Should the Federal Government manage the following programs.

[Technosoul]

After conducting a poll for what federal income taxes should be spent on I thought I would create a poll to measure what the Federal Government should manage, or help to manage.

Vote for the programs you think the federal government should manage via a federal department.

If you think only the states should manage the program without federal involvement then do not vote for the program. If you think they should be managed only by private organizations then do not vote for the programs.

Just vote for things you want the Federal Government to manage and pay for with federal income taxes.

[Technosoul]

So far only 2 people took part in this poll, which has only been posted for a few hours, it will last for the next 30 days however.

If anyone did not vote and they wish to express that they did not vote because they do not apporve of Federal managment or control they should say so in the comment section, not voting must be counted also if your option was "none of the above".

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Should the Federal Government manage the following programs.

The war in Iraq : ???
Public Education : Yes
Highway, bridges, public transportation : Promote
Creating alternatives for fosil fuel : Promote
Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes
Universal HealthCare : Yes, along with monitoring
The space program and/or scientific research : Promote
To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America : ???
To pay down the Federal Debt : Yes
To take steps to prevent Global Warming : Yes
Aid for 3rd World Countries : Yes
Welfare programs : Monitor
No programs unless advocated in Constitution : ???
National emergency response system : Yes
A workable immigration policy : Yes

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow The war in Iraq : ??? Public Education : Yes Highway, bridges, public transportation : Promote Creating alternatives for fosil fuel : Promote Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes Universal HealthCare : Yes, along with monitoring The space program and/or scientific research : Promote To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America : ??? To pay down the Federal Debt : Yes To take steps to prevent Global Warming : Yes Aid for 3rd World Countries : Yes Welfare programs : Monitor No programs unless advocated in Constitution : ??? National emergency response system : Yes A workable immigration policy : Yes

Not sure what you mean by "promote"?

Are you speaking about governmental grants to promote a project?
Are you speaking about governmental aid to the states to do projects which some people call "pork"?
Are you meaning that a President would just advocate it in speeches but not acturally offer funding? To inspire people with his opinon?

Chirstians objectives would be a number of things. To allow prayer in schools, the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, to put up religious displays at Christmas on governmental properties, to outlaw abortions or gay marrages, to promote the concepts of "one nation under God", to combat pronography.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Not sure what you mean by "promote"?

A policy that encourages an enterprise to fund and/or participate into project(s) and/or program(s) in order to accomplish that task.

Example :
- biocars
Governing bodies should lay out some general array for biocar developers, while those companies need to become a creative and executives bodies, in order biocars to appear on roads.

"Are you speaking about governmental grants to promote a project?"

That could be one of elements of that policy.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Chirstians objectives would be a number of things. To allow prayer in schools, the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, to put up religious displays at Christmas on governmental properties, to outlaw abortions or gay marrages, to promote the concepts of "one nation under God", to combat pronography.

That aspect is solved within the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore there is no need the U.S. governing body to become a decisive one.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow A policy that encourages an enterprise to fund and/or participate into project(s) and/or program(s) in order to accomplish that task. Example : - biocars Governing bodies should lay out some general array for biocar developers, while those companies need to become a creative and executives bodies, in order biocars to appear on roads. That could be one of elements of that policy.

Thank you for your response and explainations.

[Sweet Katie]

The war in Irag. Yes

Public Education. Yes (but it needs to be completely revamped)

Highways, bridges, public transportation. No (Tolls and less tax)

Creating alternatives for fosil fuel. No (The rich oil companies need to take responsibility, less tax)

Homeland Security to prevent Terrorism. Yes

Universal Health Care. NO

The space program and/or scientific research. Yes.

To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America. NO

To pay down the Federal Debt. Yes

To take steps to prevent Global Warming. NO! NO! NO! Let Gore pay for this!

Aid for 3rd World Countries. No

Welfare programs. Yes with a BIG qualifier than it needs to be revamped

No programs unless advocated in the Consitution. No. While the constitution is an amazing document, it has to be questioned as more or more of what was the future is put into the history books (pretty good wording there, ey?)

A national emergency response system. Yes. Again, revamped.

A workable immigration policy. No.

*****
Of course, my mind is open to changing on these topics.

[Thanatos]

The war in Iraq : No. Just, no.

Public Education : Yes

Highway, bridges, public transportation : Yes

Creating alternatives for fosil fuel : Promote research.

Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes

Universal HealthCare : Hasn't bankrupted the rest of the developed world. Yes.

The space program and/or scientific research: Heck yes.

To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America: No. First amendment.

To pay down the Federal Debt : Yes. Not much choice there.

To take steps to prevent Global Warming : Yes.

Aid for 3rd World Countries : Yes.

Welfare programs : There are people who are genuinely in need...yes?

No programs unless advocated in Constitution : Seriously, who can say no to R&D and schools and ambulances and fire trucks and an EPA? We need national standards and coordination on some things.

National emergency response system : I like ambulances and fire trucks. They make me feel like my tax dollars are doing something.

A workable immigration policy : Define workable.

[Foxfyre]

The war in Iraq : Yes, since it must be managed both for the good of the Iraqis and the good of the USA and conduct of war is one thing the US citizens should not do without governmental oversight.

Public Education : At the national level only to advise of minimal standards required by industry and higher education and to track the acheivement of these among the states. Otherwise, all education should be organized and funded at the local level and the government should be involved only if that is the desire of the community.

Highway, bridges, public transportation : Those necessary to the national security and interstate transportation yes. Otherwise no.

Creating alternatives for fossil fuel: the most that government should be involved is to provide an environment in which private industry can thrive by doing the necessary R&D.

Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes

Universal HealthCare: No, no, NO. It should, however, provide incentive and encouragement for the private sector to bring down medical costs and make health care affordable for all.

The space program and/or scientific research: It should do that which is necessary for national security and mutual benefit of all and otherwise only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector.

To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America: Only if such "Christian objectives" are proven to be universally beneficial when called by any name and that promote the national welfare. Example: the traditional two-parent family with mom and dad at home raising the kids has proved to be the best hedge against poverty, the surest way to reduce crime and violence, the most likely scenario to produce law abiding productive tax paying citizens, and is the very best environment for raising children. Government policy should therefore should encourage and not hinder such families.

To pay down the Federal Debt: No. It should be encouraging and providing incentive to the private sector to be prosperpous and multiply thus creating revenues that will eliminate the federal deficit which will, in time, eliminate the national debt.

To take steps to prevent Global Warming: No. At least not until there is proven science showing that policy will have significant positive impact and will not do more harm than good.

Aid for 3rd World Countries: No. It should provide the vehicle for transfer of private contributions to the needy.

Welfare programs: No. It should provide incentive and encouragement for the private sector to take care of those in need.

[Foxfyre]

Missed three:
No programs unless advocated in Constitution: If it does not provide the national defense and promote the national welfare--that's PROMOTE, not PROVIDE--then the federal government shouldn't be doing it.

National emergency response system : If such emergency falls into the category of national defense or promoting the national welfare, yes.

A workable immigration policy : This definitely falls under both the category of national defense and also promoting the national welfare. So it should indeed be a federal issue.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Thanatos The war in Iraq : No. Just, no. Public Education : Yes Highway, bridges, public transportation : Yes Creating alternatives for fosil fuel : Promote research. Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes Universal HealthCare : Hasn't bankrupted the rest of the developed world. Yes. The space program and/or scientific research: Heck yes. To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America: No. First amendment. To pay down the Federal Debt : Yes. Not much choice there. To take steps to prevent Global Warming : Yes. Aid for 3rd World Countries : Yes. Welfare programs : There are people who are genuinely in need...yes? No programs unless advocated in Constitution : Seriously, who can say no to R&D and schools and ambulances and fire trucks and an EPA? We need national standards and coordination on some things. National emergency response system : I like ambulances and fire trucks. They make me feel like my tax dollars are doing something. A workable immigration policy : Define workable.

By workable I would mean a plan that can get people, such as farm workers, into the USA in larger numbers and much faster then what is now being done, so they can enter with proper work passports. Enough people to meet the needs of the farming industry, janitor and hotel maid contractors, and other jobs normally done by immigration workers. A system where they are not paid less then what Amreicans are allowed to work for (minimum wage at least). Where unions are allowed to represent immigrant workers to insure they have decent work environments, water to drink and tolets to use. In other words "less red tape" needed to get a "green card". Where the boarders are fully secured to prevent unlawful entry. Transportation to work areas where employees need that extra help (being that Ameircans will not do that kind of work or are not skilled at doing it). And stiffer fines for people who try to smuggle in undocumented workers. And a way to insure that documented workers from other countries pay into health care and education systems via income deductions (taxes). And that they be treated with the same repsect by the police and hospitials as would be shown to a citizen.

In short - a plan that allows people to come here legally without a lot of red tape so they can carry on the long history of transit work as in the past. So that people do not have to sneak in and so we no longer have to waste a lot of time arresting and deporting people.

But I am not the one who has the authority to make up the plans, that is up to Congress and the authorities in Mexico. And so THEY need to put into affect a workable plan that works (and there-by prevents the marketing of undocumented workers).

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Foxfyre The war in Iraq : Yes, since it must be managed both for the good of the Iraqis and the good of the USA and conduct of war is one thing the US citizens should not do without governmental oversight. Public Education : At the national level only to advise of minimal standards required by industry and higher education and to track the acheivement of these among the states. Otherwise, all education should be organized and funded at the local level and the government should be involved only if that is the desire of the community. Highway, bridges, public transportation : Those necessary to the national security and interstate transportation yes. Otherwise no. Creating alternatives for fossil fuel: the most that government should be involved is to provide an environment in which private industry can thrive by doing the necessary R&D. Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes Universal HealthCare: No, no, NO. It should, however, provide incentive and encouragement for the private sector to bring down medical costs and make health care affordable for all. The space program and/or scientific research: It should do that which is necessary for national security and mutual benefit of all and otherwise only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America: Only if such "Christian objectives" are proven to be universally beneficial when called by any name and that promote the national welfare. Example: the traditional two-parent family with mom and dad at home raising the kids has proved to be the best hedge against poverty, the surest way to reduce crime and violence, the most likely scenario to produce law abiding productive tax paying citizens, and is the very best environment for raising children. Government policy should therefore should encourage and not hinder such families. To pay down the Federal Debt: No. It should be encouraging and providing incentive to the private sector to be prosperpous and multiply thus creating revenues that will eliminate the federal deficit which will, in time, eliminate the national debt. To take steps to prevent Global Warming: No. At least not until there is proven science showing that policy will have significant positive impact and will not do more harm than good. Aid for 3rd World Countries: No. It should provide the vehicle for transfer of private contributions to the needy. Welfare programs: No. It should provide incentive and encouragement for the private sector to take care of those in need.

Err, won't bad things happen eventually if the debt isn't payed off? If America's creditors just stopped lending us more money the government would just cease to exist...

Also why have the private sector take care of the needy? With subsidies and incentives and regular evaluations I suppose it could be done effectively...but what's the point? The subsidy money is still passing through the government.

[Ironcandle]

Here's my view:

The war in Iraq : Yes, war fighting is a federal responsibility.
Public Education : No, education is a responsibility of the States.
Highway, bridges, public transportation : Yes, commerce between the states is necessary.
Creating alternatives for fosil fuel : No, that is a private enterprise activity.
Homeland Security to prevent terrorism : Yes, defending the country is a federal responsibility.
Universal HealthCare : No, that is socialism.
The space program and/or scientific research : Not anymore, private enterprise should take over.
To promote Christian Objectives for a moral America : Absolutely not, for obvious reasons.
To pay down the Federal Debt : Yes.
To take steps to prevent Global Warming : No.
Aid for 3rd World Countries : Depends on the country.
Welfare programs : No, State responsibility.
No programs unless advocated in Constitution : Correct.
National emergency response system : Yes.
A workable immigration policy : Not sure what "workable" is supoosed to mean. They should regulate the border like other countries do.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Ironcandle]

By workable I would mean a plan that can get people, such as farm workers, into the USA in larger numbers and much faster then what is now being done, so they can enter with proper work passports. Enough people to meet the needs of the farming industry, janitor and hotel maid contractors, and other jobs normally done by immigration workers. A system where they are not paid less then what Amreicans are allowed to work for (minimum wage at least). Where unions are allowed to represent immigrant workers to insure they have decent work environments, water to drink and tolets to use. In other words "less red tape" needed to get a "green card". Where the boarders are fully secured to prevent unlawful entry. Transportation to work areas where employees need that extra help (being that Ameircans will not do that kind of work or are not skilled at doing it). And stiffer fines for people who try to smuggle in undocumented workers. And a way to insure that documented workers from other countries pay into health care and education systems via income deductions (taxes). And that they be treated with the same repsect by the police and hospitials as would be shown to a citizen. In short - a plan that allows people to come here legally without a lot of red tape so they can carry on the long history of transit work as in the past. So that people do not have to sneak in and so we no longer have to waste a lot of time arresting and deporting people. But I am not the one who has the authority to make up the plans, that is up to Congress and the authorities in Mexico. And so THEY need to put into affect a workable plan that works (and there-by prevents the marketing of undocumented workers).

Ooops.
Missed that.
Mexicans should have to come through the borders in the same manner that people from Germany, Brazil, Peru, Japan and every other country come through. They should not be sneaking in and they should not have special papers that others do not have. The borders of the country have to be well manitained and regulated. It should be our number one priority, especially after 9/11. One of Bush's more spectacular failings.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Ironcandle Ooops. Missed that. Mexicans should have to come through the borders in the same manner that people from Germany, Brazil, Peru, Japan and every other country come through. They should not be sneaking in and they should not have special papers that others do not have. The borders of the country have to be well manitained and regulated. It should be our number one priority, especially after 9/11. One of Bush's more spectacular failings.

Some people from South America enter through Mexico. People who come here to work ( not just to visit Disneyland) from Japan or Germany, and even places like India, do so because they are highly educated and can perform highly skilled jobs in technology, science, medicene. So they are given easy access over poor people. Those are the ones taking away the better jobs from citizens. The people from south of the boarder are nomally seasonal workers, or temporary workers at construction sites. Through the late 40s and 50s they have come here, work a short time and send the earnings home to there familys in Mexico and elsewhere down south of the boarders. They work washing dishes in restourants, cleaning hotel rooms and private houses of the rich people. And now they work in sweat shops, factories, and other places. In Arizona they cracked down on immigration and got tuff about boader securing the boaders, the farmers ended up shorthanded when harvest time came around and even ran want ads in the paper, but were not able to get enough workers, and the lost a lot of money as their crops rotted away with no one to harvest them. A state like California would really suffer if we cracked down too hard on illegals because not enough people can be processed through the normal entry points at this time - due to a lot of background checks and red tape. In order to sneak across the boarder it costs them about one thousand dollars for person to get here to seek work. They are getting ripped off, and transported in an unsafe manner, and if caught they get no refund.

During the 1980s things really changed however as the culture of immigration grew large, where they now nearly take up whole towns within the L.A. area of Ca. Because so many people come here others set up spanish speaking stores to cator to their fellow countrymen, they have their own sub-culture with real estate offices, car dealers, and just about everything else. In the city of L.A. over half the population are spanish speaking people.

It would cost billions to deport everyone, it's too late.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Thanatos Err, won't bad things happen eventually if the debt isn't payed off? If America's creditors just stopped lending us more money the government would just cease to exist....

Most of the national debt is held by U.S. citizens who have invested in government bonds and annuities. We do owe way too much money to other countries but a manageable amount when we consider our GDP. If we truly balanced the budget which I believe has NEVER been done at least since the 1940's--even with the late 1980's surpluses the national debt clock was still running--the debt would be paid off within a few years. You are correct that we run the risk of runaway inflation and wrecking our economy if we don't keep control of such things. ALL of our creditors have had substantial debts to the USA forgiven and expunged and they cannot afford for the USA economy to totally tank. There isn't much danger that they will stop investing in the United States and that's what the debt is. Them investing in us, not just sending over a wad of currency.

Also why have the private sector take care of the needy? With subsidies and incentives and regular evaluations I suppose it could be done effectively...but what's the point? The subsidy money is still passing through the government.

Because our Founders correctly recognized the very real danger of corruption, graft, and poisoning of the process should politicians ever have the ability to achieve power and position by using the people's money to buy votes. Voluntary contributions from the people to those in need are never corrupting and in fact are always positive. The government should not be in the business of any kind of charity. The people should all be engaged in dispensing benevolence whenever and wherever it is needed.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Foxfyre Most of the national debt is held by U.S. citizens who have invested in government bonds and annuities. We do owe way too much money to other countries but a manageable amount when we consider our GDP. If we truly balanced the budget which I believe has NEVER been done at least since the 1940's--even with the late 1980's surpluses the national debt clock was still running--the debt would be paid off within a few years. You are correct that we run the risk of runaway inflation and wrecking our economy if we don't keep control of such things. ALL of our creditors have had substantial debts to the USA forgiven and expunged and they cannot afford for the USA economy to totally tank. There isn't much danger that they will stop investing in the United States and that's what the debt is. Them investing in us, not just sending over a wad of currency. Because our Founders correctly recognized the very real danger of corruption, graft, and poisoning of the process should politicians ever have the ability to achieve power and position by using the people's money to buy votes. Voluntary contributions from the people to those in need are never corrupting and in fact are always positive. The government should not be in the business of any kind of charity. The people should all be engaged in dispensing benevolence whenever and wherever it is needed.

I am not much into talking budgets but would like to comment on your 2nd remarks.

We all know that Tomas Jefferson ended up dieing in poverty after the government took away his farm because he owed taxes. They offered him no charity and that is how it was back then. I wonder what Jefferson would have to say after he experienced poverity on a first hand bases, but by then it was too late, he was just another worthless bum to be discarded by the society he helped to create, with less charity then what he offfered his own slaves at his hemp farm.

As things got worse during the great depression people started to wise up and smell the roses, and changes were adopted to combat the coruption happening within the free market places. And that is what we should focus on, business coruption which can be far worse then that of our government. Give the business monoploy too much rope and they will hang us all out to dry..

Now show me the actural facts that private charity and free will donations have ended poverity or the other social problems of concern.

You cannot do that because the private charity organizations are corupted, even the religious ones. And notice how the CEOs of those charity oganizations end up so wealthy. That is bull shit and it's getting deeper.

Under law only ten percent of what a chiarity organization takes in via donations must go to actually help those whom the money was collected to aid. Thus, the wide spread coruption that is so evident (and outside the boundry of the tax collectors). You might see some poor folks eating Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving day or at Christmas, but the rest of the year things are different.

No, what we need are honest people in government who know the real meaning of the concepts of charity and that "it takes a village" to get the job done. Because private charity has failed to get the job done, they had their chance and screwed up, and this is not becuase the people are are not willing to donate, the people are willing to support those programs but "results" are what count. What we need are results and if taxes are the only way to do that, then so be it.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Technosoul I am not much into talking budgets but would like to comment on your 2nd remarks. We all know that Tomas Jefferson ended up dieing in poverty after the government took away his farm because he owed taxes. They offered him no charity and that is how it was back then. I wonder what Jefferson would have to say after he experienced poverity on a first hand bases, but by then it was too late, he was just another worthless bum to be discarded by the society he helped to create, with less charity then what he offfered his own slaves at his hemp farm. As things got worse during the great depression people started to wise up and smell the roses, and changes were adopted to combat the coruption happening within the free market places. And that is what we should focus on, business coruption which can be far worse then that of our government. Give the business monoploy too much rope and they will hang us all out to dry.. Now show me the actural facts that private charity and free will donations have ended poverity or the other social problems of concern. You cannot do that because the private charity organizations are corupted, even the religious ones. And notice how the CEOs of those charity oganizations end up so wealthy. That is bull shit and it's getting deeper. Under law only ten percent of what a chiarity organization takes in via donations must go to actually help those whom the money was collected to aid. Thus, the wide spread coruption that is so evident (and outside the boundry of the tax collectors). You might see some poor folks eating Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving day or at Christmas, but the rest of the year things are different. No, what we need are honest people in government who know the real meaning of the concepts of charity and that "it takes a village" to get the job done. Because private charity has failed to get the job done, they had their chance and screwed up, and this is not becuase the people are are not willing to donate, the people are willing to support those programs but "results" are what count. What we need are results and if taxes are the only way to do that, then so be it.

There is no moral argument that can be made for forcibly taking legally acquired property/wealth from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B who did nothing to earn it. There is virtue in Citizen A voluntarily helping out another person in need. The government is required for the former. No government involvement is necessary in the latter.

Thomas Jefferson indeed was in debt when he died, but he was in no way impoverished. And he would have been horrified at the government confiscating your property without just compensation and giving it to somebody else.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. I believe that every human mind feels pleasure in doing good to another. My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. --All Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817 "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." -- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877] "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)