When the states first formed federal government it contained only the Departments of Defense, Treasury and Commerce.

What we are not experiencing with federal government today is the concept of "less is more" This monolithic labyrinth we call the federal government is too regimented with red tape and too political to be effective. it needs to be revamped to be effective.

Start with cuts to Fannie and Freddie making them private. The Departments of Energy and Education should be cut. We need to simply our tax code to fit on the size of a post card for most and with it a reduction in the IRS.

Some of you may disagree or have better ways to deal with this issue.

Personal best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

When the states first formed federal government it contained only the Departments of Defense, Treasury and Commerce.

What we are not experiencing with federal government today is the concept of "less is more" This monolithic labyrinth we call the federal government is too regimented with red tape and too political to be effective. it needs to be revamped to be effective.

Start with cuts to Fannie and Freddie making them private. The Departments of Energy and Education should be cut. We need to simply our tax code to fit on the size of a post card for most and with it a reduction in the IRS.

Some of you may disagree or have better ways to deal with this issue.

Personal best Regards:

How will everyone "skim" from the treasury if you eliminate them?

The USA has about 330 million people. We need a larger government than in colonial days. Life is much more complicated now.

Look at all the needed aencies. Agriculture to provide support and subsidies to farmers, VA to provide health care, education, compensation, and cemeteries to veterans, Transportation to maintain federal highways as well as safety to airline passengers, and a plethora of other agencies and purposes.

Originally Posted by Guest

When the states first formed federal government it contained only the Departments of Defense, Treasury and Commerce.

What we are not experiencing with federal government today is the concept of "less is more" This monolithic labyrinth we call the federal government is too regimented with red tape and too political to be effective. it needs to be revamped to be effective.

Start with cuts to Fannie and Freddie making them private. The Departments of Energy and Education should be cut. We need to simply our tax code to fit on the size of a post card for most and with it a reduction in the IRS.

Some of you may disagree or have better ways to deal with this issue.

Personal best Regards:

Welfare...welfare to the citizens costs the nation a $ trillion a year...80% of it goes to minorities who will never amount to anything anyway...cut it. Where does it say in the Constitution that the government was responsible for your support in its entirety? From cradle to grave? "Provide for the general welfare"? That would make the US a socialist country...I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

Originally Posted by Guest

Welfare...welfare to the citizens costs the nation a $ trillion a year...80% of it goes to minorities who will never amount to anything anyway...cut it. Where does it say in the Constitution that the government was responsible for your support in its entirety? From cradle to grave? "Provide for the general welfare"? That would make the US a socialist country...I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

OK, lets see the facts, because your rant has NO basis in facts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Welfare...welfare to the citizens costs the nation a $ trillion a year...80% of it goes to minorities who will never amount to anything anyway...cut it. Where does it say in the Constitution that the government was responsible for your support in its entirety? From cradle to grave? "Provide for the general welfare"? That would make the US a socialist country...I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about providing subsidies to farmers; guaranted home loans to veterans; Medicare to seniors; corporate tax breaks; safety regulations for airlines; or tax deductions for mortgage interest?

Grow up or better yet - shut up.

Originally Posted by Guest

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about providing subsidies to farmers; guaranted home loans to veterans; Medicare to seniors; corporate tax breaks; safety regulations for airlines; or tax deductions for mortgage interest?

Grow up or better yet - shut up.

I think I understand your post and if so agree totally.

Times have changed as well as the size and population, Each item mentioned is not quite as simple as some make them seem, and each has its own history.

Farm subsidies are very complicated and over the years, the reasoning and amount has changed. We are looking at severe prices for corn, etc without these subsideies and believe it or not, congress keeps an eye on it. A bill was passed under Clinton I think to more tightly control the amount and reason.

IF your point was to say that we are a much different country with much more complex problems today than the inception of the country, then you hit the nail on the head.

So many on the extreme right try to make this as if this were the colonial days, and you cannot govern with that mindset.

If we were to have this discussion, it needs to be broken down into segments and you would be surprised at some of the good sense applied to these problems over the years.

We tend to try and make complicated things simple for us, but that cannot be done. Maybe to make a point on a forum like this, but not close to accurate.

Originally Posted by Guest

How will everyone "skim" from the treasury if you eliminate them?

Please re-read my original post. I never said eliminate the Treasury. I said the Departments of Defense, Treasury and commerce were the only departments formed by the states when they formed the federal government.

My point was really to say that Trump or any president for that matter should just drain the swamp s/he needs to reduce it because its so big that Washington people spend ll their time in meetings and never accomplishing anything

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about providing subsidies to farmers; guaranted home loans to veterans; Medicare to seniors; corporate tax breaks; safety regulations for airlines; or tax deductions for mortgage interest?

Grow up or better yet - shut up.

Where in the constitution does it say that there will be roads, water supplies, waste water treatment, electricity, internal combustion engines, oil, plastics, fertilizers, anti-bacterial drugs, surgery, fire protection.....list goes on and on....just because it is SPECIFICALLY not mentioned in the Constitution, does not mean that it should not be developed and that government has a responsibility to the citizens for its safety.....grow up, or better yet, learn something

Originally Posted by Guest

I think I understand your post and if so agree totally.

Times have changed as well as the size and population, Each item mentioned is not quite as simple as some make them seem, and each has its own history.

Farm subsidies are very complicated and over the years, the reasoning and amount has changed. We are looking at severe prices for corn, etc without these subsideies and believe it or not, congress keeps an eye on it. A bill was passed under Clinton I think to more tightly control the amount and reason.

IF your point was to say that we are a much different country with much more complex problems today than the inception of the country, then you hit the nail on the head.

So many on the extreme right try to make this as if this were the colonial days, and you cannot govern with that mindset.

If we were to have this discussion, it needs to be broken down into segments and you would be surprised at some of the good sense applied to these problems over the years.

We tend to try and make complicated things simple for us, but that cannot be done. Maybe to make a point on a forum like this, but not close to accurate.

--------

Yes, there are so many on the extreme right that feel the best way to move is backwards. That is why I call them REGRESSIVES. The opposite of REGRESSIVE is PROGRESSING.

Of course, there have been so many innovations made since the beginning of the country that could not have been placed piecemeal into the Constitution. The "strict constructionist" viewpoint is that if something is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is a power reserved for the individual state. In the words of a great military leader, COL Sherman T. Potter, "Meadow Muffins!"

Originally Posted by Guest

--------

Yes, there are so many on the extreme right that feel the best way to move is backwards. That is why I call them REGRESSIVES. The opposite of REGRESSIVE is PROGRESSING.

Of course, there have been so many innovations made since the beginning of the country that could not have been placed piecemeal into the Constitution. The "strict constructionist" viewpoint is that if something is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is a power reserved for the individual state. In the words of a great military leader, COL Sherman T. Potter, "Meadow Muffins!"

I cannot agree more, and then when their simple wishes are not met, they blame everyone else for being so short sighted.

Talk, learn and legislate for the ENTIRE COUNTRY. That is just in my head when I heard Trump cancelled trying to eliminate NAFTA when he was shown a electoral map and how many would be out of work in states that supported him. I honestly dont know if that i true but it just reinforces my concern.....he is now President of the entire United States, and his constantly replaying the election is scary. Reach out to the entire country

Originally Posted by Guest

OK, lets see the facts, because your rant has NO basis in facts.

I've showed you the facts...over and over. What part do you deny? SHOW me what fact you disagree with and then show me what the correct one is...I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Guest

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about providing subsidies to farmers; guaranted home loans to veterans; Medicare to seniors; corporate tax breaks; safety regulations for airlines; or tax deductions for mortgage interest?

Grow up or better yet - shut up.

It doesn't and why are we doing it? MOST farms are owned by megacorporations who make a killing "farming". Guaranteed home loans are a bribe to get people to join the military. Medicare is paid for by the beneficiaries...we could replace it with insurance that pays your healthcare AFTER you turn 65...what you pay in during your career determines what you get back after 65. If government didn't bribe so many people, if it didn't take care of 50% of the population with some benefit...taxes wouldn't need to be so high. Trust me...if your planes are falling out of the sky...nobody is going to fly your airline. WHY is there a tax deduction for a home? A SECOND home? We could get rid of 90% of the government and still do just fine...probably better.

Originally Posted by Guest

Please re-read my original post. I never said eliminate the Treasury. I said the Departments of Defense, Treasury and commerce were the only departments formed by the states when they formed the federal government.

My point was really to say that Trump or any president for that matter should just drain the swamp s/he needs to reduce it because its so big that Washington people spend ll their time in meetings and never accomplishing anything

Personal Best Regards:

I didn't say get rid of the treasury either...reread my reply...I said they USE all those government agencies to skim FROM the treasury...the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Guest

Where in the constitution does it say that there will be roads, water supplies, waste water treatment, electricity, internal combustion engines, oil, plastics, fertilizers, anti-bacterial drugs, surgery, fire protection.....list goes on and on....just because it is SPECIFICALLY not mentioned in the Constitution, does not mean that it should not be developed and that government has a responsibility to the citizens for its safety.....grow up, or better yet, learn something

It doesn't. Who says the GOVERNMENT has to do all those things?

Things would get developed WITHOUT the government...why would you think they wouldn't?

WHY is the government responsible for my safety? Why can't I be responsible for my own safety? Because your afraid of the anarchy of corporations gone wild, taking advantage of everyone? Maybe for a little while...but not for long...as word gets out...they go out of business.

Originally Posted by Guest

--------

Yes, there are so many on the extreme right that feel the best way to move is backwards. That is why I call them REGRESSIVES. The opposite of REGRESSIVE is PROGRESSING.

Of course, there have been so many innovations made since the beginning of the country that could not have been placed piecemeal into the Constitution. The "strict constructionist" viewpoint is that if something is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is a power reserved for the individual state. In the words of a great military leader, COL Sherman T. Potter, "Meadow Muffins!"

Originally Posted by Guest

I cannot agree more, and then when their simple wishes are not met, they blame everyone else for being so short sighted.

Talk, learn and legislate for the ENTIRE COUNTRY. That is just in my head when I heard Trump cancelled trying to eliminate NAFTA when he was shown a electoral map and how many would be out of work in states that supported him. I honestly dont know if that i true but it just reinforces my concern.....he is now President of the entire United States, and his constantly replaying the election is scary. Reach out to the entire country

Backwards? Who is moving backwards? The "progressives" who are encouraging a minority majority? Who's policies have brought Americs from 90% white and #1 in the world...to 50% white and #25?

You are DESTROYING your own country...allowing it to become Mexico II.

Originally Posted by Guest

I've showed you the facts...over and over. What part do you deny? SHOW me what fact you disagree with and then show me what the correct one is...I'll wait.



It doesn't and why are we doing it? MOST farms are owned by megacorporations who make a killing "farming". Guaranteed home loans are a bribe to get people to join the military. Medicare is paid for by the beneficiaries...we could replace it with insurance that pays your healthcare AFTER you turn 65...what you pay in during your career determines what you get back after 65. If government didn't bribe so many people, if it didn't take care of 50% of the population with some benefit...taxes wouldn't need to be so high. Trust me...if your planes are falling out of the sky...nobody is going to fly your airline. WHY is there a tax deduction for a home? A SECOND home? We could get rid of 90% of the government and still do just fine...probably better.



I didn't say get rid of the treasury either...reread my reply...I said they USE all those government agencies to skim FROM the treasury...the taxpayers.



It doesn't. Who says the GOVERNMENT has to do all those things?

Things would get developed WITHOUT the government...why would you think they wouldn't?

WHY is the government responsible for my safety? Why can't I be responsible for my own safety? Because your afraid of the anarchy of corporations gone wild, taking advantage of everyone? Maybe for a little while...but not for long...as word gets out...they go out of business.





Backwards? Who is moving backwards? The "progressives" who are encouraging a minority majority? Who's policies have brought Americs from 90% white and #1 in the world...to 50% white and #25?

You are DESTROYING your own country...allowing it to become Mexico II.

you have shown only opinion and unverifiable alternate facts....you have no veracity, you have no ethics, you have no humanity, you are only a racist shell of a non-human wanna-be.

Originally Posted by Guest

you have shown only opinion and unverifiable alternate facts....you have no veracity, you have no ethics, you have no humanity, you are only a racist shell of a non-human wanna-be.

I'm right.

I'm trying to SAVE our country.

They're a different SPECIES...they are NOT us...please stop being a wall...listen...use reason.

Using the constitution as a literal blueprint for running our country makes about as much sense as using the Bible literally to guide our lives. Both documents served their purposes at their times but the times they have been changing. I view constitutional adherents in the same vane as bible thumping fundamentalists. Outdated and irrelevant in our complicated and non homogeneous world.