National vs State government

[aREDSKIN]

Now that I've finished preaching.. the states and fed should work in concert. Our country has progressed beyond the point of individual state autonomy as envisioned two centures ago.

I think we have forgottten that in this country our government (town, county, state fed, wahatever) is representative of WE the PEOPLE. That means die hard conservatives like ThinSKin, and die hard liberals like Burgold. (for example) We have the most important thing in common in that we are ALL countrymen. It's time we reminded ourselves of this. If we realize that, then the "government" becomes something other than the enemy.

Of course, that means that we have to remind THEM that is what they are supposed to be. The most important "special interest" is the American citizen.

It's all about integrity and a commitment to the American ideal

~Bang

Although a worthy goal, I'm not sure your altruistic POV has ever been a reality or even a realistic possibility here in the good ol USA. Given the competing & many divergent interests this country has/had since inception and which continue to this day. The founders were obviously VERY smart to structure as they did. And really "integrity" ? Given this country's history can we honestly use this word?

[Bang]

Although a worthy goal, I'm not sure your altruistic POV has ever been a reality or even a realistic possibility here in the good ol USA. Given the competing & many divergent interests this country has/had since inception and which continue to this day. The founders were obviously VERY smart to structure as they did. And really "integrity" ? Given this country's history can we honestly use this word?

True,, our history has it's checkered moments, and many in our country do have a perspective on history that levels many honest and deserved accusatory fingers.

I think i am speaking more for the ideal rather than the actual practice.

I believe in the ideal, and I will always believe it can be accomplished.

Even with all of our faults, we've still done one hell of a job. What I've preached on is the ideal of America that I was taught.

The proof of this is in parts of our past, but in the present you ask modern day (legal) immigrants why they're here.

They'll remind you.

~Bang

[Chicken Fried]

Average FBI agent- masters degree, best law enforcement training in the world.

Average sherriff deputy- high school diploma, 50 lbs overweight.

It's little different for the politicians.

That's not fair to say at all. For one, just because they aren't highly educated doesn't mean they aren't excellent law enforcers. Second, are you saying national politicians are better than local politicians? If so, I'm taking that as a joke. I honestly can't name one national politician I trust AT ALL, and I'm a die hard Republican. That's because I believe in the party ideology, not the politicians. It's the national politicians in the Republican party that screw it up. The local Republicans in Virginia are so much better. They actually care about their constituents. They don't sell themselves out as quickly as a national figure will.

[Chicken Fried]

Preach on brother

It is all about balance and the power of three's.

Executive/legislative/Judicial all serve as a counter to each other,just as the individual/State/Fed should.

Any one of these can throw things out of balance,yet all play a critical role.

You can't have freedom w/o responsibility and a system of justice

Very true, and in recent years, especially the last one, the executive branch has grown too powerful. The Founding Fathers always intended the legislative branch to be slightly more influential than the other two. It's not that way anymore.

[Jumbo]

I do enjoy it when I read good discussion, as on this page, and find myself much on the same page with as diverse a group of smart folks as aRedskins, Bang, Burg, and twa, and all at the same moment. And today the sun has ruled, the sky has been crystal blue persuasion, and the lake was smooth as glass. It's the little things. :pfft:

[Bang]

Very true, and in recent years, especially the last one, the executive branch has grown too powerful. The Founding Fathers always intended the legislative branch to be slightly more influential than the other two. It's not that way anymore.

I agree, unfortunately, the legislative branch has been corrupted with 'special interests", and I think the exertion of power of the current Executive is in response to this. I've been paying attention to politics for over 30 years and in hoping that they would police themselves, all it's done is get worse. It may require a firm hand to make them get back to our ideal. (Whether Obama has taken the proper course if a debate I'd rather not have in this thread, But as to the corruption that is prevalent, I don't think there can be any debate.)

Our representatives seem to forget who they're there to represent.

I strongly disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns. It's an open door for straight bribery and further pushes the interests of We the People to the side.

When I say We the People need to take back our government, it goes beyond any partisan politics. WE are the power in this country, and WE are all in it together. The Parties and special interests have divided us to their own benefit and unfortunately We have danced to their tune.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

a) because citizens have more power to effect change the more local the government.

federalism (i.e. states have certain powers) allows for "experiments" to be done in the states and people would then be able to vote with their feet by moving between states.

c) for every example of "slow reaction" you can point to at the state level, I can point to the federal government keeping around ineffective programs because one region of the country benefits at the expense of another. (Do you think, Iowa would have corn subsidies if they couldn't take them from New Yorkers?)

d) because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We not only have separation of powers horizontally (i.e. legislative, executive and judicial), but also vertically (between the federal government, state governments and the people). Devolving power to local authority keeps too much power out of the hands of too few people.

Very well said, if you throw in repealing the 17th amendment, This would be my views on Federalism word for word.

I am a huge supporter of the Federal system, it is the bedrock that our Constitutional Republic is founded on. Unfortunately we've spent the last century trying to dismantle it.

[skinfan133]

Essentially, on many big important issues, corperate America is better off having fights on the state level than on the national level just as the British would have been better off fighting the original 13 colonies on an individual level than a collective level.

I would like to point out that the 13 colonies were united in struggle, but were essentially 13 separate political entities. The Continental Congress is not the Congress we have today under our Constitution. We really didn't become one united nation until 1787.

[PeterMP]

I would like to point out that the 13 colonies were united in struggle, but were essentially 13 separate political entities. The Continental Congress is not the Congress we have today under our Constitution. We really didn't become one united nation until 1787.

Yes and at the time there were limited outside forces able to generate the pressure that the British were (essentially them and the French) in the US in terms of overwhelming the people of an individual state. Now, with international industrial conglomerations (and cooperation between them (e.g. the car industry with respect to emissions regulations)) there are lot's of entities that are capable of overwhelming the resources of many individual states.

[Riggo-toni]

The federal gov't does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet in the case of the health insurance industry, they surrendered it to the states, which has been an utter disaster wasting trillions of dollars in endless reams of paperwork. There should be single set of federal regulations for the health care industries, so that national companies or workers' guild or labor unions can negotiate for a single insurance policy, rather than having to by 50 different ones.

I don't want the federal gov't deciding things like marriage or intruding into states' legalization of medical marijuana, to give just a couple of examples. Also, the decline in education in our country coincides with increased federal funds and intervention.

[twa]

Very true, and in recent years, especially the last one, the executive branch has grown too powerful. The Founding Fathers always intended the legislative branch to be slightly more influential than the other two. It's not that way anymore.

Certainly intended to be more active,but they have not fulfilled their duties and have abdicated responsibilities to the Executive.

Balance has been lost and responsibilities ignored.

I'm about to the GOOOH stage

http://goooh.com/

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams, 1776

[PeterMP]

Also, the decline in education in our country coincides with increased federal funds and intervention.

I love when people discuss the "decline" of our education system as if in the 50's our education system was "good" and didn't just ignore a bunch of people.

[zoony]

Yah, damn those feds and their interference. Bring back segregation! Power to the states!

I mean- who can't look at a gubernatorial history of a state like, say, Louisiana- and say to themselves "what we really need to do is give these guys more power"

.....

[zoony]

The federal gov't does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet in the case of the health insurance industry, they surrendered it to the states, which has been an utter disaster wasting trillions of dollars in endless reams of paperwork. There should be single set of federal regulations for the health care industries, so that national companies or workers' guild or labor unions can negotiate for a single insurance policy, rather than having to by 50 different ones.

I don't want the federal gov't deciding things like marriage or intruding into states' legalization of medical marijuana, to give just a couple of examples. Also, the decline in education in our country coincides with increased federal funds and intervention.

and credit cards, too- all of those post office boxes in Delaware. (but none of the credit companies are actually based there, b/c nobody wants to live in Delaware )

Situations like that are a very clear example of the power of lobby in our country. Absolutely no reason why the federal gov't should allow it- but they do. They're paid well to ignore it.

.....

[Riggo-toni]

I love when people discuss the "decline" of our education system as if in the 50's our education system was "good" and didn't just ignore a bunch of people.

Actually, I was referring to the decline that began in the late 70s after Carter created the Department of Education as payback for the support of teachers' unions, and the massive increases in outlays for secondary education that started to balloon during the Reagan administration, during which time, by the way, dropout rates and test scores in inner-cities have worsened. Still, nice of you to lump this board's original Libertarian in with the Strom Thurmond crowd....

[PeterMP]

Actually, I was referring to the decline that began in the late 70s after Carter created the Department of Education as payback for the support of teachers' unions, and the massive increases in outlays for secondary education that started to balloon during the Reagan administration, during which time, by the way, dropout rates and test scores in inner-cities have worsened. Still, nice of you to lump this board's original Libertarian in with the Strom Thurmond crowd....

Well, then you have an interesting way of defining the words "decline", "coincide", and "increasing" because the largest increases in federal funding for education came post-WWII, but well before the late 70's, and the "decline" in our education system as compared to other countries had already started well before Carter's Presidency.

If you want to make some further claim that increases in educational spending at the federal level during Carter and Reagan caused further delcine, I'd love to see some evidence of it.

Keeping in mind that a simple correlation alone isn't good evidence of a relationship, especially as if there was a prior "decline" which created pressure to fight that "decline" might cause funding to increase, which while not doing much to prevent the decline (it might even decrease it over what it would have been w/o the funding, but the decline still occurs) can make it apppear as if there is correlated relationship.

[The 12th Commandment]

Average FBI agent- masters degree, best law enforcement training in the world.

Average sherriff deputy- high school diploma, 50 lbs overweight.

It's little different for the politicians.

Yeah, but they're REAL Americans dammit.:pfft:

[twa]

Average FBI agent- masters degree, best law enforcement training in the world.

Average sherriff deputy- high school diploma, 50 lbs overweight.

It's little different for the politicians.

Both certainly capable of screwing with ya,yet one is beyond your ability to exert real influence over.

Which can **** you up the most?:evilg:

[Smoot Point Really]

I suppose the word "responsibility" needs defining as well... I mean, if it's going to provoke Bang to question my sense of God, Country and fellow man... What an enormous bit of presumption...

Am I currently held accountable/responsible for the fraudulent investments of others? Currently? Is this what you mean by serving country? If my small business goes under, will I get a bailout? How about if the State of California goes bankrupt because of its own policies and business practices, will the State of Virginia and it's taxpayers have to bailout California? Whenever the Federal Government acts, it acts on behalf of every citizen of the United States. Why couldn't Michigan bail out GM and Chrysler if those Union jobs were so important?

How am I a free individual if someone else makes a mistake and I'm responsible for protecting them from their actions? There is no equality of rights if there are not equality of responsibilities. Otherwise, you have one segment of the population who is supporting another segment of the population against their free will, since taxes not collected are punishable by law... Therefore, the Federal Government acting on my behalf bailed out GM and just gave the CEO a $9M bonus... How about the fact that my tax dollars are paying for a bailout of GE, who owns MS/NBC? Why wasn't GE forced to redefine their business and sell portions of their business not making money (like Universal Studios and MS/NBC)? When my business comes under tough times, who will bail me out? Will I be able to question the sense of "God, Country and Fellow Man" for Bang if he doesn't hand over his livelihood that he earned by his own good sense and hard work?

There needs to be a line in the sand... The founders seemed to have this figured out, but the more you let progressives have their way in the Federal System the more their decisions impact the lives of everyday citizens at the local level. Other than national defense and judicial appeal, I'm having a hard time finding anything else I feel is totally useful and/or effective at the Federal level.

[Smoot Point Really]

Yeah, but they're REAL Americans dammit.:pfft:

Actually, they are "REAL" wherever they come from... Why shouldn't they hire as their law enforcement whoever they choose?

What about freedom do most of you in this thread not understand?

[twa]

Give em hell Smoot :point2sky

Balance is a tricky thing,as is equality,if the govt sets different levels of responsibility from different individuals it has tipped the scales against freedom

[The 12th Commandment]

Actually, they are "REAL" wherever they come from... Why shouldn't they hire as their law enforcement whoever they choose?

What about freedom do most of you in this thread not understand?

Lighten up Francis, :pfft: = kidding around. Of course they're real (I work for local government) but so are federal employees. They aren't hatched in cocoons.

[Burgold]

I suppose the word "responsibility" needs defining as well...

Gosh, this is bad, but it explains a lot. I thought the national versus state government was a pretty elementary discussion, but conservatives don't even know what the most basic terms of civilization even mean? What does respoonsibility mean? Really?

Gads! I knew what that was by the time I was two. What must it state that the concepts of responsibility, accountability, and duty are completely absent in the Conservative vocabulary. Geez Louise! No wonder they want to blow up the Dept. of Ed! They're deathly afraid someone will get to look at their records.

[twa]

Gosh, this is bad, but it explains a lot. I thought the national versus state government was a pretty elementary discussion, but conservatives don't even know what the most basic terms of civilization even mean? What does respoonsibility mean? Really?

Gads! I knew what that was by the time I was two.

Ya can't even spell it

Why do libs not apply it evenly and even go so far as to reward irresponsibility?

[Burgold]

Ya can't even spell it

Why do libs not apply it evenly and even go so far as to reward irresponsibility?

We don't reward irresponsibility all that often? How many Republicans got re-elected last go-around?