[smc]

Tracy, I really, really appreciate your thoughtful answer to my questions. Despite what some may think, I am genuinely interested in a rational discourse about these issues. I want to make clear that I am not a liberal; my own political/economic positions put me way outside of the sphere in which liberals are typically situated. I confess to a lack of understanding of where conservatives and libertarians are coming from, outside of what often seems to be a reaction against change, because it seems as if many positions from the conservative and libertarian perspective run contrary to the economic interests of those who profess them, and in fact serve the interests of others in a class the conservative and libertarian can never hope to attain. That is why I really do appreciate real answers to real questions.

That said, I would like to explore your answers a bit more, and pose some additional questions.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

I'm glad you see financial aid as a good thing, especially in a country that does not offer free or nearly free tuition and access to higher education (as is the case in many European countries). One solution might be to establish such a system. Independent of that, though, I would be interested in where you have come up with this analysis that links financial aid to tuition increases. You are describing institutions of higher education as if they are profit-maximizing entities.

I have never heard of a causal relationship of the sort you describe. Typically, schools increase tuition because of cutbacks (in the case of public universities) or cost increases (in the case of private institutions), and they typically do not cut back financial aid -- much of which comes via the federal government -- when they increase tuition.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Biomedical research should be funded.

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

The quote directly above is your response to these questions I posed: "How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a 'united states' at all?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal policies" -- perhaps you mean with respect to social issues. But putting that aside, let's look at regulation. Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this. Arkansas chicken producers do not provide any label indicating what the chickens are fed, while Georgia producers are required to by state regulation. Even for those who argue "states' rights" here, there is obviously a problem so long as we have cross-state markets. So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.