What is the purpose of the US Federal Government?

[Classact]

I would like this to be a serious debate. Before the stock market crash in the 1920’s the Federal Government looked and functioned much differently than it does today.

Please make comparisons of America before and after and note the positives of both eras.

I’ll start out by saying before the 1920’s most states considered themselves countries like France and Germany see themselves to the European Union today. And today most citizens consider states incapable of managing affairs without the aid of the federal government. Can the federal government better manage government affairs than the states and, if so why?

[glockmail]

It depends on who you talk to, obviously. As a conservative I'd like to see the Fed limited to the powers granted to it in the Constitution and little else. Since we have a paper money standard there has to be Fed control of that but I can't think of much else desirable.

[Classact]

It depends on who you talk to, obviously. As a conservative I'd like to see the Fed limited to the powers granted to it in the Constitution and little else. Since we have a paper money standard there has to be Fed control of that but I can't think of much else desirable.I've been watching the SCHIP reauthorization bill in the House of Representatives today and the idea for this post hit me. Before the stock market crash of the 1920's the federal government had almost zero effect on state citizens unless involving national defence. Most citizens were living in a free market capitalism system in a social Darwinistic mode that worked pretty much free will and the federal government had no compassion for state citizens. Compassion was the job of family, church and community and that group would sort out who was deserving of compassion. Because of the absense of compassion from government the family unit was very strong. Sons were important because they would care for elder parents when they grew old. Daughters were "given away" at marriages to the gaining family when she married and through this giving away she then must support her husband's family in their old age as a part of the marriage agreement she took a new last name and family support. Has government weakened the family unit?

[Kathianne]

The changes of the federal government in the 20's I think were more a result of the decisions made after WWI, there was an awakening to the 'power' of the US as a result of that. Then along came the depression and FDR and all hell broke loose.

[April15]

It depends on who you talk to, obviously. As a conservative I'd like to see the Fed limited to the powers granted to it in the Constitution and little else. Since we have a paper money standard there has to be Fed control of that but I can't think of much else desirable.Provide for the national defense is a good one. Regulate interstate commerce. FBI for crimes that cross state lines. Agriculture dept to ensure safe food, with all the e coli outbreaks I wonder!

The world of today is far faster and more crowded than the 1920's. Granted some of the new policies could have been sunsetted but weren't. We have medicine that is great at eliminating plague type disease but no border protection to keep infected people from coming in.

[glockmail]

...Has government weakened the family unit? Good theory but since I wasn't around in the 20's I couldn't tell you.

[glockmail]

The changes of the federal government in the 20's I think were more a result of the decisions made after WWI, there was an awakening to the 'power' of the US as a result of that. Then along came the depression and FDR and all hell broke loose.
What about the isolationism felt after WW1?

[Kathianne]

What about the isolationism felt after WW1?

Actually the 'isolationism' for the most part was from the people, not the government. Sort of reminds me of the juxtaposition today of illegals and the attitudes between those 'in power' and those that control the power, the people. The government of the 20's was prevented by the people from entering into treaties and such, hell, the Versailles Treaty was not passed by the US Senate, when most of the ideas were Wilson's.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Actually the 'isolationism' for the most part was from the people, not the government. Sort of reminds me of the juxtaposition today of illegals and the attitudes between those 'in power' and those that control the power, the people. The government of the 20's was prevented by the people from entering into treaties and such, hell, the Versailles Treaty was not passed by the US Senate, when most of the ideas were Wilson's.

Quite true!

Classact asks a good question. The purpose of the federal government can be found in the Constitution. If you read Article I, setting out the powers of Congress, it's a pretty short list. And under the principle of "enumerated powers," the federal government is only supposed to do the things on that list!

Today, of course, the federal government does everything. So it's way, way far from the original intent. For the most part, it's illegitimate.

But the federal government has the biggest guns, so, we obey it.

[Classact]

Do you think this could have something to do with it?

Brief History of IRS

Origin
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html

[Kathianne]

Do you think this could have something to do with it?


http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html

Yep, with that the deal was sealed. Anyone have a tea surplus and heading East?

[JackDaniels]

It depends on who you talk to, obviously. As a conservative I'd like to see the Fed limited to the powers granted to it in the Constitution and little else. Since we have a paper money standard there has to be Fed control of that but I can't think of much else desirable.

If you believe this, you should NOT support the current Republican Party, as they obviously disagree with you...

[glockmail]

If you believe this, you should NOT support the current Republican Party, as they obviously disagree with you... :pee:

[Classact]

I think the one thing that tied the state citizens to the federal government the most was Social Security. Here the federal government created law that demands that every employer match your demanded withholding for the program. It was designed to tax the individual while making you feel good by requiring your boss to match the tax.

What was the effect of SS on the family? Do you feel less obligated to “support” your parents in their old age in the event they may require outside support? Have you lost the idea that as you raise your family you also plan to help your parents in their later life if they require help because of SS? Has SS broken the family unit?

When I was stationed in Korea during the Vietnam War era I used to ride the train to Seoul once a month to spend a day in Western style Hotel, our barracks were concrete floor, bunks were mattresses 2 inches thick and the barracks were a corrugated sewer pipe about 30 feet in diameter buried half way into the ground, they looked like aircraft bunkers. Anyway, on each trip to Seoul the train would have to make at least three unscheduled stops to record and report citizens that committed suicide by walking in front of trains. The reason this happened was because Korea has no SS and when the only son was killed in Vietnam elder poor parents who couldn’t work would kill themselves. At the same time Korea had a “no growth” policy meaning each family could have only two children. If a family had two daughters they would either sell into slavery or kill one of the female babies to try for a boy because of tradition the female, once married must support her husband’s elders regardless of her parent’s situation.

Must citizens demand the government help citizens in need or should private churches and organizations provide help?

[glockmail]

I think the one thing that tied the state citizens to the federal government the most was Social Security. Here the federal government created law that demands that every employer match your demanded withholding for the program. It was designed to tax the individual while making you feel good by requiring your boss to match the tax.

What was the effect of SS on the family? Do you feel less obligated to “support” your parents in their old age in the event they may require outside support? Have you lost the idea that as you raise your family you also plan to help your parents in their later life if they require help because of SS? Has SS broken the family unit?

When I was stationed in Korea during the Vietnam War era I used to ride the train to Seoul once a month to spend a day in Western style Hotel, our barracks were concrete floor, bunks were mattresses 2 inches thick and the barracks were a corrugated sewer pipe about 30 feet in diameter buried half way into the ground, they looked like aircraft bunkers. Anyway, on each trip to Seoul the train would have to make at least three unscheduled stops to record and report citizens that committed suicide by walking in front of trains. The reason this happened was because Korea has no SS and when the only son was killed in Vietnam elder poor parents who couldn’t work would kill themselves. At the same time Korea had a “no growth” policy meaning each family could have only two children. If a family had two daughters they would either sell into slavery or kill one of the female babies to try for a boy because of tradition the female, once married must support her husband’s elders regardless of her parent’s situation.

Must citizens demand the government help citizens in need or should private churches and organizations provide help?

I think government should empower its citizens to be self-reliant. Instead of the SS system, where we are basically having the young pay the old, each person should pay their own way. I've already proven that for the same money that we are currently spending, matched by their employer as done now, a person who works until age 65 can retire with an income two to three times what they made while they were working. And they don't even touch the principle. Which means after they die their kids fight over the inheritence.

[Classact]

I think government should empower its citizens to be self-reliant. Instead of the SS system, where we are basically having the young pay the old, each person should pay their own way. I've already proven that for the same money that we are currently spending, matched by their employer as done now, a person who works until age 65 can retire with an income two to three times what they made while they were working. And they don't even touch the principle. Which means after they die their kids fight over the inheritence.I'm with you on that... the SS system is broken and it cheats black and homosexuals that die earlier than other races.

I was convinced, no forced to buy US Savings Bonds when I was a private, a $25 bond would cost $12.50 and mature in 5 or 7 years, can't remember... later I uped my bond to a $50 bond that cost $25 and matured about the same... I forgot about them but when I retired I was reminded about them and the original bonds kept growing year after year and my investment was well over ten times my original investment.

[MtnBiker]

Anyway, on each trip to Seoul the train would have to make at least three unscheduled stops to record and report citizens that committed suicide by walking in front of trains. The reason this happened was because Korea has no SS and when the only son was killed in Vietnam elder poor parents who couldn’t work would kill themselves. At the same time Korea had a “no growth” policy meaning each family could have only two children. If a family had two daughters they would either sell into slavery or kill one of the female babies to try for a boy because of tradition the female, once married must support her husband’s elders regardless of her parent’s situation.


Are you trying to compare that observation in Korea to the United States? What were the investment opportunities for Koreans at the time? What structure of charities, whether faithed based or others, exsisted at the time?

[Classact]

Are you trying to compare that observation in Korea to the United States? What were the investment opportunities for Koreans at the time? What structure of charities, whether faithed based or others, exsisted at the time?No there is or never has been a comparrison between America and Korea that agrees.

I was playing devils advocate to make some people think about the good and bad of the SS program. My personal opinion on social safety nets is that they should be at family, church and community but never grow any larger than at state level. Then states can compete on the open market for dead beats... provide plush goodies and welcome deadbeats... be stingy and the deadbeats move to a state giving more bennies. You need to look a person in the eye to see if they deserve help.

For Korea and the Korean people they are a very self reliant people and as cold as a stone. A person need not think that anyone will offer compassion because they live on a standard of destiny. Beggers used to come to our house when I lived in Korea and the most they would ever take away is equilivant to about 1/10th of one penny or a 10 won coin, with twenty of them you can buy a pack of Ramyen. There is no social net in Korea even yet today, you're on your own Vern.

[JohnDoe]

I think government should empower its citizens to be self-reliant. Instead of the SS system, where we are basically having the young pay the old, each person should pay their own way. I've already proven that for the same money that we are currently spending, matched by their employer as done now, a person who works until age 65 can retire with an income two to three times what they made while they were working. And they don't even touch the principle. Which means after they die their kids fight over the inheritence.I agree that perhaps they should have found a way to set up this kind of system that each person pays for themselves, however that is NOT what was done when it was set up and the children paid for the parents from Day 1.

To convert the present system to a system where each pays their own retirement along with the company contribution to such, will cost the government or rather us, $1.5 TRILLION dollars....if memory serves. This means the money from younger workers that goes in to their own private accounts will not be there to fund the baby boomers and the generation right afterwards, that have paid in to the system for as much as 2-4 decades.

these boomers and others, will have to be paid the benefits that they were promissed and converting to private accounts now would cost the tax payers an additional $1.5 trillion to do such so. imho, this is not a sollution for what is going on now. Definately what they should have done from the beginning, along with tax payers paying additional taxes at the time to fund those that were forced out of the workforce and forced to retire because of the Great Depression. (Which is what happened, the seniors were FORCED out of the workforce because so few jobs were available from what I recently read regarding this.)

It probably would have cost the tax payer 50 billion to do such at the time but would now be the $1.5 Trillion.

Social security would not be an issue at all if our Congress had not gorged and went in to a HUGE deficit SPENDING MODE, so close to when the treasuries come due to pay the Boomers. so not only will these "loans" persay have to be paid and will be paid by the general revenues, but also at least the interest on the the loans from all of the borrowing our government has done the last decade. (since 2001 we have added or borrowed $4 TRILLION dollars.....we have overspent our budget by 4 Trillion dollars!!!!!) Paying just the interest on this amount along with the interest on the 5.6 trillion we as a country had accumilated in National debt up to 2001 is where the problem and the stresses on SS is coming from.

I think that we could take a certain amount of the younger workforce and privatize a small percentage of it, and the rest of us will have to pay more in taxes to do such in order to take care of the promises made to the Boomers for ther contributions and surplus contributions.

But this is NOT in any way a sollution to the issues that SS minor shortfall or the Federal Revenues that are insufficient to pay our bills, or the interest only payment on our bills.

Thus, comprehensive SS reform has to take place in my opinion, and it is too late to go back to what we should have done or even comparing how it would have performed or given us more IF it had been done the way you suggested from the beginning.

I am not trying to disprove your analysis of how we would have been better off IF it was a privatized system from the beginning, because I honestly believe that you are correct and this could be proven with actual analysis.

What I am saying is that the cost to convert to a privatized system now is cost prohibitive imho.

Thus tweaking in many areas would be more cost effective and easier to accomplish.

jd

[glockmail]

I....To convert the present system to a system where each pays their own retirement along with the company contribution to such, will cost the government or rather us, $1.5 TRILLION dollars....if memory serves. ....

I don't doubt that figure and agree with you on most of your points.

SS was set up to eliminate problems with elderly poor. Classact discussed the situation in Korea and I don't doubt 1930's USA was too far away from that. At that time the goverment (as you pointed out in reality we) didn't have the resources to float itself a 50 billion dollar loan to take care of these people, so they hoodwinked the younger workers into thinking they were paying into a retirement plan when in reality the sytem was never set up that way.

Today the Government (we) doesn't have the 1.5 trillion to take care of all the people it hoodwinked. Therefore some kind of transition is necessary. I don't pretend to know how that would work but I do know that it requires money, and that money will have to come from people who earn money.

Again I point out that my simple calculations prove that a worker will retire with sevarl times his salary while he was working, just by collecting interest and not touching the principle. Therefore there is a lot of money available from those funds to get us through the transition period.