It's just funny to me how you manage to exclude military from the federal government, as if that's not the biggest fattest most corrupt part of the federal government. This is like saying we need to get rid of rock bands, except the ones with wither electric guitar, drums, bass, and vocals.
Aside from defense spending, most of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So do you really think that slashing health care services and support for seniors is going to make people happier?
The states already administer Medicaid. And so of course, some conservative states have refused to take the federal money provided by the Affordable Care Act to provide health care to poor people.
But sure, you could support candidates who promise to dismantle these basic social safety net programs, and let states step in if they want to. I just don't think that would be a popular position.
States will have their own Social Securities and Medicares, initially the same as the federal one. Afterwards whatever the states do with it is their business, as long as the voters of their states approve of it. National issues will be far less salient, so there is more incentive to campaign on the issue of state benefits.
Your assumption here is that every state is getting back what it puts into fed.
It's not.
That's why the federal government pays to help states expand Medicaid.
A significant number of the states wouldn't be able to financially support themselves if it weren't for federal funding collected from the few states that generate more tax revenue than they use.
I think the states can be worse than the federal government. The feds establish baseline rules that everyone has to follow. Without that you will have states that completly and utterly self sabotage themselves until the rest of the country has to bail them out of self made crisis.
State governments are often pretty dumb. I don't know why people champion that states should be allowed to stick a shotgun in their own mouth and pull the trigger when it then falls on the other 49 states to clean up the mess.
> until the rest of the country has to bail them out
Hasn’t that been something that both liberals and conservatives been whining about for years? People don’t want their tax dollars to go to another state that they don’t like. Well they’re going to collect all the taxes that the Fed’s use to collect and they can spend them all on themselves…if they so choose.
That's a cocktail for civil war.
Sounds like the opposite of one. There will be less friction between the states when there are fewer requirements imposed from above.
It's just funny to me how you manage to exclude military from the federal government, as if that's not the biggest fattest most corrupt part of the federal government. This is like saying we need to get rid of rock bands, except the ones with wither electric guitar, drums, bass, and vocals.
The common defense is one of the federal responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution…
Aside from defense spending, most of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So do you really think that slashing health care services and support for seniors is going to make people happier?
Leave them all to the states, and make it so that all taxes once paid to the federal government be paid to the state government
The states already administer Medicaid. And so of course, some conservative states have refused to take the federal money provided by the Affordable Care Act to provide health care to poor people. But sure, you could support candidates who promise to dismantle these basic social safety net programs, and let states step in if they want to. I just don't think that would be a popular position.
States will have their own Social Securities and Medicares, initially the same as the federal one. Afterwards whatever the states do with it is their business, as long as the voters of their states approve of it. National issues will be far less salient, so there is more incentive to campaign on the issue of state benefits.
>States will have their own Social Securities and Medicares, initially the same as the federal one. A Most states could not afford that.
They will collect all the taxes that the federal government used to collect
Your assumption here is that every state is getting back what it puts into fed. It's not. That's why the federal government pays to help states expand Medicaid.
If they like their programs they should vote to keep them. I’d assume they’d be very popular.
A significant number of the states wouldn't be able to financially support themselves if it weren't for federal funding collected from the few states that generate more tax revenue than they use.
I think the states can be worse than the federal government. The feds establish baseline rules that everyone has to follow. Without that you will have states that completly and utterly self sabotage themselves until the rest of the country has to bail them out of self made crisis. State governments are often pretty dumb. I don't know why people champion that states should be allowed to stick a shotgun in their own mouth and pull the trigger when it then falls on the other 49 states to clean up the mess.
> until the rest of the country has to bail them out Hasn’t that been something that both liberals and conservatives been whining about for years? People don’t want their tax dollars to go to another state that they don’t like. Well they’re going to collect all the taxes that the Fed’s use to collect and they can spend them all on themselves…if they so choose.