Do you think it was right of the new Constitutional government of the U.S.A. to take on the debt of the states, thus enlarging the national debt? Explain your reasoning.
38 Comments
Craigopotamus
10/29/2009 09:48:59 am
The new Constitutuional government shouldnt have had to take on the debt of the states, but it was the right thing to do. Many states didnt want to form a national gov. and were already angry. The government had to "be nice" to the states to sort of let them know that this new national unity wasnt such a bad thing and it wouldnt end up like Great Britain. Yeah, increasing the national debt is always a bad thing but it was for the common good. It was sort of a house warming gift for the states that were reluctant to ratify the new Constitutional government.
Reply
Sharkey
10/31/2009 02:02:04 am
I think that it was right of the federal government to take the debt of their states. The government's job is to protect the people, and taking the debt distributed it evenly (much like communism)
Reply
Sharkey
10/31/2009 02:03:24 am
I agree with craig that it was for the common good to take on the state's debt as national debt
Reply
Molly Gorczyca
10/31/2009 02:52:57 am
It was right for the new constitutional government to take on the debt of the states. It enlarged the national debt, but they were proving that as a new government, they could take on such burdens for the betterment of the country as a whole. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the common good of all people and that is what the government was doing when they took on the national debt.
Reply
Molly Gorczyca
10/31/2009 02:54:47 am
I agree with Sharkey…
Reply
bryon
10/31/2009 12:52:58 pm
I think that it was right of the federal government to take the debt of the states. but it was good then but not now b/c the national debt is so enormous. after all they did it to protect the people.
Reply
byron
10/31/2009 12:54:36 pm
i agree with sharky on that the governments job is to protect the people and there rights
Reply
Zain
11/1/2009 06:06:20 am
yes i do think taking on the debt of the states was right. if the federal government didn't the states would have been split by wealth and fallen apart. there would have been know way to overcome this debt in smaller states and larger states could easily be tax free, this could cause civil war easily and break the country apart. having the national debt also achieves the goal Hamilton described giving the united states a value to other countries if individual states owed money other countries probably wouldn't care.
Reply
Zain
11/1/2009 06:07:22 am
i agree with sharky this was the only way to protect the people, from poverty and European powers.
Reply
Sarah
11/1/2009 06:23:20 am
I think that as the new nation's central government that it was necessary for them to take on the responsibility as a whole. It created unity and also showed the individual states that the government would take care of them. However, it increased the national debt, which was a bad thing because the financial situation was already bad enough.
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
11/1/2009 06:25:16 am
When the new Constitutional government took on the debt of the states, I think it was respectful of them to do so. They took responsibility for it as a united country instead of just leaving the states flagging behind. In the end, it did not help our country though. Our national debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger, and it seems like we won’t ever be able to crawl out of it.
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
11/1/2009 06:30:15 am
I agree with Molly that by enlarging the national debt they were showing that they could “take on such burdens for the betterment of the country as a whole.” It showed that the states would not have to fend for themselves anymore, and that being united together created a strong, interconnected nation.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/1/2009 07:55:13 am
Yes, I think the government should have taken on the debt of all the states. It is a way to show the unity of the nation. It is very hard to be the united if each state has different economic issues and different taxes to pay that debt off. Each state would have different economic issues. Some states would have no debt, like Virginia and others would have large amounts, like Massachusetts. It wasn't the best decision from an economic stand point, but from an independence point, it was a great move. It really made us a closer, more united country. It allowed us to make more general laws. Had we been smarter about having this national debt, we wouldn't be so far in the hole now, but that is another issue in itself.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/1/2009 07:57:22 am
I agree with Molly and Sharkey. I think it made us a better nation and it really did protect the people of our nation. Like Molly said, it made us look better and like we were really ready to be our own country and survive in a global economy.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/1/2009 08:38:35 am
I also agree that is was right and necessary new Constitutional government of the U.S.A. to take on the debt of the states, thus enlarging the national debt. Like others, I believe that it is the governments job to protect the people and by doing this, the government was making it safer for the people.
Reply
Sharkey
11/1/2009 08:53:09 am
Everyone agrees with me... I see these people really are smart
Reply
Bobby
11/1/2009 11:41:01 am
I think it was right for the national government to take on the debt of the states. If the debt was left to the states, some of their economies would have collapsed and would have to be bailed out by a government with no money. Taking the state debts and making them into the national debt also saved the states from arguing amongst themselves about their own debt and trying to issue tariffs against the other states in an effort to try to raise revenue.
Reply
Bobby
11/1/2009 11:45:10 am
I agree with Molly about the national government taking on the state’s debt. I believe showing the states they the central government could take on heavy burdens and how a strong central government could be a good thing. I also think it made the states much more trusting and respectful for the national government.
Reply
Natalie Catalie
11/1/2009 12:08:32 pm
Even though i think the states got themselves into debt they can get themselves out i think if they would have just had there own taxes for there own state that they might eventually have paid it off but i do recognize that some states were bigger and more populated than the smaller states but that just means that the states would have found more ways and it just would have taken longer to get out of the whole. but maybe thats not always the case. like zain said it might have torn the states apart leaving you with a civil war. so i guess in the long run that it was a good idea to take on the debt for the unity part. and to show the people that they can trust the government but other than that it didnt do us that much good because look at us now. it is impossible for us to pay off the debt that has nothing to do with us and debt from other states so it was good that we finally got unified but other than that i think we kinda got the short end of the stick.
Reply
Natalie Catalie
11/1/2009 12:09:36 pm
i agree with bobby. just because i didnt want to agree with sharky haha
Reply
nat
11/1/2009 12:11:19 pm
and i ment hole not whole
Reply
Zac
11/1/2009 12:23:21 pm
Yea i think that taking on the states debt was the right idea for the constitutional govt. to take over because of the fact that if they wanted to unite the states then they would have to acquire their debt also.
Reply
Zac
11/1/2009 12:29:04 pm
I agree with Craigasouras rex about the fact that the govt. really kind of had to in order to get the remaining states to join.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/1/2009 11:48:18 pm
I would have to agree with Bobby saying "If the debt was left to the states, some of their economies would have collapsed and would have to be bailed out by a government with no money. Taking the state debts and making them into the national debt also saved the states from arguing amongst themselves about their own debt and trying to issue tariffs against the other states in an effort to try to raise revenue." I believe this because in theory, I really think our economy would collapse if we had to take on that much national debt.
Reply
Morgan
11/2/2009 12:45:00 am
I think it was a good thing for the national government to take the debts of the states in order to keep the people safe.
Reply
Morgan
11/2/2009 12:46:13 am
I agree with Sharkey that they should have took the debt for the states.
Reply
Craigapotamus
11/2/2009 12:48:34 am
I agree with Ted Sharkey because it is the governments job to protect the people. By taking on the states debt, they did just that.
Reply
Muma
11/2/2009 12:59:11 am
It was right for the new government to take on the war debts of the states even though it enlarged the national debt. The states rebelled against Great Brittain together and to me that means the nation as a whole should pay it off. Even though some states were more involved than others, blame goes to all. In the end it is just money and was better for the states as a whole to pay it off together.
Reply
Muma
11/2/2009 01:00:49 am
I agree with Bobby. By taking on the debt it created less conflict and protected the states thus unifying the union.
Reply
Ryan Howe
11/2/2009 01:01:08 am
I would have to say that it was okay to take on this debt. I may not have thought this if I was living during that time, but now that I know that the debt was be paid back and that everything turned out alright, I have a different view. Since everything turned out alright, and it was actually possible to pay back the debt, then I agree that it was okay to take on the debt.
Reply
Ryan again
11/2/2009 01:02:27 am
I agree with Molly, by taking on the debt, we protected the states and the people. This is what the government is for, so it was an okay thing to do.
Reply
Sarah Hopkins
11/2/2009 01:04:11 am
Mrs. Tanner is my HERO!!!!
Reply
:D
11/2/2009 01:05:49 am
Reply
Austin 'Who's your daddy' Branchaud
11/2/2009 01:34:10 am
I think it was nice of the government to take on the debt of the states. It was the right thing to do, especially after they pretty much forced the states to unite. I believe that it was necessary for the states to really place a lot of trust in the government.
Reply
Ashley
11/2/2009 11:01:42 am
I think it was a good idea, because it swayed some people to side with the constitution. Though many still opposed the creation of a central government the fact that they are willing to take on a major headache of each of the colonies may have meant a great deal to a lot of them.
Reply
Ashley
11/2/2009 11:05:09 am
I agree with Zain about splitting the colonies even more by wealth and unbalancing the power between the two. Back in the day the wealthy had everything and the poor sercombed to them. This gave them all an equal voice financially.
Reply
Gaston
11/2/2009 11:46:17 pm
I think that it was nice for the government to take on the debt of the states. Right decision? I don't think so. I believe that adding to the national debt was an awful idea. The states should have been ordered to pay their own debt and therefore it not effect the national debt like it did.
Reply
Gaston
11/2/2009 11:48:31 pm
I dissagree with Sharkey. Yes it is the job of the government to protect the states. But protection does not always mean covering up their mistakes and or debt. The states needed and should have paid their own debt.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2010
Categories |