To be honest, I think this is the whole reason we should revert back to a more federalist type of government. There is no way that what is good for Steven in Kentucky, is good for LB in Indiana, is good for LiG in NYC, is good for me in Dallas. It just isn't going to happen. Why can't we go back to a federal government that is focused only on National Security, and National Systems?
we cant go to a strictly federalist system because not every state is self sufficient. If you havent noticed, there are still very severe pockets of poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment. There are hundreds of districts in every state where kids cant get a decent education, people live in fear of getting shot, economies have failed etc. etc. etc.
most of this country relies heavily on help it receives from other area's. we cant pull that help... and in my opinion, we could do much much more.
Agreed... We're much more interconnected and interdependent now than we were back when federalist ideas where in vogue. What happens in States A, B, and C almost always has a direct or indirect impact on the populations of States X, Y, and Z.
all you anti-popularists should stomp on andrew jacksons grave! its about the only satisfaction you'll get... cause i see no way to go back from what we have now... just gonna have to learn to live with the fact that the average dude gets to choose the president, no matter how ill-informed and easily manipulated he/she may be
It's times like this when I appreciate a parliamentary form of government. Allow the ignorant masses to have their beauty contest for the president, who is little more than a symbolic figurehead whose sole purpose is to look good on TV and attend state dinners. Meanwhile, have a technocrat prime minister who can work with the legislative body and do the dirty work of actually running the country.
RE: the last couple comments --
The states obviously existed first, then came the Constitution and federalism, where states became partners represented by the larger whole. (A lot like the Federation on Star Trek.) So "reverting back" to federalism is backwards, and I also don't think the last two comments reference federalism quite right.
In any case, the power and expectations of the Federal government has expanded far beyond not only what was originally intended, but beyond what is economically feasible.
Times change. When the Constitution was written, the states (all 13 of them) were former British colonies in the backwater of the civilized world, long before the terms "Industrial Revolution" or "Information Age" had even been coined.
I love it when people refer back to 1700's America as some sort of "pure" state that should somehow be a gold standard for the future, usually justifying it by saying that's "what the founding fathers intended." What the founding fathers intended is that our form of government change with the times, which is why they built so much flexibility into the Constitution.
one of john edwards' homes.... what you don't see is that a quarter of a mile down that driveway are some of the poorest people in the country-- and they don't have Edwards '08 signs in their front yards.
Times change, Gin, people don't. In what document could I read more about this "flexibility" you speak of? Perhaps you are agitated by the fact that not everyone shares your ever-expanding government Democrat Party views. A government that gives you everything can also take it all away. Happens all over the world.
Federalism per the Constitution was also intended to provide checks and balances toward a limited scope of power. Limited government. The government can't fix everything on your wish list, gin. So, yes, I think you've got it backward, and in this sense:
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power."
and
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the
chains of the Constitution."
-- T. Jefferson
Doesn't sound particularly "flexible" does it... or was he just another "cornfed boob"?
I have a lot to say on this issue but for now I'm much more interested in what everyone else is saying. Let's see more house pictures. Also could someone repost that link to the states that use the most money on the dollar of federal taxes? That was relevant too.
Very interesting, by all means, please, continue....
The only reason our government has survived for as long as it has is because of the inherent flexibility built into the Constitution, i.e., the ability to amend it and change things as circumstances change. If it had been a rigid document carved in stone, it would have been entirely scrapped ages ago and we'd be operating under a totally different system by now.
Like it or not, we now live in an age where a centralized government has an important role to play in interstate commerce, national infrastructure and transportation, healthcare, education, disaster relief, and national defense. All these functions have undergone drastic changes in the past 200 years, and it's no longer feasible nor desirable to have them managed by a hodgepodge of local and state governments with conflicting agendas and varying degrees of competence.
The area where I agree with the Libertarians is where civil liberties come into the picture, and I don't think the federal government (nor any church or government, for that matter) should be in the business of spying on citizens, poking around in their bedrooms, or making their personal medical decisions for them.
Unfortunately, for the past 8 years we've had a federal government that's been hell-bent on cutting back or incompetently handling vital government services, while trampling civil liberties. What we need is a government that does the reverse.
i find the arguments about strict construction as it pertains to the constitutions modern application a little like those who argue the bible should be interpreted literally.
Plus, Jefferson's ideal america was made of of individual family farmers. Not really the america we ended up with.
In a country where every family was self sustaining, of course there would be little need for a strong federal government. That is however not the country we have. We have an intricately woven economy with so many codependencies built in, the federal system as its currently constructed is, like it or not, indispensable.
As far as your mis-construed and woefully out of date views about Big Government Democrats... please recall that over the past 8 years, with 100% republican control, our government is larger than its been at any point since WW2.
also, on a more subjective note... ask americans now what they think about the deregulation of oil, utility, communication and airline industries. Im sure you would find a very significant proportion of americans (even conservatives!) who would like to see much of it turned back!
true Lletdown - but many conservatives didnt want deregulation to mean forced or mandatory break-up either, or forced shared infrastructure for 3rd party middle men wholesalers in the case of ATT
Forced shared infrastructure? So, theoretically, each state should be free to mandate its own railroad track gauge, or its own airplane radio frequencies?
Gin, your premise seems to be that the fed should do all those things because they currently are doing all those things. Does this direction of expansion have an end, other than taxing ourselves out of exisitence?
Lettdown, you are 100 percent correct about the spending of the current republicans. But an out-of-date characterization of Dems? I doubt it. I think you'll find that the Dems will continue plenty of spending given the chance.
If the fed doesn't do it, who will? An elected body made up of elected representatives from each state? Oh wait, that is the fed.
As for taxes, we have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. I wouldn't mind seeing the wealthiest taxpayers being forced to chip in a bit more of their proper share. And maybe some money could be freed up by not started needless wars and not handing out massive subsidies to politically-connected interests.
From your previous post, gin, your ideal government would offer pretty much "free" everything so that you can carry on in your bedroom? (I'm just jabbin' ya...)
we have now the highest corporate income tax - mostly affecting the majority of mid and small employers. We are close to the highest income tax IF the bastards calculated payroll deductions as income tax. So congrats liberals, we will soon be the broke ass Europeans you've always wanted us to become. Oh we'll be well educated and underemployed, zipping around on our vespas, but we'll be ruled by a group of monied elite's who's puppet Prime Minister is a dandy to behold. At least we'll have a "house of commons" to vent our frustrations.
personally, i would contend that it is to our benefit to provide more things for our citizens. health care and a college eduction would be a good start, and could probably be had for less unilateral millitary action.
and if it seems like its over simplified to state that ending a war in iraq (for instance) could mean universal health care and increased college tuition subsidies... i would say you have your priorities out of whack. One needs only to look at the dozens of nations around the world who provide both of these things without going bankrupt and taxing themselves into oblivion to see that its possible... and one could also ask the question, why, with our massive economy, huge domestic product, and countless natural resources, can we not do what countries with half our advantages have been doing for generations.
the fed runs the country. the federal reserve that is...maybe a few of you saw the pbs show about andy jackson. he dissolved the bank of america as he was convinced that the corporations and speculators and industrialists did not have the interest of the people at heart. so he wrapped the capitalists on the knuckles. interesting coincidence.
The Europeans have been able to afford these luxeries most likely because of a population slide - more people today to pay for less people tomorow.
The corporations will never have the interest of the people, because theyre bloated like the government. The government is just dumb and slow. The true greatness lies in the entrepeneurial class, the small biz that employs close to 80% of the nation. Theyre the middle class and theyre the ones who should get the break. They dont earn intrest on intrest, they dont get theyre shit subsidized. Theyve been carrying these pigs long enough. Im wound up. Too much caffine this week.
A Letter From Michael Moore
america started goin downhill as soon as they gave the vote to the citizenry. thats when politics entered the presidency.
To be honest, I think this is the whole reason we should revert back to a more federalist type of government. There is no way that what is good for Steven in Kentucky, is good for LB in Indiana, is good for LiG in NYC, is good for me in Dallas. It just isn't going to happen. Why can't we go back to a federal government that is focused only on National Security, and National Systems?
Why cant we solve the problem of Tacos not being being crspy on the outside yet soft and juicy on the inside?
we cant go to a strictly federalist system because not every state is self sufficient. If you havent noticed, there are still very severe pockets of poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment. There are hundreds of districts in every state where kids cant get a decent education, people live in fear of getting shot, economies have failed etc. etc. etc.
most of this country relies heavily on help it receives from other area's. we cant pull that help... and in my opinion, we could do much much more.
Agreed... We're much more interconnected and interdependent now than we were back when federalist ideas where in vogue. What happens in States A, B, and C almost always has a direct or indirect impact on the populations of States X, Y, and Z.
all you anti-popularists should stomp on andrew jacksons grave! its about the only satisfaction you'll get... cause i see no way to go back from what we have now... just gonna have to learn to live with the fact that the average dude gets to choose the president, no matter how ill-informed and easily manipulated he/she may be
It's times like this when I appreciate a parliamentary form of government. Allow the ignorant masses to have their beauty contest for the president, who is little more than a symbolic figurehead whose sole purpose is to look good on TV and attend state dinners. Meanwhile, have a technocrat prime minister who can work with the legislative body and do the dirty work of actually running the country.
Theres a certain wisdom to the masses
RE: the last couple comments --
The states obviously existed first, then came the Constitution and federalism, where states became partners represented by the larger whole. (A lot like the Federation on Star Trek.) So "reverting back" to federalism is backwards, and I also don't think the last two comments reference federalism quite right.
In any case, the power and expectations of the Federal government has expanded far beyond not only what was originally intended, but beyond what is economically feasible.
Times change. When the Constitution was written, the states (all 13 of them) were former British colonies in the backwater of the civilized world, long before the terms "Industrial Revolution" or "Information Age" had even been coined.
I love it when people refer back to 1700's America as some sort of "pure" state that should somehow be a gold standard for the future, usually justifying it by saying that's "what the founding fathers intended." What the founding fathers intended is that our form of government change with the times, which is why they built so much flexibility into the Constitution.
Gin, I'd contend you still have it backwards.
I've got a bridge I'd like to sell Michael Moore
i LIKE cRACKER bARREL. I WAS AT THIS FANTASTIC cRACKER bARREL oUTSIDE hUNTSVILLE A moNTH AGO. mmmmm
I'm backwards in asserting that what worked in 1776 may not necessarily work in 2008?
Umm, okay.
shoot, its impossible to capture the grotesqueness of style, site planning, and scale in such a limited width
i think the confusion is coming from my original statement forgeting the work anti
i meant to refute sarah hamiltons statement that a lose confederation, or anti federalist system would benefit us today
What is that, a dirt farm?
Here, Here LIG! Glad someone finally mentioned that document. IMO the problem seems to be that many people have forgotten it.
one of john edwards' homes.... what you don't see is that a quarter of a mile down that driveway are some of the poorest people in the country-- and they don't have Edwards '08 signs in their front yards.
I thought it was a cracker barrel
the constitution was adopted in 1787, not 1776. also, the backwater had a higher standard of living than england at the time of the revolution.
mmmmmmmm, cracker barrel.... their hash brown casserole is awesome!
anybody have other pics of the candidates houses, like hillary's at chappaqua? we can vote on who has the best architectural tastes.
that pic of edward's clearcutting is unfortunately the typical landuse pattern of the south.
The Clinton abode:
More trees than Edwards, at least.
Maybe the Dems should give the nomination to whoever has the most LEED points.
tk thats obama's right?
Yeah, the red brick house is Obama's.
Huckabee's new mcmansion for post-gubernatorial living
Must... Have.... More.... Gables.....
Times change, Gin, people don't. In what document could I read more about this "flexibility" you speak of? Perhaps you are agitated by the fact that not everyone shares your ever-expanding government Democrat Party views. A government that gives you everything can also take it all away. Happens all over the world.
Federalism per the Constitution was also intended to provide checks and balances toward a limited scope of power. Limited government. The government can't fix everything on your wish list, gin. So, yes, I think you've got it backward, and in this sense:
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power."
and
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the
chains of the Constitution."
-- T. Jefferson
Doesn't sound particularly "flexible" does it... or was he just another "cornfed boob"?
I have a lot to say on this issue but for now I'm much more interested in what everyone else is saying. Let's see more house pictures. Also could someone repost that link to the states that use the most money on the dollar of federal taxes? That was relevant too.
Very interesting, by all means, please, continue....
TJ hated federalism...
The only reason our government has survived for as long as it has is because of the inherent flexibility built into the Constitution, i.e., the ability to amend it and change things as circumstances change. If it had been a rigid document carved in stone, it would have been entirely scrapped ages ago and we'd be operating under a totally different system by now.
Like it or not, we now live in an age where a centralized government has an important role to play in interstate commerce, national infrastructure and transportation, healthcare, education, disaster relief, and national defense. All these functions have undergone drastic changes in the past 200 years, and it's no longer feasible nor desirable to have them managed by a hodgepodge of local and state governments with conflicting agendas and varying degrees of competence.
The area where I agree with the Libertarians is where civil liberties come into the picture, and I don't think the federal government (nor any church or government, for that matter) should be in the business of spying on citizens, poking around in their bedrooms, or making their personal medical decisions for them.
Unfortunately, for the past 8 years we've had a federal government that's been hell-bent on cutting back or incompetently handling vital government services, while trampling civil liberties. What we need is a government that does the reverse.
i find the arguments about strict construction as it pertains to the constitutions modern application a little like those who argue the bible should be interpreted literally.
Plus, Jefferson's ideal america was made of of individual family farmers. Not really the america we ended up with.
In a country where every family was self sustaining, of course there would be little need for a strong federal government. That is however not the country we have. We have an intricately woven economy with so many codependencies built in, the federal system as its currently constructed is, like it or not, indispensable.
As far as your mis-construed and woefully out of date views about Big Government Democrats... please recall that over the past 8 years, with 100% republican control, our government is larger than its been at any point since WW2.
full federal authority -- yes...
( at vado)
also, on a more subjective note... ask americans now what they think about the deregulation of oil, utility, communication and airline industries. Im sure you would find a very significant proportion of americans (even conservatives!) who would like to see much of it turned back!
my last statement meant to be in regards to the perceived size and role of government
true Lletdown - but many conservatives didnt want deregulation to mean forced or mandatory break-up either, or forced shared infrastructure for 3rd party middle men wholesalers in the case of ATT
Forced shared infrastructure? So, theoretically, each state should be free to mandate its own railroad track gauge, or its own airplane radio frequencies?
Gin, your premise seems to be that the fed should do all those things because they currently are doing all those things. Does this direction of expansion have an end, other than taxing ourselves out of exisitence?
Lettdown, you are 100 percent correct about the spending of the current republicans. But an out-of-date characterization of Dems? I doubt it. I think you'll find that the Dems will continue plenty of spending given the chance.
no -LIG - in the case of ATT letting competing companies like MCI broker calls over ATT's own network created by decades of investment.
If the fed doesn't do it, who will? An elected body made up of elected representatives from each state? Oh wait, that is the fed.
As for taxes, we have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. I wouldn't mind seeing the wealthiest taxpayers being forced to chip in a bit more of their proper share. And maybe some money could be freed up by not started needless wars and not handing out massive subsidies to politically-connected interests.
Gin, you've caught me as the Libertarian I am...
From your previous post, gin, your ideal government would offer pretty much "free" everything so that you can carry on in your bedroom? (I'm just jabbin' ya...)
we have now the highest corporate income tax - mostly affecting the majority of mid and small employers. We are close to the highest income tax IF the bastards calculated payroll deductions as income tax. So congrats liberals, we will soon be the broke ass Europeans you've always wanted us to become. Oh we'll be well educated and underemployed, zipping around on our vespas, but we'll be ruled by a group of monied elite's who's puppet Prime Minister is a dandy to behold. At least we'll have a "house of commons" to vent our frustrations.
personally, i would contend that it is to our benefit to provide more things for our citizens. health care and a college eduction would be a good start, and could probably be had for less unilateral millitary action.
and if it seems like its over simplified to state that ending a war in iraq (for instance) could mean universal health care and increased college tuition subsidies... i would say you have your priorities out of whack. One needs only to look at the dozens of nations around the world who provide both of these things without going bankrupt and taxing themselves into oblivion to see that its possible... and one could also ask the question, why, with our massive economy, huge domestic product, and countless natural resources, can we not do what countries with half our advantages have been doing for generations.
evil you are a silly, silly man
the fed runs the country. the federal reserve that is...maybe a few of you saw the pbs show about andy jackson. he dissolved the bank of america as he was convinced that the corporations and speculators and industrialists did not have the interest of the people at heart. so he wrapped the capitalists on the knuckles. interesting coincidence.
The Europeans have been able to afford these luxeries most likely because of a population slide - more people today to pay for less people tomorow.
The corporations will never have the interest of the people, because theyre bloated like the government. The government is just dumb and slow. The true greatness lies in the entrepeneurial class, the small biz that employs close to 80% of the nation. Theyre the middle class and theyre the ones who should get the break. They dont earn intrest on intrest, they dont get theyre shit subsidized. Theyve been carrying these pigs long enough. Im wound up. Too much caffine this week.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.