What's new
By:

Should the U.S. and Canada get closer?

To duck's point, I think this would only work as a full integration, with Canada more or less being absorbed into the US. The overall entity would be the United States of America, with the Canadian provinces more or less being the 51st through 60th states, or whatever the number would need to be. I can see huge hurdles in terms of representative government, health care, the electorate, infrastructure, government spending, debt and obligations, etc. In some ways it would be like a merger of 2 gigantic companies, but the scope would be unprecedented.
 
No need for a union, we'll be declaring war on Canada some time in the latter half of this century when the world's fresh water supply dwindles down to zero - followed by an indefinite occupation.

Quite frankly I think we'll be greeted as liberators.
 
To duck's point, I think this would only work as a full integration, with Canada more or less being absorbed into the US. The overall entity would be the United States of America, with the Canadian provinces more or less being the 51st through 60th states, or whatever the number would need to be.
Click to expand...


59 states - something tells me Quebec ain't gonna go for this.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To duck's point, I think this would only work as a full integration, with Canada more or less being absorbed into the US. The overall entity would be the United States of America, with the Canadian provinces more or less being the 51st through 60th states, or whatever the number would need to be. I can see huge hurdles in terms of representative government, health care, the electorate, infrastructure, government spending, debt and obligations, etc. In some ways it would be like a merger of 2 gigantic companies, but the scope would be unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the scenario the EU would actually work under too but it would never be what it was sold as being in the first place. It would just be a giant country with a screwed up political system. A uniform entity, hellbent on destroying specific countries' distinctive traits. And that's probably want Brussels wants. People don't want it in totality though at the moment so you have to start them out with things they like, such as making it easier for them to travel/work in other countries and throw a bunch of cow **** government that they don't need on top of that until it's too much to handle and then go with the final solution.
 
As far as representation, wouldn't the best thing to do be go back to the united STATES of america? If we limited federal government power, gave power back to the states, wouldn't that fix the representation problem?

Am I completely oversimplifying this, but if we limited federal government to a 10% tax, and made them balance their budget, and everything they couldn't pay for, they turned over to the states to run. Then, if you wanted to move to Mass, have an 80% state income tax, but had health care, retirement, free food, etc, you could. And if you wanted to move to Wyoming, and have no income tax, but no benefits, rotten roads, etc, then you could.

The federal government would cover military and roads. Maybe one or two other things. I don't feel they should be involved in local police, health care (because what works in Mass might not work in Wyoming), schooling and 90% of the other stuff they are involved in. Let the people decide what is best for them.

Am I crazy?
 
LogGrad98 said:
Can I get closer one Canadian at a time?

4746521_f520.jpg
Click to expand...

LogGrad98 said:
4751720_f520.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks log!
 
This must be a new way of calling for annexation.


See they are already border neighbors. So if they come more closer, then they will become one.
 
green said:
As far as representation, wouldn't the best thing to do be go back to the united STATES of america? If we limited federal government power, gave power back to the states, wouldn't that fix the representation problem?

Am I completely oversimplifying this, but if we limited federal government to a 10% tax, and made them balance their budget, and everything they couldn't pay for, they turned over to the states to run. Then, if you wanted to move to Mass, have an 80% state income tax, but had health care, retirement, free food, etc, you could. And if you wanted to move to Wyoming, and have no income tax, but no benefits, rotten roads, etc, then you could.

The federal government would cover military and roads. Maybe one or two other things. I don't feel they should be involved in local police, health care (because what works in Mass might not work in Wyoming), schooling and 90% of the other stuff they are involved in. Let the people decide what is best for them.

Am I crazy?
Click to expand...

1) The Senate was essentially a compromise between Large(in terms of area) slave states and Large(in terms of population) northern states. The other 35 continental states were created based largely on how they would effect the Senate and little else. Their borders often do not coincide with important geographic features that they should have. The most important example would be water sheds. A state cannot manage these watersheds because a single water shed is often within the borders of multiple states. So the final decision often comes down to people that not only are unfamiliar with the situation but that have no real vested interest in the outcome.

2) States like Wyoming simply do not have a large enough population to support all the services that we would expect from our government without it being an enormous burden. Economies of scale kinda ****.

3) We would still be grossly under represented at the federal level and the federal budget would still be ridiculously massive.
The Defense budget alone was over $660,000,000,000(660 billion). Remember that does not include the state department, department of the treasury, etc. So even if we handed the responsibilities of many federal programs over to states that many would likely not be able to effectively run, we would still likely end up with a 1 trillion dollar plus federal budget in the hands of 538 individuals(435 coming from gerrymandered districts and nearly 70 coming from states whose borders are remnants of a century old slave dispute).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top