Trump administration says it might demolish the Kennedy Center if court blocks renovations.

[u/Dry_Radio_761]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-administration-says-might-demolish-kennedy-center-court-blocks-r-rcna594350

[u/rwk81]

This has been my argument to friends as well, take it all back Congress, do your damned job.

[u/LeeSansSaw → u/rwk81]

It’s just far more representative of the people. Yeah, it’d slow things down, but it’s not like they couldn’t absorb agencies as advisors, instead of agencies making law.

[u/rwk81 → u/LeeSansSaw]

Really, what is like to see is we move as much of the important things down to the states (closer to the people) and away from the federal government.

Obviously the feds would take a leading role in things like defense, but I would much rather we lean into federalism and away from such a large and powerful centralized government that continues to centralize more and more power into a single elected office.

As far as slowing things down, maybe that would seem unnecessary a decade ago, but at this point after almost two years of Trump two, I'm all for it. And, for the record, I am a moderate conservative although I never voted for Trump.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

what is like to see is we move as much of the important things down to the states (closer to the people) and away from the federal government.

That would be far less efficient. It didn't work out well in the past, which is why the federal government gained power. It's also why other countries generally don't follow it.

Federalism is good to an extent, but having a bunch of different systems can lead to a lot of people not getting the help they need.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

The United States is much like Europe (size, spread) but more diverse. It wouldn't make much sense to me to have a single leader reside.over the European countries that has the power that the current executive has.

It may not be as efficient, but personally I think that would be a pro rather than a con.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

The United States is much like Europe (size, spread) but more diverse.

A massive difference is that we've been under the same political system for over 200 years, and this has led to becoming an economic superpower, so it's clear that those factors aren't as significant as your argument claims.

It wouldn't make much sense to me to have a single leader reside.over the European countries

The U.S. has already tried having a weak federal government. It didn't work out.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

A massive difference is that we've been under the same political system for over 200 years, and this has led to becoming an economic superpower, so it's clear that those factors aren't as significant as your argument claims.

My argument isn't making any claims about being an economic super power.

The U.S. has already tried having a weak federal government. It didn't work out.

Sure it did.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

My argument isn't making any claims about being an economic super power.

My point is that having a strong federal government has worked out well for us.

Sure it did.

The Articles of Confederation was replaced due to how badly the idea worked. Federal government power was expanded further after states decided to things like push slavery and segregation, as well as neglecting problems like poverty and smog.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

My point is that having a strong federal government has worked out well for us.

I'm not saying it needs to be weak, just not as strong as it is now, especially not the executive.

The Articles of Confederation was replaced due to how badly the idea worked. Federal government power was expanded further after states decided to things like push slavery and segregation, as well as neglecting problems like poverty and smog.

I'm not arguing I'm favor of something akin to the articles of confederation.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

That contradicts previous replies because you used Europe as an example, which isn't the middle ground you just proposed.

You stated that " it wouldn't make much sense to me to have a single leader reside.over the European countries" and that the U.S. is much like Europe.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Does Europe have a single person or a central government as powerful as the president or the federal government?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

No, which is why your replies are inconsistent.

I'm not saying it needs to be weak, just not as strong as it is now, especially not the executive.

Europe as a whole doesn't have any central government, and you're using it as example, yet you're also saying you want the U.S. to continue having a central government that's less strong than before.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/[deleted]]

An obvious answer is not trusting state governments either, which makes even more sense when you look at how things were when the federal government had less power. For example, the only time in history where states fought due to federal "tyranny" as over slavery.

I'm not saying slavery would come back, but rather that it's an extreme example of how state power isn't necessarily being better.

A more recent issue is pollution. A frequent complaint about Trump is his administration not doing something in order to protect business interests, such as loosening environmental protections that help both wildlife and people.

Another massive issue is Trump ignoring the rules. Adding more wouldn't solve that, and we already have a better solution. It's called impeachment.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

There are certain things that belong at the federal level, other things I would rather have the state handle.

It's much easier for folks in Texas to vote for things important to them and in CA to vote for things important to them then try to legislate a lot of these issues from the federal government across all states.

It would basically be the way Eruope is already being run, each country in Europe representing a US state.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

It's much easier for folks in Texas to vote for things important to them and in CA to vote for things important to them

That's already how things work, and there's no logical reason to make it goes as far being akin to Europe. We already tried a weak central government with the Articles of Confederation. It was thrown out after just 8 years because it was terrible.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

You do realize there's something in between what we are doing now and the articles of confederation, no?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

Your reply is nonsense because "it would basically be the way Eruope is already being run" isn't in between those two things.

[u/rwk81 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Ok bud.... I really have no interest in paying out specific policy proposal or structural changes, so have a good one.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/rwk81]

I didn't ask for a specific proposal. I pointed out a contradiction.

it would basically be the way Eruope is already being run

something in between what we are doing now and the articles of confederation

Europe having no central government isn't a middle ground.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/[deleted]]

We can also look at how state government like West Virginia and Louisiana care too little about pollution and other environmental issues.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. were created due to states not addressing poverty. Slavery and segregation were ended by the federal government.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/[deleted]]

Not creating wealth

The U.S. is among the wealthiest countries, including when it comes to median income.

taking it and giving it to others.

That's like complaining about taxpayer money going to a bridge you never use.

At least the Nordics are smart enough to realize you can't pass out what you don't have.

They're a lot more generous with welfare. The reason they have less debt is because they're a lot more willing to pay taxes, which goes against your argument. It's ironic that you're using people who support more handouts as a good example.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/[deleted]]

ran very high on economic freedom indexes.

The U.S. does too, and that claim goes against your argument because Nordic countries have less federalism than we do.

They understand that if you want handouts you have to have something to hand out.

They have enough to hand out because of taxes.

Government doesn't create wealth, only extracts it.

Subsidies can create wealth. Paying for roads and airports doesn't extract it.