Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

 

2008-01-11 18:28:58
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7004|Portland, OR, USA
I didn't set this up as a poll for a reason, it's not simply a yes or no question.

The questions:

1) Do we still need a strong central governing body or would smaller state governments suffice? Why/why not?

2) Would you support dividing America into smaller sections to be governed by a (in theory) more efficient government -- a government more apt to serve its people (as America varies so vastly in certain beliefs from place to place)? Why/why not? Would it work to divide the country at a state level (though you would probably have to combine some of those tiny eastern states..) and still be united by an "American Union"?

Discuss.
2008-01-11 18:49:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA
1.We need a strong central govt. 50 small govts. could never come together to solve common issues. Individual states interests would ultimately overshadow any progress or solutions to issues.

2.No because separate govts. that do not answer to a common govt. is essentially separate countries, with each country valuing their own interests and never solving any community issues. "A House divided against itself can not stand"
2008-01-11 18:59:10
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6964|Global Command
I'm for small government.

10% flat sales tax distributed equally between state and feds.

Death penalty for graft and corruption.
2008-01-11 18:59:29
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7119|United States of America
I'm assuming were there not a federal level of government that all those jobs, people, and money would be divided among the states then. Without a national level, it'd be less a united entity of states but moreso a confederation. This country is just too damn big to not have a big government. Lowing is correct as well that we need something that keeps all these states, for all practical purposes, united. Imagine if their was no federal regulation on pollution, gun laws, production standards. The governments of those states could just as easily change those establishments to fit their interests as well, becoming less and less attached to the other states.
2008-01-11 19:00:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990
Beer. . . .
2008-01-11 19:00:33
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7066|949

Do we need a strong central governing body - yes.  Federal government should be responsible for maintaining defense and collective economic/industrial interest, as well as a blanket set of somewhat vague regulating laws governing the separate state governments.

State governments should have more power (in my opinion) than they currently have.  Certain social and moral ideas that are currently regulated by federal government (such as the legality of drugs, age of consent, drinking age) should be a state's rights issue, much like the patchwork of gun laws that vary from state to state.  The fact that our country has many different regions, each with their distinct differences within American culture should be a guiding factor.  I advocate a far more decentralized government than the one we currently have, because I believe state and even local (city and county) governments are far more efficient than the federal government at dealing with certain issues.
2008-01-11 19:00:44
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7078
there has never been a successful confederacy.
2008-01-11 19:02:07
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|6669|Texas
we tried that in the 1700's...it didn't work with 13 colonies...how will it work now with 50 states? state issues will overshadow national issues. I think a big government is fine as long as we don't fear it (like we do now).
2008-01-11 19:12:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

No. There is less accountability with big government. The founding fathers got it right. We've been screwing it up ever since.  They didn't want politicians thousands of miles away making decisions for them. The role of the federal government should be limited to matters of national security. The more power we give to government on the national level the more likely the voice of the people will not be heard. Smaller government gives citizens a tighter leash on politicians. They are more responsive to the people.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:13:34
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

Kmarion wrote:

No. There is less accountability with big government. The founding fathers got it right. We've been screwing it up ever since.  They didn't want politicians thousands of miles away making decisions for them. The role of the federal government should be limited to matters of national security. The more power we give to government on the national level the more likely the voice of the people will not be heard. Smaller government gives citizens a tighter leash on politicians. They are more responsive to the people.
So very true.
2008-01-11 19:17:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

Kmarion wrote:

No. There is less accountability with big government. The founding fathers got it right. We've been screwing it up ever since.  They didn't want politicians thousands of miles away making decisions for them. The role of the federal government should be limited to matters of national security. The more power we give to government on the national level the more likely the voice of the people will not be heard. Smaller government gives citizens a tighter leash on politicians. They are more responsive to the people.
Congress is SUPPOSED to be the voice of the people from individual states. The Idea of our govt is perfect. Its execution is marred by corruption
2008-01-11 19:17:41
David.P
Banned
+649|6708

CameronPoe wrote:

Beer. . . .
Guinness taste like piss water! Have a Sam Adams instead it's brewed in America, The American way! With 50 stars and 13 stripes per bottle. Not like your Commie Tree hugging beer brewed in Tree vats and with "Organic" Ingredients, That goes to support the Terrorists which you call freedom fighters because it sounds nicer on TV. Fuck that shit! *Goes off humming the tune to Team America World Police"

/Off topic Rant.

Yes and No.

Yes if it would stop the bullshit known as bureaucracy.

No because we'd have 50 little shits vying for power and making their own wars. Instead of one huge shit.(Which is no better but atleast he cant escape punishment)

EDIT: No really i hate guinness and cam sounds like hes drunk. I'm also a bit drunk from a real mans drink known as Vodka! Bison grass 80 proof motherfucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT 2: I thinks it's this. Bottle looks a bit different but i cant tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBubr%C3%B3wka

Last edited by David.P (2008-01-11 19:20:35)

2008-01-11 19:18:55
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No. There is less accountability with big government. The founding fathers got it right. We've been screwing it up ever since.  They didn't want politicians thousands of miles away making decisions for them. The role of the federal government should be limited to matters of national security. The more power we give to government on the national level the more likely the voice of the people will not be heard. Smaller government gives citizens a tighter leash on politicians. They are more responsive to the people.
Congress is SUPPOSED to be the voice of the people from individual states. The Idea of our govt is perfect. Its execution is marred by corruption
The fact that it has ran away from the people is a demonstration of it's imperfection. People pay more attention when they know political changes will affect them locally.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:19:21
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

DesertFox- wrote:

Lowing is correct as well that we need something that keeps all these states, for all practical purposes, united. Imagine if their was no federal regulation on pollution, gun laws, production standards. The governments of those states could just as easily change those establishments to fit their interests as well, becoming less and less attached to the other states.
Read your states constitution. I'm betting they have those laws already in place.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:20:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No. There is less accountability with big government. The founding fathers got it right. We've been screwing it up ever since.  They didn't want politicians thousands of miles away making decisions for them. The role of the federal government should be limited to matters of national security. The more power we give to government on the national level the more likely the voice of the people will not be heard. Smaller government gives citizens a tighter leash on politicians. They are more responsive to the people.
Congress is SUPPOSED to be the voice of the people from individual states. The Idea of our govt is perfect. Its execution is marred by corruption
The fact that it has ran away from the people is a demonstration of it's imperfection. People pay more attention when they know political changes will affect them locally.
That is why I said the IDEA is perfect, NOT the reality of it.
2008-01-11 19:22:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

Kmarion wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Lowing is correct as well that we need something that keeps all these states, for all practical purposes, united. Imagine if their was no federal regulation on pollution, gun laws, production standards. The governments of those states could just as easily change those establishments to fit their interests as well, becoming less and less attached to the other states.
Read your states constitution. I'm betting they have those laws already in place.
But state law does not supersede federal law, or does it?
2008-01-11 19:24:49
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:


Congress is SUPPOSED to be the voice of the people from individual states. The Idea of our govt is perfect. Its execution is marred by corruption
The fact that it has ran away from the people is a demonstration of it's imperfection. People pay more attention when they know political changes will affect them locally.
That is why I said the IDEA is perfect, NOT the reality of it.
Life interjects and we must deal with the plausibility of ideas as well. That is where my opinions are based.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:25:35
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Lowing is correct as well that we need something that keeps all these states, for all practical purposes, united. Imagine if their was no federal regulation on pollution, gun laws, production standards. The governments of those states could just as easily change those establishments to fit their interests as well, becoming less and less attached to the other states.
Read your states constitution. I'm betting they have those laws already in place.
But state law does not supersede federal law, or does it?
The point is, not all federal regulations are needed since the states will do it themselves.
2008-01-11 19:29:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Read your states constitution. I'm betting they have those laws already in place.
But state law does not supersede federal law, or does it?
The point is, not all federal regulations are needed since the states will do it themselves.
The counter point was that state laws will take care of their own interests. I wonder what a southern state would think about a northern state that dammed a major waterway to conserve water for itself.

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-11 19:30:37)

2008-01-11 19:31:36
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7119|United States of America
My point on saying that was there is no governing body to standardize these areas. States are free to do what they want without the federal level and thus they could do pretty much anything in Article I, Section 8 that Congress was allowed to do.
2008-01-11 19:40:37
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

But state law does not supersede federal law, or does it?
The point is, not all federal regulations are needed since the states will do it themselves.
The counter point was that state laws will take care of their own interests. I wonder what a southern state would think about a northern state that dammed a major waterway to conserve water for itself.
I'm not sure what the example has to do with what I said.

Kmarion replied to DesertFox-, who said that federal regulations are a necessary purpose of a central government.

You replied to Kmarion, and I replied to you -- with just that idea.  The states already pass regulations on many of those issues, so claiming that the feds need to do it is incorrect.  The states can and will regulate themselves effectively.  Damming a waterway is a far cry from the stated "pollution, gun laws, [and] production standards" laws.
2008-01-11 19:41:50
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

But state law does not supersede federal law, or does it?
The point is, not all federal regulations are needed since the states will do it themselves.
The counter point was that state laws will take care of their own interests. I wonder what a southern state would think about a northern state that dammed a major waterway to conserve water for itself.
Shouldn't they? Why should taxpayers in Florida be forced to pay $244,000 for bee research in Texas? Or how about taxpayers of New York paying $2.2 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada? It's sickening to say the least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:44:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

SenorToenails wrote:

Damming a waterway is a far cry from the stated "pollution, gun laws, [and] production standards" laws.
States are capable of dealing with such matters amongst themselves. There are all kinds of agreements worked out without the sludge of Washington deciding for them. An example is the Real Estate business. When I got my license in Florida I also received mutual recognitions in other states.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-11 19:54:43
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

Kmarion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Damming a waterway is a far cry from the stated "pollution, gun laws, [and] production standards" laws.
States are capable of dealing with such matters amongst themselves. There are all kinds of agreements worked out without the sludge of Washington deciding for them. An example is the Real Estate business. When I got my license in Florida I also received mutual recognitions in other states.
You are very right.  States can deal with such issues on their own, but lowing's example had little to do with my reply.  In the absence of federal intervention, states would learn to work with each other pretty quickly.
2008-01-11 19:56:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


The point is, not all federal regulations are needed since the states will do it themselves.
The counter point was that state laws will take care of their own interests. I wonder what a southern state would think about a northern state that dammed a major waterway to conserve water for itself.
Shouldn't they? Why should taxpayers in Florida be forced to pay $244,000 for bee research in Texas? Or how about taxpayers of New York paying $2.2 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada? It's sickening to say the least.
Maybe, but in this scenerio lets just be sure that MY state is upstream of YOURS, shall we ?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard