NYT: 1 in 8 Americans are on Food Stamps

[Darth Wong]

Jesus Christ every time I read one of these threads I want to kiss the Maple Leaf and thank The Lord that I live in a civilized country and not some barbaric collective sociopathy like the USA. I was out of work for most of this year due to being an auto worker, and absent EI and other pinko socialist institutions it could have very easily turned into the kind of economic death spiral that it sounds like Broomstick is just barely avoiding.

I am never, nor will anyone I love every live in the US if I can at all help it. Jesus Christ, one out of 4 children on food stamps? And how many hundreds of millions given to rich bankers? Jesus Christ dude.

Having worked for the US government I have to say that Canada's system is a paragon of efficiency by comparison.

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

[Lusankya]

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

That is a possibility. In Australia, any powers not specifically given to the Commonwealth can be taken over by the commonwealth if all state governments agree, which actually makes Kevin Rudd's desire for the Commonwealth to completely take over healthcare feasible. With fifty states, it would be almost impossible, because you'd have at least one dickhead Premier who'd hold out, either for idealogical reasons, pride, or blackmail.

Hell, Australia can't even nationalise the care of our major river system, because one out of four relevant states refuses to agree to anything.

[Broomstick]

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

True. We've had states split in two, but although there is no legal bar to it that I am aware of we have never had two states consolidate.

[Glocksman]

Jesus Christ every time I read one of these threads I want to kiss the Maple Leaf and thank The Lord that I live in a civilized country and not some barbaric collective sociopathy like the USA. I was out of work for most of this year due to being an auto worker, and absent EI and other pinko socialist institutions it could have very easily turned into the kind of economic death spiral that it sounds like Broomstick is just barely avoiding.

I am never, nor will anyone I love every live in the US if I can at all help it. Jesus Christ, one out of 4 children on food stamps? And how many hundreds of millions given to rich bankers? Jesus Christ dude.

Having worked for the US government I have to say that Canada's system is a paragon of efficiency by comparison.

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

That may be part of the explanation, but that's not all of it.
That said I may simply be too close to the subject to render a dispassionate judgment.

As an example, look at California's state government.
Overall, California is what we consider 'liberal' here, yet outside of the coastal areas it might as well be Alabama from what I've read about politics in that state.

Heck, look at my own state.
There are some very liberal districts (local, state, and federal) here, but in aggregate we keep sending asshats like Evan Bayh and Dick Lugar to the Senate for decades-long terms.

Though if you're saying that a stronger central government at the outset might have changed things for the better, you might well be right.
That said, the thought of a stronger central government run by antebellum Southerners (the threat to their veto power over slavery bans was the proximate cause of our Civil War) literally makes me want to puke.

[Glocksman]

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

True. We've had states split in two, but although there is no legal bar to it that I am aware of we have never had two states consolidate.

Heh...

As a Hoosier in the northern part of the state, I don't know if you're aware that one of the bitter jokes we pass along down here is that Indianapolis believes that I-70 is the state line and that anything south of Terre Haute is in Kentucky.

Though given the huge difference between Kenergy's (the electric co op in sw KY) and Vectren's (the private utility here in sw IN) electric rates, I fucking wish we were part of Kentucky.

[JME2]

I love people who take a clear indication that the economy is in shambles and demand any corrective action be ceased as it would encourage laziness.

Yeah, another lovely example of this fucking Purtian work ethic worship in this country.

[Alan Bolte]

Heh...

As a Hoosier in the northern part of the state, I don't know if you're aware that one of the bitter jokes we pass along down here is that Indianapolis believes that I-70 is the state line and that anything south of Terre Haute is in Kentucky.

Pardon the topic drift, but here in Columbus the same is said about I-70 and West Virginia.

Anyway, if it weren't for the farm lobby, I'd be taking bets on when we'd start hearing about cuts or additional restrictions on the food stamp program. Even as is it wouldn't surprise me if an idiot representative like Linder would eventually go past saying “We’re at risk of creating an entire class of people, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government,” and actually talk publicly about cuts.

[Simon_Jester]

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

If the states consolidated were already broadly similar in demographics and politics (say, unite everything from Maine to Massachusetts into "New Englandia," everything from Idaho to South Dakota into "Closetocanadastan," and everything from Mississippi to Virginia into "Heart of Darkness"), it might not make much difference. The political divisions in the US are regional and city versus suburb versus rural, not state-based.

It would simplify legislative matters, but in and of itself it wouldn't change the political wars. Trying to create new states that mixed up the regional divides might work, but at the cost of homogenizing our politics to the point where a winning party of people with bad policies (say, Republicans in 2002) would totally dominate the system, without even slivers of effective resistance on the provincial level.

That is a possibility. In Australia, any powers not specifically given to the Commonwealth can be taken over by the commonwealth if all state governments agree, which actually makes Kevin Rudd's desire for the Commonwealth to completely take over healthcare feasible. With fifty states, it would be almost impossible, because you'd have at least one dickhead Premier who'd hold out, either for idealogical reasons, pride, or blackmail.

There is no equivalent provision in the US Constitution, or the US constitution.

[Glocksman]

Heh...

As a Hoosier in the northern part of the state, I don't know if you're aware that one of the bitter jokes we pass along down here is that Indianapolis believes that I-70 is the state line and that anything south of Terre Haute is in Kentucky.

Pardon the topic drift, but here in Columbus the same is said about I-70 and West Virginia.

Anyway, if it weren't for the farm lobby, I'd be taking bets on when we'd start hearing about cuts or additional restrictions on the food stamp program. Even as is it wouldn't surprise me if an idiot representative like Linder would eventually go past saying “We’re at risk of creating an entire class of people, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government,” and actually talk publicly about cuts.

I did not come up with this but I wholly agree with it in that people do have their limits.

A poster on another board I frequent was wondering how long it'll take before some middle aged guy who has lost everything except his almost out of gas truck and a deer rifle decides 'fuck it' and parks on a hill overlooking the gated community where the CEO of the corporation that exported his job to Indonesia lives and opens fire.

While I don't approve of vigilantism, I also would have a hard time voting to send that poor SOB away for life as long as he only took out the 'guilty parties' as it were.

[Lusankya]

I don't think it's a provision in the Australian constitution. It's just that the states can all effectively legislate "This state will delegate responsibility X to the Federal government while conditions X, Y and Z are met". Technically speaking, the states still have that power, it's just that they voluntarily have it run by a Federal-level agency. Is there anything in the US constitution or the constitution of the various states saying that they can't do that?

I'm not trying to say that it would be actually feasible, mind, but I'm not quite sure how "there's no provision in the Constitution" necessarily translates into "it is not possible legally".

[Uraniun235]

Technically, the US Constitution explicitly says that all powers not specified for the federal government are to be held by the states or "the people". It's possible that someone could sue and say that such a compact was unconstitutional as that responsibility is not specified in the Constitution. But then, if Congress wanted to take that power and most of the states wanted to give it to them, it should be relatively simple to pass a constitutional amendment (as such amendments have to be ratified by some majority fraction of the state legislatures).

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

Is it really even about how many states there are or is it about how much power those states have relative to the Federal government?

Would it be better to have a supreme Federal government where the states are just administrative subdivisions?

[Glocksman]

Technically, the US Constitution explicitly says that all powers not specified for the federal government are to be held by the states or "the people". It's possible that someone could sue and say that such a compact was unconstitutional as that responsibility is not specified in the Constitution. But then, if Congress wanted to take that power and most of the states wanted to give it to them, it should be relatively simple to pass a constitutional amendment (as such amendments have to be ratified by some majority fraction of the state legislatures).

No doubt some of that is due to right-wing policies but I've always wondered if America simply has too many states. The more states you try to weld into a country, the more see-sawing you're going to have with one region playing off against another. A stronger centralized government would limit that, but Americans don't like that idea. I honestly think America would be much better off if many states were consolidated, although I know that will never happen.

Is it really even about how many states there are or is it about how much power those states have relative to the Federal government?

Would it be better to have a supreme Federal government where the states are just administrative subdivisions?

Now that's an interesting question considering the power indvidual areas carry beyond their population, both during our formative years and today.

This is probably a question better suited for the history forum, but IMHO the nation as a whole would have been worse off with a strong central government during our formative years simply because said government would have been dominated by the slave power.

[Broomstick]

Anyway, if it weren't for the farm lobby, I'd be taking bets on when we'd start hearing about cuts or additional restrictions on the food stamp program. Even as is it wouldn't surprise me if an idiot representative like Linder would eventually go past saying “We’re at risk of creating an entire class of people, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government,” and actually talk publicly about cuts.

There's more than one reason I am building up a stock of canned goods in my pantry....

[aieeegrunt]

I love people who take a clear indication that the economy is in shambles and demand any corrective action be ceased as it would encourage laziness.

Yeah, another lovely example of this fucking Purtian work ethic worship in this country.

...then there is the messed up attitudes about sex. I don't want to sound like some US hating EuroTaliban nutcase, but there is a serious dark side to America.

[open_sketchbook]

You don't have to worry about that. StarDestroyer.net is run in Canada, where America-bashing is considered the national pastime, just above hockey and complaining about snow. You're among friends; you'll find few apologists for American culture, policy or politics here.

[Mayabird]

I did not come up with this but I wholly agree with it in that people do have their limits.

A poster on another board I frequent was wondering how long it'll take before some middle aged guy who has lost everything except his almost out of gas truck and a deer rifle decides 'fuck it' and parks on a hill overlooking the gated community where the CEO of the corporation that exported his job to Indonesia lives and opens fire.

While I don't approve of vigilantism, I also would have a hard time voting to send that poor SOB away for life as long as he only took out the 'guilty parties' as it were.

I seriously doubt it for a long time/things would have to be on the verge of total breakdown at that point for it to happen. That would require people who are rational and not stupid to finally snap and have nothing to gain or lose, not your typical demographic of shooter, which is mostly of the "stupid" and "not entirely sane" groups.

Those people who are going to be shooting are/will be shooting at other people who have nothing to do with anything in the grand scheme of things except in the shooter's little mental world. Mostly they just shoot their relatives or random people in their town, or going back to some job that fired them way back when and shoot the other office drones there, or that one guy who walked into a Unitarian church and shot people because it's all the evil liberal atheists' faults for everything. At most, I would expect someone blaming the banks for whatever, but then walking into their local bank and then killing a couple tellers and maybe wounding a security guard, all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with anything and are just trying to get by themselves. (I've been dreading for this one for a while, actually.)

[AMT]

Though given the huge difference between Kenergy's (the electric co op in sw KY) and Vectren's (the private utility here in sw IN) electric rates, I fucking wish we were part of Kentucky.

Wish we had that here in Lexington, but no, we got ourselves the nice monopoly of Kentucky Utility *shudder*.

And when I lived in Northern Kentucky we figured anything south of Richwood was redneck country ourselves, even if we had to call ourselves Kentuckians.

Anywho, back on topic.

I'm not as sure as you are that it would work, though. People can rationalize not getting health care to themselves to the point where they won't start looting store in anger at their lack of health care. They cannot so easily rationalize not getting food. At the very least, I'd expect to see a rapid rise in people stealing food that they coulldn't afford, even if there was no mass politicized violence involved.

"Why should they suck the govt. tit when they can go to a Food Pantry or get good Christian support? Help begins at home, not at the welfare office!"

Sorry. I'm bitter about such things, even though I've been largely lucky enough to not need it since I became an adult.

Some violence may occur, as well as theft, but most people in the US are docile and spoonfed enough to quietly lie down rather then fight (politically hopefully) for real reform.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think it's a provision in the Australian constitution. It's just that the states can all effectively legislate "This state will delegate responsibility X to the Federal government while conditions X, Y and Z are met". Technically speaking, the states still have that power, it's just that they voluntarily have it run by a Federal-level agency. Is there anything in the US constitution or the constitution of the various states saying that they can't do that?

I'm not trying to say that it would be actually feasible, mind, but I'm not quite sure how "there's no provision in the Constitution" necessarily translates into "it is not possible legally".

This is why I distinguish between the Constitution (in the "it's on paper" sense) and the constitution (in the British sense).

For example, the idea of judicial review in the US is that the courts can strike down laws which violate the written Constitution, rendering them null and void. This is a long-enshrined principle in the US constitution, dating back to the very early 1800s. However, it is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution of the United States or its amendments, so far as I can remember.

In your case, Australia seems to have a constitutional provision for delegating state authority to the federal government, one that is often used and is generally accepted as legitimate. I don't think the US has a similar provision that is equally accepted. Maybe I'm forgetting a precedent, though.

[General Zod]

I don't think it's a provision in the Australian constitution. It's just that the states can all effectively legislate "This state will delegate responsibility X to the Federal government while conditions X, Y and Z are met". Technically speaking, the states still have that power, it's just that they voluntarily have it run by a Federal-level agency. Is there anything in the US constitution or the constitution of the various states saying that they can't do that?

I'm not trying to say that it would be actually feasible, mind, but I'm not quite sure how "there's no provision in the Constitution" necessarily translates into "it is not possible legally".

This is why I distinguish between the Constitution (in the "it's on paper" sense) and the constitution (in the British sense).

For example, the idea of judicial review in the US is that the courts can strike down laws which violate the written Constitution, rendering them null and void. This is a long-enshrined principle in the US constitution, dating back to the very early 1800s. However, it is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution of the United States or its amendments, so far as I can remember.

In your case, Australia seems to have a constitutional provision for delegating state authority to the federal government, one that is often used and is generally accepted as legitimate. I don't think the US has a similar provision that is equally accepted. Maybe I'm forgetting a precedent, though.

I think the closest thing we have in the US is the Commerce Clause, which lets the Federal Government smack down any states or entities that are interfering with trade or otherwise intervene if they feel unfaithful business practices are being conducted. Which can theoretically include things like healthcare or food assistance but the government is usually too inept to bother with.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I mentioned living off government Cheese after my dad lost his job as a steelworker (machinist) during the 1980s and got to hear a long libertarian screed about government waste....

[aieeegrunt]

Charming. I would have been tempted to belt the guy, as the implication is that your father was too lazy and/or incompetent to feed his children

[ArmorPierce]

If the large amount of states is indeed the reason for the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the federal government, it is quite ironic.

Right after the end of the revolutionary war, each of the original 13 states claimed a lot more teritory. These territorial claims by the states at the request of the federal government 'for the good of the union.'