NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

My thoughts exactly. I nominate Baghdad.

The capitol of the US should be... hmm...

I know! ehm, wait, no...

let me think...

Cuba?

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.Why? There's no reason for it now that we no longer transport information by horse.

Well how about Kansas City?

At least then I'd have an excuse to vacation there to get my hands on that world-class barbecue.

Ok? And the Russians should move their capitol to a more central location in their country as well?

Actually you know what, we're going to have Centralization Day across the world when every country moves their capitol to the geographic center of their nation...that will clearly solve the problems of government.

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

No, it is always better to keep your undesired element concentrated into as small an area a possible.

What about Crawford, TX?

I suppose the Washington Capitols will have to change their name, then. How about the Washington Monuments? It sounds better than my first impulse, which was to name them the Suckfaces.

Ok? And the Russians should move their capitol to a more central location in their country as well?

Actually you know what, we're going to have Centralization Day across the world when every country moves their capitol to the geographic center of their nation...that will clearly solve the problems of government.

Once again, Canada is way ahead of the world!

Well how about Kansas City?

At least then I'd have an excuse to vacation there to get my hands on that world-class barbecue.

NO! We'll send you the marinade and sauce by mail! ;)

Once again, Canada is way ahead of the world!
*Canadas Capitol* is rather Southerly. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, real life isn't Civ.

All fairly large nations should try to, China, and Russia included. Brazil did it in the 1960's and that worked.

Toronto is rather Southerly. :rolleyes:
He he. You're silly. I won't even bother to explain.

He he. You're silly. I won't even bother to explain.
I won't even bother to explain why D.C. is where it is.

It should be moved to classified locations all over the country, to avoid attacks from those darn terrorists or powerplays from those pesky politicians. Only the administration should know where the different parts were located, and they should of course be hidden in an underground bunker at a top secret location as well.

He he. You're silly. I won't even bother to explain.

I will.
the capitol is Ottawa.
Also, it's very, very hard to run a government from the bottom of the Husdon Bay.

No.

My thoughts exactly. I nominate Baghdad.

good call. we'll start shipping out congressmen on the first available flight.

I won't even bother to explain why D.C. is where it is.
Oh, I know why it's there, and it makes sense. What I won't bother to explain is what the capital of Canada is and why it's there.

I know Washington was put there as a comromise, but that was in 1790!!!!!!!
The nation was much smaller.

My thoughts exactly. I nominate Baghdad.Well, if you really want a nice central location for the US world government, the Earth's core would probably be best... ;)

I know Washington was put there as a comromise, but that was in 1790!!!!!!!
The nation was much smaller.
Exactly. 1790. They didn't have a nice telephone network back then.

I think its fine where it is.

Toronto is rather Southerly. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, real life isn't Civ.

Toronto isn't Canada's capital... :rolleyes:

Toronto isn't Canada's capital... :rolleyes:
*looks like a jackass*

Telephones don't have anything to do with it, we could stimulate the growth of the center of the nation.

Well how about Kansas City?

At least then I'd have an excuse to vacation there to get my hands on that world-class barbecue.

ohmaha is my choice

I could care less where the capital is located but I think it is interesting to note that Brazil moved it's capital to a more central location a few decades ago and that was considered a bold move. I'm sure someone on here from Brazil would have more insight on this.

I vote for Mt. Vernon, Illinois. My hometown. Pretty much everything there is corrupt. Politicians would fit in well there.

I could care less where the capital is located but I think it is interesting to note that Brazil moved it's capital to a more central location a few decades ago and that was considered a bold move. I'm sure someone on here from Brazil would have more insight on this.


I learned a little about it in a class a few years back. They did it to promote expansion inward, because the coastal areas were overcrowded and all.. As far as I know, it has succeded at drawing some people in to the interior. But i could be wrong.

Wahington should never be move. It has been their so long and is the heart of Amercia. Its history,land,people are to Unique to move to some Junky town in the dessert. I have been their and it is lovely

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.
Why I could see this argument back in the day but it has no foundation in necessity anymore.

Communications abilities abound there is no NEED to move it to a central position and without a clear need there is no justification for changing tradition just for the hell of it

Wait wasn't the capital placed in that area because the south wanted the capital in the south and the north in the north, so they all decided to put it in the middle?

All fairly large nations should try to, China, and Russia included. Brazil did it in the 1960's and that worked.

Brasilia is the most god awful city on the face of the planet. An inhuman, technocrat 'utopia' that leaves many people feeling like they've walked onto the wold's largest getto Considering that most getto's were designed around the same basic urban planning concepts as Brasillia in the 60's (and failed miserably), Brasillia demonstrates that Le Corbusier (who's apprentice designed it) knew nothing of urban planning.

Second Point
Since D.C. is not in any state, nor a state...what city would want to become the next District of Columbia?

D.C. citizens do not get to vote in Presidential Elections, or have voting members in Congress.

D.C. is not actually administered by the states, but directly by Congress, who has a tendency to strip the local government of all powers when it starts to act even slightly corrupt.

What state would want to surrender a large portion of its tax base to the Federal Government.

See, the reason Washington is where it is, is because when it was founded, the center of the United States was full of dangers. Indians, outlaws, etc. And who wants their capital city sacked and burned to the ground? None that I know of. And also when it was founded, it was the center of the nation. It was directly in between the New England states and the southern states. Expansion happens, all nations have done it: Russia, France, Germany, Britain, China, etc. (yes, even Iraq, remember the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the invasion of Kuwait (1990) and the following Persian Gulf War (1991)?). No nation is excluded from this.

In conclusion, Washington is just fine where it is.

you know i've thought that many times before. then i realized it would be much easier...and solve more problems...if the US just gave Minnesota to Canada...we talk like them anyways...and who honestly cares about DC? i'm sorry i'm not a gun toating, bush loving, flag waving, republican conservative christian but who cares about DC?

you know i've thought that many times before. then i realized it would be much easier...and solve more problems...if the US just gave Minnesota to Canada...we talk like them anyways...and who honestly cares about DC? i'm sorry i'm not a gun toating, bush loving, flag waving, republican conservative christian but who cares about DC?

Man, we'd love you Minnesotans. Consider yourselves welcome, along with Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine and, oh, what the hell, Missouri.

All fairly large nations should try to, China, and Russia included. Brazil did it in the 1960's and that worked.
That was to develop their land. America's already developed its land.

I suggest we have two capitals-some city on the West Coast could be it. It wouldn't be necessary, or extremely helpful, but it would certainly be beneficial. Unfortunately, it would probably be expensive and America is deep in debt.

Man, we'd love you Minnesotans. Consider yourselves welcome, along with Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine and, oh, what the hell, Missouri.
DOST THOU INSULT MICHIGAN?????

Who would honestly want it? I mean, just look at the crime and poverty statistics for the city...

DOST THOU INSULT MICHIGAN?????

Not at all. We like you guys. So much we even conquered a chunk of you ages ago.

Man, we'd love you Minnesotans. Consider yourselves welcome, along with Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine and, oh, what the hell, Missouri.
Not so fast, Chicken Marengo.

Why bother even having a capital? The government is so corrupt, we might as well just dismantle it, and burn down DC again, which, in case you were wondering, has already happened once before.

Not at all. We like you guys. So much we even conquered a chunk of you ages ago.
Yes, but in return, we got a good-sized chunk from Wisconsin. Plus, John Quincy Adams loved us. See my quiz in Funtrivia on the Toledo War even though you probably know plenty about it.

you know i've thought that many times before. then i realized it would be much easier...and solve more problems...if the US just gave Minnesota to Canada...we talk like them anyways...and who honestly cares about DC? i'm sorry i'm not a gun toating, bush loving, flag waving, republican conservative christian but who cares about DC?

Meh! I only care about Duluth anyways, ship the rest off if you want...Far as I see it, here in Michigan we got an upper penninsula, Ohio got a scrap. :P

Why is everyone talking about Michigan?

Because, Michigan rulz!

Actually, Michigan did move its capital from Detroit to Michigan, Michigan in the middle of the 19th century. (Renamed Lansing later)

Which was quite good considering it was mostly swampland. But there is an important lesson. When trying to move the State Capital, every city and burg in the state was vying for the 'honor'. Which explains why the oldest surviving governor's mansion is in Marshall, which never was the Captial.

Anyway, Michigan had to chose the middle of nowhere rather than anywhere. The same holds if your going to move D.C. It will have to be nowhere because everywhere will want it.

(technically the 'middle of the country' is likely somewhere in Navada...Hawaii is a massive outlier really)

For a cookie! name the four places where the U.S. congress has meet)(cities)

Nations move their capitals all the time. China's had three? Four? Japan has had three. The Roman Empire had two. Russia's had two. Norway's had two (I think). And so on and so on....

Nations move their capitals all the time. China's had three? Four? Japan has had three. The Roman Empire had two. Russia's had two. Norway's had two (I think). And so on and so on....

And Technically the U.S. has had four. And really they don't move that often do they considering how long those nations have existed compared to the U.S.

Nations move their capitals all the time. China's had three? Four? Japan has had three. The Roman Empire had two. Russia's had two. Norway's had two (I think). And so on and so on....
I believe the U.S. has had three.

EDIT: (four, whatever)

Meh! I only care about Duluth anyways, ship the rest off if you want...Far as I see it, here in Michigan we got an upper penninsula, Ohio got a scrap. :P

Have you ever heard the old joke, "Let's have another war with Ohio. Loser gets Detroit".

On topic, I don't believe the capital should move. As an earlier poster said, there is no way a state would be willing to surrender a large portion of its tax base to Uncle Sam. As a Federal system we have a lot more things to take into consideration than a unitary state.

Well I think the capital of the US should be moved, but not to the center or some big city, but to the most desolate, inhospitable spot we can find, either Death Valley or the extreme parts of Alaska. I blame air condidtioning, turned the miserable swamp that used to be DC into place where congressmen can actually live year round instead of suffering through it as little time as possible for before fleeing to their home states. I think the governent would be much better off if the congress were based in a place where the act of "serving one's country" required great hardship.

I suggest we have two capitals-some city on the West Coast could be it. It wouldn't be necessary, or extremely helpful, but it would certainly be beneficial. Unfortunately, it would probably be expensive and America is deep in debt.Very stupid idea. Consider the EU as your prime example. Stupid French having to insist on Strasburg. There's absolutely no point in Strasburg. They just wanted part of the EU government in France. Whole offices and computer systems are moved back forth between Brussels and Strasburg each wasting millions of Euros.

Moving a capital is never good idea. It's always done for dubious political reasons. Someone somewhere just wants the prestige of having the capital somewhere else (again I provide Strasburg as an example (stupid de Gaulle)). And in a country the size of the US someone is always going to be far away from the capital so there's no point in wasting money and moving it.

Wait wasn't the capital placed in that area because the south wanted the capital in the south and the north in the north, so they all decided to put it in the middle?
I think it went along the lines that since the Federalists (many of whom were wealthy Northern merchants) got their Constitution, they made a concession to the Anti-Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists hoped that its somewhat more Southern location would make it more symathetic with their agrarian interests.

D.C. citizens do not get to vote in Presidential Elections, or have voting members in Congress.
Um...that was changed in 1961 with the 23rd amendment...ten years before 18-21 year olds got the vote.

See, the reason Washington is where it is, is because when it was founded, the center of the United States was full of dangers. Indians, outlaws, etc. And who wants their capital city sacked and burned to the ground? None that I know of. And also when it was founded, it was the center of the nation. It was directly in between the New England states and the southern states. Expansion happens, all nations have done it: Russia, France, Germany, Britain, China, etc. (yes, even Iraq, remember the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the invasion of Kuwait (1990) and the following Persian Gulf War (1991)?). No nation is excluded from this.

In conclusion, Washington is just fine where it is.
It was placed in the center of the nation to satisfy the south (the capital had already been placed in the north, so the north was already happy). It also aided in communications with the states.
It is not, however, anywhere near the New England states. New England is Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusets, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. It was placed even below the midatlantic states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which rounded out the northeast



There is no reason to move the seat governemnt to the middle of what is basically a giant field.

Well I think the capital of the US should be moved, but not to the center or some big city, but to the most desolate, inhospitable spot we can find, either Death Valley or the extreme parts of Alaska. I blame air condidtioning, turned the miserable swamp that used to be DC into place where congressmen can actually live year round instead of suffering through it as little time as possible for before fleeing to their home states. I think the governent would be much better off if the congress were based in a place where the act of "serving one's country" required great hardship.

Actually, I think that's why they put it there in fhe first place: because it was the most miserable piece of real estate that they could find. Right now, invading powers blow up the capitol, oh well. There's no loss of natural resources to speak and about the only thing that could be lost are some cultural artifacts, which would have no value to an invader.

Besides moving it somewhere else would require establishing an infrastructure to support it.

The capitol of the US should be... hmm...

I know! ehm, wait, no...

let me think...

Cuba?

Great Idea, I agree, La Habana Cuba should be the Capital of of the US with La Habana Cuba as president for life.

The US capitol Washington DC was named for President George Washington the first US President, so that is where it should be.

Nations move their capitals all the time. China's had three? Four? Japan has had three. The Roman Empire had two. Russia's had two. Norway's had two (I think). And so on and so on....
The Roman Empire had more than two.

Rome, Milan, Ravenna, Constantinople...that's all I know of. Might have moved more than that.

Second Point
Since D.C. is not in any state, nor a state...what city would want to become the next District of Columbia?

If I remember correctly from my history classes, DC would revert back to Maryland, from whence it was carved out.

D.C. citizens do not get to vote in Presidential Elections, or have voting members in Congress.

Huh? DC has 3 Electoral College votes.

D.C. is not actually administered by the states, but directly by Congress, who has a tendency to strip the local government of all powers when it starts to act even slightly corrupt.

DC has a mayor and is *not* administered by Congress, though the Federal Government does provide some of it's budget. Also Congress did not eject Mayor Marion Barry (whom I assume you're alluding to?), that was done by the court. And trust me, the corruption is rank. :(

What state would want to surrender a large portion of its tax base to the Federal Government.

We don't already?? :mad:

What are folks talking about re: Nebraska and Kansas?

America's geographic center is somewhere around Portland, Oregon.

...we've had 50 states for nearly 50 years, folks. :D

I nominate Augusta, Maine just to piss you off :)

I would support setting up a "summer capital" in Yuma, AZ and a "winter capital" in North Dakota or Alaska, to make things unpleasant for the unpleasant people in government.

I nominate Augusta, Maine just to piss you off :)

That'll work fine once Great Britain comes to realize that the EU isn't going anywhere and becomes the 51st,52nd,53rd & 54th states.... :D

[QUOTE=Alcona and Hubris]
DC has a mayor and is *not* administered by Congress, though the Federal Government does provide some of it's budget. Also Congress did not eject Mayor Marion Barry (whom I assume you're alluding to?), that was done by the court. And trust me, the corruption is rank. :(
Actually the entire government of DC is under the jurisdiction of the US congress, and even though most of the budget is supplied through local taxes the US congress has to pass and approve the city budget. Likewise all legislation for DC has to be passed by the US Congress except for some regulations the city council can pass on thier own under the authority of the US congress. If I recall correctly 4 times in the past the US congress has reformed the government of DC before settling on the current system where there is an elected mayor and city council who get to make requests about laws and budgets and taxes to the president who passses them on to congress.

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.
It should be in Philadelphia, like it used to be. Stupid states declaring they wouldn't join if the capital was in Philly. :upyours:

For a cookie! name the four places where the U.S. congress has meet)(cities)
Just a guess: Washington DC, New York, Philadelphia and Boston?

I'd say Los Angeles...we should try to get it as far away from Bush and Congress as possible.

Midway! Midway! Midway!

PLEASE! Let it move so I don't have to pay so damn much for rent...

What about Guantanamo Bay? That would be so many advantages to such a move... :p

I nominate Mexico city.

I'd say Los Angeles...we should try to get it as far away from Bush and Congress as possible.
Um ... if we moved the capital they would follow

If I remember correctly from my history classes, DC would revert back to Maryland, from whence it was carved out.


Yes, but my original point was what state wants to loose 100 square miles of land? Actually D.C. would revert to Virginia and Maryland.



Huh? DC has 3 Electoral College votes.

I forgot that point, my mistake...however they don't have any votes in Congress...


DC has a mayor and is *not* administered by Congress, though the Federal Government does provide some of it's budget. Also Congress did not eject Mayor Marion Barry (whom I assume you're alluding to?), that was done by the court. And trust me, the corruption is rank. :(


It is administered directly by Congress as the federal district. That is Congress replaces the State government...and Congress (like most states) holds soverignty over the City. (City governments are chartered by the States, technically the State can revoke a city's charter...in this case that power is directly held by Congress, who has no one with any power from D.C.)
Realize the territorial government of D.C. was revoked by Congress...:eek:
The corruption question is poltically charged as far as I know...which is why I only alluded to it.



We don't already?? :mad:
[/quote]

I think you misunderstood the word 'tax base'. Tax base is that income and property which is taxed. If a city were to become the new Federal District, the state would no longer be able to tax the property, resident's income, or sales that occur within that District. That is loss of tax base.

Although I think Michigan would more than gladly give up Detroit...

The capital should be moved to some nowhere place like somewhere in the Dakotas, on a military base like area designed to house the new capital, thus reducing the overwhelming urban sprawl.

Just a guess: Washington DC, New York, Philadelphia and Boston?

Three right, one wrong...

When did Congress ever meet in Boston?

In answer to the first question, Washington DC is not a bad place for a capital. Plenty of capitals are in areas not "centrally located" (honestly, what would Canada or Russia or China be like if their capitals were "centrally located?") I think we should admit Columbia as a state, but that's just my opinion.

Put simply: No.

There's no legitimate reason to move it from Washington, D.C. Moving the capital would make the city largely pointless.

Put simply: No.

There's no legitimate reason to move it from Washington, D.C. Moving the capital would make the city largely pointless.
There has to be a point for a city to exist?

I mean there are REASON towns are founded where they are but they dont always stay consistant ... for example my home town was founded there because of river access
Which is no longer a need for

Does that mean my town is pointless?

For a cookie! name the four places where the U.S. congress has meet)(cities)
NYC, Philiadelphia, Washington, and no where else.

Unless you're including the articles of confederation congress in this, in which case you could basically name any city on the east coast, because they were chased everywhere pre/post war.

Meh! I only care about Duluth anyways, ship the rest off if you want...Far as I see it, here in Michigan we got an upper penninsula, Ohio got a scrap. :P

ummm...since you're in michigan you can't really have a say about Duluth...anyways that's where i live...so yeah...as minnesota goes so does duluth...sorry

Three right, one wrong...

When did Congress ever meet in Boston?
I have no idea. That's why it was a guess. :p

Um...that was changed in 1961 with the 23rd amendment...ten years before 18-21 year olds got the vote.


It was placed in the center of the nation to satisfy the south (the capital had already been placed in the north, so the north was already happy). It also aided in communications with the states.
It is not, however, anywhere near the New England states. New England is Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusets, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. It was placed even below the midatlantic states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which rounded out the northeast



There is no reason to move the seat governemnt to the middle of what is basically a giant field.

hi yeah so have you ever even been to the middle of the country? just a question...cuz umm...there is more out there than just fields...and if you don't already know...those fields feed you everyday...and a large part of the rest of the world too...so don't knock the fields...

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

What, are you going to airlift the White House halfway across the country? If the capital was moved anywhere, I would say it should be New York. Most people think that New York is the capital city anyway, and I'm a big believer in changing the facts to suit the ignorance. Saves the education system a lot of money you know.

I was just thinking, with Alaska and Hawaii the geographical centre of the US is probably somewhere in the middle of the Pacific, why not put the capital on a raft and send it floating?

I think Philadelphia should be the capital. It makes more sense seeing as it is the place where everything important happened.

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

Nah. Information technology and rapid, mass transport solves the problem. Plus, there are too many historical sites, America would lose part of its soul by moving it.

Sure. Move the capital to Bush country (Texas).
I wonder why Bush hasn't done this already.

there are too many historical sites, America would lose part of its soul by moving it.
*coughs*"Declaration of Independence"*coughs*"Signed"*coughs*"in Philly"*coughs up blood*

Jesus, keep the scumbags (politicians) with the rest of the morass in D.C.

I second the motion that keeping your ugly assets of society in one place (far away) is a good idea.

Yes, but my original point was what state wants to loose 100 square miles of land? Actually D.C. would revert to Virginia and Maryland.

True. I was just debating what would happen to it, not what city would want it. Maybe Walla Walla, Wa. Not much going on out there.

Er? I read somewhere that Virginia didn't donate land to DC. That's why DC isn't a perfect diamond...

I forgot that point, my mistake...however they don't have any votes in Congress...

True. But then, neither do Puerto Rico, Samoa, or any of the US territories.
Personally, I think they should be counted as MD reps.

It is administered directly by Congress as the federal district. That is Congress replaces the State government...and Congress (like most states) holds soverignty over the City. (City governments are chartered by the States, technically the State can revoke a city's charter...in this case that power is directly held by Congress, who has no one with any power from D.C.)
Realize the territorial government of D.C. was revoked by Congress...:eek:
The corruption question is poltically charged as far as I know...which is why I only alluded to it.


Ok, makes sense.

I think you misunderstood the word 'tax base'. Tax base is that income and property which is taxed. If a city were to become the new Federal District, the state would no longer be able to tax the property, resident's income, or sales that occur within that District. That is loss of tax base.

No, I understand that fine. My point is that there are some states (ie: Connecticut) where we get back far less than we GIVE to the Feds. Thus, we *do* surrender a large portion of its tax base to the Federal Government.

Check out: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/9.html
Click on your state to see how you're doing.

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Connecticut Is a Donor State
Connecticut taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2002, Connecticut citizens received approximately $0.65 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 2nd lowest nationally and represents a slight fall from 1992 when Connecticut received $0.68 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (2nd lowest). Neighboring states and the federal spending received per dollar of federal taxes collected were: New York ($0.85), Massachusetts ($0.75), New Hampshire ($0.66), Vermont ($1.13) and Rhode Island ($1.08).


Although I think Michigan would more than gladly give up Detroit...

The way GM & Ford are doing... maybe!! :(

Having lived there for a little more than four years, I would say they need to clean that one up before they get a second chance elsewhere. The museums can come west, but Marion Barry has got to stay put.

I would support moving Congress and the President out of Washington DC. It would improve the city considerably, especially if combined with real sovereignty. But keep the rest of the Federal Government buildings there.

Well how about Kansas City?

At least then I'd have an excuse to vacation there to get my hands on that world-class barbecue.

You an Arthur Bryant's or a Gates fan?

I would support moving Congress and the President out of Washington DC. It would improve the city considerably, especially if combined with real sovereignty. But keep the rest of the Federal Government buildings there.

You could improve the city by just allowing citizens to concealed carry firearms. Disarming the populace while failing to augment the police force has NOT made the District (esp. NE) any safer.

You know.. actual people live in D.C. not just senators, congressmen and lobbyists. Uprooting D.C. would be terrible; it would destroy a huge part of the economy of Maryland and Virginia. Having the goverment in this area doesn't only bring goverment jobs, but other companies that either work with the goverment or near the goverment. Thousands or even millions of people would have to move or be left jobless.

People always assume that D.C. is just a cesspool of corruption and that's not really true. People actually have homes there.

You know.. actual people live in D.C. not just senators, congressmen and lobbyists. Uprooting D.C. would be terrible; it would destroy a huge part of the economy of Maryland and Virginia. Having the goverment in this area doesn't only bring goverment jobs, but other companies that either work with the goverment or near the goverment. Thousands or even millions of people would have to move or be left jobless.

People always assume that D.C. is just a cesspool of corruption and that's not really true. People actually have homes there.
It's true. Some very good people live there. The city needs some serious re-structuring (to say nothing of representation). They spend a lot in protecting the President, Congres and etc, and since 9/11, have not been re-imbursed for most of the security measures- and have had a number of major streets reconfigured or turned into un-approachable "pedestrian areas", thus sending some tourist dough away.

There are some serious problems- one of which (and I am not meaning to sound flip here) is the re-electing of Marion Barry to city council. That's just dysfunctional behaviour. He's the one who lost the city control of its budget (seized by Congress under his watch).

They also need to learn how to deal with snow- I mean- it's been snowing there for-freaken-ever, but it always winds up taking days to clear Connecticut avenue.

They also need to learn how to deal with snow- I mean- it's been snowing there for-freaken-ever, but it always winds up taking days to clear Connecticut avenue.

Blame the people that move to D.C. from California or the south. They completely freakout when there is any snow on the ground and drive like maniacs. It'f funny and scary at the same time.

Blame the people that move to D.C. from California or the south. They completely freakout when there is any snow on the ground and drive like maniacs. It'f funny and scary at the same time.

I blame the mayor who cannot get to ordering the snowplows into play when snow is predicted. I mean, geeze.

I blame the mayor who cannot get to ordering the snowplows into play when snow is predicted. I mean, geeze.

i agree with the previous...tho i understand where you come from...i find it humorous when people from states that literally don't have snow tires get snow...tho we didn't need um this year in minnesota...

i know i know slightly off topic

Nations move their capitals all the time. China's had three? Four? Japan has had three. The Roman Empire had two. Russia's had two. Norway's had two (I think). And so on and so on....
The Roman Empire has had six. Rome, Constantinople, Ravenna, Capri and the capitals of the prefectures of Gaul and Illyricum whose names I cant remember during that odd time when the empire was divided in four (Gaul, Italy, Illyricum and The East).

Should the Capital of the United States be moved from Washington D.C.?

Wasington is at one side of a nation that streches across a continent, and it is relatively small, the capital should be moved to a more central location, or a larger city.

New Orleans!