Forum Post: It's not about "small government". It's about who controls the government.
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 11:23 a.m. EST by leftistperson
(95)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The struggle is not about "the size of government". It's not about "small government" or "big government".
It's about WHO controls the government.
"A People Should Not Fear Their Government, a Government Should Fear it's people!" This phrase is about people CONTROLLING the government.
This is what democracy is: the people controls the government.
Today, the very rich, the top 1%, the elites, are in control of the government. They control the government, not the people, not the 99%.
To bring real change, the people should take the government back. The government should be controlled by the people, and only the people can democratically determine the "size" of the government, if it should be "small", "big", "enormous", "mid-size" or whatever...
Think about the great customer service you get from all the megalopolies that leave you on hold for an hour and then think about all the money they stuff in politicians pockets and pensions - think about all those ex ceo's now sitting on the ah ha regulatory boards ...think about monopolies making the rules for your life (think about how they treat their employees and customers) ...now think about how they treat their citizens? Yes we are all just the little cogs of America now - the little consumer employee cogs pulling a wagon full of CEO's and Banksters...hmm sort of like Communism? We can't afford products, cars, houses, education... we're just out here fighting for survival at the whim of all these powerful corporations ...they can do what ever they want to us now - we have been sacrificed and our government has mergered with them.
Why do we have a constant desire for a handful of rich lawyers to make rules that we do not need.
At what point in our days do we find ourselves confused and calling our local poiltician for guidance?
The basics of society can be managed by community initiatives very easily. Yes its work. Its a lot more work than going to the polls once every four years for an hour.
We have X amount of dollars in our area, what would we like to spend it on?
If government was removed and only the people existed, would they rise to the occasion?
This is democracy: the people determine the "size" of the government, not the rich elites.
Even the whole "small" "big" is twisted up, what's "small" about telling people what to talk about with their doctors, and you can't deign that making it possible for people to see doctors is not "small" so I agree, and I would add that it’s about what government does, not how big it is, so that's what I think we should be trying to agree on, what are the things we want done around here.
Amen, the size of the government is more of a straw man argument for the 1%. Well said in respect to taking back control being the real priority. Given the reality of the situation, however, taking back control have resulted in these political deadlocks. We'll need to think about new ways to take back control of the government.
Monetary reform is the crucial missing element needed to move humanity away from a future dominated by fraud, warfare, and ugliness toward a world of justice, sustainability and beauty.
The power to create money is an awesome power - at times stronger than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers combined. It’s the nation’s “magic checkbook,” where checks can’t bounce. When controlled privately it can be used to gain riches. More importantly, it determines the direction of society by controlling where the money goes – what gets funded and what does not. Will it be used to build and repair vital infrastructure - as Levees to protect major cities? Or will it go into real estate speculation, creating the real estate bubble? Will it fund sustainable industries with good jobs or go into Wall Street fueling stock market bubbles? Will it be channeled into warfare, leaving a trail of death, destruction and inflation?
Thus the money issuing power should never be alienated from democratically elected government and placed ambiguously into private hands as it is in America in the Federal Reserve System today.
In fact, the bulk of our money supply isn’t created by our government, but by private banks when they make loans. Through the Fed’s fractional reserve process what we use for money is issued as interest-bearing debt.
Our money system is controlled by private banks for their agendas, not for the common good. Our government has the power to issue money (Art.1, Sect.8) and spend it into circulation to promote the general welfare; including for infrastructure, education and health care; not misuse the money system for speculation as banks have historically done. Our lawmakers must now reclaim that power!
Money has value because skilled people with resources and infrastructure work together in a supportive social and legal framework. Money is not tangible wealth in itself, but an unconditional means of payment. It’s the essential lubricant that lets things “run.”
Money is an abstract social power based in law and whatever government accepts in payment of taxes will be money. Money’s value is not created by the private corporations that now control it.
Unhappily, mankind’s experience with private money creation has undeniably been a long history of fraud, mismanagement and even villainy. Private money creation through the fractional reserve accounting fosters an unprecedented concentration of wealth which destroys the democratic process and ultimately promotes imperialism.
1% of the American population claims ownership of over 40% of the wealth, and receives 24% of income, and vital infrastructure is ignored. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives a D grade to our infrastructure and estimates that $2.2 trillion is needed to bring it to acceptable levels. That fact alone shows the world’s dominant money system to be a major failure crying for reform.
http://www.monetary.org/
Yes - "Freedom is Participation in Power" - Marcus Cicero
Right now the 99% can't participate, excepted through "representatives" who are bought and paid for ahead of time.
Time to shift the power!
Time to take this country back from the 1%!
United against the corporate-state!
I agreed the problem is government is controlled by money. We need to get the money out of the mix, Superfunds and letting the rich dictate what they want. We need to support the action to Getthemoneyout.com
I agreed the problem is government is controlled by money. We need to get the money out of the mix, Superfunds and letting the rich dictate what they want. We need to support the action to Getthemoneyout.com
It's also about WHERE your government is located. D.C. is controlling the entire country from afar - a country full of people with diverse views, resources, values, lifestyles, and so on. A remote government that is not listening to its people or following its own laws is of the most dangerous sort. The federal government has a disproportionate amount of power, much of which is held by unelected officials in agencies and courts who have career or even lifetime appointments.
I think local governments should be much more powerful; they are much more accountable and responsive to the people. With the current population, even the state level of government is probably too big to be representative. Look at California!!
I'm a big believer in local economies, currencies, education, organization, politics, ordinances, and so on.
Of course the Federal Government should have some functions, otherwise there would not be any sense in the United States being a single country. But I'm not against state governments and local governments having more power. But if it's the case for transfering more functions to the local government, it should be accompanied by a tax reform that reduce federal taxes and raise local taxes, giving more revenue to the local governments. More functions require more revenue.
I think the constitution outlines a pretty good example of the size government should be.
Well you need to read it and realize in 1781 that the words used describing size, limits and scope really meant..... hugenormous, gigantic, corrupt, highly intrusive etc.
The English language is living and subject to constant change, as money deems necessary when it comes to government.
Stupid.
I guess you are right. I mean, If there was some way to amend the constitution, a process that the founders had outlined or something, we could change it as society changes and all would be well. But they didn't, so we need to just do whatever we want if we feel like it.
[Removed]