Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2012, 09:09 PM
 
78,013 posts, read 60,221,209 times
Reputation: 49404

Advertisements

I'm still waiting for ovcatto to take me up on my bet after crying about me only attacking left wing stupidity.

There is so much stupidity here.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2012, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
It's rather ironic that 150 years ago the largest government give away spurred the rapid expansion of land ownership to American citizens, the Homestead Act of 1862, distributing some 270 million acres to some 1.6 million individuals and families. Under the subsequent legislation the federal government help to establish the Land Grant Colleges and Universities, many of which went on to become some of the premiere institutions of higher learning the country. Schools like Cornell University, Auburn, University of Florida, Purdue, Kansas State, Louisiana State, University of Georgia and others.
Don't forget the land giveaways to citizens that were packaged w/ subsidies that backed entrepenuers building railroads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 12:19 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,453,393 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
This is how the discussion gets muddled. Turn off Rush Limbaugh b/c he's poisoning you mind. Person A already has insurance. They're already paying their own premiums. The argument was never about someone else paying for her free pills until Limbaugh tarded up the discussion w/ his brand of stupid. It was always about "religious freedom" blah blah.
It doesn't matter one iota that they are paying their own premiums. If it did, then nobody would gain anything with the birth control mandate. If they are paying less money for the birth control today than they did yesterday, then someone else is paying the difference. Unlimited supplies of birth control did not fall from the sky as soon as the mandate was enacted.

Also, the fact that people weren't complaining about an issue until Rush Limbaugh said something is irrelevant. The issue was there regardless of what brought attention to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 12:21 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,900,268 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Don't forget the land giveaways to citizens that were packaged w/ subsidies that backed entrepenuers building railroads.

James J. Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Northern Railway without a dime of public money...

His railroad DIDN'T go bankrupt (unlike many subsidized railways)...

In fact, he was so successful that he had to maneuver around governments sabotage...

Quote:
One of his challenges at this point was the avoidance of federal action against railroads. If the federal government believed that the railroads were making too much profit, they might see this as an opportunity to force lowering of the railway tariff rates. Hill avoided this by investing a large portion of the railroad's profit back into the railroad itself—and charged those investments to operating expense. It was at this point that Hill became the official president of StPM&M (not that he hadn't been the man behind the curtain before), and decided to expand the rail lines.
But you knew that, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 12:44 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,900,268 times
Reputation: 1578
Report on Manufactures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Report on Manufacturers says the following...

Quote:
Hamilton reasoned that to secure American independence, the United States needed to have a sound policy of encouraging the growth of manufacturing and secure its future as a permanent feature of the economic system of the nation. He argued these could be achieved through bounties or subsidies to industry, regulation of trade with moderate tariffs (not intended to discourage imports but to raise revenue to support American manufacturing through subsidy), and other government encouragement. These policies would not only promote the growth of manufacturing but provide diversified employment opportunities and promote immigration into the young United States. They would also expand the applications of technology and science for all quarters of the economy, including agriculture.
Hamilton held the position that private road building would be a massive failure if not for government intervention.

But the private industry had already been laying 1000's of miles of successful turnpikes, with no aid, such as the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, The First Great Western Turnpike, The Second Great Western Turnpike. The federal government intervened ...and it was such a failure that the only two states that still relied on state sanctioned subsidies were Missouri and Massachusetts.

Quote:
Most of the projects were abandoned before completion; only a part of one railroad
was completed and then sold for a fraction of its cost. A new state constitution, adopted in
1848, prohibited state aid to private companies.29 Chicago went on to become the nation’s
greatest railroad center without the dubious benefit of any state or city tax funds.

In 1837 Michigan began subsidizing private railroad companies but the projects quickly
exhibited the familiar characteristics of mismanagement, corruption, and massive cost overruns.
The state sold the Michigan Central and Michigan Southern Railroads for less than half of what
it had spent on them. “The state’s venture in internal improvements was so universally regarded
as a failure that prohibitions against both public works and mixed enterprise were voted almost
without discussion for inclusion in the constitution of 1850.

Government subsidies for internal improvements in the 1830s were a complete, total,
financial disaster. As described by historian John Bach McMaster: “In every state which had
gone recklessly into internal improvements the financial situation was alarming. No works were
finished; little or no income was derived from them; interest on the bonds increased day by day
and no means of paying it save by taxation remained (emphasis added).

Wisconsin and Minnesota learned valuable lessons from the above-mentioned states.
When they entered the union in 1848 and 1857 respectively their constitutions forbade both
grants and loans to private companies. In Iowa the state courts even held that local aid to
private companies was unconstitutional. Louisiana began subsidizing railroads before Illinois and most other states (1833) and, consequently, was one of the first states to turn around and
forbid state aid for internal improvements (1845)

By 1861 state subsidies for internal improvements were forbidden by constitutional
amendment in Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky,
Kansas, California, and Oregon. West Virginia, Nevada, and Nebraska entered the union in
the 1860s with similar prohibitions. Missouri and Massachusetts were the only two states
where the law sanctioned state subsidies for internal improvements, and Missouri amended it
constitution to prohibit them in 1875
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/internal.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 01:25 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Well, lets be honest with this thread. Are you really arguing that "Red states" wouldn't exist without the homestead act? That is simply ridiculous. The homestead act didn't come about until 1862, during the Civil War. You know, after pretty much all the southern red states had already tried to leave the country.

The reason the homestead act came into effect, was because the government had millions of acres that needed to be settled into new states. And the alternative would have been for the government to sell off the land. Which is basically what they had been doing before. But the people buying the land before, tended to be privileged members of society, who often got the land at well below-market rates. Largely because the government was already paying well below market rates for the land to begin with(Louisiana purchase).


The reality is that the government had already taken the land through taxation from the people. And the question then becomes, what should the government do with all that land that the people have already paid for?


If you want to make a principled argument, it would really be, should Thomas Jefferson have had the authority to purchase Louisiana from Napoleon? Because, the constitution never gave him that authority. And should we have fought a war with Mexico and took Texas and most of the rest of the southwest?

Because those are really the roots of westward expansion. Because those were where the government actually spent our tax money. The homestead act was simply a matter of trying to get some of that tax money back.


I guess maybe the question should be, do Republicans consider it redistribution of wealth, if they raise taxes to pay for a military, that they use to gain control over land and/or resources, for the benefit of American citizens?

Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-16-2012 at 02:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 03:15 AM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 5,359,165 times
Reputation: 3058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Dear god, not another red state \ blue state stupidity thread.
Hey! This thread AND it's title were created by a PRO!

And don't you forget it!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 04:18 AM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,666,932 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Dear god, not another red state \ blue state stupidity thread.
lol, the OP is desperate to prove he or she is entitled to their free stuff.

Signed
A misplaced Red Stater
Someone living in a state where they think it's "too hard" to get a photo ID but want to be treated as equal in every other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
James J. Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Northern Railway without a dime of public money...

His railroad DIDN'T go bankrupt (unlike many subsidized railways)...

In fact, he was so successful that he had to maneuver around governments sabotage...



But you knew that, right?
Lol... the funny thing is you think you have a point. You know that of all the railroad companies that have existed in the US, successful or failure, that's the ONLY one that didn't use public funds?

I mean JHC... what was your point? I can't even begin to figure out where you were going w/ this... lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,098,532 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
It doesn't matter one iota that they are paying their own premiums. If it did, then nobody would gain anything with the birth control mandate. If they are paying less money for the birth control today than they did yesterday, then someone else is paying the difference. Unlimited supplies of birth control did not fall from the sky as soon as the mandate was enacted.

Also, the fact that people weren't complaining about an issue until Rush Limbaugh said something is irrelevant. The issue was there regardless of what brought attention to it.
Then by that logic, anything that's not the full retail price of the medicine = someone else paying for it. In fact that's a brilliant idea. Let's get everyone into an insurance plan, and we'll use the money that healthy people pay in to cover the costs of the sick people that use it.

But then again, you're the one saying that the free wellness checks and vaccinations are somehow freer than women's contraceptives...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top