[quote=“finley, post:21, topic:158317, full:true”]
[quote=“jotham, post:19, topic:158317, full:true”]
Really, this is much more appropriately left to the states than the federal government.[/quote]
In theory yes. In some cases. However, “thou shalt not fuck up other people’s water supply” is just a variant on “thou shalt not steal”, and funnily enough that one works fine when handed down from on high.
Anyway, corruption and mismanagement thrives at state level just as readily as at federal level. Possibly more so.[/quote]
Corruption may thrive at the state level, but where it exists, the effects are limited only to that state, which is another reason why local is better. A corrupt president, (or Congress) on the other hand, is something that effects us all. And I happen to think corruption is less likely on the state level, because you have less power and less money than the federal government, so less lobbying efforts. (Actually lobbying wasn’t such a problem in the Senate when it was constituted as the Founders envisioned, as the voice of the States, whose legislatures sent two representatives. Such representatives would have to vote the will of the state (instructions were sent to them how to vote) and not be influenced by lobbyists.
That’s third-world reasoning. You genuinely believe a State the size of Ireland would be unable to provide jobs if it didn’t allow large companies to misappropriate public resources (ie., pollute)?[/quote]
I’m talking about West Virginia specifically, which is in the Appalachian Mountains and has been coal-mining area since before 1900s, maybe even 1800s, and 53 of 55 counties have coal. This is not Ireland at all. You and Obama are suggesting the whole state change its main source of income, like telling Chinese they shouldn’t grow rice, which is arrogant. Obama’s war on coal would devastate a state like West Virginia, which is traditionally Democrat, but understandably didn’t vote for Obama in a landslide. This is why our government is built on federalism, or the principle that states have more governing power than the federal government to decide these local kinds of issues. Arrogant Obama and Democrats always feel their oats and want to get their grubby hands involved in all aspects of American’s lives, and this demonstrates why local power is better.
So … apparently best not left to the states, then?[/quote]
No, because West Virginians can weigh the advantages and disadvantages and vote accordingly. Their governor isn’t going to engage in policies that will devastate the state, because they are beholden to the people. A president is too alienated from the consequences of his decisions on local areas like West Virginia. His executive orders may not effect New Yorkers at all, which is why they cheer him, but its a life-changer for West Virginians.