Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[V-Norrec]

Now, as I've been writing this, I keep getting the nagging feeling that I missed something and the whole point of this thread is to say outrageous or otherwise entirely backwards things, and if this is the case then I apologize for missing the joke.

T'was not a joke, though I feel mildly offended that you view all the ideas mentioned so far as outrageous or "backwards".  I should hardly call belief in a small government backwards.  Different than what you believe perhaps, but surely not backwards, merely another model for government.  Nor should the belief in supply-side economics be considered outrageous, it is taught as a credible school of thought in economics. 

Note:  most of the ideas expressed in this thread are not ideas I would personally agree with, but I do not consider them to be "backwards", use of such language should be reserved for things that are truly offensive, such as female circumcision, human sacrifice or slavery.

I would favor greatly reducing the role of Medicaid and Medicare and instead allowing states to set up individual programs per state, so that the most efficient programs will become evident and be adopted by the majority of states.

Nice theory but you just know it wouldn't happen. A centeralized system is probably better, though the implementation of it needs to improve (but hey, if your going to split it up and make 50 new systems, why not just spend the time doing that on improving your federal system!). Other issues (like the school textbook thing) could also be solved by a well managed, you guessed it, federal system!.
But hey, i'm just a evil socalist nazi hippie from downunder.

Seriously, if you guys really want to have all states being so seperate and the like, why don't they just create their own littie countries with a military alliance or somesuch.

The federal system has proven time and again to be inefficient and bogged down with bureaucrats and corruption.  Consider the recent nation-wide health care bill that was passed and the Nebraska Compromise.  Is there truly any reason why Nebraska should be exempt from paying it's Medicaid contributions.  No, what I favor is instead of having the federal government set-up a one-size fits all system, when truly one size does not fit all persons, we allow the states to come up with systems that take care of their own citizenry in a much more efficacious manner, for the states would have much more incentive for rooting out inefficiency and waste than the federal government would for unlike the federal government, the states must maintain balanced budgets.

The grand experiment that is the United States of America, is that we are United by a Federal Government, with State governments underneath it, so that as new ideas as it relates to governing can be tried in one state and if found to be effective, be spread across all the states, but if found to be ineffective, will have a narrow effect on the majority of the population.  In this way we might also provide a home for nearly every ideology, as one state can have an entirely different system for, let us say taxes, than another, and a person can move to whichever state he or she thinks will best fit his or her needs.

Also, no need to self-depreciate, this thread is primarily a thread in which you talk about the ways in which you think the problems facing America should/could be fixed, not a political debate thread.

[Grakelin]

The problem with your theory, V-Norrec, is that culturally-similar nations are not all adopting eachother's policies. Which is why the USA is not already using a centralized medicare system (or visa versa, depending on what you think is better).

[nenjin]

The grand experiment that is the United States of America, is that we are United by a Federal Government, with State governments underneath it, so that as new ideas as it relates to governing can be tried in one state and if found to be effective, be spread across all the states, but if found to be ineffective, will have a narrow effect on the majority of the population.  In this way we might also provide a home for nearly every ideology, as one state can have an entirely different system for, let us say taxes, than another, and a person can move to whichever state he or she thinks will best fit his or her needs.

Except that Americans have proven time and again they're:

a) willing to discriminate against each other
b) willing to exploit each other to and beyond what the law allows for

And you want to encourage states to depart on their own political/social experiments? The Federal government, and yes I'm a democrat, needs to be there and needs to be able to protect the interests of all Americans, even if that means shifting balances when entrenched interests refuse to allow to it. That the federal government can be comprised of all ideologies and political leanings is the equal chance affect how the balance shifts.

Consider the recent nation-wide health care bill that was passed and the Nebraska Compromise.  Is there truly any reason why Nebraska should be exempt from paying it's Medicaid contributions.

Ben Nelson is a shameless promoter of Nebraska and Nebraska only. (I'm a resident.) He's a state's rights fanatic, in addition to being slimy in his political dealings. In a way, he's exactly the kind of promoter of state's interests you say you want.

I'd be ok with smaller federal government, if I honestly believed all Americans, institutions and businesses could and would treat each other fairly. I don't believe that. The last 10 years have taught me not to believe that. I want the federal government there as a mediator, even if it means it sometimes will be run by people who will balance things other than the way I want.

I don't want to live in a "country" where driving across state lines means you'd better have a law book on hand to know the customs so your ass doesn't land in jail for, say, smoking a cigarette in a public place. Blaspheming. Openly expressing physical affection. Being a different race. Being a different sexual orientation. Having a different religion. Ever think about interstate commerce if the federal government decides it doesn't need to get involved anymore?

What truly scares me is that the next entity to take command of America on a national scale would be corporations, not states. Hell, Walmart practically owns Arkansas. As much as the Federal government enables their capture of damn near everything, sometimes I think it's the only thing keeping American from turning into ****ing Shadowrun.

[V-Norrec]

@Grakelin  True, true, but I'm more into theory than execution.  I should contend however that states united under a single federal government are more similar culturally than just about any two nations can be.  That, and the pure diversity of systems that could be found if the states lead the way might prove to be, by it's very nature, better than one federal system.

Nenjin, I feel very much like debating you, but I shall attempt to resist.  Allow me, however, to make two points.

1)  What would prevent state governments from stopping discrimination and exploitation within their borders?  It has been proven in many Supreme Court rulings that Federal Law and the Constitution supersede any State law.  If it happens throughout the country though, that would be classified as a national interest (as is the case with monopolies)

2)  If Ben Nelson was truly a state's rights fanatic, why would sign a national health care law?  It truly restricts the freedoms of the states to police the health insurance policies within their own states and instead forces one system on all states, whether it would be beneficial or a detriment to that state.

[Derekristow]

Seriously, if you guys really want to have all states being so seperate and the like, why don't they just create their own littie countries with a military alliance or somesuch.

We actually already tried that.  That was the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation.  That failed almost immediately due to the fact that the federal government could only get money through donations from the states.  After that we drew up the Constitution.  We've proven before that the country can't function if the states stand on their own, and yet people seem to want to try that again anyways.

I think we need to get a large group of experts from various relevant fields and give them 10-15 years to redesign the government from the ground up.  Not change laws, and not eliminate highly public positions, but just sort out all of the bureaucracy.  Eliminate useless worker positions.  The time buffer is to make sure they do a good job of it, and to let the economy accommodate for the incoming influx of workers.  That's probably overshooting the ideal a bit, bit the time isn't important.  Ideally we would come out of it with a far more efficient, but mostly the same government.  Won't really solve the on-topic problem though.

[Aqizzar]

I think we need to get a large group of experts from various relevant fields and give them 10-15 years to redesign the government from the ground up.  Not change laws, and not eliminate highly public positions, but just sort out all of the bureaucracy.  Eliminate useless worker positions.  The time buffer is to make sure they do a good job of it, and to let the economy accommodate for the incoming influx of workers.

Well, that hit my tipping point.  There are no useless government workers.  There is barely a bureaucracy.  The IRS employs more people than any agency other than the military, and you can't deny they need it.  Part of the reason why the government appears inefficient and is bleeding out so much money is because so many government functions have been farmed out to contractors, who come and go like the wind.

Your blue-ribbon-revolution idea is hopelessly unfeasible for the same reason the Healthcare bill and the current tax fight are such shitstorms - The government makes panels for expert suggestions all the time.  They never listen to them, because every expert recommendation ultimately includes a some cut or bite that is absolutely unacceptable to every single Congressman's home district.  So getting any such radical change through the legislature requires genuinely radical times.  And 10-15 years is equally pointless, both because they could easily come up with a perfectly good resolution in about six months, and because any panel that took that long to reach an answer would be completely forgotten about by the time they emerge.

[Derekristow]

I kind of figured it was one of those balls-to-the-wall insane ideas anyways, thanks for providing why.

[MrGimp]

As all of you, and the world, know, America is essentially a shell of it's once great-and-glorious self.

I just wanted to respond to this part of the OPs post.  When exactly was America a 'great and glorious self'?  Was it when corporations rebelled against import taxes and founded the country based on 'wealth determines status' not 'status determines wealth' as in Britain?  Was it when we enslaved 5 generations of human beings (AFTER the revolutionary war) simply for being black?  Was it when we pushed the Indians into genocidal concentration camp reservations, over and over, moving the dwindling populations onto smaller and more desolate lands each and every time?  Was it when we colonized Texas out from under Mexico, then nearly annexed the entire country in the Mexican-American war?  Was it when we unconstitutionally took away every states right to secede, and saddled them under an Imperial Federal system?  Was it when we declared war on spain over made up charges of terrorism now proven false?  Was it when we colonized the Phillipines and spent 15 years breaking the backs of the freedom fighters?  Was it when we fought on the side of three empires in two world wars?  Was it when we nuked Japan?  Was it when we invaded Vietnam and then bombed the allied south more than we bombed the enemy north?

When was this period of egalitarian democracy and human rights that many people always talk about when they talk about the 'good ole days'?  I dont remember any period in history like that at all.

As sad as it is, this IS the more egalitarian age.  Thank your lucky stars.

[sneakey pete]

Also, no need to self-depreciate, this thread is primarily a thread in which you talk about the ways in which you think the problems facing America should/could be fixed, not a political debate thread.

It was a reference to this

[PenguinOverlord]

America was awesome in the 1800's, though it was also corrupt, among other things. 

[MrGimp]

Yes the 'Age of Compromise' in the early 1800s does stand out as an era of somewhat better governance.  They were compromising on the issue of slavery, however, and the vote was still restricted to less than a quarter of the population.  I think the reason the ruling factions were even willing to compromise and work together was simply that the government was weak.  It simply couldnt act in a heavy handed manner, even if it wanted to.  I think that is an important key to getting better governance from your leaders.  They cant be allowed to become orders of magnitude more powerful than the people.  (Its far too late for that I know)

Also, another simple solution for bettering the lives of people without expensive, wasteful, bloated national programs: Tie minimum wage to inflation.  DERP!

Honestly, the solutions are all there, many of them are easy and so obvious....but without a gun to their head, no government would ever do something it didnt want to do.  Its not in a governments interest to diffuse wealth (and therefore power) among the people.  The government has an interest to hold onto power (and therefore wealth) as long as it can, and indeed to monopolize it if it can, and to spend money (exerting power) when it benefits the government, or the people who fund the government.  This goes beyond America or Europe...it goes beyond commie or nazi, or socialist or democrat.  Its just the way human societies organize themselves (apparently).  I know of no time in the vast reaches of history where it has ever played out differently....and in harshest truth, it was much worse in the past.  We really live in a golden age, even with all the corruption and horror.

[AntiAntiMatter]

[leftist rant on the stupidity/insanity of Republicans and how the Tea Party has the potential to become the next Nazi Party]

[Sowelu]

Yeah about that "responsible" thing...

[sonerohi]

The opinions voiced by AntiAntiMatter should reveal some things. The fact that our populace hates that strongly on each other, and we are effectively fighting a civil civil war is going to wreck us. Not health care, not military spending, not big corporations and global warming. The fact that we fucking hate all of America that isn't our particular slice of America. Diversity is great and all, but we've so pursued diversity as to rid ourselves of any unity.

[AntiAntiMatter]

The opinions voiced by AntiAntiMatter should reveal some things. The fact that our populace hates that strongly on each other, and we are effectively fighting a civil civil war is going to wreck us. Not health care, not military spending, not big corporations and global warming. The fact that we fucking hate all of America that isn't our particular slice of America. Diversity is great and all, but we've so pursued diversity as to rid ourselves of any unity.

I am a bit embarrassed, but your point is very good. I must agree. Of course, we are going to have that problem no matter what, but democracy and freedom of speech makes it very obvious.