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.
It's hard to get politicians and even constituants to vote to get rid of the cash cow that keeps them all afloat. It doesn't matter if you are a lib or a conserv. they both waste outrageous amounts of money on a bunch of crap and it's all about power. I'm all for giving the power back to the states and taking it away from the feds. The question is, how do you get representatives of either party to go along with it?
Heres the question that really begs to be asked;
Why does either side put up with it?
My husband is a conservative, you already know I am not.....this question is a source of endless debate between us.
Why do we put up with it on both sides?
It's good to see that you married a highly intelligent man..
It's good to see that you married a highly intelligent man..
I married him because he was the only man I ever met that was more intelligent than myself.....among other attractive attributes.
BTW, he reads some of this over my shoulder, he thinks we're all whacked out on both sides here.
He may be right about that.
I married him because he was the only man I ever met that was more intelligent than myself.....among other attractive attributes.
BTW, he reads some of this over my shoulder, he thinks we're all whacked out on both sides here.
He may be right about that.
He may well have a point and I hope you are learning from his superior intelligence..
Good point. I am old enough to remember the early liberalism in the 60's and 70's--there was a lot of talk about 'decentralization.' It was progressive Louis Brandeis who said, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
Somewhere along the line the idea was largely ditched by liberals and Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
Totally with you on this idea.
Alas, I dont see it coming to pass.
To the conservatives; I am not responsible for any cases of whiplash that may occur after reading this comment.
when i was much younger, i was actually a humphry liberal(yes i was in the fourth grade at the time). had the democrat party remained the party of smaller federal government, and strong defense, i would likely have registered as a democrat a few years later in 1976, and i may have even voted for a democrat for president. however the progressive movement took a hold of the democrat party and started pushing it too far left for me, and i felt that the democrats had no plan to get us out of vietnam, but nixon did. and while nixon did pull some shady stuff while in office, i still supported him. i was not enamored of ford, but i felt he was much better than carter was.
I for one am a liberal that would prefer a smaller central govt. and larger state govts.
The advantage is that it is too easy for national and multi national companies to bribe a majority of federal representatives. It is much more difficult for them to bribe a majority of reps in every single state. The big banks like Federal Regulations, what they don't like is State Regulations. They like the fed regulations because they can lobby for it to help them and it prevents the States from enacting their own regulations in the same area.
It's encouraging to see such a view, but the hard fact is that since the entire public sector, not to mention its natural allies among the special-issue groups, operate on a bureaucratic, rather than an entreprenurial mindset, there is little or no incentive to limit the size of the agencies involved.
A bigger "problem" to solve makes a case for a bigger staff, a bigger budge, more opportunities for advancement forthose already within the "cocoon of functionaries".
Smaller, localized agencies would also make the individuals who abuse the system and make a career of parasitism easier to exclude, but not many political hacks are going to see this as a path upward.
I regret to say that we are probably stuck with this mess until, like ol' Half-Baked Harold Wilson's Great Britain, or the Soviet butcher-stae, it collabses under the dead weight of its own chains.
What's to stop states from redistributing income upward? States have an incentive to do this.
Exactly what do you mean by "redistributing income upward"????
A politician's only "incentive" is to steal money from those who earned it (regardless of the means) and redistribute it to those who aren't motivated, in return for their votes.
For a person who calls himself "freemkt", you seem to have a limited understanding of the motivation behnd supply and demand.
Exactly what do you mean by "redistributing income upward"????
A politician's only "incentive" is to steal money from those who earned it (regardless of the means) and redistribute it to those who aren't motivated, in return for their votes.
For a person who calls himself "freemkt", you seem to have a limited understanding of the motivation behnd supply and demand.
How do you then explain corporate subsidies? Campaign donations can be a very powerful incentive to a politician, that's why you have so many of them corrupt. That's why you have tax cuts and loopholes, and that's why the government can indeed look the other way on some issues such as illegal immigration, outsourcing, and consumer protection.
Some politicians aren't even interested in serving the people, they are just interested in using the taxpayers to fill their own pockets!
The problem is that both liberals and conservatives want to harness the power of the federal government to advance their ideologies. While conservatives say they are in favor of a smaller federal government, the facts prove otherwise. Even under Ronald Reagan, who liberals to this day love to criticize for supposedly "decimating" the public sector, the federal government inexorably grew. The only politician out there who really wants to reduce the federal government is Ron Paul, and he doesn't stand a chance because the corporatists, who disguise themselves as conservatives, have declared him to be an extremist and the lap dog media just regurgitate this lie ad infinitum. The casual observer absorbs this constant message and writes him off as a crank. Ron Paul is a bigger threat to the corporate interests that gorge themselves on the federal teat than the most left-wing, liberal, progressive Democrat.
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.
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.
