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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Yeah in general I guess my post was a bit off, to be clear though, I'm just not a fan of states at all, I just think states are obsolete in many modern ways. I think they're a waste of federal money and more problematic to handle in modern day America.
The power in the world is going more into cities now, there are articles that talk about the diminishing influence of states and slowly even countries compared to cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soug
I've been thinking about how the United States would work if states could delegate most or all power to "Metropolitan Authorities." This level of govt. would cross state lines without problem and be much more suited to governing the country today. Is this even constitutional? I know interstate compacts exist, obviously, but can they be molded to be what I am describing above?
I think that would be a good way to govern more adequately than states. The tax burden the Upstate New Yorkers have because of downstate New York is an example. The inability to focus more on improving the quality of life as a whole on a state wide level is another example for both areas.
The United States Government (in my opinion) was designed in a time period when America only had maybe 6-10 million people max (if even that much), it was not meant to govern a country of 310 million people. People then didn't know the country would become the 3rd most populated country in the world, and people then didn't even know what "Pacific Ocean" was because America didn't reach that far. I think our government and its regulations are a bit way to dated for the modern era.
I also agree with you on the metropolitan area thing, places like Boston, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia could minimize any to all city debt by working more with their areas out of state lines. It would be more economical in a sense.
CA's HUGE. It's only fair to compare all those states to CA. It makes sense.
Yeah but when it is one northeast city against one CA city, they have to clump their city with the rest of the Northeast just to beat whatever city it is. I think it's pathetic.
What is pathetic is you lashing out because hardly anyone voted for California. Get over it. Sorry the TV fooled you, the rest of the country does not always think you are the best.
What is pathetic is you lashing out because hardly anyone voted for California. Get over it. Sorry the TV fooled you, the rest of the country does not always think you are the best.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by BacktoBlue
Yeah but when it is one northeast city against one CA city, they have to clump their city with the rest of the Northeast just to beat whatever city it is. I think it's pathetic.
Dude, I saw this thread a few days ago, it was titled "the most important states in the country" and all of a sudden to go against California, Florida, & Texas, the Northeast states all of a sudden became "one state" to compare because "they are half the land area and double the population". I mean I see this comparison for sure, and its legit (this thread really is legit), because New York City's Metropolitan Area (people who live in suburban New York City) also live in the states of CT, NJ, & PA.
But other threads, I think that's pushing it and this is coming from someone who absolutely hates "states" in general.
Dude, I saw this thread a few days ago, it was titled "the most important states in the country" and all of a sudden to go against California, Florida, & Texas, the Northeast states all of a sudden became "one state" to compare because "they are half the land area and double the population". I mean I see this comparison for sure, and its legit (this thread really is legit), because New York City's Metropolitan Area (people who live in suburban New York City) also live in the states of CT, NJ, & PA.
But other threads, I think that's pushing it and this is coming from someone who absolutely hates "states" in general.
I think people recognize CA's a beast, and can go toe-to-toe with the whole northeast(from DC to NYC). It's definitely not a run away victory for the Northeast(not like the polls suggest). It's only logical to compare an area just as large as CA to CA. I don't think it's a "You guys have to resort to" moment.
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.
