Why does America still have states?

[SilverTrain]

This is the one thing I find most absurd about America. How much power does a governor really have? Way too much by the look of it.

You're troubled by too much power centralized in a state governor, so you advocate centralizing even more power in a lone Federal official?

This is nothing to do with officials, laws are made by hundreds of elected public servants.

Are you going to keep changing your mind as to what exactly your gripe is?

 

[JustAsking]

America still has states because the original reason for having states has not changed. It is based on an American notion that the government is better when it is closer to the people.

For example, in the USA there is no national curriculum. Depending on the state, education decisions (such as textbook choices) are left to either the state board of education or the local board of education for a school district.

Oh wait.. maybe the OP is right after all.

 

[helgaleena]

America still has states because the original reason for having states has not changed. It is based on an American notion that the government is better when it is closer to the people.

For example, in the USA there is no national curriculum. Depending on the state, education decisions (such as textbook choices) are left to either the state board of education or the local board of education for a school district.

Oh wait.. maybe the OP is right after all.

Imagine there's no countries..... :240:

*end channeling of Lennon*

How big do you want your Big Brother? *begin channeling of Orwell*

Keep the aspidistra waving... :umbrella:

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Great question! One of the hypocritical ironies of conservatism is its embrace of state, county, and local governments which, as a reality, increases government size. You can never replace the federal government because there has to be a center of sovereignity and military and diplomacy. Yet this country has far, far more government than any other country in the world. Why? Politicians and businesses can control small governments easier. Look at us: we have 50 state governments, an average of 35 county governments per state, local city governments all over and how many quasi-government school districts and public utility districts?!.It costs a bundle. Sweden doesn't have this, and our neighbors to the North has but a few provinces. Our total government expenses are astronomical because small governments can't negotiate with private suppliers and foreign governments and international suppliers and use economies of scale. Think of the economy of scale if one federal government bought police cars for all? Think of the consolidation of laws, budgets, and commerce rules. The national debt could easily be handled if we did not have these layers and layers of government starting with the states.

 

[helgaleena]

Davidh, you have to take note of the difference in scale. The entire country of Sweden is the size of one of our states.

 

[takethecurve]

America still has states because the original reason for having states has not changed. It is based on an American notion that the government is better when it is closer to the people.

For example, in the USA there is no national curriculum. Depending on the state, education decisions (such as textbook choices) are left to either the state board of education or the local board of education for a school district.

Oh wait.. maybe the OP is right after all.

That's actually changing relatively soon...most of the states have signed on to the national core curriculum. This won't change the fact that individual school districts (which make about 75% of the decisions concerning a given school) will still have the say in what textbooks they purchase, etc., but it will greatly universalize the system of education in our country so that a student growing up in rural Oklahoma is expected to meet the same standards as a kid going to the most selective public magnet in New York City.

*steps down off of educational policy soap box*

 

[takethecurve]

G Think of the consolidation of laws, budgets, and commerce rules. The national debt could easily be handled if we did not have these layers and layers of government starting with the states.

The only flaw with this is that our states can't handle their budgets either...pretty much every state is in the red or in danger of being in the red (something that is illegal according to the constitution, as States cannot borrow money for debt purposes. They have to have balanced budgets, which is why states are always cutting programs and education budgets). States dictate all of their own commerce laws, and they seem to be doing a real bang up job of it.

The only part of commerce the federal government controls is that which occurs interstate, and between our country and others.

Layer of government isn't the problem. Spending for the sake of spending (on projects that seem pointless or only good at the time) is probably more to blame.

 

[luka82]

In a country of free speech, why are there phone bills?

My favorite! :biggrin1:

 

[B_Hung Jon]

America still has states because the original reason for having states has not changed. It is based on an American notion that the government is better when it is closer to the people.

For example, in the USA there is no national curriculum. Depending on the state, education decisions (such as textbook choices) are left to either the state board of education or the local board of education for a school district.

Oh wait.. maybe the OP is right after all.

yep, no national curriculum in the sense that some states are living in the dark ages while others are not. it's one of the problems with so-called "states rights".

 

[earllogjam]

It's hard to micromanage people's sex lives without states.

 

[midlifebear]

One of the more amusing things eclipsed by the OP is that he he seems oblivious that most North and South American countries have States. Canada is divided into Provinces. But Mexico is a coalition of united states, exactly like the USA. In their case, it's the Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. Same goes for Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, and most importantly, Brazil. Argentina is a collection of Provinces. Can't recall how Ecuador is organized, and Bolivia? Not so certain. However, the majority of North, Central, and South American countries organized their governments on the same model of the USA (except the USA has had a bad habit of tearing down legitimate Central and South After all, a Mexican is a North American, a citizen of Costa Rica is a Central American, and those who live south of the Panama Canal are South Americans. But the important thing to keep in mind is that we are ALL Americans. Although the United States of America has a dodgy record of interferring with Central and South American Democracies by supporting illegal despots who abridge human rights while protecting USA business interests). The 30+ year civil war in Guatemala comes immediately to mind.

When Cuba won independence from Spain afer the Spanish/American War, it too officially divided up it's seminal democracy into States. Unfortunately, in the case of Cuba, the USA remained an "occupying foreign power" so sugar cane growers could be be controlled for the benefit of the USA's sole interests. And even when Fidel's revolution took hold in 1959 and kicked out one of Cuba's more sadistic and corrupt Presidents (Juan Bautista) and even more corrupt Legislatures, the USA was "invited" to be Cuba's biggest and important ally. But the Federal Government of the USA dropped the ball and insisted they couldn't play nice with a country that had just kicked out all of the USA's east coast crime syndicates (forgetting the the USA had to fight the British to death for our own cute revolution of 1776 to succeed). So, Fidel the the right thing and allied the Cuban Revolution with the then USSR.

So, why does the United Kingdom need a monarchy? They don't do much except create a great amount of drama. And even though every prime minister needs to sit with Liz or the current HRH and formally ask permission to form a government, it's flaming obvious that the U.K. Parliament is even more ineffective that the USA's House and Senate. It even comes complete with an inbred caste system of potently corrupt shit heads simply because of their geneology. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Possibly the OP would be happier with a theocracy. We have at least one State in the USA that despite its insistence that it isn't a theocracy, really is one. But it's a theocracy that goes through the motions of behaving like the rest of the States in the USA. If it didn't, the army would be sent in for a second time to beat the sweet spirits back in line. The last time mormons acted all uppity and unbeholden to being a part of the still growing United States Lincoln (and subsequent Presidnts) marched in two enormous Union Cavalries to keep the mormons from getting out of line. But in the case of Ewetaw, there is no question the mormons still have more collective power than the Govenor. Fortunately they are greedy, and if breaking the rules of their belief system means making a buck, the US Dollar reigns supreme.

I repeat what I said in my first response to the OP's sorry ass excuse for a thread: in the future he would do well to restrict his thread topics to easier subjects such as "Why is the sky blue?", and why XXX is his favorite color.

Such a dull child.

 

[yoursgetsmine]

Our governments at all levels work quite well........or otherwise how else could so many public servants go into office so poor and come out so wealthy?

 

[Kotchanski]

Maybe I have an answer that will suffice!

The USA, United STATES of America, still has states because it would cost far too much to redo all of the marketing if they were to be forced to change their name following the removal of states.

Think of the cost of re-educating everyone, changing all the holiday brochures, all the mugs and t-shirts with it on... And that hasn't even scratched the surface!

(This is not a serious post, but since the OP has no idea what their issue is with the states of America, I figured my sleep deprived sense of humour stood about as much chance of being right as anything else)

 

[Drifterwood]

What would it be called without the States? Technically it's wrong anyway, but at least it's the only one with that name.

Jeffersonia?

Founding Fatherland?

I could go on :tongue:

The Chinese call it The Beautiful Land.

 

[Kotchanski]

What would it be called without the States? Technically it's wrong anyway, but at least it's the only one with that name.

Jeffersonia?

Founding Fatherland?

I could go on :tongue:

The Chinese call it The Beautiful Land.

ATWOTUSBINJA - To keep with the same naming system previously used!

America that was once the United States but is now just America

 

[osprey1987]

I repeat what I said in my first response to the OP's sorry ass excuse for a thread: in the future he would do well to restrict his thread topics to easier subjects such as "Why is the sky blue?", and why XXX is his favorite color.

Such a dull child.

Scientists have spent much time answering that exact question. The fact you think that is like asking someone's favourite colour shows how angry and superficial you are. You then attack a whole load of arguments I never made. Your mindless belief in the superiority of the American political systen is just as bad as any European anti-Americanism.

Your last paragraphed argument makes no sense whatsoever and is aimed at thin air for all I can see. I also already pointed out why American states are different so the rest of your long rant is pointless. The only thing sorry in this thread is someone too lazy to read every word in a sentence and still thinks I asked why America has states. I asked why America still has states and I've had some quite good answers from most people, you not included.

 

[punk09]

The states serve a unique role in our federal system, offering up another way for the ruling elites to fuck us over one.

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Davidh, you have to take note of the difference in scale. The entire country of Sweden is the size of one of our states.

That is true but is that an advocacy for our states? Despite its small size ( I think it is the size of California) Sweden has arguably a higher standard of living than we do and they are far happier with their government and living situations. I think a point that you make perhaps is that small progressive countries have a better chance of being truly democratic, perhaps better off all around. One thing about Sweden,of course,as conservatives argue, is its military is so small. But I think this is because of good diplomacy and their domestic state which becomes an example of what an equalitarian society can do. What Middle East country wants to invade, fight and conquer Sweden?
Most would rather go there. But as Denmark shows if Muslims want to move there there is not an Islamic culture to welcome them.

 

[midlifebear]

davidh, hegaleena, aconitum, et al:

With regard to Denmark and all Scandinvian countries I think I'm certain that one of the major glues that bind them into such successful little governments is they all have Akvavit. It's such a direct, no-nonsense adult beverage refreshment unlike Jack Daniels.

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Um...........Mexico has States........Brazil has States...Australia has States...India has states...etc. MANY countries are comprised of States, provinces, prefectures, counties, cantons.

Good point! But many of these states have little or no government in them- they are purely ceremonial like the Queen's monarchy except in them the "governor" cuts the ribbon. The Central government still has the power.

I have read these posts but so far no one has argued why we have more government than any other country and more absurd laws and costs and less power for the people. A new study shows how countries such as Finland educates students with much, much more higher achievement scores for much, much less money. This country will never improve until we dispose of our arrogance, sit down with a note pad, then ask these countries how they do it. What are their governments like and how we can learn from them. But we won't do it- we think we know it all. Most Americans are afraid of an overwhelming federal government, and with our history of slavery and violence, probably with good reason. But not all countries feel that way or have that history.
Conservatives have argued that Americans should be afraid of "government," that it is evil. But to ask a Swede, a Dane, or a Finn that question they would find it absurd. They would say why would I be afraid of myself? Why would you say I am evil? When the people respond that way you know that there is something worth looking into.

By the by Industrialsize, I really like your health care quote- and you hit the point about the health care debate. In this country a working class MIG welder would lose his home, lose his job, lose all his possessions and become homeless simply because his daughter needs a liver transplant. That is wrong- wrong morally and wrong economically.