[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How much more power do the wealthy have now than in the past? Isn't there a point of diminishing returns of power when you reach a certain level of wealth?

I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

If elected officials are overly influenced it's because they are corrupt, it's not because the sytem is "out of whack." That the system is "out of whack" is not because of influence, but because it has been, to a great degree, abandoned. As I said above, our Constitutional system, as do most others, requires virtue. Not only do "officials" lack virtue when they are "overly influenced," but they are corrupt when they subvert the Constitution--the law by which they are granted authority. And the corruption of influence far more easily reaches ALL when it reaches us through an overly powerful Central Government rather than having to go through 50 sovereign States where it may well not be the same play.

I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Were that it were so. The Federal govt. has, through its false "interpretations" of the Constitution, garnered the power to dictate to business in ways never intended and ways that are not a product of business, but of ideology.

...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Always was and will be. Virtue and Constitutional governance will not belay this process, nor will unconstitutional Centralized governance which, actually, makes this corruption more far reaching and effective.

And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

The Tea Party does want to reform our unconstitutional mode and devolve power back to the States and the people. I don't know of a Tea Party push to "destroy" Social Security. Reforming it is not destroying it. Those who have it now will have it. For the rest, if it is not reformed to a self-sustaining insurance program, it will self-destruct under its own impossible weight. Tea Partiers are not against effective and responsible Federal govt. They believe it is most effectively responsible when it acts within its granted powers, and that it is illegally irresponsible when it governs outside those powers. That is not destructive or radical, it is responsible and legal. All this blather about deficits and taxes to pay for them is giving power to illegal confiscation to pay for illegal debts. An excuse for the expansion of government thievery. And the notion that only the Federal govt. can stop pollution is absurd. It is the Federal govt. that is strong-arming the consumer with its illegal regulations and mandates (e.g. health care mandate).

My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

The Federal govt. has been an intrinsic part of this mix with its regulations and mandates. It certainly has fostered greater numbers on poverty with those regs and mandates.

Certainly?

Reaching for it and creating it are not the same. It must be created before it can be reached for, you can't reach for something that doesn't exist. How you reach for it depends on you and your ability. Most are able to get a job within a wealth structure, which redistributes some of that wealth. Some can create collateral entities that tap into that wealth structure. These create needs for infrastructure, expansion of services--more gas stations, food marts, housing, etc. The lower rungs generally not only have the ability to "reach for it," but are a necessary adjunct to the process.

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

The individual States provide for 90 percent of the cost of education. The portion that the Federal govt. provides is not for education as much as it is for the opportunity to mandate and regulate. The States, without the Central interference, could create a more diverse array of systems that could influence each other. If the idea that "the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed" by a Central power is not frightening, it is certainly restrictive. The "marketplace" needs to be unleashed, for good or ill, to most effectively create and distribute wealth.

Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better off.

We were well on the way to becoming the most powerful nation before the Constitution was corrupted. It is not "precisely" because of that corruption, but because the Constitution assured the individual freedom to create that power.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I thought that so much of how we live today was a system "out of whack" which is not the "fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatlsm is woven from." Education is not outside the thought of conservatism. Where did you get such an idea?

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence