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.
we aren't too big. If one were to look at a map of the us with population density you would see massive concentrations of population on the coasts and a smattering elsewhere. In order to continue our prosperity and development, americans are going to have to get over their geographic issues and look elsewhere for jobs/opportunity. Examples already showing signs of emerging prosperity and development:
Sioux falls, south dakota
omaha, nebraska
fargo, north dakota
boise, idaho
A big problem is that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. According to the founding documents of this country, states should be dealing with these regional concerns via their state boundaries. The fact is that too many things are coming out of Washington these days.
I don't think that America is too big. I think that America is being mismanaged because government is too busy getting into things that should be left to the people and/or their own states.
OK - I think we actually agree here. So, in other words we both agree in "decentralization" of government. Thats kind of what I am getting at. I personally believe "more government intervention/European style socialism" policies work better for the more urbanized and densely populated states. Especially ones that have a large urban underclass.
One example: education. I think for those states it might be better to adopt an education system similar to some European countries where they start preparing students at a yougn age for either university or trade/vocation schools. Our education system is inefficient with its "aggressive egalitarianism." Like accepting not everyones going to college, but they need a job anyways.
Or gun control: The more rural and less densely populated a state is, there may be less of a need for gun control.
A big problem is that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. According to the founding documents of this country, states should be dealing with these regional concerns via their state boundaries. The fact is that too many things are coming out of Washington these days.
The funny thing about it is that the states that make this sort of argument are those that receive more dollars from the feds than they give. Furthermore, as an African American (from SC no less), it's frightening to even envision my home state, that still flies the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds, being left to its own devices when it comes to civil rights. But that's another subject for another day entirely.
No no and no.I'm french and I want to live in the US because it's the US, a great country with so many cultures, ethnicities, races, opinions, tastes, countryside, geography, weather...The diversity is the greatness of this fabulous country, It's horrible to want to split it :/
The US will stay the US.It's too easy to resolve conflicts and differences on this way, and it's not American.
I do love the diversity of geography, weather, and countryside.
Diversity I think is great as well, IF it works. And I think there are many examples in the US where diversity does work. However in the US, how do we reconcile the simple that certain ethnic groups/and immigrant groups have simply had more success in achieving than others. Is it sustainable/stable to have some ethnic backgrounds to have more success on average than others?
Look at the demographics in any major metro area. (I'm thinking Chicago here) Look at which ethnic groups are generally at the upper income levels in the city and suburbs: Theres a high percentage of ethnic backgrounds including as Jewish, WASP (white anglo saxon protestant), Greeks, certain Asian groups: Koreans, Indian, etc. Few hispanics: and they are more likely to be Cuban or South American, with very few Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, or African Americans.
I think diversity is great as much as the next person. I'm not sure however if we are really the melting pot we think we are. And I think educational and economic success is somewhat divided along ethnic lines, because of ethnic groups unique immigration experience.
IE: historically the Italians that immigrated here primarily from southern Italy, the poorer part, where people came here almost illiterate super family oriented, and distrustful of government and institutions. The majority of the Irish that came here were the same away. Whereas Germans that came to the United States in the 1800s were skilled craftsman, and very quickly experienced wel adjusted success on the same levels as the Anglo Americans that were there. Although things have changes, and they've been assimilated. All you have to look at is entertainment such as the Sopranos or Jersey Shore to see that, that unique immigration experience still has its impact on the present day. (I know those show do not represent Italian Ameicans)
Or: Because of Cubans communist revolution in 1960s, the best and brightest from Cuba immigrated here as political refugees, and because they were the best and brightest Cubans are very successful. A similar country, Puerto Rico, I know its not a country, precisely my point, its a commonwealth and the ones that immigrated from there, were the ones with the least opportunity/education/money. Today income/education levels of Cuban Americans are about twice that of Puerto Rican Americans. And Puerto Ricans resent that.
Do you think that diversity is not good, if it doesn't lead to the ethnic groups all experiencing approximately equal levels of success?
The funny thing about it is that the states that make this sort of argument are those that receive more dollars from the feds than they give. Furthermore, as an African American (from SC no less), it's frightening to even envision my home state, that still flies the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds, being left to its own devices when it comes to civil rights. But that's another subject for another day entirely.
EXCELLENT post! Yes, the states that complain about big government are the same ones that are basically welfare states because they have too small of a population to sustain themselves. For example, Alaska- I heard a stat just recently regarding roads- for every dollar they pay into the federal government in highway taxes, they get over $5 BACK in federal funds. Do they really want to cut the federal government out completely? Not unless they wanted their own state taxes to go through the roof.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
The "Red vs Blue" thing is over simplified by many people because they forget that rural CA, NY, etc are very conservative while many cities in Red States are fairly Liberal politically.
No, America isn't too big... but Americans have become spoiled brats with a cell phone glued to their face.
That isn't exclusive, of course, but damn it is widespread.
America will eventually break up, all empires,countries,states,etc fall
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.
