"The federal government has taken
too much tax money from the people,
too much authority from the states, and
too much liberty with the Constitution."
by:
Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
The last one was made ever more obvious by last too, it is so true indeed. Constitutional enforcement is needed more than ever.
 -- Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday, Vancouver, GVRD(Paine Cnty), Coastal Lwr Mainland BC(State of Neo Sumer), U.S. of Eh!     
  • 1
  •  
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN      
    It's a shame he didn't even try to live up to his words.
     -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA     
  • 2 2
  •  
    Reagan DID try. Remember, it is Congress that spends (and at that time it was Democrats). A lot of responsibilities were returned to the States, and Reagan cancelled a slew of previous Executive Orders. But what Americans need to learn is that the country is controlled by the Federal Reserve -- and all taxes go to them. There is no way to control spending with a fiat currency.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 4
  •  
    E Archer hit the nail on the head. It's ludicrous to blame spending all on the President. Read the constitution and you might discover some interesting things about who actually authorizes spending, versus proposing it. The fact is that Reagan and the Goldwater Republican faction he led had to compromise with the paleocons and the Democrats (mostly Great Society types) in order to get the things he felt were needed. Of course, what no one ever bothers to look at is that the economic growth of the 90's was enabled in the 80's. It takes about that long for policy changes to really take hold. But it's always much more convenient to blame the guy in the White House.
     -- Eric, Sacramento, CA     
  • 4
  •  
    These three quotations strictly pander to the Neanderthal. I don't think quotes like these add to any enlightenment or provocative thinking.
     -- Dick, Fort Worth     
  • 1 7
  •  
     -- Anonymous      
    Reagan lied. To keep us believing that our misleaders spend too much money, who will believe that no branch of government spends a dime or pays anyone for anything? They cannot get money from your bank when the Fed said "deposits are merely book entries" and they have no need for money when all of us will risk our lives for book entries. We would nut have wars if soldiers and suppliers have to be paid. They pretend they are paid with checks, pretend they pays taxes, pretend government spends and pretend we have freedom. The sole function of Lincoln's legal tender acts was/is to get labor and property without payment. Of this system, Lincoln's contemporary, Horace Greeley, the noted publisher, said the "iniquitous money system is no less cruel than the old system of chatel slavery." Roussas J. Rushdoony, a noted Minister wrote: God, The Devil and Legal Tender www.morpix.biz/god this and the next one contan no advertizing and deserve wide circulation: www.morpix.biz/dc
     -- Anonymous     
  •  
    don't shoot the messenger, the quote on its face is sound
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 5
  •  
    Ronald Reagan was a great President, right up there with the best of them. He was an "everyman" from the heartland of America, and he lived the American Dream. It was his faith and belief in our country's heritage that enabled him to do great things and connect with the people on their level. He was always able to overcome adversaries by the simple fact that he believed in something and that something was America. JFK stood by while the Berlin Wall was erected and then went to Berlin and made his "Ich ben" speech. Reagan went to Berlin and said, "...tear down this wall!" and the wall came down. So much for Camelot.
     -- J. B. Wulff, Bristol     
  • 2
  •  
    Reagan was the start of all of our current problems. He had his head in the sand. He was the original borrow and spend President followed by his sycophants the Bushes. If the government has taken too much tax money from the people why does it borrow 10 thillion.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 1 6
  •  
    Ronald Reagan was the last American President to actually attempt to empower the states, decrease federal taxes, and uphold the Constitution. His failure to accomplish his lofty goals still gave rise to the single most prosperous decade in American history, in spite of the bungling of President George H.W. Bush and the pandering and depravity of President William J. Clinton.
     -- Justin, Elkland, Missouri     
  • 2
  •  
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA, US      
     -- Anonymous      
    Archer nails it. Presidents are irrelevant puppets of the International Bankers. The idea that your vote makes a difference is an illusion designed to make you think you have freedom. You don't...you have "owners". The quote from Reagan is valid at face value.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 2
  •  
    Waffler, lol, the simplest straight forward answer to your question is: the government unconstitutionally, unlawfully, and wrongly spent 10 trillion. I did a word search in the Constitution and couldn't find the terms bail out, stimulus package, or corporate buy in anywhere. To freely pay any income tax is to be complicit with larceny. To want to pay the 10 trillion extra is to simply be of a gangster's heart and mind.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
  •  
    And it's only gotten worse since Saint Ronald was President. The free world is being overrun by third world savages.
     -- Bob, Eugene OR.     
  •  
     -- KrlyQ, Irving, TX      
    I propose an edit of the first sentence from "The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people" to "The federal government has taken too much tax money from the poor and middle class and not enough from the wealth ..."
     -- Jim, Stone Mountain, GA     
  • 1
  •  
     -- Anonymous      
    Jim, a couple of questions. Who shall define the dollar difference between middle class and the wealthy? Which standard of wealth will be used, that of Ethiopia or zip code 90210. Is larceny not the carrying away of an individual's property, with the intent to deprive said owner by converting such property to another's use, no matter if the original owner be wealthy or poor?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    Attacking the wealthy will solve nothing. Attacking a fascist would be very rewarding though...
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 2
  •  
    Ah Jim, The old ,worn out and has never worked scheme of "soaking the rich". The Dems have been singing this song for ages.
     -- jim k, austin     
  • 2
  •  
    Mike your word choics of bailout, stimulus etc. are all summed up in the the "promote the general welfare" clause.
     -- Anonymous     
  • 3
  •  
    "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". Abraham Lincoln
     -- Elisabeth, Astoria, NY     
  • 2
  •  
    Anonymous, you sound a lot like Waffler who is also guilty of selective hearing, seeing, and reading. The first place "promote the general Welfare" clause shows up in is in the Preamble which is not a defining or executable dynamic but rather a foundation or basis for later definition. The "promote the general welfare" clause at Article 1, Section 8 defines the Preamble clause by saying: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" It is a clause that is directed at the government. The bail out, stimulus package, and corporate buy in actions were never claimed to be for the government BUT!!!, always for the people. Further, those specific actions are forbidden by the Constitution because they are not specifically authorized as avenues to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. In fact, they are debts and liabilities to the United States, as such, they are antithetical to the general welfare - just adding another reason they are unconstitutional.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    What Reagan saw then, he would see tenfold today. Though I disagreed with him on some issues (as I do with every administration), I admit he was one of the best leaders of this nation. It doesn't appear we will see his like in leadership, statesmanship and an innate understanding of how to deal with bullies-without being one. Sure, Barry gives a good speech (if his teleprompter is working), he's personable and likeable. But he's putting the USA in a position to be decimated by piddling third world bullies. Shame on him---and on those who elected him because they "liked him".
     -- empty pockets, Albuquerque     
  • 1
  •  
    Anonymous, are you in as much denial as Waffler? Do you believe corruption only exists in State governments and the omnipotent nanny lives in a glass house? And, because your personal affiliation to the borg collective is so secure in defining freedom and liberty, you believe all actions by the executive, legislature, judicial, and their P.R. extension - the media, are constitutional without corruption and, no checks and balances are needed? Are you of the same opinion that all you have to do is be a happy slave and all is bliss?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    Mike your comment that the "promote the general welfare" clause and the preamble is directed at the government is BS at least until you can prove it to me. As far as the size of govenrment or nanny as you like to call it it is all a fiction. State county and local government is 1000 of times bigger than what you poetically call big government. But just like the communists I understand that you want to see government fade away. Are you a communist plant Mike.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, you know I'm laughing almost to hysterics in disbelief - I have a hard time thinking anybody is that selectively stupid as your last comment makes you seem.. Sense you refuse to read or believe U.S. history (such as why and how the Bill of Rights came to be - making an excellent explicative of what the Constitution was to be) and gaze over such verbiage as general 'welfare of the United States' its impossible to prove anything to you. When your religion is the fascist theology that now infests this nation, proof of another philosophy is beyond possibilities. When you refuse to accept what the law of Nature and of Nature's God is, the concept of Creator endowed rights, and/or the difference between a representative republic and a democracy is, proof of any lawful premise is outside of provability. I couldn't prove anything to you because your selective memory and inability to connect the dots won't let you recall what I've written. I am not a communist, nor anything collective. I am an individual that believes in, and desires a limited, constitutional representative republic (for those of Wafflerworld, that's a form of government that once existed here on this land mass).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
  •  
    Here's your proof, Waffler: The Preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It does not say 'provide for the general welfare.' Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Madison concurs: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Madison concludes: "Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." Note that Madison mentions that "there is a host of proofs" among the framers backing this argument. But I doubt very seriously that Waffler will give up his attack on the Constitution and the rest of us -- he does not really want proof -- he wants your submission.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    My apologies I meant "promote the general welfare". Mike the Communists preach and teach the fading away of the state, is that what you and Archer teach and preach. If so what is the difference between you and they. Free enterprise and initiative is the greatest thing going but when we and our government buy much of our goods and services from much more socialized and or communistic or government controlled or subsidized economies like Japan, Inc. South Korea, and China (a dictatorship of the Communist Party) and our economy suffers in return, to hear the very same people harping about the evils of socialism leaves me a little bit aghast, the very same people who rushed to Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai and Wall Mart for all of their other China made goods, They support socialims in every purchase they make. Talk of hypocrisy, you don't even know what the word means.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 2
  •  
    Waffler, rather than giving credit for providing the proof, you have merely tried to change the subject. You say, "the Communists preach and teach the fading away of the state, is that what you and Archer teach and preach. If so what is the difference between you and they." The difference is simple: the communists do NOT 'preach and teach the fading away of the state'!! Quite the opposite -- read the Communist Manifesto. As far as America losing manufacturing to communist-labor countries, you can thank labor unions for that. You will get no argument from me that buying goods from communist slave-labor countries isn't good for the American economy -- but one has to ask why American companies cannot produce like they used to... why not make it illegal to import goods produced by slave/prison labor. I know you prefer not hear arguments against printing money at interest, but if people can make money on printing up money to buy Chinese crap, they are all for it -- and the banks run this country. Quite frankly, if promoting the general welfare required bankrupting the nation to do it, then I would say that there are ulterior motives other than 'general welfare' at work.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 3
  •  
    Archer, said well. I don't know Archer but I can almost speak for him here and tell you neither of us are communists or want government to fade away. I do have to lol while shaking my head at Waffler because, he thinks if the tyranny and despotism doesn't measure up to his fascist theocracy its no government at all. Waffler can never answer or accept facts, truth, the whole of history, or anything dealing with individual self governing because it contradicts his twisted definitions and selective hearing, seeing, reading, and religious dogmas.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
     -- Mike, Chicago, IL      
     -- Ronw13, Oregon      
     -- DENNIS KOLB, WARRENTON      
    Please block your eyes Waffler so that you won't have to read the facts of the Father of the U.S. Constitution, one of its authors as well as one of its signing ratifiers solid opinion on the General Welfare Clause.
    Waffler ... We all know that actual history and defining facts give your Progressive, Liberal and Marxist ideology nothing but Apoplexy!!!!
    -- “If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” - James Madison, on the House floor during debates on a Cod
     -- Mary - MI     
  • 1
  •  
    Oops .... I wish to add an addition to what James Madison was debating about when he spoke the above words ... so here is the missing needed extenuation - "James Madison, on the House floor during debates on a Cod Fishery bill [February 1792]"
     -- Mary - MI     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca