Tea Party Democrats

[PLAYER57832]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

[BigBallinStalin]

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.

There's no need to kick and scream. Delaware's taxes are included within the study, which you use to say that "taxes don't truly promote business," yet taxes do promote business as is evident with Delaware's situation, and even though Delaware's taxes don't vary as much as my example's 60%, still Delaware's small difference matters.

I decided to spend the time writing my previous reply, because it's important for you to understand how certain studies work, and how you can accurately apply their conclusions into other debates.

Besides, your point still doesn't invalidate NS's--namely,

1) "It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments."

For example, "if you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so."

Essentially, he's advocating for a more "vote with your feet" policy. May the best public policies be the most practical, I guess. A federal government's policies instituted over every State denies that possibility.

This is only "good" if you want the changes to happen. The point of our government is that it takes a long time to change things at the federal level.

Some things are too important to be subject to the whims of the "cause du jour". This is particularly true when the benefits to a few are pretty immediate, short term and the harm to many is long term. That is precisely the situation in most of the debates today. Cutting social security, Medicaid, education will cause EXTREME harm down the road. But, keeping taxes low cause immediate benefit to some very powerful people. That equation doesn't change at the state level, in fact it is compounded..... as we can see in PA, elsewhere.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .

What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.

Not "anyone's," but rather the federal government's loss of control. But if you want to understand why credit card interest rates are the way they are, then you have to consider the Federal Reserve's influence on the interest rates of loans and how that most likely affects credit card interest rates.

BULL. The reason is that banks are in the business of making profits and will whenever allowed to do so. The federal government absolutely dropped the ball.. becuase there has been so much "reduce size of the government" pressure for the past 30 years. That pressure has been around for almost forever, but in the last 30 years, it has gotten a very strong voice.

"]

Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.

It is and it isn't. Taxes matter, and so do job opportunities, and so do many other factors... so what's your point?

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Corbett is doing the exact opposite of what he should. Many of the recent gains PA has experienced are attributable to investments in education. That Penn state is rated so very highly has had an absolute benefit to our entire area. HOWEVER, in come Marcellus shale and skews it all. Why? Because they are, by law, excused from paying for almost all of the impacts they cause to us. (the EPA has no power over these operations). The natural gas companies were able to infuse HUGE amounts of money, to exert a lot of influence all over the state. But note.. the arguments were not about marcellus shale. At the time of the elections, few people knew much at all about it. Only after did the REAL reasons for all the investment (the fact that they had invested in so many people's campaigns) come out. By rights, we should have been able to rely upon the EPA to defend us, to at least monitor impacts. However, under Bush, with all the "no more regulations, etc." pressure, this "little rule" was slipped in saying that the EPA has no say over this industry. NONE.

Corbett's campaign, the campaigns of most elected this past season said almost nothing about that. Instead, they talked about high taxes and a few right wing issues..ranging from erroneous claims about Obama taking folk's hunting rifles to abortion and homosexuality to the terrorism and immigration. Tot he extent shale was brought up, it was about low taxes = industry.

THAT is what the Tea Party rhetoric really does and has done.

The bottom line is that you want to ignore the impacts of these decision on everyday people over the long term.[/quote]

You say, "NO," but you don't explain why.

EDIT: I'm not going to fix your quotes, so you may as well make a new post.

[PLAYER57832]

[ You say, "NO," but you don't explain why.

EDIT: I'm not going to fix your quotes, so you may as well make a new post.

I didn't mess up my quotes, you did.

[john9blue]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

this is more accurate than i expected.

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

did you read his post? do you know what ron paul stands for?

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

did you read his post? do you know what ron paul stands for?

Yes. I know what he claims he stands for and what he actually stands for. The result if his actions will be to give the corporations even more power than they have now. It won't be to make life cheaper or better for most of us.. not at all.

And, though people try to claim that is what he stands for, it is not what he says.. not even in his own blogs.

You can see more in the thread about Ron Paul, which I began.

[Night Strike]

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Of course economic competition among the states is a good thing. Under your line of thinking, we can no longer have a free market either because some businesses will lose while others win. You're ludicrous

.OH bull. The market can be free. We were talking about taxes. Taxes are not a market, cannot and should not be. Taxes are to provide services. Sure, some people will jump to the place with the lowest taxes, for a quick buck.. but will they keep their families there? Usually not. For their families, they want someplace safe, with a good education system, etc.

The market can't be free when every single location has the exact same taxes. If a state doesn't want to pay for illegal immigrants to get free schooling, then they obviously don't need to have a tax rate to sustain that. If a state doesn't want to provide "free" health insurance for everybody, they don't need taxes for that either. If a state wants a stable law enforcement sector, they will make sure to have tax money for those expenses. The states need to be free to pick and choose what goes on in their own states, not to have the federal government dictate every option to them.

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

They were leading the tech boom, and education boom. But, those things cannot continue without payment. So... all those who profited so mightily have up and left, taking their balls to a new field.

People left because California decided to skyrocket the taxes while also skyrocketting the number of entitlements it provides. Under your system of the federal government controlling everything, people would not get to have that freedom because EVERYONE would have to pay for your massive taxes and entitlements.

But the question is whether that is helpful to the country... and the answer is a resounding NO. Its time to stop acting like spoiled children and demanding "no payment". We need services, we need regulation to keep businesses from destroying the rest of us... and that does take government funded by taxes.

Actually, it is the only way our country can survive. I'm not the one who demands no payments, you do. You demand that everybody get health care, food, shelter, and anything else they may want provided to them instead of them working to pay for it themselves. Instead, you claim that the "rich" may for them. Pay for your own damn needs; I'm not paying them for you. I'll pay for fire protection, police enforcement, schools, etc., but I will not pay for your house. That's your own job to do.

And we can have some government regulations, but does it really need to grow by 1000 pages every single year?? Every single one of those are good and necessary? How can businesses operate when so many new regulations are published every year? Especially when almost all of them are written by bureaucrats, without ever passing Congress.

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

[PLAYER57832]

[

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

At least you aren't denying the true intent.

But no... trickle down has NEVER worked. Reagan tried it.. though I know you are too young to remember that.

But he was not stupid, by any means. This new crew of "politicians".. very much are.

[BigBallinStalin]

[ You say, "NO," but you don't explain why.

EDIT: I'm not going to fix your quotes, so you may as well make a new post.

I didn't mess up my quotes, you did.

Yet, you don't explain why you say, NO.

You convince yourself of something that you can't even rationally explain. Stop doing that.

[PLAYER57832]

[ You say, "NO," but you don't explain why.

EDIT: I'm not going to fix your quotes, so you may as well make a new post.

I didn't mess up my quotes, you did.

Yet, you don't explain why you say, NO.

You convince yourself of something that you can't even rationally explain. Stop doing that.

Try reading. Whatever I respond you ignore it or claim I "did not answer" .. or that I somehow messed up my quotes.

You don't want a debate, you just want a chance to belittle anyone who disagrees with you. I don't play.. too bad.

[BigBallinStalin]

But that really isnt what actually is there now, right or wrong. '

I am not really sure Player should have the burden of proof on this one. While it would seem Nightstrike has mentioned advantages that a local government could have in running programs vs a federal one, it would be more persuasive to actually point out a comparison of equivalent programs on the local and federal level.

Especially when one argues from the perspective of changing the status quo as a preferable alternative.

Well, what is the status quo? The public goods they mentioned are provided partially by the State and partially by the federal government, and which goods should be discussed? Because these public goods vary.

[Woodruff]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

I'm afraid it is you who has succumbed to the rhetoric, in this particular case.

[Woodruff]

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

They were leading the tech boom, and education boom. But, those things cannot continue without payment. So... all those who profited so mightily have up and left, taking their balls to a new field.

People left because California decided to skyrocket the taxes while also skyrocketting the number of entitlements it provides. Under your system of the federal government controlling everything, people would not get to have that freedom because EVERYONE would have to pay for your massive taxes and entitlements.

You didn't really counter her point. California absolutely led both the tech boom and education.

Actually, it is the only way our country can survive. I'm not the one who demands no payments, you do. You demand that everybody get health care, food, shelter, and anything else they may want provided to them instead of them working to pay for it themselves.

I do personally honestly believe there should be a Constitutional Amendment stating that preventative health care and education should be considered rights.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

I've never been rich. I pay taxes, and have my entire adult life other than my first years in the military. I'm quite certain I cannot be considered monetarily rich unless you're going to start comparing me to the folks in Africa.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm afraid it is you who has succumbed to the rhetoric, in this particular case.

As you have pointed out, every person riding the "Tea Party" "ticket" is supporting policies that will harm average people while keeping corporations relatively happy. They are leading the charge to "just say no"... etc.

I do not see that as cooincidence.
Tom Corbett is kind of "campaign on lower taxes, reduced spending".. which really means cut education, supports for the poor of all kinds and under no circumstances hold industry responsible for damage they are actually causing. The Tea Party is absolutely responsible for him being in office today.

The thing is, PA has been on the rebound. Aside from this Marcellus blip..that is now being erased. And the Marcellus "blip" is very much countering some major tourism efforts that have been leading to sustained jobs (note. I mean something a tad more complext than just "tourism".. protection, appreciation of wild and semi-wild places).

[spurgistan]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

I'm afraid it is you who has succumbed to the rhetoric, in this particular case.

No, I'm afraid it is you. Ahh, sweet ad hominem.

[Night Strike]

[

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

At least you aren't denying the true intent.

But no... trickle down has NEVER worked. Reagan tried it.. though I know you are too young to remember that.

But he was not stupid, by any means. This new crew of "politicians".. very much are.

So Reagan's policies didn't end Carter's stagflation as well as drive the communist USSR to dissolve?

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

They were leading the tech boom, and education boom. But, those things cannot continue without payment. So... all those who profited so mightily have up and left, taking their balls to a new field.

People left because California decided to skyrocket the taxes while also skyrocketting the number of entitlements it provides. Under your system of the federal government controlling everything, people would not get to have that freedom because EVERYONE would have to pay for your massive taxes and entitlements.

You didn't really counter her point. California absolutely led both the tech boom and education.

That's fine. They also lead the nation in entitlements and deficits. It's not the booming economy that people weren't paying for, it was the entitlement-mentality that people weren't paying for.

Actually, it is the only way our country can survive. I'm not the one who demands no payments, you do. You demand that everybody get health care, food, shelter, and anything else they may want provided to them instead of them working to pay for it themselves.

I do personally honestly believe there should be a Constitutional Amendment stating that preventative health care and education should be considered rights.

And I will continue to oppose that since both require someone to take a positive action to give you those rights. In other words, you are taking away the time/freedoms of someone else to secure those rights for yourself, meaning those are not inherent rights.

[PLAYER57832]

[

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

At least you aren't denying the true intent.

But no... trickle down has NEVER worked. Reagan tried it.. though I know you are too young to remember that.

But he was not stupid, by any means. This new crew of "politicians".. very much are.

So Reagan's policies didn't end Carter's stagflation as well as drive the communist USSR to dissolve?

NO. The first was mostly due to Microsoft, et al. The second.. due to various issues, including corruption of the old USSR and some specifics unrelated to Reagan. Gorbochev and Reagan did move at the right time and place, but to the extent it was more than being in the right time and place, its more a credit to Gorbochev than Reagan.

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

They were leading the tech boom, and education boom. But, those things cannot continue without payment. So... all those who profited so mightily have up and left, taking their balls to a new field.

People left because California decided to skyrocket the taxes while also skyrocketting the number of entitlements it provides. Under your system of the federal government controlling everything, people would not get to have that freedom because EVERYONE would have to pay for your massive taxes and entitlements.

You didn't really counter her point. California absolutely led both the tech boom and education.

That's fine. They also lead the nation in entitlements and deficits. It's not the booming economy that people weren't paying for, it was the entitlement-mentality that people weren't paying for.

its like the contractor that starts out offering benefits, but then winds up hiring illegal aliens to keep his costs as low as the competitors. In neither case is the short term gain of the company truly beneficial to the country, the state or even the parties involved, really.

Actually, it is the only way our country can survive. I'm not the one who demands no payments, you do. You demand that everybody get health care, food, shelter, and anything else they may want provided to them instead of them working to pay for it themselves.

I do personally honestly believe there should be a Constitutional Amendment stating that preventative health care and education should be considered rights.

And I will continue to oppose that since both require someone to take a positive action to give you those rights. In other words, you are taking away the time/freedoms of someone else to secure those rights for yourself, meaning those are not inherent rights.

LOL
You already provide healthcare for everyone. You just let the insurance companies pretend to insure primarily the healthy (and make a profit) .. while the overall system drags everyone down.

[BigBallinStalin]

[

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.

Because you get jobs from corporations and small businesses, not from unions or poor people. And the reason in your mind the policies only benefit the rich is because only the rich are paying taxes. Everyone else demands their own needs be given to them, like you.

At least you aren't denying the true intent.

But no... trickle down has NEVER worked. Reagan tried it.. though I know you are too young to remember that.

But he was not stupid, by any means. This new crew of "politicians".. very much are.

So Reagan's policies didn't end Carter's stagflation as well as drive the communist USSR to dissolve?

NO. The first was mostly due to Microsoft, et al. The second.. due to various issues, including corruption of the old USSR and some specifics unrelated to Reagan. Gorbochev and Reagan did move at the right time and place, but to the extent it was more than being in the right time and place, its more a credit to Gorbochev than Reagan.

BVP could better weigh in here, but it should be noted that one of the major reasons (if not the most influential) for the USSR's failure was their state's presumption that they could mandate prices efficiently. The surpluses and shortages of goods nation-wide crippled their economy, thus preventing their capability to continue playing the game by their rules.

Afghanistan was a breaking point financially and militarily.

Reagan's contribution was remaining fiercely stiff against the Russians. He wouldn't compromise, and he wouldn't cease agitating them, so in turn, the Russians had to retaliate in kind by continuing with the game. This hastened them along the path of their own destruction. But regardless of the president, the Soviet Union would've eventually fallen--unless of course, they pulled a China 1980s turn toward a market economy. Either way, the primary reasons for the USSR's failure go beyond either major leader's control. Events forced them to make decisions. Gorbachev hastened toward the inevitable end, but had conditions been better for the Soviets, Gorbachev probably wouldn't have been in power, or at least he would have been more inclined to decide for the alternative.

[thegreekdog]

In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

[john9blue]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

Sorry Woodruff, but if you believe the Tea Party was EVER anything but a disguised movement to benefit corporations, you were duped. Look past the rhetoric and into the results.

I'm afraid it is you who has succumbed to the rhetoric, in this particular case.

No, I'm afraid it is you. Ahh, sweet ad hominem.

no u

[BigBallinStalin]

If you're a powerful person, would you be more willing to either increase/retain your power or would you be more willing to decrease it? The results do matter, but it largely depends on how the dominant group values its own power over the interests of others.

It seems that people in power tend to retain/increase their power, which is one of the fundamental reasons why power will be retained within the central government. This explains why public (and even private) education does tend to promote nationalist (or "patriotic") sentiments in its young... Then again, the central government's direct influence on "our" opinions is debatable, but it seems that people naturally have a tendency to supporting a strong, central government. Perhaps, such sentiments are based on the fact that individuals look to their parents for guidance, or look outward for guidance--instead of looking inward or toward their locals. Maybe, such sentiments stem from many people's tendency to believe in a God, or higher authority. I'm not sure, but it's interesting to see the Appeal to Higher Authority in the face of perceived threats or challenges.

[BigBallinStalin]

In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Hey, strong central governments can be trusted! Let's look at the historical record...

Any strong central government needs a strong military to retain its control over its own citizens or over other countries' citizens. Oppression, or instilling fear within one's own people, can be substituted with a very healthy economy with its many benefits from the private sector and from the government, who can in turn demonize the private sector for its own failings. Seems like a viable plan for redirecting the peoples' frustrations while having them appeal to the government for salvation. You know what's better? If the people are largely satisfied, then they don't care what the government does to marginalized groups or to other nations.

Given the above, is it wise to support a strong, central government?

[john9blue]

i think bbs nailed it. strong central governments are prone to corruption no matter who is in charge, because of human nature.

[PLAYER57832]

In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Initially, combining multiple states with diverse interests was necessary and expedient. However, as time progressed, more and more needed to be unified. It culminated with the civil war. We have gone so far past what the "original intent" of the framers was that its essentially irrelevant. Back then, there were no trains, never mind planes and internet. When it took a week to get across some states, you could not expect things to be as united as they are today. Now, the reverse is true. Texas go to California, Maine and Alaska regularly. Plus, we go all over the world and people from all over come here daily.

Add in changes to banking, ideas about people's rights (women and minorities had none at our nation's inception).. and claims to tie us back to the dreams of the founders is restraining, not illuminating.

[PLAYER57832]

i think bbs nailed it. strong central governments are prone to corruption no matter who is in charge, because of human nature.

Power corrupts. breaking up the power just gives more people a chance to corrupt, it does not really change the equation.

The check on our system is not the states, it is the people. But, for that to work, people need information. People are more and more lazy in that regard. We have the internet, but it is even more difficult to weed out good, critical information than before when there was less information available.

[john9blue]

i think bbs nailed it. strong central governments are prone to corruption no matter who is in charge, because of human nature.

Power corrupts. breaking up the power just gives more people a chance to corrupt, it does not really change the equation.

The check on our system is not the states, it is the people. But, for that to work, people need information. People are more and more lazy in that regard. We have the internet, but it is even more difficult to weed out good, critical information than before when there was less information available.

the closer people are to their government, the more likely they are (able) to hold that government accountable for its actions.

plus it more easily allows people to choose the type of government that they prefer, voting with both ballots and feet.

and i reject the idea that people are less informed today than they were before the internet.