Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?


You suck, I feel you.

I know you own a dog, maybe you're confused........They don't called them "mans best friend for nothing"...........LOL

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?

In Australia it is much clear cut. Federal laws override State laws in the areas the the Feral Government has the top authority.

When Australia federated our constitution left the state with some residual powers, to make it easier for governing - things like roads, hospitals etc. Thus they make decisions on those. The federal government deals with things on a nation wide basis.

If the state makes a law that clashes with the Federal Government, then the Federal Governments law automatically overrides it, unless the State can take the matter to the High Court and prove it is allowed. There is no bribing or strong arm tactics - it is all laid down what the state is allowed to do, and what the Federal government is allowed to do.



Maybe you should try to contribute to the topic, instead of whatever it is you are doing.

This has been going on for years. Witholding federal highway funds if the states didn't raise the drinking age to 21, and lower the the legal intoxication limit to .08 are just two examples. It even tries this on foreign countries. Last year The US offered Brazil $10 billion for AIDS research on the condition it made prostitution, which is legal in Brazil, illegal. Brazil refused.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
This has been going on for years. Witholding federal highway funds if the states didn't raise the drinking age to 21, and lower the the legal intoxication limit to .08 are just two examples. It even tries this on foreign countries. Last year The US offered Brazil $10 billion for AIDS research on the condition it made prostitution, which is legal in Brazil, illegal. Brazil refused.

Seems reminiscent to all the "trading" that went on prior to the Iraq war - in order to make nations more conducive to the idea Iraq should be dealt with. Of course it only works on nations that are in desperate need of things. Which was why so many small nations with virtually no armies at all were 100% behind the coalition of the willing.

I guess the federal government is not respecting the 10 Amendment.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
This has been going on for years. Witholding federal highway funds if the states didn't raise the drinking age to 21, and lower the the legal intoxication limit to .08 are just two examples. It even tries this on foreign countries. Last year The US offered Brazil $10 billion for AIDS research on the condition it made prostitution, which is legal in Brazil, illegal. Brazil refused.
And where's the problem with that? You can have our money if you do what we want. Brazil isn't entitled to anything.

Originally posted by Kinneary
And where's the problem with that? You can have our money if you do what we want. Brazil isn't entitled to anything.

Well, arguably, it is not the nicest thing. "Sure, you can have money to fight AIDs... if you toe our moral line. If not, well, you can just watch them die with us."

Imagine you are in the middle of no where, dying of thirst, and some guy comes up to you and asks you to do something that isn't really in your best interests in return for a bottle of water.

By that logic, the US is obligated to give money to everyone for AIDS, cancer, and whatever else is going on. The US tax dollar is not for everyone in the world. I feel absolutely no obligation to freely give out billions of dollars to governments around the world. That might be 'mean' but simply, it's not the US's job to take care of the world.

Originally posted by Kinneary
And where's the problem with that? You can have our money if you do what we want. Brazil isn't entitled to anything.

I agree, and Brazil told the US to %^*& off, something they are also entitled to do. I however fail to see why the US cares about legal prostitution in Brazil. It isn't like Brazil is a major source of oil.

Deleted double post.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I agree, and Brazil told the US to %^*& off, something they are also entitled to do. I however fail to see why the US cares about legal prostitution in Brazil. It isn't like Brazil is a major source of oil.

Sexually transmitted disease, prostitution................

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?

Isn't that extortion, not bribery?

I'm not sure.
I did over hear a few lawyers discussing now in MI it used to be 1.0, then changed to .8. the Gov. wanted to bring it down to .7. Then they wanted to make it .1. I'm not sure what state it was in, but heard there was a 94 year old woman who had a glass of wine with her meal, then went out. I am not sure why she was pulled over, but they took her in jail!! Michigan said NO. These lawyers were saying (see how I ease drop..lol) That lobby groups such as MADD have become too powerful just as the educational systems lobby group (forgot the name).

Federal Government should have the power over the State government anyway....

Originally posted by Soleran
Sexually transmitted disease, prostitution................


Shows how little you know. Just look at Costa Rica and rural Nevada Counties to show why prostitution not only can be but should be legal everywhere if regulated properly. But such discussion is off topic for this thread.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?


Yeah, the one where over 70% of states continually vote against gay marriage, yet activist judges just keep trying to pass it as law.

Or the one where people vote against unlimited abortion, but the federal government says it's perfectly legal.

This goes on everywhere, on both sides of the aisle.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I agree, and Brazil told the US to %^*& off, something they are also entitled to do. I however fail to see why the US cares about legal prostitution in Brazil. It isn't like Brazil is a major source of oil.

But they could become a major source of ethanol

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Shows how little you know. Just look at Costa Rica and rural Nevada Counties to show why prostitution not only can be but should be legal everywhere if regulated properly. But such discussion is off topic for this thread.


Great, so is it regulated in Brazil?




whatever

Originally posted by Soleran
Great, so is it regulated in Brazil?






No, and they do have very high STD rates. However, effective regulation, not criminalization, is the proper way to combat this. But Shrub wants to promote the Cristian Right's values on a Latin American country where prostitution is correctly seen as part of human nature just like he wants to impose "democracy" on a middle eastern people he knows very little about at the point of a gun.

I believe the US FEDS are too strong...........Countries and States should have their autonomy!!!!

Originally posted by Soleran
Sexually transmitted disease, prostitution................

The benefits of legalising that sector of the adult industry have been shown to be greater then those possible in trying to keep it illegal - regulation allows taxation, the removal of legal costs and manpower wasted on trying to remove something that is virtually irremovable, actually keeping STDs and the like down, protection of industry workers, etc.

It is unfortunate it isn't better controlled in Brazil but to my knowledge there have been recent moves to reign it in and better regulate it - which is far better then over night criminalising it. Especially considering the quality of Brazilian welfare in ratio to the number of people who would be stripped of their source of income.

Despite claims and the like the call to ban it in this case stemmed more from the moral politics of the US.



I am not saying the US should do anything. I am not saying they should be the worlds police, or anything of that nature. But I wonder at such free acceptance of the US using its economic clout to force nations to tow its political/moral line. You feel absolutely fine dangling charity in the face of the needy for no other reason to get people to do what you want?

THE US SHOULD NOT BE THE WORLD POLICE............... If anyone wonders about me

As a people for those who only listen to TV propaganda...........most of us do NOT want to be involved!!!.................GOT IT....?????....

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?

Any other stories that anyone wants to share?


They should have some autonomy unless the Federal Govt funds them.

Same with Brazil if they wanted 10 billion dollars I don't see a problem if the lender is putting some stipulations to the agreement.

Originally posted by Soleran
They should have some autonomy unless the Federal Govt funds them.

Same with Brazil if they wanted 10 billion dollars I don't see a problem if the lender is putting some stipulations to the agreement.

It would be more acceptable if the stipulations where intended to be of tangible benefit.

I did some casual work in a bank once, loans department. Now once they were called to give a loan to a farm, a farm that was was operating in an outdated, ineffectual fashion. The stipulation was that they had to work with the bank to modernise business practices so the money was used effectively and the chance for repayment was optimised.

However it would have been inappropriate for the bank to go there and stipulate something that was other then improving its business practices (like I don't know, making them wear a certain type of clothing.) Same with the Brazilian situation. Criminalising prostitution is not something they could practically do, and it would not be in their best interests legally, politically or in terms of regulation. The stipulations the US placed on them in receiving the AIDs funding were impractical and not in the arena of beneficial operating criteria.

Maybe the person that was writing the check felt differently.

Because I can see a correlation between unregulated prostitution and std's and then funding ten billion dollars to help with research of the king of STD's while a bunch of hookers who might be spreading the disease runs unchecked.

Originally posted by Soleran
Maybe the person that was writing the check felt differently.

Because I can see a correlation between unregulated prostitution and std's and then funding ten billion dollars to help with research of the king of STD's while a bunch of hookers who might be spreading the disease runs unchecked.

Yet it doesn't seem that was one of the main reasons behind it. And even if it was then it would show a remarkable amount of ignorance in a person holding a position that should know better. As has been said previously better regulation, which apparently is in motion (early) in Brazil, is greatly more beneficial and possible then outright criminalisation of it.

If the US wanted to fund Alcoholics Anonymous in Britain, tell me, would it be practical to ask them to legislate Prohibition in the UK before they got the money?

Perhaps if you used an example where the USA funded a new liver transplant treatment then sure. I think you get what I am saying here.

Cuz let me think here ten billion dollars seems like alot of money to me, like enough money to make some compromises to how I run my country.

Originally posted by Soleran
Perhaps if you used an example where the USA funded a new liver transplant treatment then sure. I think you get what I am saying here.

Cuz let me think here ten billion dollars seems like alot of money to me, like enough money to make some compromises to how I run my country.

So tell me - how did the US handle the Prohibition? If I'm not mistaken it was a monumental failure that only managed to waste a lot of money and resources and tie up police.

Now if the criteria had been "You get AIDs funding if you educate your citizens and regulate prostitution" it would be understandable. It is practical, it is supported by research that that would help, there are benefits. However it was absurd to take the "outlaw it completely" stance, especially when there were moral agendas behind it. It would not be practical for Brazil to obey, nor would it be beneficial to them economically, politically or legally.

Such an absolutist position that was taken in that case shows the regrettable ignorance that occasionally crops up when it comes to the US and how much influence it thinks it has on other nations due to economic clout.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So tell me - how did the US handle the Prohibition? If I'm not mistaken it was a monumental failure that only managed to waste a lot of money and resources and tie up police.

Now if the criteria had been "You get AIDs funding if you educate your citizens and regulate prostitution" it would be understandable. It is practical, it is supported by research that that would help, there are benefits. However it was absurd to take the "outlaw it completely" stance, especially when there were moral agendas behind it. It would not be practical for Brazil to obey, nor would it be beneficial to them economically, politically or legally.

Such an absolutist position that was taken in that case shows the regrettable ignorance that occasionally crops up when it comes to the US and how much influence it thinks it has on other nations due to economic clout.

I feel fairly certain that when I say more people drink then engage in prostitution there is probably some truth in that. Regardless ten billion dollars is alot of cash. I also am not looking at any numbers for Brazil on their prostitution and how that comes into play. Right or wrong whoever wants to offer the money can control the contract if Brazil wanted the ten billion there was a way for them to get it. They opted against it, no blood no foul.

It's the same with schooling............Oh, they say, let us give you the items you need..........BUT if you take them, then you're under the Federal rule.........Home schoolers I talk about here.............NEW BIG PROB. FOR THE GOV..............They hate home schoolers...........

Schools receive funding based on how many butts they put in chairs so homeschooling is potentially taking money from the schools.

The Federal Govt is a big bloated monster that eats to much McDonalds.

hate some lobbyists...........gods truth.

Originally posted by debbiejo
hate some lobbyists...........gods truth.

I like them, they got some things changed that make my job alot easier

You don't have much love for the Gov't debbie.

Originally posted by Soleran
I feel fairly certain that when I say more people drink then engage in prostitution there is probably some truth in that. Regardless ten billion dollars is alot of cash. I also am not looking at any numbers for Brazil on their prostitution and how that comes into play. Right or wrong whoever wants to offer the money can control the contract if Brazil wanted the ten billion there was a way for them to get it. They opted against it, no blood no foul.

Of course there aren't more people engaging in prostitution then there are drinking. Tell me - with prostitution illegal in most parts of the US is it nonexistent? No, it remains, and thus resources are required to prosecute it. It as such is a criminal Enterprise, and disease and the like is all through it. Nations with it legalised and with a good amount of regulation have shown vast improvements in cutting disease rates and removing criminal elements.

Now Brazil is terrible with it. It is legal, but poorly regulated. Due to poverty and that lack of regulation it is a huge industry. It is quite bad, and it is worth working against for the number of children caught up in it alone. But there has been no evidence that shows it would be possible for Brazil to effectively criminalise it. It is to big, there is to much money involved in it, and to many people rely on it for there livelihoods (where exactly do they turn if it is criminalised?) As such only moving to regulate it better would be an effective demand. You seem absolutely fine with the US making impractical demands while using money as a leverage.

And that seems to be one of the topics at hand - the Federal Government believing it can coerce others into line by withholding or passing out money, regardless of rights of autonomy or practicality or the like. It is easy to make impractical requests when the outcome wont effect you either way, not so easy for the people who risk loosing vital funding if they don't toe a line that might not be in their best interests. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Originally posted by Soleran
I like them, they got some things changed that make my job alot easier

You don't have much love for the Gov't debbie. Um.............never did and don't

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You seem absolutely fine with the US making impractical demands while using money as a leverage.

I didn't look at that agreement between Brazil and the USA for the ten billion dollars so I couldn't even imagine what was discussed and what would have to have been in place for the money to be received.

That said the USA has no obligation to even offer Brazil ten billion dollars.



It certainly does make it easy to keep people in "check" when there is money though huh.

Originally posted by Soleran
It certainly does make it easy to keep people in "check" when there is money though huh.

Which is right? Which is fine when "keeping them in check" simply means "doing what you want them to" - which seems not to really be in the spirit of democracy. I might just be funny like that. Be it a state legalising gay marriage, or wanting to approach a legal situation differently from Federal party lines.

There needs to be some more separation. Otherwise the State/Federal division becomes a rather pale thing, if the state if forced to do whatever the Federals want or risk having their budgets cut.

As far as Federal/State 'bribery' via the federal government, that's open to discussion. But regarding Brazil or any other country we offer money to, we are not obligated to give any thing to anyone. I don't feel guilty if we don't give them money. At all. And if we do give them our money, I think we should get something in return, even though we give out billions a year without getting anything back.