BF2S Forums Big government, do we need it? [USA]

SenorToenails wrote:

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.

I am not sure how my example does not pertain to your statement that states can and would govern themselves without holding their own interests as top priority. I think it is a perfect example of how the potential of this could manifest itself.


You simply can not have 50 different agendas ar work at once. As it is we have 2 ( democrat and republican) and look at the trouble and strife it causes

Didnt the USA already attempt to exist without a strong national government and fail miserably?

lowing wrote:

I am not sure how my example does not pertain to your statement that states can and would govern themselves without holding their own interests as top priority. I think it is a perfect example of how the potential of this could manifest itself.


You simply can not have 50 different agendas ar work at once. As it is we have 2 ( democrat and republican) and look at the trouble and strife it causes

You missed the point of what I said.  But that's OK, I can discuss this.

States can form what are known as Interstate Compacts.  Basically, it's an agreement amongst states to agree on a common goal in order to avoid federal intervention.  As a side effect, they get shit done.

Perhaps states can form more of these in the event of a central government downsizing.  That, and some common sense, can solve this "dam the river" scenario.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

I say America should take the canadian route with this, and just rejoin the Empire. Canada's just as big, but doesen't have as much of a problem with corruption, racism, crime rates, hostile foreign policy, trade deficit, and being considered the world's biggest exporter of stupid people.

Never!!!!!!

Id say yes, because if there wasnt then you'd all be shooting each other, I guarantee it (thats if you become more independent as one, i.e like your own country)

Spearhead wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Didnt the USA already attempt to exist without a strong national government and fail miserably?

No they succeeded and went to war. Big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Not talking about the civil war

'The Articles were created in 1777 by the chosen representatives of the states in the Continental Congress out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." '

Needless to say, we tried to have a small national government and it didnt work.  Anytime the interests of the state begin to override the interest of the nation, well.... then you have a problem.   Same stuff gunslingers talking about.

I'd say well... we have a problem now.

They traded the Articles of Confederations for a Republic, which is also based around the ideas of small government. It's easier to toss out a county commissioner or governor rather than try to budge the old "in the pocket" politicians of DC. I am not talking about a confederacy neither. But comparing what we have now with what we had over 200 years ago is not fair. You are comparing a population of 3 million people with a population of 3 hundred million people. States are more capable now. Smaller government gives you more options without having to leave the Union. Don't like the gun laws in Texas? Move to California. Don't like the taxes in NY? Come on down to Florida.

lowing wrote:

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"

Yes in part to the first.

Strong central govt is important, but states should have priority in everything save national affairs.

Nappy wrote:

lowing wrote:

The Idea of our govt is perfect.

i disagree

Ooooooooooooooook, why?

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

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 ?

I prefer to have those states directly impacted work out those scenarios. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are currently working out plans to handle the drought situation in the southeast.

Yes and the reason why our drought is so severe is because the Army Corps of Engineers releases 87 Gazillion gallons of water periodically to save some mussel living down stream.

Kmarion wrote:

Don't like the gun laws in Texas? Move to California. Don't like the taxes in NY? Come on down to Florida.

I agree with that.  Its just some people think we should shrink our national government to a smaller level than what its already at... that just doesnt seem like a good idea to me.

ATG wrote:

I'm for small government.

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

Death penalty for graft and corruption.

Wasnt the whole point in the union to keep taxes down and stop replication of post's (ambasidors, military, curreny and watever else), am not so sure a low tax rate could be acheived if the county is 'split'.

Martyn

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

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"

Yes in part to the first.

Strong central govt is important, but states should have priority in everything save national affairs.

Isn't that the way it is now? I can not think of an example where the federal govt. steps into states business.

Really? The United States Supreme court does it on a regular basis.

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not sure how my example does not pertain to your statement that states can and would govern themselves without holding their own interests as top priority. I think it is a perfect example of how the potential of this could manifest itself.


You simply can not have 50 different agendas ar work at once. As it is we have 2 ( democrat and republican) and look at the trouble and strife it causes

You missed the point of what I said.  But that's OK, I can discuss this.

States can form what are known as Interstate Compacts.  Basically, it's an agreement amongst states to agree on a common goal in order to avoid federal intervention.  As a side effect, they get shit done.

Perhaps states can form more of these in the event of a central government downsizing.  That, and some common sense, can solve this "dam the river" scenario.

Sounds great, but now lets add a little real word greed, power, and corruption into the mix. Would never work.

And you think greed, power, and corruption isn't alive and well in the federal government? It happens on a much greater scale in Washington. People rarely spend other peoples money as well as they spend their own. Senators in the northeast do not serve the interest of the southern states. If your family needs groceries you don't right a check to the home owners association to go buy them for you. It's the same concept. Your faith in large government is delusional at best. It's easier to crack down on incomptence locally.