gvg

But that's just one. The others haven't. And people still say that America is still viewed as the best bet, so an AA+ rating won't kill us. Especially from one company. however, maybe this will get the tea party and similar people to STFU so we can get something done. Hopefully that something won't kill jobs though. Which everyone seems to be forgetting about: jobs. How about working for some of those? Maybe a job creating thing included in one of these cuts? A second stimulus maybe? (One that isnt 40% tax cuts. The last stimulus was considered too small. http://krugman.blogs...-was-too-small/ And here's some others: http://economistsvie...-too-small.html http://www.economy.c...andi-011310.pdf ("This says nothing about the efficacy of the fiscal stimulus. If anything, it suggests the $787 billion fiscal stimulus was too small given the severity of the financial crisis." http://www.politico....0211/48586.html (Humtsman- a SMART Republican. never thought I'd see the day. But he brings up the third thing I linked.) And i promise I'll answer all of your points- i just haven't had a chance to do so yet.

In Soviet Russia, God made man. (I had to, I apologize =)) In Soviet Russia, Waldo finds you.

Well, here's some good news: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/july_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1

Ah shoot. i had a whole big thing, and then because I forgot to sign in first, I lost it. ARGH! I did select all first, like usual, but it says quote tags are uneven. And it looks all weird. Ah well. i don't have time to redo it now. I'll do it later i suppose =)

Oh, and i don' tthink it included corporate taxes. This is one of the things (one of the FEW things) i agree with lowering taxes on. i see no reason that lowering it to 28% from 35% (much too high for those who follow the rules) while closing loopholes to increase revenue wouldn't work beautifully. And maybe we should use the Citizens United ruling to our advantage: If a corporation is a person, than I guess they can be charged for tax evasion, and we can punish them more severely for their enviormental mistakes (BP executives i'm looking at you) and such. just a thought. if they're a person, they have all the responsibilities of one too =)

Dawh: About the earmarks: According to the link I put up, the NY Times thing, earmarks do conribute something. Granted, it wasn't much, but from what I understand, all they do is allow for useless pet projects by politicians, and so since it's useless, and might help, I see no reason to get rid of it. Now, i may have gotten what an earmark is wrong, but i don't think so. And for Quag: My response is in red There were some things that I think could have been added (indeed, they say politicians have more stuff), but 'm very glad to have found this exercise. Very enlightening. And it makes you wonder why we, normal people, seem to be able to do this (and compromise)... and not our officials.

Quag: Ok, i can see foreign aid reform for sure. (i don't think we send it to china though. Good job with that =)) But cutting it outright- I don't know about that. For instance, although I don't completely agree with everything it does, Israel does rely on us. And since we (and England, but from what I know we encouraged them) created it, to get rid of it would be, well, not fair really. And we don't need foreign aid just yet, ya know, with our huge economy and all that. We're still, to my knowledge, the biggest. Those nutjob dems. have much less of a say than the tea party, and are much less paid attention to. And I don't think Obama (again, this is an assumption), or whoever, would put dems. on there that wouldn't negotiate. Even just talking political advantage, they have the republicans cornered due to the stuff that just happened. I'm much more hopeful than you seem to be. And I disagree with the plan being ignored- 1. because it isn't really possible. You can't just ignore a law. 2. That would be political suicide. Too many people, unlike usual here, care about this for it to be forgotten by the public. Also, I think it's a good start. We did finally begin cutting, and hopefully the bipartisan thing that's being developed would be good. And it kinda has to be over a ten or so year period. If too much is taken out at once, well, we'd be screwed. And the credit rating would be catastrophic for everyone from what ive read. I am sure something would be created to help us if the need arise. If they busted out greece, they'll bust out us. And by the way, I don't like the debt ceiling exactly because of this thing that happened. No other major nation has it (from what ive read), and really there's no need. It's not worth what just almost heppened. The debt ceiling, after all, is to be able to pay the bills we already owe, not to increase spending. Now, plain: 1. Congrats on becoming a moderator =) 2. I agree with the second half of what you wrote. i don't know enough about the first half to say yes or no, so, yeah... And I found out that the US basically is Europe's military. Is there any further sense in this? It isn't the 50's. Europe is no longer a bomb-filled continent. ill answer your other post later tonight, QUag.

1. Well, definitely more equal then mine. By what's with the foreign aid cuts? You're one of many. Is it that big of a deal? 2. Couldn't a credit downgrade be avoided with an actual deal, involving both revenue increases (tax raises, loophole fill-ins, etc.) and cuts, that adds up to 4 trillion? I thought i read that somewhere. And i think it's possible. IF no tea partiers are put on the bipartisan thingy of course. Then we're screwed. But i doubt Boehner (who I assume is going to appoint the people) is that stupid. He knows the tea partiers are crazy, i hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=bktj45ny I solved the deficit apparently =) I have to do this again though, when I actually pay attention more. But anyway, here's the link for the rest of ya: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

flamebird, it's the S surrounded by the blue square. Under 'My Media'

Or this: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Well, here's my plan: First, I think we need to raise taxes. That one is just common sense. Reducing it or leaving it the same won't bring in as much revenue. Second, close tax loopholes, both for people and corporations, that aren't necessary, which would allow the corporate tax rate to actually be lowered (35% is a bit much) Then, capital gains tax cannot stay at 15%. That is just too low. Now, for the cuts: Defense in half, by ending the wars, whatever. Cutting SS or Medicare won't do anything, that is out of the question (Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JlK6k29uQ) Then we move to Senatorial pay. For instance, the speaker of the house makes something like 150K a year. That's ridiculous. there's no reason for it to be more than, say, 100K. Then, just find some more waste. By the way, I need someone to explain to me the difference between the Deficit and the debt. From what I get, the Debt is to foreign places while the deficit is to domestic places (like the Fed and SS, which the government has been taking the surplus from for years). If this is true, why does anyone care about the deficit? It's debt that doesn't leave the country. i don't see what the big deal is.

http://www.rmprofessional.com/rm/survey-puts-somalia-top-of-terrorist-attack-league.php Um, yeah, i could. It's called terrorism. or do the terrorists count as governments? People always have motives for killing. Religious, economic, social, etc. Absolutely such things could happen. A bunch of planes were flown into the twin towers by a fundamentalist group. not a government. A group of terrorists. Somalia, an anarchic country, is number one on the most terrorist attacks list (the link). Now your just blaming everything on governemnts. War has been around since the first human (hell, even animals; ants wage war) took a rock and hit someone upside the head for a mate. Blaming such things on governments is ridiculous. War will be war, regardless of there being a state or not. Like what i said before about the private organizations being bribed (ill reply to your other stuff tomorrow): Obviously they may not have a monopoly on violence. but does that matter? What if it the company that has 60% of the market? Backed by some greedy rich aristocrats who want power? Civil war will easily run rampant, and any peace will be fragile. Seriously, war will always exist as long as the quest for power contnues. Which will be as long as humans exist. The companies will fight amongst themselves. Rich aristocrats vs other rich aristocrats. Shareholders vs shareholders. The companies that were attacked by any other rogue one would retaliate, obviously, because why should the sit and do nothing? And in an era without governments, the same ones that made the Geneva Convention and POW rules, war will be worse. No battle field news, since reporters will haev no protection. Thus, no knowledge for the population about human rights violations and what not. Saying that full-scale war, like that seen in the past and present, will suddenly disapear when governments do, is being naive. people cause wars. Any agent of warfare, private or otherwise, will be exploited if power is at stake. And i'm noticing that you seem to think we should have stood their and taken it when japan attacked us and when the terrorists did. That's BS if I'm understanding you correctly. If I'm attacked, I'm fighting back. The stories of the Gandhi's are wonderful when they work. but seriously think about it: Imagine that was the N. Korean government. Gandhi and the revolutionaries would have disapeared. And saying the dilemna with Japan was a false one is to not understand the predicament. if we didn't attack, Japan would have; there is no question of that. So it was either attack or be attacked. I dunno about you, but I'll take the former. After that it becomes morally fuzzy territory that I won't even begin to try to solve, and thankfully such things won't have to happen again (drones now make sure that military targets are exclusively attacked. They do much more damage, and hopefully will allow for less use of actual humans in warfare, lowering further the possibility that any civilians will be harmed). But if you say we shouldn't have attacked and instead should have taken it, well, then i simply can't agree with that. And if that's what NAP is, then I'll take the plunge and say NAP is not fully for me. if it means waiting to be attacked even if we can attack first to stop it, if it means being Gandhiescue for everything, and if it means that in WW2 we should have let Japan beat the crap out of us- than NAP is not the greatest thing to use.

I meant to say condone or condemn it outright in that last section.

Those neighbors seem like real a-holes not for nothing. And that's a hell of a law. Wonder if they have that in NY....

As for your most recent post that I just saw: What if I reject NAP? Because not for nothing, but I'm not entirely sure that it works. For instance, the only reason Ghandi's actions worked is because it was against a government that wasn't totalitarian/screw the populace, and that accepted the world's criticism. If he had done that against, say, China or NK, we would leran about the futile attempts of an Indian man to break away peacefully, which led to his death and a bloody revolution (of course, according to you, that would then mean India wouldn't legitimately have its land).

My stuff's in red, but before I begin with the line by line: Who the hell was the first to legitimately own it then? The Native Americans? I could see that, of course, but then you should be arguing to give the Native Americans back all their land. Are you fighting for that? Because think about it, you say that even though the Native Americans oftentimes sold the land (yes, they got screwed in the deal, no one disputes this, but you think voluntary contracts are OK, and since they were voluntary, it's exactly like the bad deals homeowners made recently with the mortgage stuff.) Now, to the specifics...

I really haven't tried to argue for or against the idea that taxation is voluntary. I find it irrelevant. However, let's look at this municipality thing logically UtF: First off, (this piece doesn't apply to you, as you live in the NE), but the ENTIRE western half of the country was at one time completely owned by the government (Louisiana Purchase, etc.). It was given to its citizens (Homestead Act) and was taxed, like what Quag was saying, as a kind of rent. After all, it was the government's. It was a government contract that set up the terms, conditions, etc. So that is unarguable. (In fact, most of it is still titled 'Federal Land') But like I said, you are in the NE. So that doesn't apply to you. But think about this: Originally the East coast was owned by England, who gave the colonists the rights to settle, again with a rent-like tax. After the Revolutionary war, all of this English land was given to the new US government in the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war. Thus, it was the US government's land. So now let's look at the outcome: The West was directly purchased (or conquered in the Mexican American War, or annexed) by the US government. The East was transferred by the Treaty of Versailles. The governemnt is renting out the land you live on. Thus, the taxes (rent) are legitimate.

I'll get to this in my list below. I have to admit that my religious experience wasn't one of fear. I was taught about a god of love, one who cared and watched over you. If you were good, he rewarded you (which is really what they emphasized). Looking back, I realize it wasn't so loving, but at the time I thought it was wonderful. And the social implication is HUGE. When I became an atheist (which came about through careful reasonable thinking and arguments, many from this site =)), everything changed really. I hide it from most of my family, and its really only my immediate family and friends that know. I cannot discuss religious stuff with my siblings (I do anyway with my 12 year old brother though, and thankfully he isn't one of the crazy religious people (he's very scientific, and i'm sure he'll accept evolution when he learns about it)), and at one point a friend of mine that I've known since I was 6 (I consider him to be my best friend) basically damned me through an XBox conversation, explaining that he now thought differently of me since he knew i was going to hell. Thankfully that's where it ended and it hasn't been brought up since (it was a couple of months ago), but many people aren't so lucky. I'm sure you know the horror stories of being trown out of the house for being an atheist. I'm quite lucky. These are just a couple of things really. I feel my dad is more accepting than my mom, but she is still OK with it (took her a bit to get used to it though). But the social part is surely the biggest, especially for those who reached adulthood in a religious household. But what I don't think people realize is that atheists aren't as few as they think. I've met many (gotta love high school), and I'm qutie friendly with all of them. It's great really. But that's why i am not an 'anti-theist' unless they try to push social conservative BS. Because it really is tougher than most people think. My switch took a few months. many take years, and I'm sure if I hadn't found this website i would still be a theist (maybe not a Catholic, since I was completely disgusted with that church after my confirmation, but at least a deist, maybe more). But anyway... Do the general argument. i agree with you that the road thing is a little nit-picky (although of course i agree with Quag but not for the same reason; I think it is irrelevant, Quag, what the rules are, they have to be justified. If the government suddenly said 'We're shutting down the border and burning unapproved books,' I'd be one of the first to get the hell out of here (probably moving to Canada in the process =)). So do it in general. i think a restart would be beneficial to this debate. You set up your main arguments, and I'll do mine below (I may miss some, so if so, I'll bring them up as we go). So, first off: Unregualted Free Market Now you are (correct me if I'm wrong) an Anarch-Capitalist, correct? Because of this, I will begin with an argument against on unregulated free markets. I will once again bring up historical references. First off, it is well known (you agree, yes?) that unregulated free markets have led to monopolies and cartels, and though some (like the chocolate cartel and possible gas cartel) still exist, the trust-busting efforts of the like of Theodore Roosevelt and Taft led to an opening up of the market for competitors. THink about: What is more 'free', a market of Mom and Pop stores or a few monopolies in each product area, like gas, coal, etc.? Again I will say it: The freer (more lazie-faire) the market, the less free its buyers. In order to keep the market free, you need to regulate it so that small businesses aren't tirelessly squeezed out of the market. Now, I believe you said somewhere that you don't think competitors would fall to monopolies. Well first off, it's already happened, but secondly, they would have no choice. Imagine I opened up a burger joint next to a McDonald's. I set my price at 2$ a burger (let's say there's is $2.50) which will allow me to make a profit of 10 cents a burger. Now, the McDonald's sees this. Obviously, they don't like it. They know that in order to reduce the price to $1.95 (or whatever lower amount than mine you want), they would have to lose 40 cents per burger. The thing is, they can lower the price dramatically, losing money in the process, and still force me out of business, because they are big enough to have enough money on hand to be able to lose some and still run, unlike me, who has a few bucks in the bank and my brother working the cash register. Now, i don't know if that came out the way i wanted it to, but Dawh made a clearer argument about this earlier, so I shall push on: Without regulation to make sure smaller companies can compete, Bigger ones (like Monopolies) would eat up everything. Just like Standard Oil did, just like US Steel did, just like Microsoft was doing before the anti-trust suit. Regulations like anti-trust laws are needed to MAKE a market free. Without it, there would be few options for the consumer. Also, think about working conditions: Regulations have made it mandatory to have safe working conditions with reasonable hours. Yes, unions fought for it, but they would have simply been another nuisance had the government not stepped in. (In fact, in other countries, union workers and union heads are killed by businesses. literally killed. For instance, in Colombia, some Banana company killed the union head and told the workers, basically, "unionize and you're next.") Government regulations are there to make sure the market is free for everyone, not just big bussiness and monopolies. Fairness This goes along with #1 at the beginning of the post. My aim in life, as I'm sure yours is, is to make sure as many people as possible are happy and not miserable. Let's look at what happens when government gets out of the way: The EP disaster, which ruined the Louisiana fishing industry Poor working conditions like those that existed before laws were put into place against them. (Like making sure someone was compensated for losing a limb on the job) Irresponsible speculation on the part of Wall Street and Oil companies (to name a few), which in the case of Wall Street helped along an economic collapse, and in the case of oil companies raised prices unnecesarily (remember that oil cartel article I linked earlier in the thread?) I could continue. Look at Fuedal society. That's an extreme, yes, but it does show: little government, little benefits for anyone who isn't rich. I am not suggesting that your idea is as bad as fuedalism, but i see it quickly degrading into fuedalism without government intervetion (which is obviously not anarchy). The rich will be rich no matter what occurs. Be realistic. Bill gates won't be scrounging in the gutter thanks to a tax increase. Since the rich benefited most from society, and continue to benefit, they should give more back to help their fellow man. Why? Because they can. To not do so is selfish. Why public and not private schools? Ask the poor inner-city kids who can't afford to go to Catholic or private school and instead can settle for at least some level of education, however little it is. Ask those who benefit from the free lunch and breakfast program, which for many allow them to eat three meals a day, and for some they are the only meals they get. Ask the poor kid who, thanks to being able to afford school because of public school, got a free ride through colege with a scholarship for being athletic, or being smart, and because of it, getting to be someone. it's simple compassion, simple fairness. I know you don't think so, but there wouldn't be enough charitability to cover what current government programs do, let alone surpass them. If such a thing could happen, why is Africa still, generally, a wasteland? Why is Somalia (which may be better off or not, I don't know, it is irrelevant) still a hell hole? Why does 'third world America' exist? Why do over 40 million people not have healthcare? You get what I mean. Unemployment insurance for those down on their luck (i'm all for weeding out the 'welfare queens'), etc. etc. The middle class didn't exist until recently becuase such charitability doesn't exist; it is shrinking because charitability doesn't exist. Some things shouldn't be for profit. No one should make money off of denying people healthcare, no one should make money off of denying people from school because they are too poor. It would undo all the adancements humanity has made. We would see a rise in illiteracy, religious fundamentalism, etc. And some things weren't made by private things. The internet you're using? Developed in large part through government grants. Taxation is a way of fairness. Government (properly sized) is a way of fairness. It makes sure all can have a decent quality of life, not just those with money. it makes sure people can in fact rise and fall through their own merits and not because of how much money they have. Etc. The greater good is what should be looked for. The benefit of as many people as possible, even if some have to give up some of their millions while they have 100's of millions more. If taxation is theft, then not all theft is wrong, because I do not see taxation as wrong. And besides, I will once again point out that the government is taxing its own creation, the green paper in circulation. If you really hate it, try to convince people to deal in something else. Tell me how much luck you have. Consumer Protection/Related Stuff This kinda goes along with the faults of unregualted free markets. Consumers don't, as you say, vote with their wallet on issues like whether or not a company uses slave labor, or is anti-union, or whatever. They 'vote' for the one that's cheapest, or looks prettiest, regardless of how or why it was there. People don't care about the slave labor being used by big companies like GAP and Nike, otherwise they wouldn't stay open. I can't tell you how many people decided to stop buying Nike's only because they started to promote Michael Vick. not becuase of the poor 8 year old chinese boy being paid 1$ an hour. I pledged to stop buying Nike and GAP for those reasons; I am among a minority. Perfect song to illustrate: (I LOVE Rise Against =)) People don't care enough to research. Thus, government has to step in. The discovery of an oil price fixing scheme? THat happened thanks to a government agency. Otherwise the public, who is often very ignorant, would continue to buy it, blaming the high prices on Obama or 'Those damn A-rabs.' The ideal free market relies on an educated populace. The plutocratic oligarchy we're moving towards, the same that your system would usher in, relies on the current uneducated republic. I'm sure i've forgotten some things, but I'm just as sure you'll inevitably bring them up. Now for something more specific: My defense of the very military i wish to cut but not kill. Military As any sane person would, i agree that any wars fought after WW2 have generally been oil or politically motivated (like the anti-communist feelings of the cold war that led to the Korean and Vietnam wars). But this does not mean that the military should be abolished. First off, I must ask: What would you have done when the japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor? If I understand correctly, NAP allows for self-defense, so I assume fighting back wouldn't have been an issue. But, how could you fight back without a military? If things were your way, there would have been no military to fight back with. What then? Let them go? THAT is ridiculously stupid. Now, you may say private companies could do that work. I would reply: BS. Maybe it would have been profitable for the Hawaiian and West Coast Defense Companies to use their resources to fight back, but would they stand a chance without the constant funding needed to fight a war? How would it be able to fight back against the Japanese navy or army, the same one that had easily conquered much of the far east, even China? It may ask for help, but why would my NY defense company help them? It wouldn't be profitable. Why waste money on something that may remain a West Coast phenomenon? It's like the poem, 'First they came for the jews...' (minus the races, replaced with the sections of the continent). Defense is something that shouldn't be for profit. Our army is bloated, obese, wasteful, and about as useful in its current uses as a hairstylist in a balding clinic. (What i mean by that silly simile is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been total failures at this point, and haven't helped us at all). I think we could cut it in half and still be lovely. But without our military, we are defenseless. China will look at us and say, 'Hmmmm, well, now that they don't have a government to give us our money back, and they have no military, we might as well take, let's see, half of it for compensation.' (Oh, and btw, do you know about the disastrous consequences that would oddur if the US went into default? Could you imagine if it went into default because it no longer existed? That would cause economic chaos). You may think I'm too paranoid. Well, i think you would be naive to think something other than this scenario would happen. Maybe it would be the chinese, but for sure, the US would be split up amongst foreign nations. SW to Mexico. Hawaii to Japan. Alaska to the Canadians (Dman you Quag =)). The NE to the British (maybe no this one). hell, the whole South could become Mexican territory. Anyway, point is, the military may be too big, but it certaintly isn't unnecessary. War sucks. i'm wuite anti-war. But sometimes war is necessary, like in cases of self-defense. And we all benefit from having protection. Minimum Wage I think dawh did this already, but I'll do it too: Let's bring in two men (or women, whatever suits you). One is a teenager, say, me, 15, able to work for whatever they offer because my expenses are obviously taken care of by my parents (you can insert a single guy with no family to support as well). The other is a father of four, mid 40's, a family to take care of, maybe some college and credit card debts to pay, etc. He needs at lest $7.50 an hour so his family doesn't starve. In a non-minimum wage scenario, I get the job. I'm young, and whatever experience the other guy had (let's assume it's not something like a company executive position we're both after) is disregarded due to the fact that i'll accept a pay of, say, 5$ (what I get paid, actually, to 'unofficially' work for my neighbor). Thus, now the family man must either take equal or less pay, and in the process probably lose 2 meals a day and most of his non-necessary possesions (no HD TV for him), or keep looking in this current job market where many companies have a policy that if you're unemployed for more than 6 months they won't hire you. Either way, the guy's screwed. Now a minimum wage scenario: Noting the man's obvious superiority in experience and, probably, responsibility, they decide it is more worth it for them to hire the older gentleman than me. THe guy gets the pay he needs, and I go home to play XBox and type this up =) Everyone's happy. Is this such a bad scenario? I wanted to say something else, but i forgot. i'll type it up if i remember. So now you reply to me (or don't. Whatever =)), and also add your list of stuff (Probably all counter to mine of course =)) Edit: THis is the longest thing i've ever posted on Brainden. It's a milestone =)

UtF: I have time to only reply to a couple of things: 1. If Bob can go and get a private helicopter or whatever else (flight or digging is the only way to not use roads), it means he has enough money to pay his taxes so that the roads can be kept for the benefit of those who cannot afford to do what he can. Simple act of helping people. Not everything should be for profit. 2. For your question as to why religious people hang on to it so much: As someone who has 'found the light' after being very religious (I at one point sought to be a theologian or priest), I can tell you: The horror of what a godless world means The social consequences Being brainwashed from birth So, yeah. When i get the chance, I'd like to answer your questions and ask my own. If you don't mind, could you lay out your objections in one post: At this point, i've lost track of them all. i will do the same. Let's start over if we have to.

http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_44751517-4820-500b-b3f6-42d928d5e1c3.html Well. Authoritian much? This is just horrible. And then the coup (well, some people equate it to a coup) was even worse. Whaddya you guys think? I am simply shocked that outside help wasn't brought in. I mean, this is a blatantly obvious right's violation. The fact that no one responded to the mayor's plea for help is somewhat sickening.

UtF: By the way, I don't see the sales tax as a claim that the government owns what you make. Think about who the government is taxing: the consumer, not the producer of the good. So, I don't understand why you think it's the government claiming that it owns the goods you produce.

For the Waco Siege thing: "A gunfight ensued (debate continues over which side fired the first shot)." "The government was hoping that the gas would safely push the Branch Davidians out of the compound." "In response to the gas, the Branch Davidians shot back." http://history1900s.about.com/od/1990s/qt/waco.htm You can't just assume the government shot first. No one knows. Kinda like the American Revolution. And the Branch Dividians fired back after the government used tear gas. Which doesn't hurt or kill people. Were the government's actions perfect? No. Police raids/sieges are never perfect. But don't make it sound like the government went in, guns blazing, slaughtering their own civilians. And the 80 people died in a fire that started. And unless you wanna find a source that says the government lit the house on fire, that wasn't their fault either.

Shoot, the bolded stuff should be the two sentences before the . And I've noticed another thing: The Articles of Confederation were, in a way, like a DRO. The gov. could REQUEST payment, congress could REQUEST that the State's follow their laws, etc. etc. Notice that it no longer is followed. Why? Because people like the founders knew it sucked. The only really important thing they got done was the NW ordinance of some year (anybody more knowledgeable on the subject correct me if I'm wrong). So we have, in a fashion, historical proof that a system very much like a DRO worked about as well as young Earth Creationsim. (OK, maybe not THAT bad... =)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation Oh yeah, it says it got the Land Ordinance of 1785 done as well. (By the way, completely off topic, but I often wonder why so many people are skeptical of Wiki. It's new way of doing things and constant sourcing is done very well. Why isn't it accepted? Is it because of its Wild West Days?)