Rob, I agree that a smaller governement is better for everyone. You are saying that the tea partiers forget history. You bring up the American Civil War. The reason that the ACW started was over the issue of states rights. The northerners wanted to prevent new states from allowing slavery. The southerners felt that each state should decide what was best for its citizens. I happen to think that the founding fathers NEVER intended for the government to get as big as it has. The dems just want to make it bigger and get everyone on the dole without any regard to common sense, economics or the will of the people.
I suggest you take some time and read "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand"
Care to elaborate?Not if the Tea Party gets elected into power. If that happens, we might as well throw deficit out the window. That'll be the LEAST of our problems.
Do I agree that states can decide what is best for their citizens? Yes absoultely.
Rob, Rob, Rob.Clearly not. Because slaves were citizens just as much as the rich, white plantation owners were. And they were certainly NOT getting what was best from their state. People, when left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. This is one of the few guarantees in life. History gives us countless examples of countries with poor government, by either having too much or too little.
Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.
Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.
Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!
The "core issue" is the fact that while YOU may think states know what is best for their population, history shows otherwise.
People keep saying that the states know better, but their isn't much evidence to support this. How can we say that the states know best when most of them are running huge deficits and are heavily (and in some cases solely) dependent on Federal Funding to balance their budgets? Not to mention all the aid that some states receive. Do you know Alaska receives $5 in Federal aid for every $1 it pays in taxes? Do do you think such states could survive with the Federal tit to suck on.
Its the states that are dependent on the federal government...not the other way around.
Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.
Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.
Fisrt off, Slavery is a dead issue, unless Moslem extremeists take advantage of our religious freedoms to gain enough membership to gain control of the US & as they have said they'll do, repeal the Constitution & impose Sharia Law. Then they would relegalize slavery, according to thier comments. By the way, Slaves were property, not Citizens.Clearly not. Because slaves were citizens just as much as the rich, white plantation owners were. And they were certainly NOT getting what was best from their state. People, when left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. This is one of the few guarantees in life. History gives us countless examples of countries with poor government, by either having too much or too little.
George... One word. Anarchy. Imagine a country that has the highest rates of gun ownership and no federal regulation on them. Imagine a country that has the second highest motor vehicle fatality rates and then toss in varying speed limits and road laws from state to state. Imagine a country that has a very precariously balanced economy as it is, and then toss in a different currency for every state.
The military has one uniform for a reason... Uniformity. So everyone is on the same page. Everyone has the same set of rules. Everyone is on an even keel. Without federal government involvement, my bet is the United States would be surpassed by some European country as the most powerful nation on earth in a matter of years.
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!
The "core issue" is the fact that while YOU may think states know what is best for their population, history shows otherwise.
So how is your college education working out for you? Or, are you going to classes?:lol:
People keep saying that the states know better, but their isn't much evidence to support this. How can we say that the states know best when most of them are running huge deficits and are heavily (and in some cases solely) dependent on Federal Funding to balance their budgets? Not to mention all the aid that some states receive. Do you know Alaska receives $5 in Federal aid for every $1 it pays in taxes? Do do you think such states could survive with the Federal tit to suck on.
Its the states that are dependent on the federal government...not the other way around.
There is no evidence that supports this inflammatory opinion. You and I can speculate all day long about this but in the end it does not matter. Whats done is done and nothing will change that.Rob Henderson said:No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!
Lets go completely the other way then. Get rid of the states, counties and localities and all of the laws and taxes imposed by them and have just the federal government. Let the federal government pay for everything.
In addition to the example that Chuckpike pointed out what about the abortion issue? What about gun rights? Drivers licenses?
B******t!We tried the strong state-weak Fed solution before, it was called the Articles of Confederation. It lasted about 6 years before the entire system collapsed around us simply because of the lack of a strong federal government. The states started only working in their own self-interests with little regard for the nation as a whole. We really don't want to back there..trust me.
Drivers licenses...funny you should mention that. Specifically because US drivers licenses are run by the State and not by the Federal Government I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, in other words no central system. So now that I am 2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1, well...I think you can figure out my sentiments on that.
Drivers licenses...funny you should mention that. Specifically because US drivers licenses are run by the State and not by the Federal Government I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, in other words no central system. So now that I am 2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1, well...I think you can figure out my sentiments on that.
Chukpike
Its hilarious to be called a liar from a someone sitting on their couch in California who has never lived in a foreign country and yet thinks he knows what he is talking about. And Reading comprehension is clearly not one of your strong suites is it? You need to stop knocking Robs education and get one of your own before posting here.
My exact quote:
"France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of AMERICAN RESIDENTS" Read you own post, You even underlined and bolded it yourself but didnt actually read it. Just how stupid are you?. :smile:
If you are living longer than a year in France you need to get a French Drivers license. I have been here 12 years, ergo I have to get a French Drivers License.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.