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

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

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.

I agree with you. Of course greed, power and corruption are present at the federal level. I just see no reason to multiply that by 50.

I already said I do not favor big govt. I favor a strong central govt. IE they manage national affairs and not the affairs of my personal life.

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

I agree with you. Of course greed, power and corruption are present at the federal level. I just see no reason to multiply that by 50.

I already said I do not favor big govt. I favor a strong central govt. IE they manage national affairs and not the affairs of my personal life.

Actually its more like unevenly divided by 50.

Bell wrote:

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

We need to drastically cut the governments funding since they like spending it as much as a teenage school girl with a credit card.

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not before the cases are reviewd and judged at the state level though right? The SC only takes on cases that can not or were not solved at ALL lower level avenues? I am not a lawyer I am assuming, however.

Not always true. Sometimes government will even subvert the SC to do what it wants. Example:  Terri Schiavo.

Cases like these are not state issues, they are human rights issues. Which could also lead to another set of problems, morality in the southern states may not be the same as morality in the northern states. Who is to guarantee our basic human rights. Sound familiar?


Lets also add into the mix of 50 seperate economies..... Michigan economy varies greatly to that of Georgia.......the ensuing issues can not possible be managed without a central govt. body

Again I'm not advocating abolishing the union. States are capable of handling human rights issues as well. I thought you said you were against micro managing?

If you are going to use the federal governmental policy on handling the monetary system as a talking point you will have a tough time selling it.  Anyone with the slightest bit of awareness can see the irresponsibility. It's another example of failure on the national level.

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.

A few:
National Maximum Speed Law
National Maximum Drinking Age Act of 1984
Wickard vs. Filburn
United States vs. Lopez

Then read about Unfunded Mandates.

How can you claim that the Federal Government does not step on States' rights?

lowing wrote:

Yeah all states can handle issues, it is the problem of all states handling issues to the same standard
There is no way 50 different sets of laws, economy, monitary systems, commerce etc.... is going to work under 1 nation.

Who suggested 50 different monetary systems?  There are already 51 sets of laws (50 states + 1 federal), each state has its own economy already, which includes commerce.  Much of what you say won't work already exists.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe 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"

Odd. I would have thought big government goes against your principles.

Big govt. does go against my principals, a strong govt. does not.


You can still have a strong govt. without micro-managing its citizens affairs for them.

What is 'strong government'? Is it government that can override the wishes of significant minorities of individuals in order to get things done? That is, it is 'strong' in the sense that 'weak' means that individuals have too much control over affairs?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-12 18:26:11)

lowing wrote:

What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.

It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.

I am against my govt. micro managing my personal affairs, but that is not what I am addressing here. All citizens being held to the same standard and all states being held to up hold them is my concern.

I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.

It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.

Exactly.
Here

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-12 18:31:19)

Kmarion wrote:

Lowing using environmental issues and monetary policy is about the worst possible scenarios he could have picked.

Indeed.

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah all states can handle issues, it is the problem of all states handling issues to the same standard
There is no way 50 different sets of laws, economy, monitary systems, commerce etc.... is going to work under 1 nation.

Who suggested 50 different monetary systems?  There are already 51 sets of laws (50 states + 1 federal), each state has its own economy already, which includes commerce.  Much of what you say won't work already exists.

Well gee whiz, I had no idea that each state had its own seporate and isolated economy and commerce that does not pay into a common federal piggy bank.
Those 51 sets of laws are reviewed and challenged against the constitution of the UNITED STATES to make sure they do not go against it. They do not pass laws that are exempt from the common constitution. Sorry.

Lowing, what exactly are you arguing here?

Who said there should be 50 states who have no Central Government?  Most of us have said that the ROLE of the Feds should be reduced.  No one said "forget the constitution".  Jesus.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

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.

1) For most things... States' Rights FTW.  The federal government is vastly bloated.  We should minimize it down to transitional social programs and a streamlined military.  We could slowly shift social programs towards the states, so that each one could attend to their needs as they see fit.

2) Hell fucking yes.  Where to draw the borders is the matter for debate....  I'm thinking that we need about 6 different pieces: Northeast + Great Lakes, Southeast + Texas, Great Plains + Mountain States (including Nevada & Arizona), West Coast States, Alaska, & Hawaii.

It would take quite a while to transition everything, but in the long run, it would be worth it.