Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "WATCH: Trump Boasts He'd Remove Regulations" video.

  1. Those programs are bureaucracies. They will work just fine at the state and local level. Really, they would work much better. The problem is that people are so dependent on the federal government that when people suggest getting rid of those programs they feel they will cease to exist at all.
    1
  2. ProductiveDiscord At the state and local level you have more control of the government so you can see if it is actually working.
    1
  3. ProductiveDiscord The federal government doesn't have any more resources than the state and local government does.  In reality all governments have nothing until it takes it in a form of a tax.  If we cut federal taxes (the federal individual income tax use to be unconstitutional, so we can do it) that would mean more money in the hand of people that the states and local government can tax if they so desire. 
    1
  4. ProductiveDiscord To me the most effective form of government is one that is as local as possible.  With that you get to see if the government is actually working for you and are acting as the servants as opposed to the masters. 
    1
  5. ProductiveDiscord At the local level you can see if it is actually working for you, you can get more personal with local government officials, and you can always move if you don't like them.  I met both of my candidates for mayor last election season.  I met both candidates for sheriff and knew one personally.   The fact that you are interacting with them means a lot.  And people who interact with them are typically involved with the community in some way and are the ones voting anyways.
    1
  6. Kurt H Police and school teachers are funded and ran locally. 
    1
  7. Just because you get rid of a program like the FDA doesn't mean it won't exist at the state or local level, or even in the private sector. It is really sad how dependent people are on the federal government. What is funny is that these are the same people that bitch about money in politics as well. Give it power, what it becomes corrupt, complain. Irony.
    1
  8. Red Hunteur At the state level you have more control of the government.  You are able to see if it is actually working for you and acting as the servants.  You an also move if you don't like it and remain a US citizen.  I agree, we need government for certain things.  What we also need is the ability to control government as well so we can change it. At the state and local level we can see if government is working for us and change it easier.  The problem you have is that you want these programs so bad and you feel so strongly about them that you will rather have them at the federal level, mixed with corruption, than not have them at all.  I am saying you can have those programs minus the corruption.   
    1
  9. Red Hunteur There is more to it than that, I will get to that though.  First, there is a desire to have government, but we must control it.  You have more control of the government the more local it is.  If you look at how the country was designed the federal government was there to 1. deal with foreign affairs 2. enforce the constitution The Constitution placed strict limits on the federal government and programs like the FDA are not a part of that.  Thus it becomes responsibilities of the states.  States are there to 1. deal with domestic policies 2. enforce the constitution on the fed All in a nutshell.  We can split hairs but that is what it is.  Nothing, in the history of man, has been more destructive than government. Does that mean we completely remove it?  No.  But we control it.  The founding fathers saw that and thus they placed strict limits on all government and they also established more local government.  You want a program like the FDA so you establish it at the federal level .  You then complain when there is money in politics.  Is that because the FDA exists or is it because you don't have control the government?  Well really both, but more of that you don't control the federal government.  Sure you can vote and from your state comes your 2 senators and handful of representatives, whom you most likely never met.  But that's it.  At the local level, assuming you are active in the community (and you should be), you can personally meet your government officials and see if they are working well.  To give an example of all of this K-12 education is not mandated at all by the federal government.  It is ran by the states and local government.  They set the curriculum and fund it.  All 50 states have K-12 education. Public education can be seen as indoctrination, but at the local level you can meet your teachers, administration, control the curriculum more, etc., limiting that issue.  The same with with the FDA, EPA and so on. Another issue with you is this "Right... so we should let some fundamentalist state governor decide which foods are safe and if certain medicines should be available?" You almost have this fascist mentality.  You live in your state and will have a government you want within the bounds of the constitution.  That is fine.  But you will get angry when a completely different state where you 1. don't vote in 2. don't pay taxes it 3. maybe not even visit runs a program differently.  You feel the need to push what you support down their throats because you feel that you way is right.  As long as they are within the bounds of the constitution then there is nothing wrong going on.  There is no really one form of government that is right.  As long as the people control it then they are fine.  I know what you "really think".  I can tell immediately from your first sentence. 
    1
  10. Girish Seshan We have central rules as well listed in the Constitution.  Those rules are in place to give power to the people over the government and not power to the government.  On education, what should be the minimum standard?  Public education can either be the best thing we offer society or the worse. It is the worse when it becomes indoctrination.  At the state level we can limit that to the point it won't happen.  Also, if a state does not educate their citizens well than they will suffer as a state in certain ways.  Thus they will push for being the best.  But with minimum standards states can just go with that as opposed to being creative and improving.  We see that already with the Department of Ed. and CCSS.  States are just going with those as opposed to developing creative curriculum that will work. 
    1