U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 11-17-2010, 04:01 PM
 
2,028 posts, read 1,834,219 times
Reputation: 1001

Advertisements

Here's my proposal:

Instead of these back and forth team sport national elections every few years where at least 50% of the country is governed by a party they completely disagree with, why don't we simply agree to a few common functions of the federal government, lower the federal tax rates and allow the states provide the programs their citizens vote on / agree with?

Example: Federal Government would provide
- Protect explicit freedoms and rights in the Constitution for every citizen.
- Defense
- Foreign Policy / Trade
- Immigration
- Federal Courts
- Regulation (not intervention) of issues that come up between the states.
- No earmarks and no local projects that don't directly involve the Federal Government's above duties.
- No bailing out states or companies who go bankrupt. States will have increased tax revenue due to new lower federal rates, so they can use these funds to bail out companies located within their state (if they choose).

Liberal State Example: California would provide
-Single payer health care if their citizens vote on it.
-Band together with other liberal states like Massachusetts to increase their single payer pool.
-Gay marriage and abortion
-High taxes for the rich
-Bigger social safety nets (welfare, unemployment, housing)
-Their own version of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Conservative State Example: Texas would provide
-Free market health care
-Band together with other conservative states to increase their free market health care pool
-Outlaw gay marriage and abortion
-No income tax (already in effect in Texas)
-Lower social safety nets than California
-The choice to have (or not to have) their own version of Social Security or Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

This would provide a competition of ideas between states, without anyone imposing their values on others. If people disagree with their state's policies, they can either move to another state, or stay home and attempt to join the liberal state's pools across state lines in categories like single payer health care. The federal government can allow this CHOICE under the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution.

Why wouldn't both sides agree to this option? That way no one has to travel far to be in the state that agrees with their needs / wants. Also, no one has to worry about the next election, when a Congress / President they disagree with comes in and imposes their own values or overturns the programs they like.

Liberals, wouldn't you prefer knowing your single payer health care would never get overturned? How would you like being safe from another President Bush in your state?

Conservatives, wouldn't you prefer being safe from any liberal policies or leaders you disagree with like President Obama? Wouldn't you prefer living in a state where your taxes remain low and you can outlaw abortion and gay marriage?

How can someone be against this idea without revealing they are more interested in imposing their own values against others?

I would love to hear comments and suggestions on this "not so new" idea of laboratories of federalism around the country.

Last edited by Freedom123; 11-17-2010 at 04:11 PM.. Reason: Misspelled Republican
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2010, 04:13 PM
 
25,053 posts, read 26,759,740 times
Reputation: 11754
This is the libertarian position which is the best position in my opinion. This is how the U.S. originally was intended to function, until the big government lovers from both sides hijacked the government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,150,541 times
Reputation: 2921
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
This is the libertarian position which is the best position in my opinion. This is how the U.S. originally was intended to function, until the big government lovers from both sides hijacked the government.
That is true,most people give lip service to state rights and freedom but in reality they support a strong tyranical centralized gvt. In the OP he lays out what our country should look like and it is a far cry from what we live in today. We will always remain un happy because we are a divided people politicaly and there is no where to run to get away from the other side.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
346 posts, read 440,754 times
Reputation: 163
By deporting all of the liberals to Brazil.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:41 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,894 posts, read 17,806,456 times
Reputation: 6463
Sounds too good to be true, and it is. Even as Americans, we are so divided in our thinking, in our Nature, and in our Political Arena.

So many are stuck withing their party lines, they can see nothing else. Everhthing you say is great, but i am sure, someone would not agree, what so many of us agree on, there are just as many who do not. Is there really a middle!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:44 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 1,463,745 times
Reputation: 790
One more stipulation. It is very easy for states to be "conservative" when they receive more than $1 in Fed. taxes back for every $1 they pay in Fed. taxes. Make it dollar for dollar and you won't have many "conservative" states left since many of these states are on the Federal dole.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
624 posts, read 2,034,089 times
Reputation: 563
So if I'm poor I should move to California where the state will take care of me and provide me with a safety net. And if I'm rich or have a high income I should move to Texas where I can avoid high taxes.

Is there any incentive for a rich person to choose to live in California or a poor person to live in Texas?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 08:21 PM
 
2,028 posts, read 1,834,219 times
Reputation: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
This is the libertarian position which is the best position in my opinion. This is how the U.S. originally was intended to function, until the big government lovers from both sides hijacked the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
Sounds too good to be true, and it is. Even as Americans, we are so divided in our thinking, in our Nature, and in our Political Arena.

So many are stuck withing their party lines, they can see nothing else. Everhthing you say is great, but i am sure, someone would not agree, what so many of us agree on, there are just as many who do not. Is there really a middle!
I agree with both of you, I would love to see the big government lovers from both sides give a reasonable argument for why this isn't the best option. I think this option is possible if the argument is presented by a major presidential candidate using language that appeals to both ideologies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 08:23 PM
 
2,028 posts, read 1,834,219 times
Reputation: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle View Post
One more stipulation. It is very easy for states to be "conservative" when they receive more than $1 in Fed. taxes back for every $1 they pay in Fed. taxes. Make it dollar for dollar and you won't have many "conservative" states left since many of these states are on the Federal dole.
I'm all for this. Let each ideology compete on its' own funds in each state. All federal tax money would go directly to strictly federal duties listed in the Constitution. (And no, none of this vague "general welfare" or pseudo-commerce clause arguments)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,477 posts, read 7,062,183 times
Reputation: 7010
aka 'Federalism'
Rate this post positively 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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2023, 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