Tell me please.

The reason we grew into more of a world power after WWII is that we were one of the few industrial nations that were not "destroyed" by the fighting. That is widely known.

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote:

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote: The U.S. was the new kid on the block and has shown that power can be had without highly centralized government. That was shown by how important we were to the outcome of WWI and WWII. That is the proof.

It is the new game in town.

Every thing changed after WW2 , WE grew the fed gov. after we emerged. Are they related,? that was the question. You say no , cool .

Everything did NOT change after WWII. We were already the world power before the World War One. We did not become the dominant power in the world only after WWII. That is nonsense.

Learn some real history and then re post. We forgive your ignorance.

I could say the same to you, but I see no point in it. History has always been my love. I flatter myself to think that I have a very good grasp on how we arrived at where we are presently.

major bean wrote:

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote:

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote: The U.S. was the new kid on the block and has shown that power can be had without highly centralized government. That was shown by how important we were to the outcome of WWI and WWII. That is the proof.

It is the new game in town.

Every thing changed after WW2 , WE grew the fed gov. after we emerged. Are they related,? that was the question. You say no , cool .

Everything did NOT change after WWII. We were already the world power before the World War One. We did not become the dominant power in the world only after WWII. That is nonsense.

Learn some real history and then re post. We forgive your ignorance.

I could say the same to you, but I see no point in it. History has always been my love. I flatter myself to think that I have a very good grasp on how we arrived at where we are presently.

Keep flattering your self , seems to be working for you. Ignorance fits you well.

Thanks.

jmc, you actually believe that we grew because of centralization? Look at the ultimate experiment in centralized government, the Soviet Union. They were here and gone in much shorter order than we have been around.

In order to bring us back to the 1950's level of centralization "when we rose to power", these agencies need to go:


Health and Human Services 1953[1] 12 Originally named Health, Education, and Welfare; Education later separated 879.20 67,000
Housing and Urban Development 1965[1] 13 40.53 10,600
Transportation 1966[1] 14 73.20 58,622
Energy 1977[1] 15 24.10 109,094
Education 1979[1] 16 45.40 4,487
Veterans Affairs 1989[1] 17 Initially named "Veterans Administration" 97.70 235,000
Homeland Security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments

This also does not include other activities such as the EPA.......


So, JMC - did we go over the governmental centralization edge - or is more better?

This thread has confused "influence" with "power". I do believe that the premise that the U.S. "power" came with U.S. centralization is a false premise. The premise should have been that U.S. "influence" ran parellel with centralization.
Big difference!

major bean wrote: This thread has confused "influence" with "power". I do believe that the premise that the U.S. "power" came with U.S. centralization is a false premise. The premise should have been that U.S. "influence" ran parellel with centralization.
Big difference!

You misunderstood. The point I so poorly was trying to make is that when a country starts becoming a world power it seems that a stronger central government follows. When the central government weakens, like it did with the Soviets, it's power starts to wane.
I was asking those that advocate a weaker fed gov if they think the same would happen here if more and more power was with the statehouses rather than Washington.

Ever notice the same people who want multiculturalism hate the idea of states rights?
So having 10 official national languages is a good thing, but having 50 individual states being able to determine their own course is a bad thing? Regional differences should be squashed but ethnic differences should be praised?
And won't encouraging multiculturalism break down the nation faster than letting local voters have a say?

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote: This thread has confused "influence" with "power". I do believe that the premise that the U.S. "power" came with U.S. centralization is a false premise. The premise should have been that U.S. "influence" ran parellel with centralization.
Big difference!

You misunderstood. The point I so poorly was trying to make is that when a country starts becoming a world power it seems that a stronger central government follows. When the central government weakens, like it did with the Soviets, it's power starts to wane.
I was asking those that advocate a weaker fed gov if they think the same would happen here if more and more power was with the statehouses rather than Washington.

The world influence most probably would wane. Our involvement in foreign wars would decrease.
The strong demand for a highly centralized government would be voiced by the large corporations, but that might not be as strong because most big corporations are no longer U.S. companies but are more international.

I see less foreign meddling as a good thing.