Will smaller government hold water?

Will smaller government hold water?

There are 13 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Sep 29, 2010, titled Will smaller government hold water?. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Many in our country are calling for smaller government and lower taxes. 'Tea party' activists call for abolition of programs that are not clearly within the functions specified by the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Observer

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Sep 30, 2010
I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, this article seems to be toolishness at its best. Disasters have struck those places he mentions before there were federal programs. They all rebuilt anyway. On the other hand, the author does ask for people to think seriously about the issues. "If we are serious about bringing the federal government's role back to that narrowly defined in the Constitution, what are we willing to jettison entirely and what should we pick up at the state or local level?"

The system needs to be radically altered otherwise we'll continue to violate each other for the benefit of a few.

http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-in-mi...
Brett

Bettendorf, IA

#2 Sep 30, 2010
Anyone who's honestly looked at the grievances the Tea Party has sited will disregard this article as hyperbole. They have never said that disaster relief needs to be abolished for cryin out loud. They simply point out that this government has grown to beyond bloated levels.

The President has a wide authority in 'his' Executive Orders powers and disaster relief well falls under that. The Tea Party advocates for an end to the run away pork spending and a policy of siting Constitutional Authority when Congress spends billions and trillions of tax payer moneys.

No Tea Party member will complain about a few million to rebuild flood damage. They're more interested in fighting trillions spent in programs that no taxpayer wanted in the first place. Tool indeed.
antivike

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Sep 30, 2010
I agree. With the exception of issues involving foreign countries (Canada via Manitoba) or Defense, It would seem to me these other issues are best left to the states where it is so much easier to hold the politicians accountable. Why not allow the states to decide individually what/how or whether to have a medicare program. Farm subsidies seem to be nothing more than pure political pork to a group of corporations wrapped up as protecting a dying heritage.

White Bear Lake residents may want to start talking up their beautiful beaches.
my 2 cents

Green River, WY

#4 Sep 30, 2010
Brett wrote:
Anyone who's honestly looked at the grievances the Tea Party has sited will disregard this article as hyperbole. They have never said that disaster relief needs to be abolished for cryin out loud. They simply point out that this government has grown to beyond bloated levels.
The President has a wide authority in 'his' Executive Orders powers and disaster relief well falls under that. The Tea Party advocates for an end to the run away pork spending and a policy of siting Constitutional Authority when Congress spends billions and trillions of tax payer moneys.
No Tea Party member will complain about a few million to rebuild flood damage. They're more interested in fighting trillions spent in programs that no taxpayer wanted in the first place. Tool indeed.
Well as a Taxpayer I don't want my money going to fund any flood clean up. Why should I pay for someone who chooses to live on a flood plain as it is just as irresponsible as having unprotected sex and expecting me to pay for the result of that.
Teadrinker

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Sep 30, 2010
This is a marketing piece advocating for more national government intervention. There is a proper scope that the federal government needs to stay within. The liberal media will say that the far far right wants to limit the size of government. You have to realize the media will put the size spin on this issue and ignore the the rest of the story which is scope.

For White Bear Lake, too bad. Raise your own lake. Devil's Lake may be another issue. However, you know the media will not give you all the information needed to make a proper decision other than the one they want you to make.
TooHotTooTrot

Boise, ID

#6 Sep 30, 2010
my 2 cents wrote:
<quoted text> Well as a Taxpayer I don't want my money going to fund any flood clean up. Why should I pay for someone who chooses to live on a flood plain as it is just as irresponsible as having unprotected sex and expecting me to pay for the result of that.
By that logic, everyone that lives from the top of N. Dakota to the bottom of Texas should expect nothing visa vi tornado clean up.

Further, no one in you state should expect any kind of assistance with the yearly fires.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Sep 30, 2010
Teadrinker wrote:
This is a marketing piece advocating for more national government intervention. There is a proper scope that the federal government needs to stay within. The liberal media will say that the far far right wants to limit the size of government. You have to realize the media will put the size spin on this issue and ignore the the rest of the story which is scope.
For White Bear Lake, too bad. Raise your own lake. Devil's Lake may be another issue. However, you know the media will not give you all the information needed to make a proper decision other than the one they want you to make.
Yes, there is a proper scope for government. There is no liberal media.

We all want to limit the size of government. What the fanatic right wing media won't tell you is that the republicans want to grow the government one way and the democrats grow the government a different way.

I would suggest we don't need any more reckless military excursions which cost trillions and the public gets nothing for it. On the other hand, we do need to rebuild our own infrastructure, start educating our children, and rebuild our economy.
stream gauging

Portland, OR

#8 Oct 2, 2010
Water does not respect state boundaries. Sometimes rivers are the boundary, sometimes they cross boundaries. I see nothing wrong with the feds collecting and serving up the data. In fact, they work with the states and other government entities to prioritize sites. They have the infrastructure to do it consistently across the nation, and serve the data to everyone. Devolve this down to the state level, and you'll end up with a hodge-podge of programs, data quality, and data availability. Plus, you'll see important long-term records cease at the whim of a state budget crisis. Aren't there bigger fish to fry, like trillion dollar wars?
my 2 cents

Green River, WY

#9 Oct 2, 2010
TooHotTooTrot wrote:
<quoted text>
By that logic, everyone that lives from the top of N. Dakota to the bottom of Texas should expect nothing visa vi tornado clean up.
Further, no one in you state should expect any kind of assistance with the yearly fires.
I don't really feel that way, I just was trying to make a point that everybody is against some kind of Government funding and nobody is going to get only the things they think are important funded. It seems to me alot of people are against the federal government until they are the one in need.
Bob the Bilderberger

Kansas City, MO

#10 Oct 2, 2010
When we talk abput "smaller government," there's more to it than reducing or eliminating functions or people. It also means reducing the amount of regulation that the government seems to need over every aspect of our lives.

Most democrats rate their lawmakers by how many new laws they pass every session. But every new law that's passed represents more regulatory power for the government and less freedom for you. That's what we mean by "Big Government" too.

The pushback comes from government employees who fear that we're after their jobs. But they shouldn't fear for their jobs if they're performing a valid service that only government can perform.
yo-yo

Inver Grove Heights, MN

#11 Oct 2, 2010
Abolish welfare,for starters,then go after the gov't emplyoees.
TheMaster

United States

#12 Oct 2, 2010
This article is the kind of crap you read in the Star & Sickle, what's it doing at the PP?
Hopsfenberger

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Oct 4, 2010
Streamgaging as hobby? That data gets used in innumerable ways, it's not just "hobby" data.
Cutting stream gaging or environmental programs as a method of reducing government spending is like trying to curb toothpick use as a method of stopping deforestation. The entire water program of the USGS (which is much more than just streamgaging) was 0.000074% of the federal budget in 2007 (204 million out of 2.73 trillon). Compare that to active military spending of 27%(not including Iraq or Afghanistan) or 20% for SS or 19% for Medicare/aid and it's clear the streamgaging isn't exactly the place to look to make large savings in cutting into the debt.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jordan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Leaders Of Belle Plaine ( DECEIVED) Jul 22 satan lake fire 1
Review: Home Buyers Inspections Inc (Oct '08) Jul '17 upsethomeseller 2
Satan ( Lake Of Fire ) ( REPENT) May '17 Satan Lies 1
Dont End Up In Hell ( REPENT) May '17 SATAN LIES 1
News Robin McGraw writes about what is important to her (Nov '06) Apr '14 sandy sunshine 15
Know the law (Mar '14) Mar '14 Carolyn Kruger 1
News Last minute travel deals for UK, Christmas mark... (Dec '13) Jan '14 Azamara Cruise Deal 2

Jordan Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jordan Mortgages