Has This Writer found the source of the US inner conflict?

[Accountable]

washingtonpost.com



Many so-called Everyday Americans who live in the oft-maligned red states essentially are people who live in more-open spaces and, therefore, see little need or benefit for government management of their lives. The frontier may be nearly gone, but the person who prefers wider horizons will have little use for bureaucrats bearing the latest government how-to (or how-not-to) document.



Those who have opted to live in densely populated blue areas need third-party authorities to maintain order and figure they'll trade a little freedom for the convenience and cultural riches of city life.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1335567 wrote: washingtonpost.com



Many so-called Everyday Americans who live in the oft-maligned red states essentially are people who live in more-open spaces and, therefore, see little need or benefit for government management of their lives. The frontier may be nearly gone, but the person who prefers wider horizons will have little use for bureaucrats bearing the latest government how-to (or how-not-to) document.



Those who have opted to live in densely populated blue areas need third-party authorities to maintain order and figure they'll trade a little freedom for the convenience and cultural riches of city life.What I've always found funny was when people argue about how much government has power. The solution is simple, the people from all states are to only be permitted to vote equal in proportion to how much government they want. The only conclusion is a democratic society with which all opposed should leave

[Accountable]

There's the voice of tolerance for ya.

[K.Snyder]

It's a fundamental truth that government is essential in having a tolerable society. When the power resides with individual states and not bound by a united constitution then what we get is war. Taking the power out of government is horrible practice and the only way to preserve peace and equality is having the ability to vote. The vote acts as an illustration of the people's power. Republicans and liberals both are against government because they fear the moral integrity or lack thereof of the collective government. A democracy fears the moral integrity or lack thereof of the individuals who want less government. The former is far less error prone than the latter. Less government just increases a select group's wealth that's all

If the republipukes win office I guarantee a complete and utter melt down of the US. You watch

[Saint_]

Accountable;1335591 wrote: There's the voice of tolerance for ya.


Well, living in the Wild West, (aka New Mexico) I'd say that sentiment is about right. Most people here like things the way they are and believe that things like drunk driving, wearing a pistol on your hip, and hating homosexuals is just their own business and none of yours.

Not me, though, I'm civilized.

[Accountable]

Saint_;1335595 wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder;1335594]It's a fundamental truth that government is essential in having a tolerable society. When the power resides with individual states and not bound by a united constitution then what we get is war. Taking the power out of government is horrible practice and the only way to preserve peace and equality is having the ability to vote. The vote acts as an illustration of the people's power. Republicans and liberals both are against government because they fear the moral integrity or lack thereof of the collective government. A democracy fears the moral integrity or lack thereof of the individuals who want less government. The former is far less error prone than the latter. Less government just increases a select group's wealth that's all

If the republipukes win office I guarantee a complete and utter melt down of the US. You watchWell, living in the Wild West, (aka New Mexico) I'd say that sentiment is about right. Most people here like things the way they are and believe that things like drunk driving, wearing a pistol on your hip, and hating homosexuals is just their own business and none of yours.

Not me, though, I'm civilized.[/QUOTE]Interesting vitriol. So do the two of you hail from cities or small towns?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1335641 wrote: Interesting vitriol. So do the two of you hail from cities or small towns?


Any stretch of land that doesn't see a building within 30 yards of another automatically triggers an association of mine that renders a putrid smell of cow dung and the occasional dead skunk and then I equally start to fear for my life be it from a rusted corn husker or a completely oblivious individual in overalls that's decided sex wasn't his best attribute so he "be deciden to go an shoot me some s***!"

[Accountable]

Wow. I'd always had you pegged as anti-bigotry and more live & let live. I'd never have taken you to be so hate-filled.

[Clodhopper]

Sounds to me as though Kathleen Parker has hit the nail on the head. Certainly seems to sum up the differences of opinion that go on on these boards across the Atlantic pretty well.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1335829 wrote: Wow. I'd always had you pegged as anti-bigotry and more live & let live. I'd never have taken you to be so hate-filled.Really? That post came across as "hate-filled"? Well, I have every right to be nervous when a bible waving republican conservative goes skidding across the room

Our industry is over and our overall economy is soon to follow - All I want to know is at what point did anyone realize that bush hadn't ever given one damn about anything other than his pocketbook. All big business has to do is tickle the sentiment of the religious and BOOM! YouTube - Square Dance - Eminem

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1335899 wrote: Really? That post came across as "hate-filled"?
Hate-filled ... hateful ... how would you describe it?

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;1335844 wrote: Sounds to me as though Kathleen Parker has hit the nail on the head. Certainly seems to sum up the differences of opinion that go on on these boards across the Atlantic pretty well.
Right. I seem to remember a conversation here from a long time ago; someone mentioned that one reason Europeans tolerated more gov't involvement in their lives was because Europe was more densely populated than the US. It's not the only reason, of course, but it does make sense.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1335909 wrote: Hate-filled ... hateful ... how would you describe it?An incredibly compassionate agenda

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336322 wrote: An incredibly compassionate agenda


K, I've admittedly had trouble understanding your writing style in the past, but this is the post in question:

K.Snyder;1335720 wrote: Any stretch of land that doesn't see a building within 30 yards of another automatically triggers an association of mine that renders a putrid smell of cow dung and the occasional dead skunk and then I equally start to fear for my life be it from a rusted corn husker or a completely oblivious individual in overalls that's decided sex wasn't his best attribute so he "be deciden to go an shoot me some s***!"
I fail to see anything compassionate at all in it, and it would take a ton of assumptions to glean any kind of agenda.

It does, however, scream of your bigotry and fear of the unfamiliar, liberally seasoned with a belief in stereotyped perpetuated in the cinema.

eta: but though it does seem to confirm the question I asked in the title, our little side chat doesn't really advance the conversation, so I'd just as soon drop it.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336332 wrote: K, I've admittedly had trouble understanding your writing style in the past, but this is the post in question:

I fail to see anything compassionate at all in it, and it would take a ton of assumptions to glean any kind of agenda.

It does, however, scream of your bigotry and fear of the unfamiliar, liberally seasoned with a belief in stereotyped perpetuated in the cinema.

eta: but though it does seem to confirm the question I asked in the title, our little side chat doesn't really advance the conversation, so I'd just as soon drop it.
I've never understood things like "our little side chat doesn't really advance the conversation, so I'd just as soon drop it" when following things like "I've admittedly had trouble understanding your writing style in the past, but this is the post in question" and the "in question" entirely tying it all together.

Look Acc, I grew up from a long line of Appalachian folk. My ancestors are traced here from before the Revolution. I'm not suggesting that one has to have ancestors to be more American I'm trying to let people know that I can most certainly relate to tradition relative to America. That post I was mostly just speaking tongue in cheek. I thought it was damn hilarious to be quite honest.

Some might do some good to listen to me if they truly cared about "freedom" rather than to see their pride "tarnished" simply because one criticizes this country.

Where the * has anybody been the last 30 years? Since Reagan this country has turned into a damn blood sucking leech farm and middle America was the bait.

THIS COUNTRY IS *ED! We're a damn experiment that has played everyone on strings only to make the top 2% more wealthy. What on God's green Earth is so freakin fortunate about America? Our Health system is trash, our infrastructure is worse, our schools are incredibly sub par(With exception to our Universities but when the top 15% of the honor students there are foreign exchange students just what the hell does that say exactly?) And suddenly people fear "Socialism"? Just what the hell did Capitalism bring exactly? A horribly unfunny attempt at dry humor? You bought that line

Yes capitalism paved the way for a great economy in the 50's

The top 2% was also taxed appropriately that led to the building of our schools, public safety buildings, highways etc etc that is now reduced to rubble because of the blood sucking leeches didn't want the government taking the money necessary in our damn survival. They don't care about you or anybody, and the more you buy in to the idea you can become rich the more you help others to starve it's that freakin simple

Capitalism is fine with me so long as it's regulated by laws that secure the rights of the common worker. I truly wish Roosevelt stayed alive for another few years, and you'll never find another human being more honorable than Jonas Salk.

A free market economy is horrid without regulatory laws. The resources of Earth are to be shared equally, what's so astronomically hard to understand about that?

[Accountable]

My original question was simple and its scope is small. It addresses a fundamental difference of lifestyle between two parts of our society and asks if that difference could be at the root of our disagreement of the amount of government involvement in our lives.

It implied nothing, declared nothing, and opined nothing beyond that scope.

Do you think the writer might have hit on something, or do our fundamental differences spring from another source?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336389 wrote: My original question was simple and its scope is small. It addresses a fundamental difference of lifestyle between two parts of our society and asks if that difference could be at the root of our disagreement of the amount of government involvement in our lives.

It implied nothing, declared nothing, and opined nothing beyond that scope.

Do you think the writer might have hit on something, or do our fundamental differences spring from another source?


I think anyone can make an observation yes.

What she fails to suggest is the incorporation of religious sentiment into politics that have the republipukes by the balls. All of them don't want to be effected by laws because they're not in the area with high crime rates, which is understandable, but when religion enters into politics then none of them are willing to vote outside the circle they've enshrined themselves with and I have a huge problem with that.

republicans have been voted in so the votes have to come from somewhere. I want to know how it's possible to vote for that egghead a second time

"Has This Writer found the source of the US inner conflict?" makes a very insightful statement when compared to what she'd written. With what was written it implies that republicans are the root of the inner problem when they deny common place within more populated areas. To use a phrase the English like to use, It was "spot on" I'd say

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336542 wrote: I think anyone can make an observation yes.

What she fails to suggest is the incorporation of religious sentiment into politics that have the republipukes by the balls. All of them don't want to be effected by laws because they're not in the area with high crime rates, which is understandable, but when religion enters into politics then none of them are willing to vote outside the circle they've enshrined themselves with and I have a huge problem with that. So are you saying that religious people are for less government intervention? I'd have to disagree with that.



K.Snyder wrote: republicans have been voted in so the votes have to come from somewhere. I want to know how it's possible to vote for that egghead a second time I don't know which egghead you're referring to.

K.Snyder wrote: "Has This Writer found the source of the US inner conflict?" makes a very insightful statement when compared to what she'd written. With what was written it implies that republicans are the root of the inner problem when they deny common place within more populated areas. To use a phrase the English like to use, It was "spot on" I'd sayIt's only the root of the inner problem if you identify the inner problem as not having enough government involvement in our lives. For me, a larger problem is that we have too much federal involvement. A city can impose all kinds of restrictive laws and it doesn't affect anyone outside that city. Injecting the same kinds of restrictions nationwide is another story altogether. So from a purely personal perspective her article would imply the opposite of what it implies to me, and so I would also call it "spot on" for exactly the opposite reason.

So it seems she struck a nice balance.

So assuming she really has struck the balance and found the root cause of the disagreement about how much government involvement we should have in our lives, it would seem to me that one solution would be to keep such involvement as close to home as possible. Meaning, involvement should be, from most to least, city, then state, then federal, with federal having the least role in our personal lives. That way, if a person feels that the place she lives doesn't have the right balance of government involvement vs personal liberty (for instance, she doesn't like public smoking) then she has the freedom to move to a place where she would feel more comfortable (a city that has ordinances against public smoking).

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336570 wrote: So are you saying that religious people are for less government intervention? I'd have to disagree with that.



I don't know which egghead you're referring to.

It's only the root of the inner problem if you identify the inner problem as not having enough government involvement in our lives. For me, a larger problem is that we have too much federal involvement. A city can impose all kinds of restrictive laws and it doesn't affect anyone outside that city. Injecting the same kinds of restrictions nationwide is another story altogether. So from a purely personal perspective her article would imply the opposite of what it implies to me, and so I would also call it "spot on" for exactly the opposite reason.

So it seems she struck a nice balance.

So assuming she really has struck the balance and found the root cause of the disagreement about how much government involvement we should have in our lives, it would seem to me that one solution would be to keep such involvement as close to home as possible. Meaning, involvement should be, from most to least, city, then state, then federal, with federal having the least role in our personal lives. That way, if a person feels that the place she lives doesn't have the right balance of government involvement vs personal liberty (for instance, she doesn't like public smoking) then she has the freedom to move to a place where she would feel more comfortable (a city that has ordinances against public smoking).Given the very fact that most of the power stems from cities, to state, to then federal atm and the current economic crisis how then is that paning out? We've a debt of some 13 trillion, our industry is gone, and our infrastructure is melting.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336574 wrote: Given the very fact that most of the power stems from cities, to state, to then federal atm and the current economic crisis how then is that paning out? We've a debt of some 13 trillion, our industry is gone, and our infrastructure is melting.
Ah, but while that's how the power is supposed to flow, the defacto flow is just the opposite. Federal dollars siphoned from taxpayers' pockets flows into state and city coffers, each one attached to a string. It's the opium of the politico . Washington pulls the strings and the states dance like puppets.

There was a time that states and even counties had disparate drinking ages. What happened? Washington pulled the federal highway maintenance strings and presto! Drinking age changes to 21 nationwide, like magic.

That's just one example, and not meant to derail the thread, but state & local governments haven't had real power in decades.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1335567 wrote: washingtonpost.com



Many so-called Everyday Americans who live in the oft-maligned red states essentially are people who live in more-open spaces and, therefore, see little need or benefit for government management of their lives. The frontier may be nearly gone, but the person who prefers wider horizons will have little use for bureaucrats bearing the latest government how-to (or how-not-to) document.



Those who have opted to live in densely populated blue areas need third-party authorities to maintain order and figure they'll trade a little freedom for the convenience and cultural riches of city life.The question is why.

One why is due to the fact that where there are more people there is more of an opportunity to pursue monetary gain and what comes along with that is greed and dishonesty. Also, where there is more population, there is a higher likelihood of exposed dishonesty, so more oversight is the result. Most companies, large and small, do only what is required by law. I think its a mistake to assume rural areas would not benefit by more government oversight, whether it be local, state or federal. Its disingenuous to label oversight as "government management of their lives".

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336771 wrote: Ah, but while that's how the power is supposed to flow, the defacto flow is just the opposite. Federal dollars siphoned from taxpayers' pockets flows into state and city coffers, each one attached to a string. It's the opium of the politico . Washington pulls the strings and the states dance like puppets.

There was a time that states and even counties had disparate drinking ages. What happened? Washington pulled the federal highway maintenance strings and presto! Drinking age changes to 21 nationwide, like magic.

That's just one example, and not meant to derail the thread, but state & local governments haven't had real power in decades.Decades? No one's talking about an authoritarian state. The power is always with the people and the US constitution carries as much weight as the countries level of GDP. A bankrupt capitalist society ruined by corporatism is about 200 years beyond any socialist society because it plunges straight into communism. It's not about central power it's about central law. The former creates it and the latter exercises it, IMMENSELY different

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1336777 wrote: The question is why.

One why is due to the fact that where there are more people there is more of an opportunity to pursue monetary gain and what comes along with that is greed and dishonesty. Also, where there is more population, there is a higher likelihood of exposed dishonesty, so more oversight is the result. Most companies, large and small, do only what is required by law. I think its a mistake to assume rural areas would not benefit by more government oversight, whether it be local, state or federal. Its disingenuous to label oversight as "government management of their lives".
I don't disagree with any of your post, except maybe the last sentence, but can't state & local gov't more effectively provide the oversight you mention better than the federal gov't? And local gov't better than state? It could then be tailored to the local population's needs and tolerance.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336780 wrote: Decades? No one's talking about an authoritarian state.I never implied that anyone was. The federal gov't has been making extra-constitutional demands on state & local governments for decades. It's a simple fact.

K.Snyder wrote: The power is always with the people and the US constitution carries as much weight as the countries level of GDP. A bankrupt capitalist society ruined by corporatism is about 200 years beyond any socialist society because it plunges straight into communism.I'm sorry. These sentence make zero sense to me. My fault, I'm sure. Can you expound, please?

K.Snyder wrote: It's not about central power it's about central law. The former creates it and the latter exercises it, IMMENSELY differentWhat is "it", in this case? Central power creates what that central law exercises?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336783 wrote: I don't disagree with any of your post, except maybe the last sentence, but can't state & local gov't more effectively provide the oversight you mention better than the federal gov't? And local gov't better than state? It could then be tailored to the local population's needs and tolerance.


This article is a bit lengthy but well worth it's weight.

Why would a mayor ever want to be a governor? - War Room - Salon.com

I'll note...



Competition between ambition and principle is nothing new in American politics. But more than any other political transition, the decision to move from mayor to governor involves sacrificing nuts-and-bolts policymaking for an office that, while better resourced and higher profile, is shackled by the competing and often opposed demands of urban, suburban and rural constituents. Mayors are ensnared by a nasty contradiction, the Carcetti dilemma: remain mayor with the mandate but not the resources to improve urban life, or take a shot at the governorship and win the resources but lose the mandate to help cities.


Rendell told me that mayors are handicapped when they run for governor. After almost eight years as governor, he says, there are still people who worry that his policy decisions are designed to benefit Philadelphia to the detriment of other parts of the state.

Rival campaigns often play up such suspicions, peddling the worst stereotypes about urban decline to associate mayor candidates with high crime rates, poorly performing schools and corrupt Big City political machines.

Former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich, a Republican, employed so-called scary city tactics in his 2006 campaign against current Gov. Martin O’Malley, the former Baltimore mayor on whom "The Wire’s" Carcetti is partly based. These ads, researchers at the University of Maryland noted, painted a "bleak picture of O’Malley’s Baltimore as a fenced-in urban nightmare with residents locked on a fixed path from early childhood to a dreary future and possibly even a life of crime."


Oh, let's not forget that oblivious individual in coveralls...In Texas, Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s chief political consultant tried to gin up support for his candidate with a missive that played up the urban pedigree of Bill White, the former Houston mayor who is running against Perry as a Democrat. The e-mail argued that "In this political environment no competitive state will elect a big city trial lawyer, anti gun, sanctuary city promoting, Clinton protégé D.C. politician, let alone a conservative state like Texas." A Democratic consultant who spoke with the Dallas Morning News echoed this line of attack, worrying that Rick Perry would "try to paint Bill White as a sissified urbanite." To ensure that the contrast wasn’t lost on voters, Perry shot a coyote dead with a laser-sighted pistol while out for an early morning jog.


So why do mayors even bother to run for governor?

Blind ambition is a possibility -- but even the precocious Thomas Carcetti was motivated at least in part by a concern for Baltimore and its inhabitants. More likely, says Joel Rogers, it is a matter of cities’ role in American governance. "Legally," Rogers observes, "cities are creatures of states, and state governments often let them know that." Mayors who run for governor are probably concerned that if they don’t, "they’ll always be limited by people who don’t like cities as much as they do."

Cities’ inferior position in American federalism was codified in "Dillon’s Rule," an 1868 decision of Iowa’s Supreme Court that held rather biblically that " breathes into [municipal corporations] the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control." While the extent to which cities can govern themselves varies, Dillon’s Rule essentially put cities at the whim of state legislatures and the governors that wield significant influence over them, a condition that has been exacerbated as cities have come to rely more on state than federal funds.

Without a sympathetic governor, cities can languish. Mayor Rybak, for instance, expresses frustration with Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who he says "is like a lot of cynical politicians in America today who think they can get votes by pitting people against big cities."

Gov. Rendell frames mayors' impotence in terms of resources: "You get tired of not having resources to affect health care, education, and welfare and you just decide you want to have more resources." In the end, he says, "[As governor] I’ve done more for Philadelphia in education -- 10 times more -- than in my eight years as mayor."

The Carcetti dilemma is not simply a lament for a politics that is kinder to mayors. The deeper, and more disturbing, lesson is that our current federal structure hangs cities, the economic and cultural giants that generate the majority of the nation’s economic output, out to dry. Rendell is an exception: Even the most "urbane" of governors -- even those who were mayors -- must fight against state legislatures dominated by rural and suburban interests and against the temptation to cater to suburban values when their urban roots are attacked. The city has no representative at the state level.


The Carcetti dilemma, it turns out, is much less a critique of political ambition than it is one of American governance. Who, indeed, can champion America’s cities if not its mayors?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336784 wrote: I never implied that anyone was. The federal gov't has been making extra-constitutional demands on state & local governments for decades. It's a simple fact.

I'm sorry. These sentence make zero sense to me. My fault, I'm sure. Can you expound, please?

What is "it", in this case? Central power creates what that central law exercises?


The government can take away anything they deem so long as they have the financial backing, and that includes the US constitution. If you think some piece of paper hold trump to that then you're sadly mistaken.

And "it" is in reference to the ideal government. One with law. Laws that keep people straight and not laws enacted by the minority, which by default abuses it's power.

Free market leads to financial power that sways anything and anyone, that simple

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1336783 wrote: I don't disagree with any of your post, except maybe the last sentence, but can't state & local gov't more effectively provide the oversight you mention better than the federal gov't? And local gov't better than state? It could then be tailored to the local population's needs and tolerance.In theory, I think so, however, its also true that its easier to discreetly line the pockets of local officials. I think the idea is to have all governments operating in tandem to make each accountable, or at least transparent, to one another or watchdog organizations. OTOH, corporate infiltration into the federal election system is another problem that has stemmed.

In the drinking age example you offered I could envision officials of local or state governments giving into economic pressures in states where alcohol is made to maintain a younger drinking age with officials thinking they could prohibit their younger family members from drinking alcohol due to health reasons, that is of course until the proverbial ass-bite. My guess is that there are many reasons financial, legal and otherwise why a uniform law would be desirable.

I doubt the authors of the constitution could foresee the degree by which our society has changed since their time or the impact Hamiltonian philosophy has had. Jefferson would be beside himself.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336785 wrote: This article is a bit lengthy but well worth it's weight.

Why would a mayor ever want to be a governor? - War Room - Salon.com

I'll note...

Oh, let's not forget that oblivious individual in coveralls...Most of this supports my point that keeping oversight as local as possible ensures, or at least makes it more likely, that the local population's priorities will be honored. "Without a sympathetic governor, cities can languish." When city oversight is ceded to the state, the city becomes victim to the whims of the governor & state legislature, who has the entire state to consider and may not have the city's best interests in mind. Likewise with small towns and rural areas, whose charm is that they are not cities and don't have all the restrictive rules of cities. The danger of being ignored or over-regulated is even greater when that oversight is passed to (or taken by) Washington. One size does not and cannot fit all.

Financing is a different subject than oversight. It can be argued that helping Pittsburgh is good for all of Pennsylvania and allowing Pittsburgh to fail can destroy suburban and even rural Pennsylvania. But you'd have one heck of a time convincing me that it is vital that Iowa send a portion of its citizens' tax dollars to help fund schools in Atlanta.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336787 wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder;1336780]The power is always with the people and the US constitution carries as much weight as the countries level of GDP. The government can take away anything they deem so long as they have the financial backing, and that includes the US constitution. If you think some piece of paper hold trump to that then you're sadly mistaken. Don't these statements contradict each other?

K.Snyder;1336787 wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder;1336780]It's not about central power it's about central law. The former creates it and the latter exercises it, IMMENSELY differentAnd "it" is in reference to the ideal government. One with law. Laws that keep people straight and not laws enacted by the minority, which by default abuses it's power.
"Central power creates the ideal government, and central law exercises the ideal government."

Okay, now I think I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. You & I disagree on what the ideal government is, and I think that's the point of the article in the OP.

Trying not to put words in your mouth, only to capsulize what I'm seeing: You seem to be saying a central government should run the entire country as if it were a city, with all the services and amenities - and all the corresponding regulations, zoning permits, etc etc. I am saying that decentralized government, with control dispersed and dilluted, allows the cities to place and enforce all the restrictions that cities need when high concentrations of people have to live close together, while allowing rural residents the liberty to paint their houses different colors or build storage sheds without consulting neighbors or paying for permits.

[Accountable]

Mini-vent: I don't like this new method of replying to posts. I want the advanced features w/smilies et all as the default.Ahso!;1336795 wrote: In theory, I think so, however, its also true that its easier to discreetly line the pockets of local officials. [whereas Washington officials use thicker lining & less discretion. ] I think the idea is to have all governments operating in tandem to make each accountable, or at least transparent, to one another or watchdog organizations. OTOH, corporate infiltration into the federal election system is another problem that has stemmed.

In the drinking age example you offered I could envision officials of local or state governments giving into economic pressures in states where alcohol is made to maintain a younger drinking age with officials thinking they could prohibit their younger family members from drinking alcohol due to health reasons, that is of course until the proverbial ass-bite. My guess is that there are many reasons financial, legal and otherwise why a uniform law would be desirable.Agreed (mostly), but reaching down to dictate individual behavior is beyond the Constitutional scope of the federal gov't.

Drinking age, btw, was raised from 18 (legal voting and dying-for-one's-country age) to 21.

Ahso! wrote: I doubt the authors of the constitution could foresee the degree by which our society has changed since their time or the impact Hamiltonian philosophy has had. Jefferson would be beside himself.But they had the wisdom to know that they couldn't foresee it, and put a procedure in place to make adjustments. Still, if the Founders thought the federal gov't unable/unworthy/unwhatever to run things at a local level when there were 13 rural colonies and a few hundred thousand citizens, why would they ever think that it's better suited to micromanage the country today?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1336845 wrote: Drinking age, btw, was raised from 18 (legal voting and dying-for-one's-country age) to 21.So lets raise it all to 21 or even higher so the individual may have time to better reason out their decisions.

Accountable;1336845 wrote: But they had the wisdom to know that they couldn't foresee it, and put a procedure in place to make adjustments. Still, if the Founders thought the federal gov't unable/unworthy/unwhatever to run things at a local level when there were 13 rural colonies and a few hundred thousand citizens, why would they ever think that it's better suited to micromanage the country today?They wouldn't, how could they have fathomed the understanding of human nature and tendencies along with the technology now available? I believe centralized is better given todays conditions and I'd bet many of the founders would agree with that. They were that wise and flexible in their thinking.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1336971 wrote: So lets raise it all to 21 or even higher so the individual may have time to better reason out their decisions.Let's drop it all to 18 for the same reason. Let's do like Japan and put it all, including the age limit to get a driver's license, at 20. Even better, let's allow that you & I are of average intelligence and average wisdom, and let each local area decide for themselves what they wish to do. Barring that, let's let each state make the decision without federal overreach.

Ahso! wrote: They wouldn't, how could they have fathomed the understanding of human nature and tendencies along with the technology now available? I believe centralized is better given todays conditions and I'd bet many of the founders would agree with that. They were that wise and flexible in their thinking.I said they couldn't foresee it. I don't see how you can bet that they'd centralize gov't, given that their first try at a federal gov't system had almost no power, and they only reluctantly delegated a little more when that didn't work. Remember that it was Wilson, not Jefferson, that took the power of the Senate from the state legislatures.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1336843 wrote: Don't these statements contradict each other?



"Central power creates the ideal government, and central law exercises the ideal government."

Okay, now I think I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. You & I disagree on what the ideal government is, and I think that's the point of the article in the OP.

Trying not to put words in your mouth, only to capsulize what I'm seeing: You seem to be saying a central government should run the entire country as if it were a city, with all the services and amenities - and all the corresponding regulations, zoning permits, etc etc. I am saying that decentralized government, with control dispersed and dilluted, allows the cities to place and enforce all the restrictions that cities need when high concentrations of people have to live close together, while allowing rural residents the liberty to paint their houses different colors or build storage sheds without consulting neighbors or paying for permits.I don't strees central government I stress central law that is achieved by populte. Federal government should disburse all taxes equally throughout every city. When this is done each city doesn't have to get shut down by the governors. I'm not suggesting taxing business either. High wealth residential and high wealth dirty industry, namely oil companies. This alone would provide adequate schools, health care, and safety throughout all of the US without having to change one damn thing other than increasing taxes. The republicans since the dawn of politics have been against it and it too shall ruin this country. This country is bankrupt thanks to the freedom you currently preach. How is that good? Evolution? I call it horribly uncompassionate and ignorant.



And to clarify there's no contradiction because I was making the point that people will eventually revolt just that time inbetween can be avoided.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1336996 wrote: I don't strees central government I stress central law that is achieved by populte. Federal government should disburse all taxes equally throughout every city. When this is done each city doesn't have to get shut down by the governors. I'm not suggesting taxing business either. High wealth residential and high wealth dirty industry, namely oil companies. This alone would provide adequate schools, health care, and safety throughout all of the US without having to change one damn thing other than increasing taxes. The republicans since the dawn of politics have been against it and it too shall ruin this country. This country is bankrupt thanks to the freedom you currently preach. How is that good? Evolution? I call it horribly uncompassionate and ignorant. It's sad and a little alarming that a fellow American is against freedom.



K.Snyder;1336996 wrote: Federal government should disburse all taxes equally throughout every city. Okay, let's examine this idea for a moment.

(it'll take me a little time to arrange, because this new system is a huge step backward from the old one when it comes to posting )

What is equal?

• Is it equal dollars to each city? Dollars per capita? Per building? Per service? Per acre?
  
  Will you have a cost of living adjustment for the most expensive cities?
  
  "Equal" sounds like a pretty concrete word, but it means nothing by itself.What is a city?
  • Is it every incorporated area in the state, meaning every town, village, & burg?
    
    If not, what will the cutoff be?
    
    How will you decide where to draw the line between town and city? Population again?
    
    If a city loses people for whatever reason will they also lose their standing as a city, thus federal funds, thereby ensuring mass exodus as the adequate schools, health care, and safety those funds had paid for are eliminated?
    
    If a town gains population, will it suddenly qualify as a city and find itself awash in funds? Wouldn't that encourage crowding?
    
    How about the suburbs? Will they be included in the count, or would they be left to fend for themselves? What strings would be attached to these federal dollars?
    • Would Congress then be free to dictate that every city have X number of museums, schools, fire stations, etc, that any over that number would have to close, and smaller cities would have to spend their funds on new services they have no public demand or interest for?
      
      What if a city needs more money for things such as building renovations & such?
      
      Are they just out of luck?
      
      Will they be required to tear down older buildings, possibly of historic value, to build more economic ones?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1337023 wrote: It's sad and a little alarming that a fellow American is against freedom.



Okay, let's examine this idea for a moment.

(it'll take me a little time to arrange, because this new system is a huge step backward from the old one when it comes to posting )

What is equal?

• Is it equal dollars to each city? Dollars per capita? Per building? Per service? Per acre?
  
  Will you have a cost of living adjustment for the most expensive cities?
  
  "Equal" sounds like a pretty concrete word, but it means nothing by itself.What is a city?
  • Is it every incorporated area in the state, meaning every town, village, & burg?
    
    If not, what will the cutoff be?
    
    How will you decide where to draw the line between town and city? Population again?
    
    If a city loses people for whatever reason will they also lose their standing as a city, thus federal funds, thereby ensuring mass exodus as the adequate schools, health care, and safety those funds had paid for are eliminated?
    
    If a town gains population, will it suddenly qualify as a city and find itself awash in funds? Wouldn't that encourage crowding?
    
    How about the suburbs? Will they be included in the count, or would they be left to fend for themselves? What strings would be attached to these federal dollars?
    • Would Congress then be free to dictate that every city have X number of museums, schools, fire stations, etc, that any over that number would have to close, and smaller cities would have to spend their funds on new services they have no public demand or interest for?
      
      What if a city needs more money for things such as building renovations & such?
      
      Are they just out of luck?
      
      Will they be required to tear down older buildings, possibly of historic value, to build more economic ones?
      
      
      You've the definition of freedom backwards, it's not oppression.
      
      Funds by county would suffice to include all of your concerns. The distribution would come from the county to be disbursed to every household in consideration of the peoples living within.
      
      What makes you think the buildings are being renovated now? We've a horrendous track record for fixing what needs fixed, just look at our bridges, roads, pipelines, (Well I'll stop now because I have things to do today)
      
      Each application will be granted upon the needs of each county.
      
      The natural incentive for governers to perform well enough in the distribution of taxes will be granted further stay in office by default because, well,..who's stupid enough to vote against a governer that provides themselves with adequate schools, health, safety and arts? I can think of a number of individuals...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1337485 wrote: You've the definition of freedom backwards, it's not oppression.I don't see anywhere in the post you quoted where I defined freedom at all. Can you clarify?

K.Snyder wrote: Funds by county would suffice to include all of your concerns. The distribution would come from the county to be disbursed to every household in consideration of the peoples living within.Oh okay. So Los Angeles County, CA, with a population of about 9.8 million will get the same dollar amount as Loving County, TX, evenly dispersed among its 67 people? I know where I'd rather live! :yh_money

Simply changing "city" to "county" answers none of my concerns at all.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1337616 wrote: I don't see anywhere in the post you quoted where I defined freedom at all. Can you clarify?

Oh okay. So Los Angeles County, CA, with a population of about 9.8 million will get the same dollar amount as Loving County, TX, evenly dispersed among its 67 people? I know where I'd rather live! :yh_money

Simply changing "city" to "county" answers none of my concerns at all.


No all one need do is go against my knowledge of freedom enough to be wrong.

And no, I said per household not county. The county is the median in which receives the funds and distributes them from the federal government, who said anything about giving the same amount to each city regardless of population? That's stupid

On that, I'd settle for adequate health care for all individuals in place of the plain disbursement of funds. This thread might turn into something fruitful afterall.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1337867 wrote: No all one need do is go against my knowledge of freedom enough to be wrong.That's very arrogant of you. I don't know why you even bother, then.

K.Snyder;1337867 wrote: And no, I said per household not county. The county is the median in which receives the funds and distributes them from the federal government, who said anything about giving the same amount to each city regardless of population? That's stupidYou did, K.Snyder;1336996 wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder;1337485]Federal government should disburse all taxes equally throughout every city. Funds by county would suffice to include all of your concerns. The distribution would come from the county to be disbursed to every household in consideration of the peoples living within.[/QUOTE]and I agree that it's stupid.

This has become pointless. :yh_bye

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1337927 wrote: That's very arrogant of you. I don't know why you even bother, then.

You did, and I agree that it's stupid.

This has become pointless. :yh_byeYou're not understanding what was written, go back and read it again. The funds would ultimately come from the entire nation and then be channeled into each county to be disbursed to each household. Why are you having trouble with "every household"? I'd clearly said "every household", which is mainly in consideration with the children. "So Los Angeles County, CA, with a population of about 9.8 million will get the same dollar amount as Loving County, TX, evenly dispersed among its 67 people" is what you'd said, I hadn't been within a million miles of anything remotely resembling that statement so why dream it up?

And although I'd say capitalism is pointless it really only serves to tease people into the notion everyone can become rich only for their fall to be harder than had they not been boldly lied to. You bought that line among others and I wish you and yours the very best in the future of a country that reigns supreme in money and power no longer. It's over, and you've "freedom" to thank for it