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.
I have to ask, why not? Why is the federal government so powerful in the US? Why shouldn't more power be given to individual states? Why shouldn't states have control over healthcare, economics, education and welfare and the federal government give transfer payments to handle these costs like in Canada? For instance, the federal government can make an economic plan and it's up to individual states whether they participate.
What's unreasonable about this? Why can't you give specific powers to states and trust them to handle it on their own?
I have to ask, why not? Why is the federal government so powerful in the US? Why shouldn't more power be given to individual states? Why shouldn't states have control over healthcare, economics, education and welfare and the federal government give transfer payments to handle these costs like in Canada? For instance, the federal government can make an economic plan and it's up to individual states whether they participate.
What's unreasonable about this? Why can't you give specific powers to states and trust them to handle it on their own?
The States already have control over healthcare, education and welfare. That's exactly why Vermont and MA have their own health insurance systems. The States also issue medical licenses and teaching licenses. I don't know what you mean by control over economics. The power over currency is a monopoly of the Federal government by design. It was a total failure between 1776 and 1789, when States could issue currency.
The notion that the federal government has recently usurped sinister control over the states is nothing but a right-wing fear fantasy.
It would mean ceding control and as lincoln proved, the fedguv will kill to keep it.
It doesn't have to respond that way. Provinces in Canada have specific powers, the federal government funds them. Provinces are allowed to screw up all on their own. But at least I feel like I can be heard on a provincial/state level. At a federal level, I don't feel I have a voice. Is it really that terrible to just let individual states make their own decisions?
Why can't you give specific powers to states and trust them to handle it on their own?
One of the major forces in today's consumer marketplace is showrooming: With showrooming, brick and mortar retailers incur the cost of stocking expensive consumer products so customers can see and touch them, staffing showrooms perhaps even providing insights into the benefits of the products to try to inspire customers to make the purchase; and then online retailers enjoy the sales revenue from the selling of the consumer products. This demonstrates the inclination of Americans to partake of the benefits from where they're offered, while not actually paying for those benefits.
Project this into the government services arena: States that foster a responsible social safety net will attract those exploited and abused by states that treat their poor like refuse. Meanwhile, states that foster slavery will attract rapacious businesses. It would result in an unsustainable model on both directions.
It doesn't have to respond that way. Provinces in Canada have specific powers, the federal government funds them. Provinces are allowed to screw up all on their own. But at least I feel like I can be heard on a provincial/state level. At a federal level, I don't feel I have a voice. Is it really that terrible to just let individual states make their own decisions?
I am pretty sure states make their own decisions now, that is why each of them have state governments.
The States already have control over healthcare, education and welfare. That's exactly why Vermont and MA have their own health insurance systems. The States also issue medical licenses and teaching licenses. I don't know what you mean by control over economics. The power over currency is a monopoly of the Federal government by design. It was a total failure between 1776 and 1789, when States could issue currency.
The notion that the federal government has recently usurped sinister control over the states is nothing but a right-wing fear fantasy.
The state control doesn't seem to be all that encompassing. Looking at the Obamacare thing, it's just so piecemeal. That wouldn't happen in Canada. The Provinces would never allow it. The people wouldn't allow it. The law is every province has healthcare available to all residents. What they cover and how they cover it, is entirely up to each province. They can provide abortion or not provide abortion. They can provide dental benefits or not provide dental. They can private insurance available or not. The provinces decide these things. Wouldn't there be a lot less arguments if the details were handled by individual states?
The federal government has more control over state economics than I see in Canada on the provincial level. I think it creates unnecessary angst.
One of the major forces in today's consumer marketplace is showrooming: With showrooming, brick and mortar retailers incur the cost of stocking expensive consumer products so customers can see and touch them, staffing showrooms perhaps even providing insights into the benefits of the products to try to inspire customers to make the purchase; and then online retailers enjoy the sales revenue from the selling of the consumer products. This demonstrates the inclination of Americans to partake of the benefits from where they're offered, while not actually paying for those benefits.
Project this into the government services arena: States that foster a responsible social safety net will attract those exploited and abused by states that treat their poor like refuse. Meanwhile, states that foster slavery will attract rapacious businesses. It would result in an unsustainable model on both directions.
Would that really be so terrible? Let States learn this on their own.
It would mean ceding control and as lincoln proved, the fedguv will kill to keep it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilanarchist
Exactly. Frank hit the nail on the head...
Only revisionist neo-confederates would argue that it was Lincoln who fought against state control of the South's economic affairs when there is little doubt that Lincoln had no intentions in altering the relationship or the south's peculiar economic system.
Even following the Civil War the South was pretty much allowed to continue its abuse of the principles of the Constitution under the rubric of state's rights, until the point came whereby they could no longer be trusted to implement even the most basic rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.
As I've pointed out, we gone down the road of increased states rights and it was an utter failure.
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.
But at least I feel like I can be heard on a provincial/state level. At a federal level, I don't feel I have a voice. Is it really that terrible to just let individual states make their own decisions?
