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.
I have answered every single one of your questions in previous posts. Either you are joking around, or are simply not reading my posts in full before responding.
Regardless, I am writing for the viewers more than I am debating you at this point. A real debate requires two people who actually READ before responding.
My (repeated) answers are below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
Who is choosing the states that liberals GET to live in and those that conservatives GET to live in....who chooses for the independents? Right there you secessionist crazies haven't got any answers and you've haven't even started your revolution.
I have already said previously that in my plan, people choose what state they want to live in that agrees with them. Citizens vote on certain policies and majority wins. We don't have some person choosing what states are liberal and conservative, that's ridiculous. The states will be judged by the policies their citizens vote for. The feds will simply cover basics like defense, immigration, foreign trade / policy, and protecting civil rights / liberties of the people from any state government that tries to violate the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
understood it perfectly...perhaps you are the one not paying attention.
You did not understand it, otherwise you would not have said I agreed with you. I have already said that conservatives aren't against the poor, they simply have a different definition of poor vs your definition and believe in more charity assistance than government assistance. However, most are still for a social safety net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
SERIOUSLY, WOW how liberal of you!!!! A new government entity! And I thought you wanted smaller government. I've completely mis-understood you!!!! would this be a federal government policy or one of your new states...or are you sticking it to the "liberal states" to figure it out, as always cause you aren't going to allow those pesky poor people in your state My policy for helping the poor is probably more comprehensive and liberal than yours! My point in this thread is not about how we help the poor, it's about not FORCING people to pay for programs YOU want. It's about not having one policy being forced down our throats from Washington. We should all have separate policies that we agree with in our state, even yours is fine by me! How is that unfair?Because the state you picked for yourself....may be the exact state I want to live in!
The quote above proves you are not reading my points before responding. You immediately tied my jobs program to a new federal entity, when I clearly said I wanted it implemented at the state level, by states that actually WANT this type of program. I do not believe in imposing my jobs program on states that do not want it.
I am intellectually honest enough to have conservative, liberal and libertarian views that I draw from. However, there is no way my jobs program is liberal since I don't want to impose it federally. It is a moderate idea since I use the Tenth Amendment as my Constitutional authority for it at the state level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
even though I feel it eradicates poverty better than any other program.
I do not believe in "the ends justifies the means". If 50% of the citizens do not want a program that eradicates poverty better than any other, then why should we force it on them? Sorry Saul Alinsky, I do not believe in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
jobs brought back to this country or jobs being created for Americans would eradicate the poverty just fine. Why are we dis-agreeing again? You want a "government direct jobs progrram?" or would this be a private enterprise system? Either way, works for us liberals! Thanks, now call your congressman and tell him to quit messing around with debt ceilings and get his/her butt back to creating those jobs that were promised in the last election! I'm excited....I just created another liberal. yippee!
Feel free to search my posting history for details on this program. I am more than sure you would be against it since I only want to give it to citizens at the state level if the majority wants it. That is NOT liberal.
It's funny you believe you "created another liberal". I have been advocating for this type of program in poverty threads for months. You had nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
The offshoring was done by the wealthy class, telling (paying for) the politicians to create laws that made it highly profitable.....they aren't going to allow the right wing to bring those jobs back and cut into their profits....that simple, but you are right and we agree again. This is a class war not a right/left war.
Sorry, I don't play the fake class warfare game either. The largest political contributors are unions, and they are definitely not a tool for the wealthy class. We do agree that both parties are at fault, but obviously not for the same reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
again, who is picking the states? what if I want to live in your state? Why would I want to be so bored with everyone thinking exactly like I do surrounding me on evey side....that leaves no room for discussions!
Already answered, read my posts in full before replying. Citizens pick their own state to live in and either deal with what the majority wants, advocate for change within that state, or move. You are free to live in my state if you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
We would never be the greatest country on the planet again, we would simply be lots of little countries like Europe. What will you do about roads/bridges/damns/railroads/waterways/national parks/military/who is in charge of all that and lots, lots, lots, lots more?
States would pay for all of those things except military, since they would have the option to raise taxes due to the federal government taking less tax money under my plan. Waterways, roads and bridges that share a common border would be jointly paid for by both states, in fact many states already collaborate on these things. Do some research and you'll be surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
Do I get to visit your state? Do you get to visit mine? What if your state choose not to allow visitors from states that don't think like them? Will we need passports, will my roads be better than your roads?
If you read the Constitution, you'll see that all of these things are already covered and is part of the federal government's limited duties. None of these things would change. Roads are already better in some states vs. others. Do you really believe all roads are equal in all states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
Its all over your postings.They have that option now....whats different?
Show proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
Why do I want your dang poor people. You created the poverty in your state.....you keep them! I'' continue supporting them in my liberal state the way we do now.....again, whats the difference...all that is happening now!
Fine, we'll keep our poor people. Since you don't want them, now you can stop complaining about my state's methods for assisting them. It's quite hypocritical to judge someone's methods and not offer to accept responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
Except that I don't want to be like the European Union. Love Europe, love Europeans, don't want to be them. I'm an American citizen of the UNITED States America! Thanks very much....the debate goes on.
Ok, I'll repost this quote if I ever see you on another thread throwing out the typical "we need to be more like Europe" line in regards to single payer or something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
well, we could start another thread. they are busy fighting their horrendous drug war, that we fiance and sell guns for. creating those jobs again....you do realize you are a liberal don't you?
Start another thread on illegal immigration, PM me the link and I'll be there. I've already answered your drug war issue by stating that I would legalize drugs. Put the cartels out of business and the drug war issue disappears.
You obviously don't know what a liberal is. Liberals don't believe in using state level programs chosen by the majority of citizens, they want it all done at a federal level. Please study your own ideology and see how it relates to my jobs plan that uses the Tenth Amendment and no federal imposition, and then you'll understand.
In regards to creating jobs in Mexico, I would do this through the private sector and tax policy, not by giving handouts to another country. Sorry if you thought I was on your "team" again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
completely unreasonable and impossble. Perhaps someone could, maybe even a few could, but chances are their relatives are poor, or perhaps they hate them because of their poverty, or perhaps they simply don't have the garage space! You really need to quit this line of thinking....it doesn't work on many levels.
Saying something "doesn't work" doesn't make your argument correct if you don't actually use anything to support it. In a nutshell, you're arguing it's not possible to move to another state with only their wardrobe. Are you really going to pretend people can't sell their things, give them away or put them in storage? Are you really serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
To you it might be minor...to them things they hold very dear, or have no way of replacing when they get to their new enviornment and make some money.....what do they live on during those lean months?
I've already given solutions for how they can keep these things if they aren't able to take them immediately. Please read my posts in full before responding.
In this hypothetical situation we are debating poor people's move to a liberal state that WANTS to help them. Obviously there will be liberal programs waiting for them so they can make enough money to "live on during those lean months. It's up to YOU to come up with the programs, you're the liberal, not me! I'm simply advocating for a state-level environment where you'll have enough tax money and freedom to implement them, it's not my job to come up with liberal programs I'd never vote for, in liberal states I'd never live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
No one gets to choose what to spend their tax dollars on...line by line and never have had those choices. You might want to finance wars, I might want to finance families or heath care, you might want to finance a brdge to no where, I might want a new library...but our legislatures make those decisions and the lobbyist pay them lots of money to "see things their way" rather than your way or my way to begin with.
You're putting words in my mouth again and not reading my posts before responding. Obviously citizens can demand certain programs, and if the majority wants it, they get it through referendum or by convincing politicians to legislate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
It has always been that way and will always be that way....we are after all the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
If you believe it has "always been that way" then you need to do some historical research before making this type of statement. This nation was founded on a limited federal government basis, even liberals don't refute this fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi
what name?
Once again, you proved that you do not read my posts in full before responding since your childish name-calling I referred to was underlined and bold in the quote.
This is too easy. I can do this all day, every day if you want to keep it coming.
I agree. As someone who is generally liberal, I've recently begun to realize that the slogan "States Rights!" isn't just for conservative thinkers anymore. The federal government and national news media get a lot of attention, but really, it's what happens in our own states that affects us more - or at least that's how it should be.
Thank you for this post. I want you to implement all the liberal policies you want within your state, I support that 100% even though I disagree with many of them.
I don't see why any person would be against this, since it's the best option for us to all live in peace.
Thank you for this post. I want you to implement all the liberal policies you want within your state, I support that 100% even though I disagree with many of them.
I'm trying to discern the difference between this political viewpoint and that of let's say George Wallace, Lester Maddox or Ross Barnett.
freedom 123, why should people have to move away from their home state because the majority wants something they don't? why should someone have to move hundreds of miles away to another state to get the benefits or find a place where they are not made to feel a second class citizen?
There is a huge difference between being in a deficit and being impoverished.
For example Texas has a $27 billion dollar deficit, but no one will ever cite that about Texas, but everyone jumps over California's $25 billion deficit.
This is considering that California is home to 13 million more people that Texas.
Nice try.
California's budget covers one year, Texas' budget covers two years since the state legislature only meets every other year (2009, 2011, 2013, etc).
So, that Texas $27 billion/2yrs (projected by a liberal policy group I might add) is actually $13.5b/yr, $12b less than California's $25b/yr.
From your own article:
Quote:
Perry, a Republican, campaigned on the strength of the Texas economy and made political hay of the fact the Lone Star state had avoided California's massive deficit, pegged at $25.4 billion through the upcoming budget year.
Now Texas faces a budget deficit estimated as high as $27 billion for the upcoming two-year cycle of 2012-2013. To close the gap, state legislators have proposed steep cuts in funding to education and welfare programs.
2nd: Texas passed their budget and it was balanced (as is required by the Texas Constitution). I may not like the way they balanced it, but it was balanced. This deficit you brought up is GONE. (For the record, California balanced theirs too, and I'm proud of them).
If you plan to spend $100,000 this year for your household but your income drops to $80,000, that is a projected deficit of $20,000. If you cut household expenses to meet the $80,000 (or spend even less), the $20,000 "deficit" is simply an irrelevant number that has disappeared if you cut spending.
There is a difference between projected deficit and the actual end result.
freedom 123, why should people have to move away from their home state because the majority wants something they don't? why should someone have to move hundreds of miles away to another state to get the benefits or find a place where they are not made to feel a second class citizen?
Hi hothulamaui,
I've said in my posts that they don't HAVE to move. They can stay there and find a job, live off family/friends or start a side business.
Or, they can prove they TRULY are in a bad situation and apply for whatever social safety net and charities exist. Let's be real, no states are going to eliminate 100% of the social safety net. States have the right to opt out of Medicaid right now and even conservative Texas decided against it.
The problem with any poverty discussion is that some people (who never grew up poor) feel that everyone on the system really is needy, and those of us who actually grew up poor know there are plenty who ride the system because it's easier for a lazy person than going to school for free (on a full Pell Grant) or finding a working-class job. I find that most of the truly needy, non-lazy poor people don't qualify because they were responsible enough to take a low-paying job.
Unlike most posters, I actually worked in the social safety net system in a previous career, so I have hands-on knowledge of what it's really like.
None of this hypothetical situation matters anyway, since even conservative states will hand out welfare to people who aren't elderly or disabled, no matter if we return to a Tenth Amendment model or not.
I'm trying to discern the difference between this political viewpoint and that of let's say George Wallace, Lester Maddox or Ross Barnett.
If you read my posting history, you will see that I advocate for strong civil rights protection by the feds since it's part of the Constitution. States rights do not apply in regards to civil rights / liberties. If you want to debate states rights now that we've covered the "typical" civil rights rebuttal, I'd be happy to do so.
Nice try using the race card. Sorry, I'm African-American so your card is declined.
The point missed by anti-federalists are the kind James Madison highlighted in his presentation of the Bill of Rights. For example:
those founders were a tough read though. Can't just skim!
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.
good quote
