-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Federalism
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Yep. Good Old Abe Lincoln fatally wounded our once great country and Teddy Roosevelt finished it off. And now the Democrats want a dictatorship of the Liberal Elite. No thanks. That's why I live so close to the border. If they manage to get their dictatorship, I can just walk across the border. 
As a genuine curmudgeon, I would suggest we bring back Jeffersonian democracy, and allow only those to vote who have a vested financial interest in our country (landowners, etc.).
I also think it is high time that we raise the voting age back to 21, and require all voters to have successfully completed a high school government course (particularly when 3/4 of them can't even name the vice president nor find Texas on a map, let alone comprehend how a bill actually becomes law).
Of course the rapture will occur long before any of those items will happen.
I also think it is high time that we raise the voting age back to 21, and require all voters to have successfully completed a high school government course (particularly when 3/4 of them can't even name the vice president nor find Texas on a map, let alone comprehend how a bill actually becomes law).
Of course the rapture will occur long before any of those items will happen.
Check.
Check.
Check (or even 25).
Check.
(But don't hold your breath.)
I think this is right on. It seems to me, that liberals nowadays want only those who come from or blend easily into New York City elites, Los Angeles elites, Washington D.C. elites, or college campuses to have any say, whatsoever. These liberal elites want total say in all spheres of life down to what we read and what we eat.
The problem is the money. States (even conservative states) are dependent on the federal government for a significant amount of funding. I don't think that the states can ever have the authority they were initially given under the current tax scheme. My preference would be for the state to tax its citizens and the federal government tax states (I believe this is closer to direct representation).
I remember when NGB instituted a remote shipping program for the National Guard. I was told our state could decline (it was optional), and after a meeting with the brass this is what we decided to do. The program simply did not make sense for the way our state was laid out (it was designed to prevent long travel to a processing station, but we have three MEPS across the state). When I discussed this again with NGB I was told that would be fine, our state has complete control of these matters. BUT we would lose $5 million in federal funding (which would be divided among the states who participated). I could list dozens of examples like this. The state "has control" but is dependent on the federal government who truly has control because they control the funding.
I remember when NGB instituted a remote shipping program for the National Guard. I was told our state could decline (it was optional), and after a meeting with the brass this is what we decided to do. The program simply did not make sense for the way our state was laid out (it was designed to prevent long travel to a processing station, but we have three MEPS across the state). When I discussed this again with NGB I was told that would be fine, our state has complete control of these matters. BUT we would lose $5 million in federal funding (which would be divided among the states who participated). I could list dozens of examples like this. The state "has control" but is dependent on the federal government who truly has control because they control the funding.
Bureaucracies will grow themselves. They will pass laws defining requirements, and then increase personnel to fulfill those requirements.
As far as landowner requirements, seems like a shot at city slickers to me. Does a corporal living in a barracks in Okinawa have less of a vested interest in the country than a landowner? Would owning stock in an American company fulfill a landowner requirement?
As far as landowner requirements, seems like a shot at city slickers to me. Does a corporal living in a barracks in Okinawa have less of a vested interest in the country than a landowner? Would owning stock in an American company fulfill a landowner requirement?
Jon C - you are absolutely right about the money.
What should happen is that the Feds need to turn most of the govt over to the States / Commonwealths - then reduce the Federal Tax amounts - and let individual States/Commonwealths increase their taxes to spend the way they see fit.
There is NO need for the FEDS to be sending money to the States/Commonwealths.
What should happen is that the Feds need to turn most of the govt over to the States / Commonwealths - then reduce the Federal Tax amounts - and let individual States/Commonwealths increase their taxes to spend the way they see fit.
There is NO need for the FEDS to be sending money to the States/Commonwealths.
And where does the federal government get that money? Oh yes, from the states.
I don't know how that works, but I do know that I am taxed by the federal government as an individual citizen. My primary representation, however, is at a local level. We don't have a state tax here.
What this does is take away the authority the states should have in deciding and implementing state policies by moving what should be a state issue or program to the federal level. This is then funded by taxing citizens and funneling these monies back to the state under federal guidelines. The US Department of Education is one example.
You are a citizen of the state, according to the Constitution. You work in a state. You do not live in the District of Columbia, but you still pay taxes to the District of Columbia. Note the address on the envelope you send your federal tax return to. Mine, even though I am a resident and citizen of Texas, go to Charlotte, NC. Why? I don't live nor work in NC.
The federal government has no source of income except the taxes it levies on the citizens of the individual states.
But you have other taxes - your State Sales tax is 7% - but here in NY it is only 4%. In addition, your food grocries are taxed - where in NY they are not.
So they will get it one way or another.
Not sure if your State has a personal property tax (ie autos, ect)
New York does NOT.
Fully agree - So we send our 1040 to DC to pay someone to send the money right back to the State/Commonwealth.
And I agree that the DOE should be disbanded. Its budget is in excess of 60 Billion dollars.
I know. I just believe this has allowed the federal government to usurp the rights of individual states, and I believe this is not what our founding fathers intended. I believe the purpose of federal government is to represent and protect individual states and the role of the state is to serve the best interests of its citizens. To that end, I believe states should be taxed based on its federal representation and for defense and necessary federal infrastructure. States should tax citizens to maintain state interests.
SheepWhisperer
Active Member
No, they don't want mere "Federalsim"; They want full totalitarian communism.
Yep. Our sales tax is up there. I think of sales taxes differently (they produce income but are not related to citizenship or representation). The best place to live in TN is close to a border state with low sales tax - best of both worlds.
The US Constitution is a federalist document because it as written by the Federalists led by Madison. Jefferson led the Anti-federalists and lost the debate thanks to Madison's Federalist Papers. Thus the US Constitution lays out a Federalist government, but of course Federalism to them meant significant autonomy given to the state and local levels. The anti-federalists also lobbied for the Bill of Rights and won.
Great. The Red states are takers. They receive more money from the Fed government than they contribute. The large rich blue states give handouts to the poor red states. Cut out the handouts and find out what happens to MS, SC, LA, ARK, etc.Jon C - you are absolutely right about the money.
What should happen is that the Feds need to turn most of the govt over to the States / Commonwealths - then reduce the Federal Tax amounts - and let individual States/Commonwealths increase their taxes to spend the way they see fit.
There is NO need for the FEDS to be sending money to the States/Commonwealths.
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?
The WalletHub analysts essentially asked how much each state receives back as a return on its federal income-tax investment. They compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia on three metrics: 1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation.
What the resulting map shows is that the most “dependent states,” as measured by the composite score, are Mississippi and New Mexico, each of which gets back about $3 in federal spending for every dollar they send to the federal treasury in taxes. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind.
If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. This bar chart, made from WalletHub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.
Last edited: