Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
those states who'd use nullification to counter any of their rascist policies would rapidly feel the force of economic isolation today. perhaps nullification might be on the kkk's wishlist for christmas, but as you say, they(kkk and the like) must be careful what they wish for!
Racist policies evolve. They can be implemented in a variety of ways. They don't have to be old-fashioned. The key to association is of platform. How does KKK, for example, think about immigration and immigrants? At least one Arizona congressman has not kept his association with KKK a secret, and happens to be the center piece of SB 1070.
When you start a thread on right versus left, we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that both sides are a lot more than just "right" and "left". In this case, if I spoke of social conservatives, would you bet your house on them being left wingers? I hope not.
And I know a great many people who would strongly disagree with your assertion that they are worse off with medicare, medicaid, social security and minimum wage laws...I'm sitting within earshot of a couple right now that would be dead but for these programs.
disagree they might and i understand why they would. the position i take is counter intuitive. when i talk about the free market, i'm referring to the economic ecosystem. medicare/aid, and minumum wages distort that ecosystem and give off the wrong signals to the market. that is why we have oversupply in certain industries and vocations(eg auto industry and builders) and shortages in others, (eg healthcare and doctors).
you also make the assumption that in the absence of medicare, nothing would replace it. those doctors would all work 2 day weeks for the odd rich person who needed them and they'd take the rest of the week off. i don't see it that way.
on the topic though, i'd have no problem with states who'd install a single payer system, social security or minimum wages as long as they paid for it themselves and didn't stick the feds with the bill.
Government was never meant to be a for-profit enterprise but to serve the people it represented and in their best interest. And while private businesses can merge and take over, governments weren't meant to.
eg, it's not about govt being for profit. govt though have to compete for tax money. if one state raises its taxes too high they run the risk of discouraging business in their state and risk losing many businesses to other states. similarly, if states are inefficient with how they spend the tax money,they risk alienating their taxpayers. if however a state reduces its taxes and spends the money efficiently, they can attract jobs to the state.
Oh boy, I could go on for hours about the bad ideas Governor Voldemort has proposed so far.
But that's a topic for another thread.
He's going to get a painful lesson or two if he doesn't start listening to his lawyers.
Lucky for him the legislators hired a terrible lawyer for that rail fund challenge/ case. That was painful to watch. I could have done better with no preparation and just a copy of the damn petition.
sorry strel i couldn't let that one go. if you think hsr was a good idea you've obviously never been to tampa (where i live) or orlando. it might've been a good idea for disney and the cruise liners who operate out of the bay but if they want the line so bad then why don't they build it themselves. this is just a typical example of how big business wanted to have their business expanded at the cost/risk to the taxpayer. other than that, nobody else would ride that train, the taxpayer would've been stuck with a huge bill regardless of guarantees (you're a lawyer and would know that unless they cash collateralized, the guarantee wouldn't be worth the paper it'd be written on)
sorry strel i couldn't let that one go. if you think hsr was a good idea you've obviously never been to tampa (where i live) or orlando. it might've been a good idea for disney and the cruise liners who operate out of the bay but if they want the line so bad then why don't they build it themselves. this is just a typical example of how big business wanted to have their business expanded at the cost/risk to the taxpayer. other than that, nobody else would ride that train, the taxpayer would've been stuck with a huge bill regardless of guarantees (you're a lawyer and would know that unless they cash collateralized, the guarantee wouldn't be worth the paper it'd be written on)
sorry for going off track
I grew up in Tampa, so...
I also know the real reason why Scott refused the money. But I won't post it here. Let's just say it was not a decision made for economic reasons.
We're seeing this right now in Florida, where Rick Scott is trying to reorganize the state government on a corporate model.
It's not going to work. But it has provided some moments of hilarity down here.
yes you might disagree with his plans but what i prefer is for someone to experiment in one state and the rest can look on and decide whether to copy or not. it's far better than when the fed govt makes a mistake or tries something we're ALL ****ed. generally everything they try ultimately fails and if it does succeed it's because they drown it in cash and resources. the problem is if your a democart living in a democrat state and a gop president and house dictate otherwise, you're generally bound by policy which you hate.
and yes, he will fail in florida. as a country we're no longer competitive. neither he nor sink would succeed here. likewise, gov's christie, brown, walker, cuomo etc will all fail. our standard of living is slowly adjusting to meet our productivity whether we like it or not. any economic improvement will be met by heavy inflation alternatively we'll have negative growth or already evident, stagflation.
scott's on the right track but the ship has taken on too much water. we're going down
yes you might disagree with his plans but what i prefer is for someone to experiment in one state and the rest can look on and decide whether to copy or not. it's far better than when the fed govt makes a mistake or tries something we're ALL ****ed. generally everything they try ultimately fails and if it does succeed it's because they drown it in cash and resources. the problem is if your a democart living in a democrat state and a gop president and house dictate otherwise, you're generally bound by policy which you hate.
and yes, he will fail in florida. as a country we're no longer competitive. neither he nor sink would succeed here. likewise, gov's christie, brown, walker, cuomo etc will all fail. our standard of living is slowly adjusting to meet our productivity whether we like it or not. any economic improvement will be met by heavy inflation alternatively we'll have negative growth or already evident, stagflation.
scott's on the right track but the ship has taken on too much water. we're going down
I disagree that his plans are what he says they are.
That administration is making a lot of purely ideological decisions, without regard to the real-world consequences...
His own party will smack him down. They will have to, since the Democrats are basically neutered.
eg, it's not about govt being for profit. govt though have to compete for tax money. if one state raises its taxes too high they run the risk of discouraging business in their state and risk losing many businesses to other states. similarly, if states are inefficient with how they spend the tax money,they risk alienating their taxpayers. if however a state reduces its taxes and spends the money efficiently, they can attract jobs to the state.
That will be a quick race to the bottom, and in fact fall under inter-state commerce, into the realms of the federal government. And let us not forget that private enterprise works best under ownership. Managers don't have the loyalty and do not care as much about the welfare of the company so they don't mind taking extra risk. Now go even further and think of politicians as the managers, with ZERO accountability, only short term gains.
That will be a quick race to the bottom, and in fact fall under inter-state commerce, into the realms of the federal government. And let us not forget that private enterprise works best under ownership. Managers don't have the loyalty and do not care as much about the welfare of the company so they don't mind taking extra risk. Now go even further and think of politicians as the managers, with ZERO accountability, only short term gains.
sorry eg, i like you, but this is the umteenth post of nonsense. states and govts competing for tax revenue is as old as govt itself.if one company leaves michigan because it favors the tax system in texas, that has NOTHING to do with interstate commerce.
race to the bottom?? what on earth are you on about today?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
