4 ms·

Work with, not say "just handle it". The CEO is playing golf. The federal government funds states. States like KY and TN for example are a net negative money-w

Work with, not say "just handle it". The CEO is playing golf. The federal government funds states. States like KY and TN for example are a net negative money-wise for the USA. They take in more money than they produce in tax revenue. States like NY, TX, and CA fund their operations. Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around, help set up vaccination and testing sites, etc. In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries?

vorpalhex 6y ago
> The federal government funds states. Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason. > Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around... Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states. The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. > In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries? Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  The federal government effectively controls things like highways speed limits in all the states. The department of education does a whole lot of wealth redistribution and exerts a ton of control over every single public school in the country. Just some examples. The federal government is also the largest employer in the country. > The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. Fine. States that don't want the vaccine are free to refuse it. Do you think they won't play ball if the fed says "we will deliver and distribute the vaccines and you don't have to pay for them"? In what universe will this be something a state refuses saying "we want to pay for this ourselves"? If it helps your mental model, you are the CEO of Alphabet, and Google is California, yet the worm is affecting all your subsidiaries.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    The highway near my house runs at 70 and goes up to 80 in parts. Grants are conditional but also optional and that matters. In general yes, the Fed does have an important part in what are basically non-capitalist practices - foodstamps, WIC, social security, etc etc. There are also state programs that are non-fed and also occupy a similar role. None of that disagrees with the basic assertion - the Fed does not fund states general revenue. States are supposed to manage their own budgets and collect their own income. The fed is not an endless income stream. Nobody is saying the fed shouldn't assist states with the vaccine. The states shouldn't however be entirely dependent on the fed for that help - they are supposed to be functional on their own. If the state is not functional without the fed then the state has screwed up.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      Fine, semantics aside, the federal government is in a unique position to distribute vaccines and testing supplies and PPE with a higher efficiency coefficient than the collection of the states and territories individually. There are people arguing against this in this very thread. In generally, sure the states shouldn't rely on the fed to do everything. In this case it's better for the states to let the fed handle this. If not, why not?
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        Well, we only need to look at the last time there was a mass vaccination drive. New York City had a smallpox outbreak and administered millions of doses in record time. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 The city was able to mobilize hundreds to thousands of distribution points, call up city workers (who the Fed has no power over) and run vaccine administration 24/7. The state knows more about their interior, they have more resources on the ground and more control over schools and other public buildings (libraries, community centers, etc), more ability to use private businesses if needed, and control the local health infrastructure.
        6y ago

vorpalhex 6y ago

> The federal government funds states. Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason. > Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around... Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states. The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. > In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries? Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.

IgorPartola 6y ago
The federal government effectively controls things like highways speed limits in all the states. The department of education does a whole lot of wealth redistribution and exerts a ton of control over every single public school in the country. Just some examples. The federal government is also the largest employer in the country. > The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval. Fine. States that don't want the vaccine are free to refuse it. Do you think they won't play ball if the fed says "we will deliver and distribute the vaccines and you don't have to pay for them"? In what universe will this be something a state refuses saying "we want to pay for this ourselves"? If it helps your mental model, you are the CEO of Alphabet, and Google is California, yet the worm is affecting all your subsidiaries.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The highway near my house runs at 70 and goes up to 80 in parts. Grants are conditional but also optional and that matters. In general yes, the Fed does have an important part in what are basically non-capitalist practices - foodstamps, WIC, social security, etc etc. There are also state programs that are non-fed and also occupy a similar role. None of that disagrees with the basic assertion - the Fed does not fund states general revenue. States are supposed to manage their own budgets and collect their own income. The fed is not an endless income stream. Nobody is saying the fed shouldn't assist states with the vaccine. The states shouldn't however be entirely dependent on the fed for that help - they are supposed to be functional on their own. If the state is not functional without the fed then the state has screwed up.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Fine, semantics aside, the federal government is in a unique position to distribute vaccines and testing supplies and PPE with a higher efficiency coefficient than the collection of the states and territories individually. There are people arguing against this in this very thread. In generally, sure the states shouldn't rely on the fed to do everything. In this case it's better for the states to let the fed handle this. If not, why not?
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Well, we only need to look at the last time there was a mass vaccination drive. New York City had a smallpox outbreak and administered millions of doses in record time. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1345407042769580032 The city was able to mobilize hundreds to thousands of distribution points, call up city workers (who the Fed has no power over) and run vaccine administration 24/7. The state knows more about their interior, they have more resources on the ground and more control over schools and other public buildings (libraries, community centers, etc), more ability to use private businesses if needed, and control the local health infrastructure.
      - 6y ago