Do you believe that a strong ,central federal government is positively a must !
After all wouldn't there would be fifty different forms of policies in state government ! I believe a federal government must be the authorative leader in this country . How about you ?
Tough question to say the least. Like with anything there are pros and cons to both sides.
I can best equate this to the Corporate Office of some large franchise chains. Some have basic guidelines for their franchisees, and the individual owners have flexibility and latitude in how they run their own operation. Others draw a hard line and force the individual franchise owners to comply with every Corporate rule and regulation with no wiggle room at all for the owners.
In some cases, geographical differences and customer preferences play a huge role in the success or failure of each and every individual franchisee's business. A hard line Corporate Office who allows no flexibility can cause a individual franchise to fail.
To some degree, this scenario applies to individual states. Most states differ in many ways, and while there are a few "one size fits all" laws that may apply, each state needs some flexibility and control over what is best for their particular state.
If the goal is a statist society, then strong, central government is a must. If the goal is liberty for the people, then strong, central government is infeasible. The two are fundamentally incompatible, so you cannot have it both ways.
Well said. Sadly, however, a large group of people seem to be readily willing to forgo liberty for the "security" which they associate with unabashed statism.
you both are quite amusing. Your logic is skewed and quite illogical. teaparty mentality thinking
a strong central government is essential to ensuring equality to everyone, as is a strong military to protect the country.
But it is only as strong as the weakest person in congress. There should be laws that dictate what is best for every person, not just those who have the money to pay for what they want.
The state governments should NEVER be allowed to pass ANY laws that are not appropriate for every American citizen in every other state. This opens the door to chaos and discrimination in its worst forms, as we see going on today in those states that are impinging personal values and moral judgements on the people, by the bigots in charge of those states.
It is the only protection against the likes of Corporate American greed that is out of control - unless of course we have congressmen who are part of that greed infestation. It is essential to the protection of personal rights, personal freedoms, and keeping religion out of politics.
Unfortunately our government in the U.S. has lost its sense of direction and decency and kowtows to those with the biggest bank accounts instead of the mass population.
Yes, your last statement completely argues against everything else you have said. There is no way the government will reclaim a "sense of direction and decency" if it is the people's only source of authority.
The people have to speak up. Trust me you can have corruption and a lack of decency and surrender to the rich at the local level. I have seen it.
A must for what? To stifle individualism? To promote communal reliance? To squander talent? To relegate initiative to the rank of unimportance?
The founders of the United States, even those who would become Federalists and did advocate some degree of centralized powers, feared an overwhelmingly strong and authoritative central government.
A centralized central government in the United States would violate its traditions and the precepts its founding. So too would it ignore the lessons of history and the requisites for true freedom.
If anything, the United States federal government is now too large and too encroaching. Returning the federal scope of government to those express powers given to it in the Constitution and a limited number of implied powers which can prudently be deemed as necessary is what is needed; NOT a centralized authoritative power.
spoken like a true teaparty member.Anarchy is not the answer, nor is individual states fighting each other. we need uniformity without judgmentalism. Ur descriptions are not very realistic,logical,or informed.
Your own words, "we need uniformity," clearly reveal your position, which by the way is unrealistic, illogical and uninformed. Can you cite a successful "uniform" society? Oh, yes, I forgot, a little Austrian tried to establish one in Germany.
there R no perfect governments. But democracy is the best we can hope 4. fractionalizing the states is no solution. can U offer a better one? Uniformity in basic equality is not what U R talking about. I am.
What you're talking about is authoritarianism, which in the whole long, dark, bloody history of mankind has never once resulted in equality.
attikos.as usual U manage to rewrite what some says in a way that is so far out to lunch it is amusing.
I'd suggest going out to buy a mirror, d.william, but it'd be a waste of otherwise perfectly good bytes.
atti: again, attacking is not offering solutions, but you are great at criticizing without rationality. Maybe i misinterpret debate as constructive instead of bashing?
On second thought, getting that mirror might be a good idea.
I would believe in a strong central government if the citizens were in charge of it but presently we are a plutocracy worldwide ran by corporations and special interest who are strengthening their form of government minute by minute. This week with 90% of people polled wanting background checks yet congress votes it down it's easy to see who rules the roost in America.
During the 60's we had a strong central government with high taxes and strong unions and there was less poverty than today. Reagen deregulated way too much,weakened the unions and here we are today; high unemployment and record federal deficits with states starved for money.Infrastructure in serious trouble and less funding for what our future requires,scientific research. Scientific research to figure out how were going to solve and clean up this horrendous pollution problem that's warming up the planet,ruining our soil,water and future way of life. Scientific research to figure out how we can survive in an agrarian society once we stop manufacturing toys.Not just children's toys,adult toys also that waste vital materials and create pollution.
No. Our country is too vast and diverse to deal with the needs of every locality with a national approach.
If a citizen in a small town want to have a say in how things are done-- the people in Washington DC will never hear him, but the local school board will listen and act on the wishes of a community. Political action that accomplishes anything is local.
An all powerful central government would never have to listen to minority opinions. Dispersing the political power keeps thing more balanced.
Many states, including my own state of Louisiana, has proved they are incapable of providing the leadership and resources that are needed.
If we did not have a central government regulating offshore oil exploration, the importation and exportation of certain items, providing for some type of universal health care for the elderly, providing a military that is second to none and providing a system where contracts entered into one state must be honored in another state. Some of the poor states, those lacking in popularion, or adequate natural resources would be worse off. If we did not have a strong central government we might still have slavery in some states, different child labor laws and probably a toll both at every entry point to every state. We are the United States. The Articles of Confederation tried a system that did not provide for a strong central government and it failed. Does out system need adjusting and refocusing absolutely--but having just signed up to receive Social Security in a few months when I turn 62, I would hate to depend on a state that has unfunded liability in its retirement system for state workers and teachers.
There are pros and cons for an all powerful central government. On one side, they can get things done with a minimum of outside interference. Quick decisions, massive reforms, rapid growth et cetera. These are all fairly positive.
On the other side, they can run rough-shod over anyone who looks like standing in their way. Like knocking down a thousand homes to build a new highway or railway or flooding a valley for a new dam site.
Would you like to live in Communist China or North Korea? I think they have all powerfull central governments...
To say nothing of the historical fact that the centralization of command and control societies has always led to destructive unanticipated consequences because the blunders are bigger ...
central government does not only equate with china/n.Korea? Central Governments 'by the people-for the people' is not the same as your examples. Fear mongering offers no solutions
No, before 1913 Senators were appointed by the states, giving power to the people in the House and power to the states in the Senate. That is the way our Founding Fathers set things up, so the Federal Government would not be stronger than the people or the states.
The passage of the 16th Amendment instituted income taxes.
The passage of the 17th Amendment gave us a more centralized government, this has been to the detriment of the people and the states.
Before 1913 we had no federal taxes, since then well over 100 new taxes have been instituted and the federal government is spending a trillion dollars more than it brings in every year.
I think we need to repeal the 16th & 17th Amendment and put the power back into the hands of the states. The states can then rein in Federal spending, by what they allocate to the federal government.
The United States of America is a Republic, it was never intended to be a Democracy ran by popular vote. The Constitution was deliberately set up that way to prevent what we have today.
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
Do Conservatives believe in a United States or a united States of America?The Declaration of Independance refers to the united States while the Constitution uses the phrase United States, with a capital 'U'. The Ariticles of Confederation and the Continental Congress epitomize a united States...
by Peeples 5 years ago
What are the positives of allowing individual states more control?I find it kind of weird that we are the "United States" yet the goal seems to be independent states making their own laws which can contradict other states. What are the positives of allowing states to have the ability to...
by egiv 11 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
by Peeples 8 years ago
What are the negatives of shutting down the federal government?What negatives are there if the states run themselves?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the...
by tbHistorian 7 years ago
The Georgia state legislature passed a measure calling for a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution. This would establish a Continental Congress composed of citizens that would work to achieve solidarity for amendments to the Constitution to restore the power to the people. ...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|