Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2009, 09:54 PM
 
Location: 30-40°N 90-100°W
13,809 posts, read 26,553,213 times
Reputation: 6790

Advertisements

This seems potentially to fit the politics section or debates section better.

At one time what you said might have been true, but in modern times mass-media and rapid communication make ruling a larger land easier. The US's growth is also just in birth and migration. We have not really expanded our territory for decades. So the people are not becoming more spread out. I do believe in states rights, within constitutional limits, but we do need some federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2009, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
463 posts, read 1,564,985 times
Reputation: 281
A unitary state of 300 Million people is too big to manage. That's why we are a Federation. Fifty states with an average population of 6 million makes the country a lot easier to manage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 10:05 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
17,107 posts, read 38,105,348 times
Reputation: 14447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
This seems potentially to fit the politics section or debates section better.
Good suggestion. Please follow the discussion to the Great Debates forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
3,007 posts, read 6,286,246 times
Reputation: 3310
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDaysCopenhagenSkoal View Post
We are well above 300 million population now, and it seems that we are consolidating more and more power in the hands of the federal government in Washington DC.

They (in DC) seem to be corrupt and inept for many things. I think that managing the US is too big of a job for one central government to handle.

We need less federal government and more power concentrated in the hands of the States so that they can "customize" legislation to fit the different needs in each area and control more resources closer to home.

Sure, we need the federal government to make sure there's a cohesive foreign policy, military, a level playing field, and to really enforce and standardize racial equality across the board, but why should the Fed have a say in something decided democratically within each State?

I think that not only is the federal government getting too large, but I think they are not competent enough to efficiently manage a country the size of the US.

The more power we give to DC, the less we have here at home.
And just remember, the more geography you control, the more money you make. That's why federal politicians would be so against this.

Am I crazy, or what?
It is only too big to manage because some feel that it should be managed to achieve federal aims on non-federal issues.

If we go back to the intent of the framers, there would be a heck of a lot less to manage. But we have grown fat and lazy and never seem to vote in candidates or Parties that want less government.

Under Reagan and Bush 43, the role of government soared. The Dems are a disaster. Hoover was the last President advocating limited government--but ran into the being elected during the formation of a huge credit bubble.

S.
S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,050 posts, read 34,597,244 times
Reputation: 10616
Is the United States "too big" to manage with a population of over 300 million? If it is, then China is probably going to collapse any minute now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 11:09 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Is the United States "too big" to manage with a population of over 300 million? If it is, then China is probably going to collapse any minute now.
It is easy to manage if your citizens are all peasants, no? Go modern feudalism with quasi capitalism and economic "zones"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Houston/Heights
2,637 posts, read 4,461,781 times
Reputation: 977
the whole idea of having individual States, is so the federal gubment, doesn't have to take care of everything. Their duties are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. But like with most intities, they just want to take on more and more. The "Peter Principle" comes to mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 11:27 AM
 
3,284 posts, read 3,524,763 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowie View Post
Good suggestion. Please follow the discussion to the Great Debates forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 86,954,125 times
Reputation: 36644
The states can already do pretty much as they please, but they remain very conformist. What is it that you want the states to be able to do, that the Federal government won't let them?

Do you know that there no national health care in Canada? There is provincial health care in each of the ten Canadian provinces, and it started in Saskatchewan first, and was so successful, the others all went for it, too. It is the American people who refuse to believe that states can control their own affairs, so every debate becomes "We can't do that in America".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 01:47 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,838,702 times
Reputation: 18304
No as logn as the fedreal government does try to mange what local should. Tehfed I will agree it is a poor manager as seen so often because they have to have their nose in evewryhting. Good reason for smaller federal government and in fact for the least ;best mangement possible.For taht they need to lower taxes ;'so loacl governamnt can raise thiers to take over more control instaed of funding coming increassingly from federal to state to loacal government. That would also eliminate alot of waste if people knew it wasn't come from anyone but themsleves to pay for all that pork.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top