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.
Actually, there's one function I think the Fed should perform: Control of environmental abuse.
To do this, we would need a Constitutional amendment. I wonder if this is a significant enough issue, to try to get one?
One reason we would need a Const amendment, is so that the powers of the agency to regulate environment, can be strictly limited to things that cross state borders (one state polluting a river that flows into another state, or that pollutes the air that blows into another state etc.).
They would not be able to regulate a person who has a swamp on his land, unless it obviously and visibly extends into another state. Or do other such screwy things. They also would not be able to regulate, say, wildlife on grounds that it's an "endangered species", or do other such things.
Can't really answer the poll. Not enough specifics given. In some ways I could check every box. In others, I could check none.
Example, education. Is giving out student loans considered "spending" funds or not? Theoretically you get the money back so it isn't really spending.
Environment oversight? Does that mean cap & trade? I say no to that. Does it mean making it illegal to dump toxic waste in the Mississippi River? Then I say yes.
Social safety net? I was good with the welfare we had since the 90s reforms but I'm not good with it now that Obama unilaterally repealed those reforms.
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.