Politics

[Rhode Irish]

.

 

[Bluto]

Domina it seems like some States are still undermining said "goodwill".

Feds: Mississippi county runs 'school-to-prison pipeline' - CNN.com

Also didn't Romney pledge to get rid of the EPA? That would be a complete cluster.

 

[tadman95]

The federal vs. states rights are tougher to separate now, certainly more so than 200+ years ago. The practicality of separating the two is difficult.

I'll use education as an example but could use healthcare, welfare, environment, etc...

Without a centralized authority, states would set their own standards of education. Sounds good doesn't it?! States with more resources could set higher standards drawing more industry, better jobs, more influence, more people, etc...

States with fewer resources may by necessity, have to use lower standards. They are at a disadvantage that may hinder their ability to provide for their citizens, and will lose people.

How much of a gap are we willing to tolerate? When state "doing great" starts complaining about state "not so great" not paying their fair share in defense, infrastructure, research, how are they going to settle it. Kick 'em out of the union? Succeed themselves? What's the recourse? There will never be a perfect balance, you just have to keep working for it.

If one state builds a big polluting "thingamajig" that blows all of the pollution east ward across state borders, how are they going to settle that? Court system? Puhleeease..... You think we have activist courts now? The judicial branch would be the hottest political game in town.

There has to be a standard bearer. Smaller government is a popular theme and it does sound good. I think the size of government is secondary to the effectiveness of government.

You think Irish Envy works without the standard bearers? Ask the mods if they don't have anything to do.

 

[RDU Irish]

So let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator? Talk about American Exceptionalism.

 

[tadman95]

So let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator? Talk about American Exceptionalism.

Never said that. Geez.... Somebody has to set a minimum. Think everyone will do the right thing. Can you say Wall Street?

 

[Rhode Irish]

So let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator? Talk about American Exceptionalism.

I actually think that is the opposite of what he is saying. The point is to bring the floor up. Doing that requires the pooling of resources. If you're unwilling to pool resources or allow the federal government to serve any role, then you can't talk about "American" exceptionalism. Good luck with your Indiana exceptionalism or Mississippi exceptionalism or whatever. A nation isn't a nation if the only thing its people share is a flag.

I don't know where you guys get all your confidence in your state governments from. I haven't seen any evidence that they are any more capable or any less corrupt than the federal government.

 

[irishff1014]

I actually think that is the opposite of what he is saying. The point is to bring the floor up. Doing that requires the pooling of resources. If you're unwilling to pool resources or allow the federal government to serve any role, then you can't talk about "American" exceptionalism. Good luck with your Indiana exceptionalism or Mississippi exceptionalism or whatever. A nation isn't a nation if the only thing its people share is a flag.

I don't know where you guys get all your confidence in your state governments from. I haven't seen any evidence that they are any more capable or any less corrupt than the federal government.

State and county governments are just as bad as the federal government. I do agree there.

 

[RDU Irish]

OK, on the margin I think government on pretty much every level is too big and invasive in my life. Are you saying it needs to get bigger and more involved on all levels?

My first proposal to Washington, repeal 3 pages of legislation for every 1 new one that is put in place. Do that for a few decades and we might be on to something.

 

[Cackalacky]

The 17th amendment was a result of massive state level corruption/hinderence in choosing the senators. There is a reason this progressed so quickly to the ammendment stage. Now instead of bought and paid for senators chosen by the state, we have bought and paid for senators chosen by the people. Yay Us!

Tadman and Rhode made excellent points. Bring the floor up. We should not need legislation to do that , but alas.....

 

[Buster Bluth]

State and county governments are just as bad as the federal government. I do agree there.

They are not even close.

Counties and states have to balance budgets and people can much more easily replace who is making bad calls.

It's a lot easier to change what is going on in Ottawa County than Washington, and it's a lot easier to change what's going on in Columbus than Washington. And even if things aren't changed, the scope of the damage isn't as great because counties and states don't do as much--if Ottawa County f*cks up, tens of thousands are effected. If the Feds mess up (par for the course), millions of jobs disappear.

When you let states develop their own plans, we get the chance to see what works and what doesn't and states' advantage in flexibility allows them to correct errors and/or learn of successes/failures in other states. It's called competition. This is all very simple Macroeconomics; simple economies of scale tells us that the Federal government simply can't do things as efficiently as states because it is too massive and involved in too many things.

Honestly...what does the federal government do really really well?

 

[tadman95]

OK, on the margin I think government on pretty much every level is too big and invasive in my life. Are you saying it needs to get bigger and more involved on all levels?

My first proposal to Washington, repeal 3 pages of legislation for every 1 new one that is put in place. Do that for a few decades and we might be on to something.

No, I think there are many ways that government is too big. Perhaps smaller lobbys in government buildings would leave less room for lobbyists as an example.

I just think many have this romantic notion that smaller government would fix many things. Maybe, even probably, but we need to be smart. A lot of financial limitations were changed (loosened) over the last 20 or so years, my opinion is it wasn't necessary for the better. Derivatives? SMH...

The oil industry, specifically the buying and selling of crude oil use to be limited to persons within the industry. That was opened up to allow "outsiders" to trade also. This created a free market but also created more volatility in the markets which makes the risks to all of us higher. Is this better because it's a more competitive market? Can it be manipulated?

Less regulation? Try taking away the barriers put on free markets in the insurance industry. Remove the state barriers and let companies compete across state lines. Want to see health costs go down? Open the markets! Think the insurance companies are going to let that happen?

A lot of companies, er I mean people want free enterprise as long as it doesn't hurt them.

If we truly want competition, small business, etc... then let them compete, If a company needs government help, screw them. Let them go out of business.

Our forefathers were not big fans of large corporations by the way. Thought their influence could corrupt.

Pet peeve: If you can't walk into a voting booth and pull the lever, then you have no political voice. (Absentee ballots are ok)

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...I don't know where you guys get all your confidence in your state governments from...

I do have more confidence in them, having experienced both, but what I really like is that I have more say in what the laws and cops do.

And I feel uncomfortable forcing Californians to spend more money on high school football stadiums. So I don't, and let their their state and local governments decide that for themselves.

 

[BobD]

They are not even close.

Counties and states have to balance budgets and people can much more easily replace who is making bad calls.

It's a lot easier to change what is going on in Ottawa County than Washington, and it's a lot easier to change what's going on in Columbus than Washington. And even if things aren't changed, the scope of the damage isn't as great because counties and states don't do as much--if Ottawa County f*cks up, tens of thousands are effected. If the Feds mess up (par for the course), millions of jobs disappear.

When you let states develop their own plans, we get the chance to see what works and what doesn't and states' advantage in flexibility allows them to correct errors and/or learn of successes/failures in other states. It's called competition. This is all very simple Macroeconomics; simple economies of scale tells us that the Federal government simply can't do things as efficiently as states because it is too massive and involved in too many things.

Honestly...what does the federal government do really really well?

Move to Mexico, then in a year or so, come back and answer your own question.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...When you let states develop their own plans, we get the chance to see what works and what doesn't and states' advantage in flexibility allows them to correct errors and/or learn of successes/failures in other states. It's called competition...

Justice Brandeis called it a "laboratory of democracy":

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yeah, let the states and cities decide how they want to spend their own revenue, let them pass local ordinances, whatever you were saying about high school football stadiums....decide that locally. But on big issues, uniformity is important. Otherwise we aren't a nation.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Move to Mexico, then in a year or so, come back and answer your own question.

That's the best you can do?

 

[BobD]

Here is San Francisco you can walk around naked (but you have to put down a napkin before you sit on a public bench), you can't get a toy in your happy meal and plastic bags are banned. Really! The rest of the world should have this much fun!

 

[BobD]

That's the best you can do?

Its all I needed to say. I find most people that make such negative comments about our government haven't experienced living anywhere else.

 

[Bluto]

Honestly...what does the federal government do really really well?

Didn't NASA just land a robot that can send images, soil and atmospheric data back to us on earth? On that note the Fed is pretty good at developing new technologies. Anyhow, I worked on a creek restoration project for the NPS over the last two years. It looks great and the salmonid count has jumped exponentialy in large part due to the newly constructed lagoon and restored channel.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Its all I needed to say. I find most people that make such negative comments about our government haven't experienced living anywhere else.

Not sure how you get here from there. Is Mexico's government less centralized than ours? Personally, I think our federalism has been part of our country's success. The idea would be not to give it up in emulation of other nations that aren't as successful. (Interestingly, one of the least centralized in Europe is also the most successful: Switzerland.)

And why is this conversation all or nothing? Either you love the federal governement and want it to control everything, or you hate it and want it to disappear...

Speaking in defense of the middle-ground, Federalism, I'd first say that whenever you take some political position as indisputably true, it is easy to go the next step and assume that it would be better for the central government to impose it. But there are other considerations:

First, people obviously differ on a lot of issues. To assume that there is one right answer to everything shows that you either believe in a clearly discernable natural law, or don't get out enough. One of the reasons to have a constituion is because sometimes even majority positions have to be restrained. Sometimes consensus needs to build slowly and forcing it is counter-productive and oppressive, right or wrong.

Second, the American system presupposes (similar to Catholic thought) that there there is something inherently important about self-government. The ends do not always justify the means. Stripping, say, the State Mississippi of its authority to control its education system in the name of benevolent care for the State's citizens undermines democracy and personal-responsbility. You see that happening in Europe all the time. Political elites constantly impose their vision of the good on an increasing frustrated but politically uninvolved populace. They know better, so in the end of the day, the people need to get in line. A "represntative" government of 500 legislators representing 300,000,000 is a little far-fetched. That may be fine for issues of national scope (national defense, interstate infrastructure, international trade and treaties), but may not be fine for issues liek education, domestic law, zoning, etc.

Subsidiarity is not anti-centralization of some things, but it is against centralization of all things. Centralize when necessary, but avoid the temptation of expediency because it leads to unintended consequences that undermine democratic republics.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Didn't NASA just land a robot that can send images, soil and atmospheric data back to us on earth? On that note the Fed is pretty good at developing new technologies. Anyhow, I worked on a creek restoration project for the NPS over the last two years. It looks great and the salmonid count has jumped exponentialy in large part due to the newly constructed lagoon and restored channel.

A ha, but I didn't say "what good things does the Federal government do?"

I asked what they do well. i.e. they do them efficiently, and in particular more efficiently than states or the market could.

A good politician develops a policy in which the government gets the job done, a great politician develops a policy in which the free market gets the job done. I just worded that now, in the middle of a GIS class haha but it's the thesis of my belief on government.

For example, NASA, while so totally neat, can subcontract a fair amount of what it does. And of course, state's shouldn't and couldn't have space programs...so it obviously falls under the umbrella of the federal government.

 

[BobD]

Not sure how you get here from there. Is Mexico's government less centralized than ours? Personally, I think our federalism has been part of our country's success. The idea would be not to give it up in emulation of other nations that aren't as successful. (Interestingly, one of the least centralized in Europe is also the most successful: Switzerland.)

Why is this conversation all or nothing? Either you love the federal governement and want it to control everything, or you hate it and want it to disappear...

Speaking in defense of the middle-ground, Federalism, I'd first say that whenever you take some political position as indisputably true, it is easy to go the next step and assume that it would be better for the central government to impose it. But there are other considerations:

First, people obviously differ on a lot of issues. To assume that there is one right answer to everything shows that you either believe in a clearly discernable natural law, or don't get out enough. One of the reasons to have a constituion is because sometimes even majority positions have to be restrained. Sometimes consensus needs to build slowly and forcing it is counter-productive and oppressive, right or wrong.

Second, the American system presupposes (similar to Catholic thought) that there there is something inherently important about self-government. The ends do not always justify the means. Stripping, say, the State Mississippi of its authority to control its education system in the name of benevolent care for the State's citizens undermines democracy and personal-responsbility. You see that happening in Europe all the time. Political elites constantly impose their vision of the good on an increasing frustrated but politically uninvolved populace. They know better, so in the end of the day, the people need to get in line. A "represntative" government of 500 legislators representing 300,000,000 is a little far-fetched. That may be fine for issues of national scope (national defense, interstate infrastructure, international trade and treaties), but may not be fine for issues liek education, domestic law, zoning, etc.

Subsidiarity is not anti-centralization of some things, but it is against centralization of all things. Centralize only when necessary, despite the temptation of expediency.

I don't have great writing skills, so I try to keep things short.

We have much we can improve. The government is not the answer for most things, but
someone who has never lived without reliable electricity, clean drinking water, public schools, roads, phones, internet or a weather forcast shouldn't be so critical of our government. IMHO

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I don't have great writing skills, so I try to keep things short.

We have much we can improve. The government is not the answer for most things, but
anyone who has never lived without reliable electricity, clean drinking water, public schools, roads, phones, internet or a weather forcast shouldn't be so critical of our government. IMHO

The feds didn't build that. State and local governments "made that happen".

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't have great writing skills, so I try to keep things short.

We have much we can improve. The government is not the answer for most things, but
someone who has never lived without reliable electricity, clean drinking water, public schools, roads, phones, internet or a weather forcast shouldn't be so critical of our government. IMHO

Public schools are a state matter. Federal involvement has been 1) a failure, and 2) a handout to teachers unions (e.g. headstart).

Roads are a state matter. While the feds via Eisenhower's plan paid for 90% of interstate construction, the cost overruns are killing local governments because the upkeep is ridiculous. The construction--and development afterward--was based on an artificial boost and not market principles. Make no mistake, federal involvement in roads is starting to be a net negative (and liberal planners say this, not the GOP).

Phones...huh?

I will give you weather forecast. But let's not act like even that couldn't be privatized. The NWS could be a public-private deal like so many other things.

 

[Bluto]

A ha, but I didn't say "what good things does the Federal government do?"

I asked what they do well. i.e. they do them efficiently, and in particular more efficiently than states or the market could.

A good politician develops a policy in which the government gets the job done, a great politician develops a policy in which the free market gets the job done. I just worded that now, in the middle of a GIS class haha but it's the thesis of my belief on government.

For example, NASA, while so totally neat, can subcontract a fair amount of what it does. And of course, state's shouldn't and couldn't have space programs...so it obviously falls under the umbrella of the federal government.

After having been in construction fot awhile now I'm amazed that NASA pulled this off given all of the unknowns. If it would have been contracted out here's what the possible scenario (one I've seen on plenty of projects) might have been given all of the unknowns. Contractor A submits low ball bid and wins award. 2 years in they go bankrupt. Contractor B comes in with a low bid and change orders pile up. Contractor B goes bankrupt or sues. Contractor C sends lander to Mars and it blows up.

Anyhow, I'm sure NASA does subcontract out quite a bit as does the military. The point I was making is that the magical market is pretty bad at spending money on research just for the sake of research (not necessarily producing anything tangible at times). That's why so much of it is done vis a vis universities with public money. That is however, the kind of stuff that leads to new technological leaps forward and has created a shitzue ton of jobs.

Anyhow, isn't setting the permitters for or developing policies where market and or states can get it done just a verbose way of saying regulation?

Good luck with the GIS stuff. It's pretty cool when you get to suitability modeling if you haven't done that yet.

 

[BobD]

The feds didn't build that. State and local governments "made that happen".

Public schools are a state matter. Federal involvement has been 1) a failure, and 2) a handout to teachers unions (e.g. headstart).

Roads are a state matter. While the feds via Eisenhower's plan paid for 90% of interstate construction, the cost overruns are killing local governments because the upkeep is ridiculous. The construction--and development afterward--was based on an artificial boost and not market principles. Make no mistake, federal involvement in roads is starting to be a net negative (and liberal planners say this, not the GOP).

Phones...huh?

I will give you weather forecast. But let's not act like even that couldn't be privatized. The NWS could be a public-private deal like so many other things.

No sh!t Sherlocks!

Like I said, I suck at explaining myself in writing.

I'm just tired of hearing American kids complain about sh!t and fire off solutions like they have some real world experience.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No sh!t Sherlocks!

Like I said, I suck at explaining myself in writing.

I'm just tired of hearing American kids complain about sh!t and fire off solutions like they have some real world experience.

Ahhh the "you can't know anything because you're so young" angle. Now, that's the best you can do?

What if my solutions are only a reiteration of men who lived centuries ago? What if my ideas are merely Thomas Jefferson's, or George Washington's, or even Ron Paul's?

Surely your age discrimination wouldn't work on them would it?

 

[Grahambo]

Ahhh the "you can't know anything because you're so young" angle. Now, that's the best you can do?

What if my solutions are only a reiteration of men who lived centuries ago? What if my ideas are merely Thomas Jefferson's, or George Washington's, or even Ron Paul's?

Surely your age discrimination wouldn't work on them would it?

Not speaking for him because I may have misunderstood what he was trying to portray but isn't there some truth to that type of argument?

If you haven't lived, how do you know? (Rhetorical question really)

What I mean is, not saying that you can't present a valuable or reasonable argument being young, but how can you say something so strongly if you really haven't experienced that something when someone older then (than?) you has?

I'm 26 so I present this "argument" from the younger side.

(dshans, I apologize for the possible incorrect grammar issue.)

 

[BobD]

Ahhh the "you can't know anything because you're so young" angle. Now, that's the best you can do?

What if my solutions are only a reiteration of men who lived centuries ago? What if my ideas are merely Thomas Jefferson's, or George Washington's, or even Ron Paul's?

Surely your age discrimination wouldn't work on them would it?

Buster, I hope you know that I like you and its not personal. I just think you might suffer from being so smart you don't know anything. I'm saying, or trying to say...before you make statements about how the government doesn't do anything real well, you should go see what the rest of the world is like and how they live. We are a very spoiled country, spoiled rotten to be truthful.
Thats all I'm sayin'

 

[dshans]

(dshans, I apologize for the possible incorrect grammar issue.)

"Than."

"Then" is used in reference to time – this happened, then that happened.
"That" is used in reference to comparison – this is better than that.

Good CYA move! No charge for the tutorial.