The Roman empire had Caesar, Caligula, Nero, Augustus, etc...
Different presidents, but it was still ultimately the Roman Empire.
The USA has had many presidents.... (Get it?)
Judge Napolitano has written a brilliant expose simple stating why government is the root of our problems and not the solution...
Like I have always said, "If government were benevolent and the answer to all out problems than a big government country like the Soviet Union would have been hugely successful. But they weren't."
The good judge sums it all up in one great sentence:
"Unlike an individual or a well-run corporation, government is not motivated by how efficient it can be, but rather by how lucrative it can be for those associated with it, and how those who run the government can stay in power." (emphasis mine).
The above is exactly correct. No matter the problem, the government's answer is always to expand upon itself. That is the nature of all government.
Who was in charge when the Twin Towers were attacked? The Bush Administration. Did anyone lose their jobs? No. The government's powers and reach were expanded.
Some will say that the government is here to protect the little guy. Oh really? How's that working out for the now nearly 46 million Americans on Food Stamps? Or the now 25% of all American children in poverty? Has the government cut the Pentagon budget to help pay for these poor people? Nah.
Here's another good one that never ceases to amaze me: "The Civil War: The North went to war with the South to end slavery." Ha! Oh really? Is that why some Northern States still allowed slavery for two years after the war started? And, think about this, since when has the USA ever gone to war to protect the rights of dark-skinned people? Never! Get real if you think we have.... Or do you think we are bringing democracy to those people in the Middle East too?
Have you never read "War is a Racket"? The USA only goes to war for economic aims. Never to protect minorities.
Here are some more great bits from Judge Napolitano's article:
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney don't want to shrink government. They love government. They just want to manage it better. The problem with that approach is that government by its very design is always mismanaged. The centralization of decision-making amplifies the effects of poor decisions while disincentivizing prudent ones.
Unlike an individual or a well-run corporation, government is not motivated by how efficient it can be, but rather by how lucrative it can be for those associated with it, and how those who run the government can stay in power. Someone who was philosophically opposed to government domination of the housing market wouldn't perpetuate it by taking one red penny of taxpayer money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, like the former Speaker did, whether he calls himself a historian or a lobbyist. Someone philosophically opposed to government domination of the health care market would never offer up government as the solution to the problem of the uninsured, like the former governor of Massachusetts did, since the problem of the uninsured was created by government's involvement in the health care market in the first place.The federal government does not need an efficient manager. That's a pipe dream based on the noble but flawed premise that government can be made to operate as a business. It cannot. Business is subject to the forces of free choice, supply and demand, and competition. Can you imagine government subjecting itself to the forces of competition? Can you imagine government permitting us to ignore it?.... (Read the rest at Lew Rockwell...) http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano34.1.html