Are Some Haters Of Government Sensing The Looming Regeneracy?

[Odin]

(03-15-2017, 04:06 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: This is exactly why we don't move further into said progressive direction. The corporate controlled media might as well have a noose around the necks of more progressive minded reporters as they are badgered into silence. Recall how much Bernie Sanders was ignored by the MSM until his campaign gained steam, and even then they tended to give him as little coverage as they could get away with. Even quasi-progressive MSNBC ousted Ed Schultz, about the only one on TV who allowed Sanders considerable air time. Had he had more air time, he just might be our President today.

Important to note that Schultz got his start at the left-leaning talk-radio station here in Fargo, KFGO, so he's not part of the "Coastal Bubble".

[Odin]

(03-15-2017, 04:10 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 10:21 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: I wouldn't oversell the US loss of manufacturing too much.  It's still a major manufacturing power, with exports in aircraft (subsidized by the MIC) and various capital goods outweighing food in dollar terms.

Seems to be that way because of new technology including robots. They are not the gigantic employers they once were.

Exactly, we are still the 2nd largest manufacturer in the world, but yet going by the popular hysteria you would think we no longer have any industry.

[Odin]

(03-16-2017, 09:43 AM)FLBones Wrote: Confederate flag is a representation of southern heritage.

Right, just like a Nazi flag is a representation of German heritage...

[pbrower2a]

Under President Donald Trump we are beginning to have a dystopia. The trend existed before him, especially as the House, Senate, and most State legislatures were taken over by people better attuned to serving economic elites (who control things through lobbyists) than the majority of the people.





So how does it happen? The old bait-and-switch. Like a purveyor of schlock furniture to poor people, the con artist asks the mark who is in economic distress to believe that the fraudster has something wonderful to offer, at a supposed bargain  or with an 'easy payment plan'. The desirable deal is of course sold out, and one needs to make a swift decision and not ask too many questions.

It is not long after taking delivery that the gulled customer discovers that he should have asked some questions or simply walked away.

We're going to pay a high price for a Trump Presidency on an 'easy payment plan'. We will all be garnisheed.

[Odin]

(03-17-2017, 11:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-17-2017, 11:32 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: If you were to ask me, I would tell you that the Grand Funk (with all apologies to the classic rock band) aka National Malaise is still very much with us and even worse than ever under the Carter years. At least then people went out and kicked up their heels at the discos, where today you can hardly find a dance club even in a large metro region. This despite the intense popularity of the "Dancing with the Stars" TV show.

Yep.  If anything, the National Malaise has become the new normal.  The feeling that we can't get anything done has become a conviction that we shouldn't try to get anything done.

People have come to assume any attempt to get anything done is just the "government wasting their money", it's dangerous, pathological cynicism.

[Kinser79]

(03-19-2017, 12:27 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-17-2017, 11:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-17-2017, 11:32 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: If you were to ask me, I would tell you that the Grand Funk (with all apologies to the classic rock band) aka National Malaise is still very much with us and even worse than ever under the Carter years. At least then people went out and kicked up their heels at the discos, where today you can hardly find a dance club even in a large metro region. This despite the intense popularity of the "Dancing with the Stars" TV show.

Yep.  If anything, the National Malaise has become the new normal.  The feeling that we can't get anything done has become a conviction that we shouldn't try to get anything done.

People have come to assume any attempt to get anything done is just the "government wasting their money", it's dangerous, pathological cynicism.

Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

[Kinser79]

(03-19-2017, 08:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-18-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 3.  My experience with Boomers is that they were never really friendly with Urban living unless their previous experience itself was urban.  White boomers in particular seem to be the most prone to "wanting to get back to the land" even though they have no intention of taking up agriculture or actual rural living.

I'm kinda like that.  I grew up suburban and have always been suburban.  Well, I retired to the family cottage near Cape Cod.  That's not really rural, more like tourist country.  Still, I got a car in high school and have always had that mobility.

(03-18-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 4.  When it comes to the notion of cars and "freedom":  Yes with a car you can go where you want when you want, yadda yadda yadda.  At the same time you have to make payments on the car, buy fluids and fuel for the car, maintain the car, pay taxes on the car, drive in shitty places, be stuck in endless hours o traffic.  In short you trade one set of non-freedom for an other set of non-freedom.  Honestly the freest I've ever felt was when I lived in Chicago or New York City.  Both areas where owning a car is not the best way to get around.

There are some other shifts that came with cars that should be kept in mind.  In the suburban Boston area, there was light rail everywhere in the form of trolly tracks and overhead wires.  My father as a kid, if he could gather a hand full of dimes, could travel all over the South Shore without a horse or a car, just jumping from trolly to trolly.  If this sort of service were to come back, they'd probably do it with busses rather than put all the rails back.

My home town and most of the South Shore region was shoe making territory.  It started with the local farms having cattle.  When you butcher the cattle, you have hide.  In the winter months, when there isn't as much to do on a farm, people would make shoes and boots.  As the Industrial Age kicked in, it became more efficient to make shoes with machines and on assembly lines.  The work shifted from the farms to the factories.

But you lived at most one town away from your factory.  You got to work by trolly.  Traveling more than one town too more time than you'd like.  Today, with cars, folk tend to commute much longer distances.  This might want to change back.

Retail worked differently.  Every town had a main street with a grocery store, a meat store, a hardware store, a cloth store, etc...  The town centers were for many too far away to visit casually, you'd want the trolly, but for serious shopping one could get most of what one wanted on main street.  These days, one town in five has a oversized mall surrounded by a huge parking lot.  If you like economy of scale, this can be a good thing.  If one is trying to wean a culture from cars, there might be a shift back to more smaller shopping centers.

There might also be a shift to delivery service.  In my youth, the milk man delivered every other day, the newspaper was delivered, and the fish man came every Friday.  That might be coming back with a computerized difference.  You can log into one of the local super market's web sights, fill in an order, and they'll deliver.  Amazon and other web commerce sites are pushing back brick and mortar retail.  While in the old days every town had a main street lined with retail, main street might not need to come back.

Convenience stores have also shifted since the first half of the 20th century.  In the old days, there was a small general store within walking distance of everywhere.  As a kid, I had a half mile walk east to get to a decent sized grocery store on Main Street, or I could go half a mile west to a tiny store that had a little bit of everything.  Today, in the car age, all those tiny stores have vanished, but there are clumps of convince stores and drug stores in most towns.  In Rockland, Burger King is right next to McDonalds.  CVS drugs is one block away from a competing drug store.  Cumberland Farms is a classic convince store, sitting among two gas stations with attached convince stores.  This hub of small stores are right together, a half mile away from the old town center.  Given that no one walks, that everyone goes everywhere by car, why scatter stores around so that everyone can easily walk to get milk and hamburger?  Everyone wants to be at the prime location, where two major roads meet, and everyone ends up at the same prime location.

Another shift is porches.  In the days of horses, walking and trollies, the tradition locally was to build a front porch.  One would sit out there on a rocking chair and chat a bit as people passed by.  As cars took over, the front yard became noisy and casual conversation with passers by ended.  The emphasis shifted from the front yard to the back yard.  One had patios and swimming pools rather than porches.

Anyway, it's not just the transportation infrastructure that might change.  Change the technology, and there is often quite a bit of fallout.

Precisely my point Bob.  Boomers tend (so most but not all) not want to live in cities unless they do so already or grew up in them.  They seem to desire a sub-urban cartoon of a cartoon of country living.  Assuming that they manage to live to the major credit crunch and oil crunch that is coming, they will have to learn to garden or starve.

As for shopping, yes delivery is making a heavy come back.  Seriously I only shop at retail outlets for two main things--groceries and cloths.  And the latter is at the thrift shop 90% of the time.  I only insist that underwear, shoes and socks be brand new, all else if it is in good repair can be had at the local good will.

All else if it can be delivered it is delivered.  My P.V. stuff is delivered.  Razor blades for my Double Edge Razor (yes the old school ones) are delivered, my shaving soap that's made by an artisan soap maker in Arkansas is delivered.  Honestly half the time I have trouble finding the things I want even in Wal-Mart so I've gone over to simply ordering it.  The shipping and handling is worth not going through the hassle.

As for porches, I think there will be a shift back to the front from the back.  However that is going to require the decimation of car culture--which is already happening.  As PBR pointed out vehicles these days for most people are about as exciting as a washing machine, and often have about the same aesthetics.

Given the inevitable credit crunch and oil crunch that is coming we'll see a lot less private driving and a move toward the cities by those who can afford to move.  For those who can't well welcome to the new sub-urban ghetto.  Hopefully there is enough suburb for people to separate out along racial and ethnic lines to reduce the Putnam hypothesis.

[Bob Butler 54]

I haven't a solid vision of the new transportation infrastructure.  The cities originally grew at transportation hubs, on good harbors, where rivers met, where rivers got to close to mountains and the first set of rapids made the river unnavigable.  These days, how much traffic is by river?  How much of the ocean traffic is by huge super tankers or monster container ships, often too large for the old traditional harbors?  Check out the oldest photographs of the old harbors, where the phrase 'forest of masts' was appropriate.  Things have changed.  

Gilded Age manufacturing was dependent on these transportation hubs, thus a lot of the industry was located in the cities.

It could be that some degree of reversal to old patterns could occur, but I'm not seeing it yet.  Manufacturing is less important than it was.  New information and transportation technology has reduced the requirement for everyone to scrunch near each other.  I don't know.

I'm also not sure what the personal transportation solution will be.  If one lives near one's work, a small electric car charging off a renewable grid might or might not do it for most people.  Sure, there are people who think cars ought to be loud, inefficient and sexy.  When oil and jobs were more available, the cult of the muscle car was a significant part of the culture.  That's fading.  More modest cars that preserve much of the freedom of the current system while being as light a burden on the economy as possible might stick in suburban areas.  Perhaps rural areas require more range.  Perhaps urban areas will go with busses, light rail and bicycles.  

Who knows?  I don't.

[Odin]

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.

[Eric the Green]

Drump may be dismantling the federal government, when it comes to doing anything useful (as opposed to military and homeland security). But it looks like he wants that anti-government approach to apply to the states as well, if for example he imposes his repeal of car fuel standards on CA. Which he will have to do, otherwise since CA controls so much of the market, its mileage standards will still rule if allowed to stand.

A lot of states won't have the resources to set up their own type of Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Not to mention all the other valuable and useful programs that Drump wants to dismantle.

And there's the issue of states that permit marijuana.

There's the question of why states like CA or their citizens should send any money to DC, when DC is not interested in spending our money on anything useful, and we just have to come up with more money to operate a useful government.

[Kinser79]

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

1.  Let us suppose we agree (not that we necessarily do), who do you think is more likely to respond to X isn't working lets try Y?  The slow moving lumbering Federal Government who has difficulty passing a budget or a State Government which is forced to be responsive to the people?  I'd put my money on the states.

2.  Never been to North Dakota, don't care to--I hear the place is cold so it isn't relevant to Kinser's interests.  That said lets take a look at Florida.  We have crooks, loons and morons in our state government too.  Yet I'd still trust Tallahassee over Washington any day.  It is far easier to remove crooks, loons, and morons from the state house than it is from the Capitol.  Also we have more frequent election cycles so...

3.  Federalism works for all states, not just large states or densely populated states.  Florida happens to be both.  By and large the problems the states encounter in the small states and less densely populated states is one of unfunded federal mandates (IE the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong).  This is a problem for states like Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and Wyoming.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

You have a point Odin. Oklahoma is a poor rural state which needs all the help it can get . A fact that seems to be ignored by our local contingent of rough individualists.  Oklahoma has an inland port, The Port of Catoosa, 3 through interstate highways, and needs passenger rail, like real bad.


Oklahoma has problems with hypocritical moralists.

[Eric the Green]

(03-20-2017, 06:24 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

You have a point Odin. Oklahoma is a poor rural state which needs all the help it can get . A fact that seems to be ignored by our local contingent of rough individualists.  Oklahoma has an inland port, The Port of Catoosa, 3 through interstate highways, and needs passenger rail, like real bad.


Oklahoma has problems with hypocritical moralists.

Thanks for being part of the local contingent of sensible ones, Mr. Rags.

[Odin]

(03-20-2017, 05:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

1.  Let us suppose we agree (not that we necessarily do), who do you think is more likely to respond to X isn't working lets try Y?  The slow moving lumbering Federal Government who has difficulty passing a budget or a State Government which is forced to be responsive to the people?  I'd put my money on the states.

2.  Never been to North Dakota, don't care to--I hear the place is cold so it isn't relevant to Kinser's interests.  That said lets take a look at Florida.  We have crooks, loons and morons in our state government too.  Yet I'd still trust Tallahassee over Washington any day.  It is far easier to remove crooks, loons, and morons from the state house than it is from the Capitol.  Also we have more frequent election cycles so...

3.  Federalism works for all states, not just large states or densely populated states.  Florida happens to be both.  By and large the problems the states encounter in the small states and less densely populated states is one of unfunded federal mandates (IE the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong).  This is a problem for states like Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and Wyoming.

Sometimes the Federal government has to step in when the state governments are being incompetent/corrupt due to being corrupted by powerful interests contrary to the will of the people in the state, or to protect people's rights from a state government full of socially backward idiots.

And for the record I am opposed to unfunded mandates. All federal mandates should have at least some federal funding attached.

[beechnut79]

(03-21-2017, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 05:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

1.  Let us suppose we agree (not that we necessarily do), who do you think is more likely to respond to X isn't working lets try Y?  The slow moving lumbering Federal Government who has difficulty passing a budget or a State Government which is forced to be responsive to the people?  I'd put my money on the states.

2.  Never been to North Dakota, don't care to--I hear the place is cold so it isn't relevant to Kinser's interests.  That said lets take a look at Florida.  We have crooks, loons and morons in our state government too.  Yet I'd still trust Tallahassee over Washington any day.  It is far easier to remove crooks, loons, and morons from the state house than it is from the Capitol.  Also we have more frequent election cycles so...

3.  Federalism works for all states, not just large states or densely populated states.  Florida happens to be both.  By and large the problems the states encounter in the small states and less densely populated states is one of unfunded federal mandates (IE the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong).  This is a problem for states like Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and Wyoming.

Sometimes the Federal government has to step in when the state governments are being incompetent/corrupt due to being corrupted by powerful interests contrary to the will of the people in the state, or to protect people's rights from a state government full of socially backward idiots.

And for the record I am opposed to unfunded mandates. All federal mandates should have at least some federal funding attached.

Which is what happened in the South following the Emmett Till murder and other racially motivated atrocities.

[Kinser79]

(03-21-2017, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 05:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 07:18 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Let us assume that it is cyicism.  Have you ever stopped to consider that there may be a reason for that cynicism?  A lot of governmental programs don't accomplish what they set out to do.  Many make the problem worse, and some are just plain stupid.

Then you find out what went wrong and try something else, you don't just throw up your hands and go "might as well not try", what kind of weak-minded defeatist attitude is that???

(03-19-2017, 03:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Despite being accused of being a Libertarian all the time on this board I still think there is a place for government in the US.  I just think that places is Tallahassee, or Bismark or Jefferson City and not Washington DC.

That works fine for large and populous states, or for states that are small but densely populated or where the vast majority of the population is concentrated in one metropolitan area; but in a lot of the more rural red states the tax base just isn't there and federal help is needed to keep things from going to shit.

And if you have seen North Dakota state government you would rather have Washington running things than that bunch of morons, loons, and crooks in Bismarck.  

1.  Let us suppose we agree (not that we necessarily do), who do you think is more likely to respond to X isn't working lets try Y?  The slow moving lumbering Federal Government who has difficulty passing a budget or a State Government which is forced to be responsive to the people?  I'd put my money on the states.

2.  Never been to North Dakota, don't care to--I hear the place is cold so it isn't relevant to Kinser's interests.  That said lets take a look at Florida.  We have crooks, loons and morons in our state government too.  Yet I'd still trust Tallahassee over Washington any day.  It is far easier to remove crooks, loons, and morons from the state house than it is from the Capitol.  Also we have more frequent election cycles so...

3.  Federalism works for all states, not just large states or densely populated states.  Florida happens to be both.  By and large the problems the states encounter in the small states and less densely populated states is one of unfunded federal mandates (IE the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong).  This is a problem for states like Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and Wyoming.

Sometimes the Federal government has to step in when the state governments are being incompetent/corrupt due to being corrupted by powerful interests contrary to the will of the people in the state, or to protect people's rights from a state government full of socially backward idiots.

And for the record I am opposed to unfunded mandates. All federal mandates should have at least some federal funding attached.

So your contention to any corruption or incompetence on the state level is to send it to a central federal authority which throughout this past century has demonstrated it is at least as corrupt and at least as incompetent as, and in both cases often more so, any state government?

That only moves the problem around Odin, it does not solve it. And it doesn't even move it in a direction where this problem can be solved, only to where it can be concentrated.

I too oppose unfunded mandates. If the Feds insist that the States Do X then they should provide Y funds for doing X. Absent of Y funds I see no reason why the states need to be bound to their insistence on doing X. Indeed in many cases if doing X was so great, and made sense for said state they would come up with the necessary funds and do X on their own

[Galen]

(03-22-2017, 10:19 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I too oppose unfunded mandates.  If the Feds insist that the States Do X then they should provide Y funds for doing X.  Absent of Y funds I see no reason why the states need to be bound to their insistence on doing X.  Indeed in many cases if doing X was so great, and made sense for said state they would come up with the necessary funds and do X on their own

The actual case, though not in practice, is that unless a power is explicitly delegated to Congress then the several states are not obligated to do anything.  That is the point of a written constitution and something the ninth and tenth amendments make perfectly clear to anyone who is actually read the Constitution.

You are right about the Feds being equally or more incompetent than the states.  Considering the problems with central planning, this is to be expected.