What negatives are there if the states run themselves?
sort by best latest
If the federal government was shut down, would the states be forced into funding military items(jets/tanks)? Could the states do everything that the federal government is doing (all the things mentioned) if forced to budget their money accordingly?
That's a wonderful program, but could it be provided by the states?
I honestly don't think our state could afford it. I don't really know if they would continue it if the federal funding ceased.
Our local church provides this same program for our city without any federal funding. It is capable of providing this through the generosity of many folks who are forced to give too much money to the government to support failed programs.
You hit the nail on the head, Landmark. It's all about show. Not much if any of the wasteful spending is being cut.
So what are you saying, you're opposed to the gov't spending millions of dollars to fund a study on how to train prostitutes in China to drink responsibility while working.LOL,That was actually a program. They must be hysterical when they drafted it
It doesn't matter to them because it's our money being spent, not theirs.
From the few dealings I have had with congressman, they certainly don't care. It's really just a joke to them. I have dealt with local politicians as well, and I thinks they're even worse.
Originally we had no Federal Gov't. The states were separate & sovereign. Discussions were happening in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and we also had the 14th Amendment, please read that. All of that details reasonzz...
Military protection comes from the consolidated Guard and Reserve units just like it does today. Gov would not eliminate this ready reserve and always utilizes it when confronted with conflict. Besides, the military is a mandatory expense under law