What's new
By:
Filters

Should the U.S. and Canada get closer?

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).
 
tbh...

canadian-girl.gif
 
PKM said:
Not sure how we could be any closer, tbh.
Click to expand...

It would require inserting part of the U.S. into a part of Canada.

I just don't think we have a peninsula in the right spot.
 
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...

Nope, but you're now on the radar of Homeland Security, the NSA, CIA and Secret Service. I wouldn't use your phone lines anymore: go out and buy yourself a pay-as-you-go.
 
Core4 said:
Nope, but you're now on the radar of Homeland Security, the NSA, CIA and Secret Service. I wouldn't use your phone lines anymore: go out and buy yourself a pay-as-you-go.
Click to expand...

We are all on a list. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.
 
Santas toyshop is the very definition of a sweat shop. Nothing but slave labor. And the dude works one day a year, so much for this "non-profit" model he claims. Sounds like they pay their CEO the same as the United Way does.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Santas toyshop is the very definition of a sweat shop. Nothing but slave labor. And the dude works one day a year, so much for this "non-profit" model he claims. Sounds like they pay their CEO the same as the United Way does.
Click to expand...

Just what I was going to say. A lot of times you make the most money in a non-profit outfit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top