Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

50% Believe Fed Government Has Too Much Influence Over States, 11% Say Not Enough
Rasmussen Reports ^ | August 25, 2011

Posted on 08/25/2011 10:47:55 AM PDT by markomalley

Americans overall tend to trust governments closer to home rather than the federal government and worry that the team in DC has too much influence over state governments. However, Democrats and those who are politically liberal take an entirely different view.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of Likely Voters believe the federal government has too much influence over state governments. Just 11% think the federal government does not have enough influence while 26% believe the balance is about right. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

On the question of which branch of government does a better job, 33% pick local governments, 23% look to the state level, and 15% prefer the federal government. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure.

These results come at a time when just 17% believe the federal government has the consent of the governed and only 14% believe the country is generally heading in the right direction.

(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2011polls; donttreadonme; fedgov; fedzilla; govtabuse; statesrights; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: dfwgator

Psychologically many blacks moved from one plantation to another. I believe the percent of blacks is 14%.


21 posted on 08/27/2011 6:44:15 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Impy
Government was kept relatively small until FDR's presidency. During the post-civil war glided age of the late 1800s, most of our Presidents were profoundly conservative by today's standards and firm believers in private industry and traditional values. Calvin Coolidge (who was won over all the northern states and was opposed in every southern state) was most of the conservative presidents we ever had, even moreso than Reagan.

Then the great depression hit. FDR's "new deal" was known as "alphabet soup" because its record number of government agencies was unprecedented in American history. After enacting his socialist agenda, he received well over 80% of the vote in much of the so-called "conservative, limited-government" south, more so than anywhere else in the country.

A bunch of "our Republic is dead" freepers have claimed Abraham Lincoln "destroyed" our Republic in 1865, but then they also claim our Republic was "destroyed" in 1913. How was it "destroyed" in 1913 if Lincoln already killed it 48 years earlier? You guys might have more credibility if you could come up with a consensus date and stick with it.

By the way, Ronald Reagan (also from Illinois) was a huge fan of honest Abe and considered him a role model. His ancestors fought on Lincoln's side, not on the side of the "save slavery" fascist confederacy.

22 posted on 08/27/2011 11:08:13 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Warren Harding repelled the USA’s first dance with Communism ushered in by Woodrow Wilson..

Warren Harding figured it out in 1920...

Congress and the Executive Branch have lots to do.

So far they’re not doin’ it right..

Its been done before..

Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1319&loc=r

BTW..ole Warren ALSO fixed immigration...

Mr. Harding signed into law the Emergency Quota Act[3] which sought to control immigration following World War I and preserve the distinctive American culture by ensuring the majority of immigrants came from the historically compatible cultures of Northern Europe. This law aimed to bring wages of hard working Americans under control by limiting immigration to 3% of the 1910 census. It was followed on by a similar act in 1924, after Mr. Harding’s death.[4]

A Warren Harding prescription...if filled ...would ignite the afterburners on the US job machine and the economy. However DC would have to yield on a tremendous amount of power. Our job as We the People...is to persuade them of the “utility” ..shall we say..of doing so. In all probability the same minds that made the mess...aren’t capable of the solution however.

BTW any takers that ‘Bammy couldn’t even tell you that Warren Harding was one of his predecessors in office?

Even more telling about what our betters in the RinoCracy think of a Constitutional President..

http://www.usnews.com/listings/worst-presidents/warren-harding


23 posted on 08/27/2011 11:10:47 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
If the Valley succeeds in seceding

I've probably typed "succession" by mistake at least half of the times I meant to type "secession". ;d

24 posted on 08/30/2011 9:33:48 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mo; central_va; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA

I’ve become a big “fan” so to speak of Harding.

A bit of corruption is his administration doesn’t change the fact that all but 2 IMO (Coolidge, Reagan) of his successors as President make him look like he belongs on Mount Rushmore. He’s certainly no where near “worst” if you are looking at it from the perspective of a conservative and not a liberal historian.

As for Lincoln, I’m not a big fan of some of his polices but he had about as good an excuse as exists with the Civil war. Terrible time but most historians think it was unavoidable.

You should have Woodrow Wilson and FDR’s picture’s up there Central_va. No comparison between Lincoln and those twerps.

Just the other day I replied to some sophomoric idiot’s blog post saying how Lincoln would be happy Obama is President. We should make an effort to put a stop to the far-left’s co-opting of Lincoln. When I was a kid I went to the Chicago Historical society and the bint giving the tour was talking about Lincoln and Douglas and said today their parties would be reversed. She worked in a Historical society despite having a middle schooler’s sense of history.


25 posted on 08/30/2011 11:00:18 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson