifically left out of the Federal duties (see the 10th Amendment)...those things need to be removed, thus removing power and moeny from the Federal Government...

Excellent points, Colonel.

The shameful extra-Constitutional activities of the Obama administration are absolutely intolerable to anyone who loves Consitution, civil society, liberty and the original intentikons of the founders.

But I think your objections ARE covered by the first question in the poll.

Maybe the real question is whether or not we should return to the original intent of the founders?

native wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I think there is another option that you missed...but really would be hard to put into a poll...

Because it depends...the Federal Government has Constitutional duties, and I for one, want those duties carried out to the fullest...thuse, more power and money in those areas...

But the Federal government, through various Congresses and Presidents, have ignored or usurped the COnstitution and taken on powers (and thuse funding) for things the Framers specifically left out of the Federal duties (see the 10th Amendment)...those things need to be removed, thus removing power and moeny from the Federal Government...

Excellent points, Colonel.

The shameful extra-Constitutional activities of the Obama administration are absolutely intolerable to anyone who loves Consitution, civil society, liberty and the original intentikons of the founders.

But I think your objections ARE covered by the first question in the poll.

Maybe the real question is whether or not we should return to the original intent of the founders?

So you blame Obama for passing a Health care Bill?? What about when we left from the Gold Standard?, or Creating a federal Income tax, Or the Creation of Social Security if Medi Care/Cade????

You act like Obama was the first one to pass a bill such as this. But one one bitches about the Billions upon Billions of Dollars we waist in the Defense Budget.

mrklean wrote:

native wrote:
Excellent points, Colonel.

The shameful extra-Constitutional activities of the Obama administration are absolutely intolerable to anyone who loves Consitution, civil society, liberty and the original intentikons of the founders.

But I think your objections ARE covered by the first question in the poll.

Maybe the real question is whether or not we should return to the original intent of the founders?

So you blame Obama for passing a Health care Bill?? What about when we left from the Gold Standard?, or Creating a federal Income tax, Or the Creation of Social Security if Medi Care/Cade????

You act like Obama was the first one to pass a bill such as this. But one one bitches about the Billions upon Billions of Dollars we waist in the Defense Budget.

Who is this mystical one one who bitches about the defense budget???

They might be on to something...

Col Hogan wrote:

mrklean wrote:
So you blame Obama for passing a Health care Bill?? What about when we left from the Gold Standard?, or Creating a federal Income tax, Or the Creation of Social Security if Medi Care/Cade????

You act like Obama was the first one to pass a bill such as this. But one one bitches about the Billions upon Billions of Dollars we waist in the Defense Budget.

Who is this mystical one one who bitches about the defense budget???

They might be on to something...

I think our national salvation is to limit the federal government to national defense, foreign trade, federal judiciary...

and sh!tcan just about everything else, including modest cuts in the defense budget.

native wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Who is this mystical one one who bitches about the defense budget???

They might be on to something...

I think our national salvation is to limit the federal government to national defense, foreign trade, federal judiciary...

and sh!tcan just about everything else, including modest cuts in the defense budget.

native wrote:
I think our national salvation is to limit the federal government to national defense, foreign trade, federal judiciary...

and sh!tcan just about everything else, including modest cuts in the defense budget.

OK, I'll still have my job. I'm OK with that.

Instead of being the Police of the World, Native wants us to be the Mall Security of the World.

native wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Who is this mystical one one who bitches about the defense budget???

They might be on to something...

I think our national salvation is to limit the federal government to national defense, foreign trade, federal judiciary...

and sh!tcan just about everything else, including modest cuts in the defense budget.

You mean like it was at the beginning with the cabinet consisting of State, Treasury, War (Defense), and Attorney General. Those "old guys" pretty much had it exactly right!

No question that as the world changes government has to be fluid and change with it. That being said, the creation of czars and their supporting casts (which really started escalating under Bush and has largely been maintained thus far under Obama) is IMHO a waste of money. I've never really had too much problem with the amount of power the government holds, but I've been concerned about the encroachment of TARP, auto recovery, and general meddling in the private sector. Some of it was necessary, but it seems that pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates are getting worse and I'm less convinced today than ever before that our government is evaluating alternatives and effectively allocating the resources available to them. Maybe it's naive, but I'd love to see these guys mandate a balanced budget and spend within their means - our government is an out of control machine that spends money like a kid with his first credit card.

ASUG8 wrote:No question that as the world changes government has to be fluid and change with it. That being said, the creation of czars and their supporting casts (which really started escalating under Bush and has largely been maintained thus far under Obama) is IMHO a waste of money. I've never really had too much problem with the amount of power the government holds, but I've been concerned about the encroachment of TARP, auto recovery, and general meddling in the private sector. Some of it was necessary, but it seems that pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates are getting worse and I'm less convinced today than ever before that our government is evaluating alternatives and effectively allocating the resources available to them. Maybe it's naive, but I'd love to see these guys mandate a balanced budget and spend within their means - our government is an out of control machine that spends money like a kid with his first credit card.

Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:No question that as the world changes government has to be fluid and change with it. That being said, the creation of czars and their supporting casts (which really started escalating under Bush and has largely been maintained thus far under Obama) is IMHO a waste of money. I've never really had too much problem with the amount of power the government holds, but I've been concerned about the encroachment of TARP, auto recovery, and general meddling in the private sector. Some of it was necessary, but it seems that pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates are getting worse and I'm less convinced today than ever before that our government is evaluating alternatives and effectively allocating the resources available to them. Maybe it's naive, but I'd love to see these guys mandate a balanced budget and spend within their means - our government is an out of control machine that spends money like a kid with his first credit card.

Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

No argument here regarding being world police, but again that's part of my point about resource allocation. Getting off the mideast teat is a hard argument with the NIMBY sentiment from the gusher in the gulf right now.

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:No question that as the world changes government has to be fluid and change with it. That being said, the creation of czars and their supporting casts (which really started escalating under Bush and has largely been maintained thus far under Obama) is IMHO a waste of money. I've never really had too much problem with the amount of power the government holds, but I've been concerned about the encroachment of TARP, auto recovery, and general meddling in the private sector. Some of it was necessary, but it seems that pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates are getting worse and I'm less convinced today than ever before that our government is evaluating alternatives and effectively allocating the resources available to them. Maybe it's naive, but I'd love to see these guys mandate a balanced budget and spend within their means - our government is an out of control machine that spends money like a kid with his first credit card.

Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

Yet another bald faced lie, dawg? The military budget amount to less than 5% of our GDP, maybe half of what it was under Kennedy. We spend less than a fourth of our federal budget on the military, and much less on projecting military power.

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:No question that as the world changes government has to be fluid and change with it. That being said, the creation of czars and their supporting casts (which really started escalating under Bush and has largely been maintained thus far under Obama) is IMHO a waste of money. I've never really had too much problem with the amount of power the government holds, but I've been concerned about the encroachment of TARP, auto recovery, and general meddling in the private sector. Some of it was necessary, but it seems that pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates are getting worse and I'm less convinced today than ever before that our government is evaluating alternatives and effectively allocating the resources available to them. Maybe it's naive, but I'd love to see these guys mandate a balanced budget and spend within their means - our government is an out of control machine that spends money like a kid with his first credit card.

Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

Hey...it costs a lot to replace those 200 planes we lost in Kosovo...

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

Hey...it costs a lot to replace those 200 planes we lost in Kosovo...

The Easter Bunny!!!

native wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Maybe if we didn't spend half our budget on projecting military power around the world............but then that would involve getting serious about getting off of mid-east oil, no way.

Yet another bald faced lie, dawg? The military budget amount to less than 5% of our GDP, maybe half of what it was under Kennedy. We spend less than a fourth of our federal budget on the military, and much less on projecting military power.

Well, well, well, najib, looks like you aren't immune to a little massaging of the numbers, yosef ...... defense is 25-29% of federal budget, but 38-44% of tax revenues are spent on the military.

And right now it's all spent projecting military power, at gargantuan cost, and modest result, stretched to the limit, with the goal of doing something or other that isn't real clear. But there are some people with pull that would still like to see an oil pipeline through Afghanistan bringing oil from the stans to the North. Pure coincidence, of course.

Can we get a Good replacement for the M-16A2/M-4 Battle rifle. PLEASE

To answer the question of this thread, I'll leave it to Thomas Jefferson.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Can a weaker government regulate a company like Goldman Sachs that is so powerful that it's capable of bringing down the entire Greek economy? Can a weaker government prevent a company like BP from destroying the Gulf of Mexico?

I have no problem with smaller government, but given the influence of corporate interests, it still needs to be powerful enough to protect the commons.

kalm wrote:Can a weaker government regulate a company like Goldman Sachs that is so powerful that it's capable of bringing down the entire Greek economy? Can a weaker government prevent a company like BP from destroying the Gulf of Mexico?

I have no problem with smaller government, but given the influence of corporate interests, it still needs to be powerful enough to protect the commons.

Except for the fact that it's huge now, and still can't do shit.

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Yet another bald faced lie, dawg? The military budget amount to less than 5% of our GDP, maybe half of what it was under Kennedy. We spend less than a fourth of our federal budget on the military, and much less on projecting military power.

Well, well, well, najib, looks like you aren't immune to a little massaging of the numbers, yosef ...... defense is 25-29% of federal budget, but 38-44% of tax revenues are spent on the military.

And right now it's all spent projecting military power, at gargantuan cost, and modest result, stretched to the limit, with the goal of doing something or other that isn't real clear. But there are some people with pull that would still like to see an oil pipeline through Afghanistan bringing oil from the stans to the North. Pure coincidence, of course.

No, dawg, I do not intentionally "massage the numbers."

Here is the latest pie chart from wiki, derived from an OMB budget summary table:

native wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Well, well, well, najib, looks like you aren't immune to a little massaging of the numbers, yosef ...... defense is 25-29% of federal budget, but 38-44% of tax revenues are spent on the military.

And right now it's all spent projecting military power, at gargantuan cost, and modest result, stretched to the limit, with the goal of doing something or other that isn't real clear. But there are some people with pull that would still like to see an oil pipeline through Afghanistan bringing oil from the stans to the North. Pure coincidence, of course.

No, dawg, I do not intentionally "massage the numbers."

Here is the latest pie chart from wiki, derived from an OMB budget summary table:

Yeah, I got my numbers from wiki too, like 38%-44% of tax revenues going to the military.

The 533 billion defense budget is actually 663 billion, about 2/3 of a trillion, when you include the money for "overseas contingency operations".

If they need another euphemism for war, I suggest "hidden cost of oil".