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.
You can't have the same level of representation in a much larger pool unless you command a disproportionate amount of attention from your elected representatives. So unless powerful special interest groups match your needs, you are screwed.
National defense is a true national concern. Most other things are not. Our defense budget is too big though (OT).
The federal government doesn't manage, maintain, or own the IHS. The states do. The federal government provides maintenance funds to the states, primarily from federal vehicle and fuel taxes.
Your example makes no sense, Nebraska would have an incentive to charge tolls or other fees to make a profit from the highway, not shut it down.
Earlier, you said that "many of the things that have been put in place at the federal level is often the result of the state not doing something it should". Please explain how many federal programs were implemented as a result of Supreme Court decisions against states for "not doing something [they] should".
to the special interest group points...i agree. but do special interest groups lack influence in local politics also? i do agree that special interest groups' power needs to be limited. the way campaigns are financed needs to be looked at.
national defense is a national concern, yes, i agree. so, does the federal government run a good national defense program? why can't the states do it better?
i think many would argue that an educated population is a national concern. maybe you disagree.
i think many would argue that consumer safety on products imported from foreign countries is a national concern. maybe you disagree.
the federal gov't doesn't own the highway system. they don't maintain it directly, though they do provide funding for it, as you stated. the cost is spread across the nation because it's a national benefit. so even though most of the population is in the northeast, california, and texas, the lower population areas still get dollars to maintain the system, so that goods can flow throughout the country. and while the fed doesn't own or maintain it, they do have federal regulations, so that there aren't 50 different standards trucking companies would have to comply with: Commercial Vehicle Size and Weight Program - Freight Professional Development - FHWA Freight Management and Operations
can the states do that better, and ensure that the wal-mart truck and the target truck driving across country can stay on the IHS?
actions taken at the federal level in response to states? i'll go with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
to the special interest group points...i agree. but do special interest groups lack influence in local politics also? i do agree that special interest groups' power needs to be limited. the way campaigns are financed needs to be looked at.
national defense is a national concern, yes, i agree. so, does the federal government run a good national defense program? why can't the states do it better?
i think many would argue that an educated population is a national concern. maybe you disagree.
i think many would argue that consumer safety on products imported from foreign countries is a national concern. maybe you disagree.
the federal gov't doesn't own the highway system. they don't maintain it directly, though they do provide funding for it, as you stated. the cost is spread across the nation because it's a national benefit. so even though most of the population is in the northeast, california, and texas, the lower population areas still get dollars to maintain the system, so that goods can flow throughout the country. and while the fed doesn't own or maintain it, they do have federal regulations, so that there aren't 50 different standards trucking companies would have to comply with: Commercial Vehicle Size and Weight Program - Freight Professional Development - FHWA Freight Management and Operations
can the states do that better, and ensure that the wal-mart truck and the target truck driving across country can stay on the IHS?
actions taken at the federal level in response to states? i'll go with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On a local level, I can call my city representative and make a difference. I can walk down the street with pamphlets and start my own group to influence policy. On a national level, establishment interest groups have huge economies of scale. States are somewhere in between, depending on population.
I'm not a fan of our defense policy, but b/c it's too easy for states to act as free riders it works better federally. Indiana can't easily start a ballistic missile defense program that wouldn't also protect Ohio.
(The same may not be true of homeland security efforts)
While Ohio might benefit from the excellent universities in Indiana, the latter can still get a bigger impact by charging out-of-state tuition and from R&D spinoffs on campus. So, an incentive for education investment exists.
No reason states can't form agreements standardizing trucking regulations.
The CRA added some civil rights investigators, school desegregation administrators, and temporary census takers. Most of these tasks would either be temporary or could be handled on a state level with federal oversight (I don't know all the historic details, I'm saying how things could work).
Either way, that's a very unusual example. SCOTUS definitely didn't tell the feds that they had to start an education department because the states weren't doing what they should have.
On a local level, I can call my city representative and make a difference. I can walk down the street with pamphlets and start my own group to influence policy. On a national level, establishment interest groups have huge economies of scale. States are somewhere in between, depending on population.
I'm not a fan of our defense policy, but b/c it's too easy for states to act as free riders it works better federally. Indiana can't easily start a ballistic missile defense program that wouldn't also protect Ohio.
(The same may not be true of homeland security efforts)
While Ohio might benefit from the excellent universities in Indiana, the latter can still get a bigger impact by charging out-of-state tuition and from R&D spinoffs on campus. So, an incentive for education investment exists.
No reason states can't form agreements standardizing trucking regulations.
The CRA added some civil rights investigators, school desegregation administrators, and temporary census takers. Most of these tasks would either be temporary or could be handled on a state level with federal oversight (I don't know all the historic details, I'm saying how things could work).
Either way, that's a very unusual example. SCOTUS definitely didn't tell the feds that they had to start an education department because the states weren't doing what they should have.
i think you have the ability to call your senators and your representative in the house as well. you have the ability to start you're own group with other concerned citizens, and pooling your money together. will it ever be the same as the ACLU's power, or the Oil Industry lobby? probably not. But it doesn't mean you lack the ability to make changes.
federal oversight is largely what exists. and usually a state department exists to carry out what the federal requirements are.
a lot of the incentives for education come from federally funded R&D, whether it be for the defense department, the USDA, etc. but i was speaking about lower level than college. there is a benefit to our nation to have people with a certain competency in math, science, english, etc. it's how we advance our economy and compete in the world.
i'm not saying that the SCOTUS tells the feds everything because states didn't do it. but there is a lot of federal oversight that exists as reactions to what states did or didn't do. should it be up to the states to regulate publicly traded companies, or is it better to have something like the SEC?
i think you have the ability to call your senators and your representative in the house as well. you have the ability to start you're own group with other concerned citizens, and pooling your money together. will it ever be the same as the ACLU's power, or the Oil Industry lobby? probably not. But it doesn't mean you lack the ability to make changes.
federal oversight is largely what exists. and usually a state department exists to carry out what the federal requirements are.
a lot of the incentives for education come from federally funded R&D, whether it be for the defense department, the USDA, etc. but i was speaking about lower level than college. there is a benefit to our nation to have people with a certain competency in math, science, english, etc. it's how we advance our economy and compete in the world.
i'm not saying that the SCOTUS tells the feds everything because states didn't do it. but there is a lot of federal oversight that exists as reactions to what states did or didn't do. should it be up to the states to regulate publicly traded companies, or is it better to have something like the SEC?
It's not just about whether a random squeaky wheel like myself can get attention at the federal level. There are 300 million people in the USA, spread over a very large and diverse land area. Even if the government ran flawlessly, there's no way to legislate for local needs. A lot of issues affecting people in New Mexico don't matter much to me here in Minnesota, and vice versa. I'm saying that I shouldn't be able to get federal attention if the system works properly. I'm not more important than anyone else.
As I said earlier, you also have more opportunity for innovation when there are many communities and states trying different things. The states as laboratories model has a lot of merits.
So, exactly who decides whether a state is "doing something it should"?
It's not just about whether a random squeaky wheel like myself can get attention at the federal level. There are 300 million people in the USA, spread over a very large and diverse land area. Even if the government ran flawlessly, there's no way to legislate for local needs. A lot of issues affecting people in New Mexico don't matter much to me here in Minnesota, and vice versa. I'm saying that I shouldn't be able to get federal attention if the system works properly. I'm not more important than anyone else.
As I said earlier, you also have more opportunity for innovation when there are many communities and states trying different things. The states as laboratories model has a lot of merits.
So, exactly who decides whether a state is "doing something it should"?
congress, SCOTUS....
did you take civics class? i recommend visiting the library. if the state does something a citizen disagrees with, they take it to court. it can all the way up. also, federal legislatures can enact laws, by voting on something called a bill. that can come out of things that have happened in the country. the country is made up of 50 states.....how far would you like me to go here?
did you take civics class? i recommend visiting the library. if the state does something a citizen disagrees with, they take it to court. it can all the way up. also, federal legislatures can enact laws, by voting on something called a bill. that can come out of things that have happened in the country. the country is made up of 50 states.....how far would you like me to go here?
I am very familiar with civics. I don't see any need to be condescending when you write things like "in pretty much all cases, the supreme court decides whether a state is doing something it should."
This plainly is not true. SCOTUS plays a bigger role in deciding whether a state is doing something it shouldn't. Most federal spending and regulations are not derived from Supreme Court decisions, but rather from bills passed by Congress or decisions made in the bureaucracy of the executive branch (respectively).
I believe that the people of the state are in a much better position to decide whether that state should do something than a federal legislative body mostly made up of representatives elected to represent the interests of other states.
This isn't a black or white issue, obviously there are cases where the federal government should act. But if we have a choice, I think it's much better to handle matters on a smaller and more local scale.
The allegations were made by SEC enforcement attorney, Darcy Flynn, in a letter to Grassley. Flynn is a current employee, and according to the letter, received a bonus for his past year’s work.
Flynn alleges the SEC destroyed files related to matters being examined in important cases such as Bernard Madoff and a $50 billion Ponzi scheme he operated as well as an investigation involving Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trading in American International Group credit-default swaps in 2009.
Flynn also alleged that the agency destroyed documents and information collected for preliminary investigations at Wells Fargo, Bank of America,, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.
The letter goes into particular detail about Deutsche Bank, the former employer of current SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami as well as former enforcement chiefs Gary Lynch and Richard Walker. (end)
I am very familiar with civics. I don't see any need to be condescending when you write things like "in pretty much all cases, the supreme court decides whether a state is doing something it should."
This plainly is not true. SCOTUS plays a bigger role in deciding whether a state is doing something it shouldn't. Most federal spending and regulations are not derived from Supreme Court decisions, but rather from bills passed by Congress or decisions made in the bureaucracy of the executive branch (respectively).
I believe that the people of the state are in a much better position to decide whether that state should do something than a federal legislative body mostly made up of representatives elected to represent the interests of other states.
This isn't a black or white issue, obviously there are cases where the federal government should act. But if we have a choice, I think it's much better to handle matters on a smaller and more local scale.
If there is a challenge brought up on a state's actions, or inactions, it would go up through the court system and eventually reach the SCOTUS. i'm not being condescending at all, sorry you took it that way. But that's the answer to your question. My original point was that "many of the things that have been put in place at the federal level is often the result of the state not doing something it should". I apologize for only saying the result of the state not doing something it should. But my point is that much of what happens at the federal level, whether it be legislative purely on it's own, or legislative in reaction to court decisions, happens because of things not being taken care of "properly" at the local level. Maybe in someone's opinion it is being taken care of "properly". Maybe descriminating against a race when you select your tenants is ok with someone. Maybe not giving equal rights to women is ok with some people. Maybe some things are ok with enough people in a state for nothing to be done in the state. Then, something happens at the federal level. Maybe state's don't handle environmental regulations well, because most people that live in a state profit from natural gas drilling, but maybe the damage done could effect other states, or could effect a minority population. So things happen at the federal level. In a similar regard, we have laws that are born out of people's actions or inactions. If no one murdered, would it need to be written that murder is against the law?
many matters should be handled at a local level. but there are many matters that are better handled at a federal level. we could debate forever on the individual items, we have a difference of opinion on some i'm sure.
The allegations were made by SEC enforcement attorney, Darcy Flynn, in a letter to Grassley. Flynn is a current employee, and according to the letter, received a bonus for his past year’s work.
Flynn alleges the SEC destroyed files related to matters being examined in important cases such as Bernard Madoff and a $50 billion Ponzi scheme he operated as well as an investigation involving Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trading in American International Group credit-default swaps in 2009.
Flynn also alleged that the agency destroyed documents and information collected for preliminary investigations at Wells Fargo, Bank of America,, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.
The letter goes into particular detail about Deutsche Bank, the former employer of current SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami as well as former enforcement chiefs Gary Lynch and Richard Walker. (end)
warning-- foxes in the henhouse.
yeah, i won't argue that the SEC can't improve from it's current state. But what exactly do you expect from an organization that doesn't get the funding it needs to oversee even 1/100 of the companies it's tasked with ensuring compliance with laws....
If there is a challenge brought up on a state's actions, or inactions, it would go up through the court system and eventually reach the SCOTUS. i'm not being condescending at all, sorry you took it that way. But that's the answer to your question. My original point was that "many of the things that have been put in place at the federal level is often the result of the state not doing something it should". I apologize for only saying the result of the state not doing something it should. But my point is that much of what happens at the federal level, whether it be legislative purely on it's own, or legislative in reaction to court decisions, happens because of things not being taken care of "properly" at the local level. Maybe in someone's opinion it is being taken care of "properly". Maybe descriminating against a race when you select your tenants is ok with someone. Maybe not giving equal rights to women is ok with some people. Maybe some things are ok with enough people in a state for nothing to be done in the state. Then, something happens at the federal level. Maybe state's don't handle environmental regulations well, because most people that live in a state profit from natural gas drilling, but maybe the damage done could effect other states, or could effect a minority population. So things happen at the federal level. In a similar regard, we have laws that are born out of people's actions or inactions. If no one murdered, would it need to be written that murder is against the law?
many matters should be handled at a local level. but there are many matters that are better handled at a federal level. we could debate forever on the individual items, we have a difference of opinion on some i'm sure.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. It still seems to me that a more appropriate federal role would be to act as a mediator between states with grievances, but whatever.
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.
