(03-27-2015 05:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I read an article about the U.S. doing that because Washington has strayed so far from what it was intended to be. We could scrap the current government and start over with a capital in Kansas or Missouri. We could keep Washington as one giant museum.

We have already done that... you just don't know it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...etamerica/

(03-27-2015 05:10 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I read an article about the U.S. doing that because Washington has strayed so far from what it was intended to be. We could scrap the current government and start over with a capital in Kansas or Missouri. We could keep Washington as one giant museum.

I would move Congress and the Supreme Court to different locations as they require moving the least peripheral in terms of people and offices. Splitting all three branches would make it nearly impossible for an enemy to wipe out the entire leadership of the U.S. government. Congress can have KS/MO and the Supreme Court could be somewhere out west (like perhaps the WA/OR border near Vancouver, WA)

I would move the executive departments out of DC. It's easier to break the Beltway mentality if we get people away from the Beltway. State and Defense probably have to stay in DC, probably Homeland Security and Justice as well. But what about something like moving Treasury to NYC, Health/Human Services to ATL, Agriculture to Chicago, Interior to Denver, Veterans Affairs to St. Louis, Energy to Houston, Transportation to Detroit, Commerce to Los Angeles, Labor to San Francisco, Education to Dallas? As an aside, I would probably reduce the number of cities by reducing the number of cabinet departments, but that's for another post. Get the bureaucrats out and about and learning how the real world lives. One advantage is that lobbying would get a lot harder since lobbying at the federal level would now require offices in 10-12 different cities instead of just DC.

Washington was built early in the country's history when pretty much all of the population and land was along the Atlantic Seaboard. Keep DC around as a museum of sorts and, of course, because people obviously still live there but I think Denver makes more sense as a national capital, if not somewhere like Kansas City (in which case you can take land out of two different states to form a new federal district similar to the original District of Columbia). Either or are closer to the heart of the country/continent.

Those poor Hawai'ian and West Coast politicians, having to go all the way to DC.

(03-29-2015 03:24 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Washington was built early in the country's history when pretty much all of the population and land was along the Atlantic Seaboard. Keep DC around as a museum of sorts and, of course, because people obviously still live there but I think Denver makes more sense as a national capital, if not somewhere like Kansas City (in which case you can take land out of two different states to form a new federal district similar to the original District of Columbia). Either or are closer to the heart of the country/continent.

Those poor Hawai'ian and West Coast politicians, having to go all the way to DC.

Never would happen. It would be prohibitively expensive.

There's already a solid federal presence in both cities (IIRC, Kansas City is home to a major tax office or something involving mail). And Denver is already a state capital, so some aspects of the Colorado government could be taken over and perhaps the state capital could be moved elsewhere in Colorado. And it wouldn't have to happen overnight, the transition from Cairo isn't happening overnight.

(03-28-2015 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would move the executive departments out of DC. It's easier to break the Beltway mentality if we get people away from the Beltway.

This! Move them about 50 miles to the East.

LOL, the Atlantic Ocean/Chesapeake Bay.

(03-27-2015 12:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 11:30 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 10:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31874886

That's cool and all, but I'm still never going to the Middle East or Africa. Too dangerous.

Same here. I have seen the Pyramids on TV and African animals in the Zoo. There is absolutely zero gratification to either in person. I always remember how excited I was to go to the Grand Canyon and see it in person. After 15 minutes....I was ready to go.

For Me Africa was Out after Tarzan Movies and seeing Lions and Crocodiles eating people . I Never wanted to be around Deserts either. Too Hot & Too Much Sand.

(03-31-2015 10:24 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 12:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 11:30 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 10:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31874886

That's cool and all, but I'm still never going to the Middle East or Africa. Too dangerous.

Same here. I have seen the Pyramids on TV and African animals in the Zoo. There is absolutely zero gratification to either in person. I always remember how excited I was to go to the Grand Canyon and see it in person. After 15 minutes....I was ready to go.

For Me Africa was Out after Tarzan Movies and seeing Lions and Crocodiles eating people . I Never wanted to be around Deserts either. Too Hot & Too Much Sand.

That's a shame. Africa is a fantastically beautiful continent. And I really enjoy a number of places in the Middle East as well.

(03-28-2015 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would move the executive departments out of DC. It's easier to break the Beltway mentality if we get people away from the Beltway. State and Defense probably have to stay in DC, probably Homeland Security and Justice as well. But what about something like moving Treasury to NYC, Health/Human Services to ATL, Agriculture to Chicago, Interior to Denver, Veterans Affairs to St. Louis, Energy to Houston, Transportation to Detroit, Commerce to Los Angeles, Labor to San Francisco, Education to Dallas? As an aside, I would probably reduce the number of cities by reducing the number of cabinet departments, but that's for another post. Get the bureaucrats out and about and learning how the real world lives. One advantage is that lobbying would get a lot harder since lobbying at the federal level would now require offices in 10-12 different cities instead of just DC.

I've always thought I plan like this would make a lot of sense. At this point it's not like congress be need to be in DC to do their work. I'd be more than happy if the met for 2 months a telecommuted for the rest of their session.

(03-27-2015 12:24 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 12:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 11:30 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 10:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31874886

That's cool and all, but I'm still never going to the Middle East or Africa. Too dangerous.

Same here. I have seen the Pyramids on TV and African animals in the Zoo. There is absolutely zero gratification to either in person. I always remember how excited I was to go to the Grand Canyon and see it in person. After 15 minutes....I was ready to go.

I wouldn't even go to Dubai. Everyone talks about how amazing it is... and I'm sure it's beautiful. But there are people there who want to kill me because I'm white, American, and Christian. No thanks.

Parts of Europe are almost there, too. I felt very unsafe in East London near where West Ham United's stadium is. It was a Pakistani neighborhood. Very, very uneasy.

don't take this personally....I just chose your post to posit...

irony

the killing that took place for the civil genome to get to this point

the killing that continues in a disemboweled world-wide-all-inclusive regime based on lack of resources and development

______________________

how anyone is shocked about how the unable are unable is flawed not in ignorance, but in inability to look past