The 10th amendment suggests that it is indeed the maximum.
Then let the states be divided, and let the country fall apart. Without a strong federal government, this is what will happen.
Seems like all the bright young things of the Republican party are jumping ship. First Chris Christie and now Jindal. I wonder when Rubio is going to throw the Tea Party under the bus?
What? So even if federal programs do not work, are not based on any Constitutional power, they should be continued because they MIGHT help some people? You have been duped into the thinking that "good intentions" or "importance of an issue" make it into a federal responsibility. In no way do I see one national plan as better than each state trying its own ideas, that is 49 more chances to discover what works well. The biggest drawback to a federal take over is that, like education, when it fails to improve things, but spends much more money, we all suffer both ways yet have no real local/state input to getting anything changed.
Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise
The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America
Media Myth Debunked: Class Sizes Have Dropped 40 Percent Since 1960 | NewsBusters.org
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1679/MR1679.ch3.pdf
rubio is tea party darling so he'll have to throw himself under the bus, too.
I had a thought. Let's say the states run their own education systems. Now let's say, for instance, Kentucky sets it where evolution is not taught at all, and creationism is taught as how everything began. Now let's say that person goes to take a job with some sort of science vocation, out of state, say California. Can that person get said job, when he was taught creationism all his life, while in California they taught evolution? Without the federal government setting some kind of standards, this is something that is likely to happen.
So what? The person can retrain themselves if they want to work in California. What business is it of the federal govt how a parent educates their children?
Perhaps a good example is DOEd, education is not a federal power (check the Constitution), there are no federal schools (except the service academies). The purpose of DOEd is largely, if not entirely, income redistribution (after skimming a bit) and forcing the states to do things that they otherwise would (or may) not do. Once a federal dept., agency or program is started, it grows and assumes much more power (gradually) than it was ever initially intended to have. It gains "supporters" that benefit from it, that support politicians to protect the status quo and add more benefits that they "need".
Another example is the federal Agriculture department, it started as a means to assure that we, as a nation, produce a balanced, safe and steady food supply for internal consumption and export. It has since, morphed into, or evolved to spend 80% of its "budget" simply giving away free food via SNAP. This, of course, did not happen overnight or even "on purpose" yet it is a fact.
I'll address the DOE first. Our public school systems are in the crapper. Whether this is because of federal government involvement, or in spite of it, I don't know. Regardless, something has to be done, and it's obvious the states aren't going to do anything about, maybe because they can't, or maybe because they won't. But if something is wrong amongst a majority of the states, sometimes federal involvement could be seen to be necessary, if only for a time.
As far as the DOA, I think this is somewhat unfortunate that so much is not going to actual agriculture, but this by no means means SNAP is a bad idea. I agree that 80% is too much, so that should be cut back, but I don't think that it should be done away with completely, since the economy is such that there are many people who have to choose between bills and groceries. But, since we do have the food stamp program, the amount of money going to SNAP seems to be a bit much.
Education and demographic awareness is not a bias
The argument for race is true. The bulk of GOP voters, i. e. those in the red states, are bigots.
As for a "nanny state" philosophy, the pro-censorship, bedroom-policing, federal-gay-marriage-ban party has made its identity very clear, and it's not the blue one.
The victimization mentality was found mostly on the right in the 2012 election--it was the poor working class GOP voters who were blaming their government, i. e. Obama for not giving them jobs.
MA consists of mostly educated white males, not angry ones. That's why the state went blue on Nov. 6., and Scott Brown was previously elected not by AWMs but by independents who rightfully recognized that his 2010 opponent Coakley was a sorry excuse for a leader.
The psychology of the AWM, OTOH, was already described in my post in this thread. . .
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...top-being-stupid-party-14.html#post1061161814
The number one reason why Big Government doesn't work is simple. When it is big it is hard to control by the people. The people can't control a big government. Thus making all these multiple departments, and we have no say in what happens now.
Seems like all the bright young things of the Republican party are jumping ship. First Chris Christie and now Jindal. I wonder when Rubio is going to throw the Tea Party under the bus?
Christie and Jindal have just done major damage to their own political careers. Should they run for national office in 4 or 8 years, conservatives will remember what they said this year. Rubio might not be a genius, but he's smart enough not to tick off his conservative supporters.
You are precisely wrong. It's the other way around. The Tea Party is what is dragging the Republican party into irrelevance. Jindal and Christie know that if they want a political career with any staying power they need to get the Tea Party albatross off their backs.
The sad truth is that the majority of GOP voters, who are mostly White poor working class folk, do not want a free market where no one gets handouts, because, after all, they're poor, and all poor people want handouts.
The only different between the lower-middle class GOP voter and a cafe liberal is that the former doesn't like to admit that he wants a handout. Saying he likes a welfare-free government makes him feel proud, but when he gets to the polls, ultimately, his pocketbook will do the talking.
Then the natural questions is: well, if these working-class GOP voters desperately want handouts, why do they keep voting the party that claims to want to deny handouts to the poor?
The reason is that these working-class GOP folk believe that the Dems will take some of the handouts that are supposed to belong to White people like them and give it to Latinos, Blacks, gays, etc. In other words, their fear is that they will lose welfare benefits to people of color.
So, in a nutshell, the right wing--which consists predominantly of uneducated, working class people, is almost just as much for welfare for the poor as the cafe liberals in the Democratic Party. They just want all the welfare checks for them, i. e. White people, as opposed to "minorities."
Creationism is a religious dogma. You can't just 'retrain' yourself out of it. I've been there. It took about six years before I was able to fully expunge myself from Christian dogma. The problem is, is that something like this is not education, it's indoctrination. Now multiply that times however many states would actually pass such a law. Now you have people in the workforce, especially science and technology, who no longer have the critical thinking skills necessary to progress in such fields. A little while later, and America is no longer competitive in such areas. It just goes downhill. See how that doesn't work?
No, but I also dont see why the solution is a huge federal govt. Somehow the world got along for thousands of years without globally standardized education programs enforced with guns.
Enforced with guns? Liberals? Who advocate for stricter gun laws? I don't see how the solution could be anything else. I understand that states should have some rights and some say over what happens, because each state has different needs. But when you have something like this, some kind of standardization is needed, which has to be a job for the federal government. If it was left up to the states to come up with something that everyone could agree on, there would never be an end to the arguing.
but true. Keep trying to hide it. Because it worked during the election.
You are precisely wrong. It's the other way around. The Tea Party is what is dragging the Republican party into irrelevance. Jindal and Christie know that if they want a political career with any staying power they need to get the Tea Party albatross off their backs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?