What if the states had more power and responsibility in governing?

[Al68]

As to knowing what is best for you then, by accepting that you live under the umbrella of the power of the Federal Government, you have ceded certain rights to make local decisions, as well as accepted certain obligations, in order to receive the benefits and personal liberties that you do enjoy.

And I was silly enough to think my liberties were "endowed by my creator" and inalienable. Thanks for educating me about how I received them from government and am obligated to trade them for an umbrella.

 

[Jasongreat]

And I was silly enough to think my liberties were "endowed by my creator" and inalienable. Thanks for educating me about how I received them from government and am obligated to trade them for an umbrella.

You have made a great point, I have just finished booker t washingtons autobiography, he states in there that lots of blacks believed that the government gave them their re-birth as freemen and therefore looked to the government as to a mother. I think the same has happened with women believeing the government gave them the right to vote. These groups seem unable to look at history and see that the government was the one who backed the removal of their given rights in the first place, and now give them credit for finally giving them the rights they were born with. Kind of like a theif that steals a persons wealth, then when the victim is desitute, gives the victim back the money and receives credit for saving the victim.
As I have stated in other posts, government cannot give without first taking.

 

[mheslep]

AI68 you're replying to year old posts from folks that are no longer current in the forum.

 

[WhoWee]

AI68 you're replying to year old posts from folks that are no longer current in the forum.

I rather enjoyed debating with LP.

 

[lisab]

I rather enjoyed debating with LP.

I miss LP, wonder where he/she went.

 

[byronm]

I'm liking Glenn Beck's idea of giving everyone a pitchfork more and more every day.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer. I find him repulsive :)

Regardless of party affiliation, I'd like to see about (well - ALL - 100%) NEW elected officials in D.C. over the next few years. Unfortunately, they'd still be saddled with all of the existing problems...and special interests, government agency (size and cost) and they wouldn't know "the rules of engagement" (with foreign powers) as well as the seasoned politicians.

Government size & cost? What is your basis for measuring this as success or failure? SUrely you're not suggesting that there is an artifical cap are you?

I suppose it could create as many problems as it would resolve...probably about as realistic as thinking Doctors, hospitals, drug and insurance companies will volunteer to reduce their fees so health care costs are less...that's not happening either.

No, i don't foresee that happening on a large enough scale. That isn't to say that these places don't already do that. However just think of how many people could have been treated if the insurance lobby didn't exist and that 360 million went directly into improving the system? I don't think people in politcs is the problem, i think the huge CORPORATE control of politics is. Politics is about people after all, not sure who's bright idea it was to giv CORPORATIONS people rights.

So where do we start...if we want REAL change...maybe we SHOULD give more power (and much bigger budgets) and responsibility to state governments? I assume state officials actually LIVE in their respective states and are more in touch with the specific problems of their resident populations...I could be wrong.

Can you define real change? For me - real change is universal health care, real change is moving to a green/renewable energy resource so and so forth - over 50 million people voted for change that is being denied simply because people want to re-define change itself for argumentive sak.

Nothing is perfect by anymeans, but we have someone in office who can implement real change.. i'd just like to see what you think it is.

If this were possible, the primary responsibilities of D.C. would become foreign affairs and oversight departments that HAVE to be national in scope (agriculture, homeland security, justice, labor, treasury, education, defense, space, etc.). This would require a DRASTICALLY REDUCED federal budget that COULD be managed.

Not sure how you could drastically reduce the budget and do what you say.

The 50 governors should be more than capable of managing larger state budgets...if not...voters get to the polls! With more tax revenues going to the states...maybe they could even forget about Lotteries.

Got any evidence to support this argument?

 

[WhoWee]

The post you are quoting had a birthday on Sunday (Hey, wasn't that Evo's Birthday too?) - Happy Birthday Old Post and Evo too!

 

[Al68]

Politics is about people after all, not sure who's bright idea it was to giv CORPORATIONS people rights.

No rights were "given". No rights are ever given by government. They never belonged to government to give. They originated in each person.

As far as corporations, a corporation is an agent for its stockholders, which are people. It's not the corporation itself that has rights, it's the people it represents. And, yes, they have the same rights as all people.

Asking why a corporation has rights is like asking why a condom should have rights while trying to restrict them.

And the notion that a corporation itself pays taxes is like saying that the fuel tax is paid by the gasoline itself.

These things only make sense to people that don't know what a corporation is.

 

[mihna]

I think ceding authority to the states would be a smart decision IF the constitution was held as supreme and strictly upheld across the board.

Anything less would result in flagrant civil rights abuses in many primarily rural states.

As far as Glen Beck supporters/tea partyers go; I'm in favor of allowing them to pick a state, say Montana and seceding. As long as they don't complain when they are denied the protection of our military, removal of funding for public infrastructures and any economic sanctions that would entail.

I in return would accept that I'm not allowed to immigrate there if/when their doomsday scenario occurs.

 

[Pattonias]

I think ceding authority to the states would be a smart decision IF the constitution was held as supreme and strictly upheld across the board.

Anything less would result in flagrant civil rights abuses in many primarily rural states.

I think this is what the US claims to adhere to.

 

[mugaliens]

So where do we start...if we want REAL change..

How about enacting an amendment which requires that all federal legislation be capable of being printed on no more than a 1 foot stack of 20 lb 8-1/2" x 11" paper in 12-pt Courier type?

...maybe we SHOULD give more power (and much bigger budgets) and responsibility to state governments? I assume state officials actually LIVE in their respective states and are more in touch with the specific problems of their resident populations...I could be wrong.

It's not a matter of "giving" power to the states, as the Constitution only gave certain, very limited powers to the Fed in the first place, and reserved all other powers to the states. The states' response to Obama care, with 36 of the 50 filing lawsuits against the fed was refreshing to see, as it was a clear, appropriate, and Constitutional response to the fed trying to exert powers that were never specifically given to the fed in the first place.

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.​

All other powers are reserved to the states. Section 8 of the Constitution details the powers specifically granted to the fed.

The fed has long overstepped the bounds of its Constitutional authority, but that's largely the states' fault for allowing them to do so. It's good to see the states' stepping up to the plate and saying, "No, fed - that's our responsibility. See 'ya."

If this were possible, the primary responsibilities of D.C. would become foreign affairs and oversight departments that HAVE to be national in scope (agriculture, homeland security, justice, labor, treasury, education, defense, space, etc.). This would require a DRASTICALLY REDUCED federal budget that COULD be managed.

Again, see section 8. Most of what you mentioned, including education, were never given to the fed. They were reserved to the states.

Yes, I know the debt isn't going away. But it could be frozen in time, and allocated over the 50 states to be paid in installments...to a federal department that would actually handle the funds in trust for the intended purpose. The new federal budgetary guidelines could then mandate a real balanced budget...with ONE set of books.

The 50 governors should be more than capable of managing larger state budgets...if not...voters get to the polls! With more tax revenues going to the states...maybe they could even forget about Lotteries.

If the fed doesn't start balancing the budgets, expect more than a handful of states to tell the Fed: You goofed. We're taking it from here.