Shouldn't States Rights bring us together?

lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
If we limit the Federal Government to their duties outlined in the constitution and allow for States to make decisions on their own, we could stop bickering at one another and live in our desired area. Liberal states could have lots of social welfare programs, environmental protection regulations, etc.... Conservative states could have low taxes, less laws, etc... It would allow for free competition among state governments and we could finally hash out the best policies. Citizens would have more control, as the government is closer to the people, and they could create laws that are more suitable for their communities. Instead of having federally funded food assistance for example, why not let the states create their own welfare programs? What is so frightening about this?
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
If we limit the Federal Government to their duties outlined in the constitution and allow for States to make decisions on their own, we could stop bickering at one another and live in our desired area. Liberal states could have lots of social welfare programs, environmental protection regulations, etc.... Conservative states could have low taxes, less laws, etc... It would allow for free competition among state governments and we could finally hash out the best policies. Citizens would have more control, as the government is closer to the people, and they could create laws that are more suitable for their communities. Instead of having federally funded food assistance for example, why not let the states create their own welfare programs? What is so frightening about this?
Click to expand...
So what strain is it that you are smoking tonight?
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Seriously I agree with you for what it is worth. And it is worth so much conversation at a party and that's about it. Not asking how old you are but I am old. I have seen it all and been lied to about most of it. So let's consider one thing you have said and that is establishment by individual states to cover, for lack of a better term or thousands of them, "welfare". OK we know states will be forced to establish like systems to prevent the wanton from fleeing to Paradise. Now the states already administer welfare if you do not know that. They use funds given them by a formula and these mionies are used to pay benefits to recipiebnts in each state. Conversely the funding for said welfare is also dereived mainly from federal taxes or funds derived from trusts etc.

Taxes - who is going to pay them? How much is fair? Here's where the wicket gets sticky. Some state will be the first to offer tax breaks for some class of people or businesses. You know - "Buy a house for $2,000,000 and we will give you a property tax break for X number of years" and that is a given with many businesses already.

Then the benefits get cut in the states that lose their sugar daddies (us) to other states where it's cheaper to live. Edit:. Never one to leave things to chance let me say here - I say that about benefits because those who need/want/steal them will go where they are better and the cycle starts al over again. See "California".

See my point? The sad fact is having to even have any system. It is sad there is a need. How many families do not truly support their own? Uncle Wanky is laid off? Help him out without him having to ask. Your neighbor got hurt in an accident that isn't work related so no workers comp. Maybe unemployment but medical? Help them out. In any way they would spend or need real money then help them out.

And, yes, I live this and have always.
 
Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
"If we limit the Federal Government"

In order to do this the states would have to declare war on the federal government, whether it be an actual war with guns and bombs or a political war with motions, debates and hearings. An actual civil type war is national suicide, a political war is impossible except maybe for a few states that actually have a good number of politicians with balls big enough and a large enough libertarian population to support them, then maybe some fed power could be tamed, but I know of not one state that fits this prerequisite. I love the idea. I think this would also be a great idea for some type of survivor reality show, even though I hate reality shows, but the only way the federal government would relinquish any power is under very dire circumstances such as world war, a total financial collapse or similar type of circumstance/s.

Your actual question, shouldn't states rights bring us together? If you mean would a nation that allows states more power over federal, would that bring the same types of folks together state by state or region by region? Absolutely. That sounds like a free country there, unfortunately it's not realistic.

On a side note, anyone see the Red Dawn remake? Is that a piece of crap or what? They should of just made a Red Dawn parody film with Sheen.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
Seriously I agree with you for what it is worth. And it is worth so much conversation at a party and that's about it. Not asking how old you are but I am old. I have seen it all and been lied to about most of it. So let's consider one thing you have said and that is establishment by individual states to cover, for lack of a better term or thousands of them, "welfare". OK we know states will be forced to establish like systems to prevent the wanton from fleeing to Paradise. Now the states already administer welfare if you do not know that. They use funds given them by a formula and these mionies are used to pay benefits to recipiebnts in each state. Conversely the funding for said welfare is also dereived mainly from federal taxes or funds derived from trusts etc.

Taxes - who is going to pay them? How much is fair? Here's where the wicket gets sticky. Some state will be the first to offer tax breaks for some class of people or businesses. You know - "Buy a house for $2,000,000 and we will give you a property tax break for X number of years" and that is a given with many businesses already.

Then the benefits get cut in the states that lose their sugar daddies (us) to other states where it's cheaper to live. Edit:. Never one to leave things to chance let me say here - I say that about benefits because those who need/want/steal them will go where they are better and the cycle starts al over again. See "California".

See my point? The sad fact is having to even have any system. It is sad there is a need. How many families do not truly support their own? Uncle Wanky is laid off? Help him out without him having to ask. Your neighbor got hurt in an accident that isn't work related so no workers comp. Maybe unemployment but medical? Help them out. In any way they would spend or need real money then help them out.

And, yes, I live this and have always.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point. I think though that you see absolute perfect mobility. People don't move from their state generally on the whim for a tax break or a food stamp raise. Sure some will if the benefits are extreme, but these problems could be worked out in time, finding the best systems to implement. I view the states as they are, communities with people of different values. In the south, for the most part, they would want less government. Why not let the people choose what type of government that they want? People are geographically different in their views, why not let them create a more desirable government for their communities culture?
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah I forgot.... states rights equals segregation.

How many people here would go to a restaurant that segregated?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
Oh yeah I forgot.... states rights equals segregation.

How many people here would go to a restaurant that segregated?
Click to expand...
they had no problem keeping their doors open.

considering that alabama just voted 60-40 to keep segregation and poll taxes in their constitution, something tells me that not a whole lot has changed.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
they had no problem keeping their doors open.

considering that alabama just voted 60-40 to keep segregation and poll taxes in their constitution, something tells me that not a whole lot has changed.
Click to expand...
I called the Governor of Alabama to discuss it..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top