Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
To reduce the size of the federal governnment, we can eliminate, privatise, or hand over some functions to the states...
Can anyone care to name a few?
|
That's easy.
I'll show you how the Conservative position is morally and ethically superior to the obstinacy of Liberals.
Federal Republic
Definition: a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits.
That is what the Constitution gives us, instead of a Unitary-State governmental system as in France, Romania, Italy, Greece and any number of other States.
The Framer's of the Constitution knew that the United States would never be homogeneous, rather the US would always be heterogeneous.
Heterogeneous
Definition(s):
Made up of parts that are different
Not uniform in structure or composition
Consisting of dissimilar elements or parts; not homogeneous
Having widely dissimilar elements or constituents.
The lack of homogeneity extends into everything, including geography, geology, topography, climate and yes, economics.
Let's briefly look at the Consumer Price Index....
Prices are collected each month in 87 urban areas across the country...In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with weights, which represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined to obtain a U.S. city average.
Why do you suppose that is?
It is due to the fact that there is no uniformity...not homogeneity....anywhere within the US.
As a point of fact, there are 1,539 separately functioning economies within the US, and in each of those 1,539 separately functioning economies:
1. Fast food workers are paid different rates, as are warehouse workers, clerks, health care professionals, police, fire, teachers, managers, accountants, lawyers and everyone else....meaning wages vary tremendously and are based entirely on the Labor Market for each of the 1,539 separately functioning economies.
2. The price of homes and housing rentals varies dramatically throughout the US
3. The price of land varies dramatically throughout the US
4. The price of health care varies dramatically throughout the US
5. The cost maintain any building, and that includes the cost to heat/cool the building and provide electricity and water varies dramatically throughout the US
6. The price of automobiles, and in fact, the price of everything, as in every "thing" meaning every single thing.
Bearing that in mind....
The federal government claims the "Poverty Level" is $11,490 for a single person in the US (excluding Hawaii and Alaska).
The problem with the federal government's claim is Reality™...because Poverty Level for 1 Person in Reality™ equals....
$6,038.85 per year in Cincinnati
$21,861.80 per year in San Fransisco
And those two cities are neither the cheapest in the US, nor the most expensive in the US.
That tells you straight away that any "federal" program will be an instant failure and cause economic damage to the US and harm Americans.
Given the gross disparity....hey.....Federal Inequality.....there you go....Liberals rail about "Income Equality" which doesn't even exist, yet Liberals refuse to rail about Federal Inequality...how about that...anyway, suppose two persons both receive $1,100/month in OASI Benefits, you know, Old Age and Survivor's
Insurance aka Social Security...
$1,100 equals...
$2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
$761.07. per month in San Fransisco
Is that fair?
Where is the Equality?
A person receiving $1,100 in monthly Old Age and Survivor's Insurance Benefits equals...
$25,115 per year in Cincinnati.....or 52% more than the Federal Poverty Level
$9,132.84 per year in San Fransisco....or is 20% less than the Federal Poverty Level
As we speak, Social Security beneficiaries are on track to get a 1.5% Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA).
Do you see how fundamentally unsound and unfair the federal government is?
The federal government is going to give a COLA increase to Americans who have not suffered a 1.5% decrease in their cost of living. In fact, many areas of the US have experienced a decrease in the CPI, and not an increase in the CPI.
So, the federal government is going to give 1.5% to someone who has experienced a net 4.7% decrease in costs, while givng a 1.5% to increase to people who have experienced as much as 7.6% increase.
And then people don't understand any of the reasons why Social Security will fail them in about 11 years.
The solution is for the federal government to get out of the retirement business and let the States handle it, and it is a fact that 36 States had a social security-like program, before FDR stupidly consolidated them all to give you your current mess.
$400 in Food Stamps equals....
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati.
$210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
How fair is that? That kind of Federal Inequality would not exist if States ran their own Food Stamp programs.
You see a similar problem with Medicare.
In one part of the US, the cost of a visit to the doctor actually costs $35....but the government says it will pay $65, and so guess what the cost is.....$65.
Yet in another part of the US, the cost of a visit to the doctor is $125, but the government will only pay $65.....and then people wonder why doctors refuse to accept Medicare, and why the Medicare Trust Fund is going belly-up here in about 5 years.
You can find these Federal Inequalities in just about everything the federal government does.
Constitutionally & Economically....
Mircea
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.
