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.
A constant theme in Romney's debate last night was shifting responsibilities to states. Whether it was education, health care, or regulation, Romney envisions a country where those duties are given to the states to manage as they see fit rather than having them managed/done at federal level. That raises the question in my mind of whether people would relocate to states based on their approaches. I know my own state (AZ) would likely end all such programs if they could. Maybe places like MA would expand theirs. So would you move across the country to live in a state that was more generous? Would you wait until you needed the social safety net? Will Romney's plans result in a gross disparity of income, educational attainment, and well being across our country? Thoughts?
A constant theme in Romney's debate last night was shifting responsibilities to states. Whether it was education, health care, or regulation, Romney envisions a country where those duties are given to the states to manage as they see fit rather than having them managed/done at federal level. That raises the question in my mind of whether people would relocate to states based on their approaches. I know my own state (AZ) would likely end all such programs if they could. Maybe places like MA would expand theirs. So would you move across the country to live in a state that was more generous? Would you wait until you needed the social safety net? Will Romney's plans result in a gross disparity of income, educational attainment, and well being across our country? Thoughts?
It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. We saw that in Minnesota when Pawlenty was governor. He cut the state assistance to counties and cities and claimed it as a big victory. Then the counties/cities turned around and raised property taxes to make up for it. So what Pawlenty did was he shifted more tax burden from income taxes to property owners. Winner? The wealthy.
Same exact idea here. No wonder Romney loves Pawlenty so much.
I have never based where I live or where I should move to off who is president.
Of course not, but my thesis is that there will be gross disparities in social programs in Romney's plan, much more so than even now. What if you end up living in a place like AZ and they gut education even more dumbing it down because they no longer have to meet federal standards, How about pollution controls? Want to live in a green state or a brown one? Product safety? Seat belts? Minimum wage? Unemployment insurance (it would be gone in my state if the Feds did not require it)? The uniformity that makes us a nation to some degree would disappear. It's like the hodge podge of gay marriage that is now emerging but far more extensive.
Of course not, but my thesis is that there will be gross disparities in social programs in Romney's plan, much more so than even now. What if you end up living in a place like AZ and they gut education even more dumbing it down because they no longer have to meet federal standards, How about pollution controls? Want to live in a green state or a brown one? Product safety? Seat belts? Minimum wage? Unemployment insurance (it would be gone in my state if the Feds did not require it)? The uniformity that makes us a nation to some degree would disappear. It's like the hodge podge of gay marriage that is now emerging but far more extensive.
I would never move to a place like Arizona regardless. I tend to live in blue states, and really there is only about five states I would even bother to live in in this country.
I have often thought of moving to Brazil. Not because of politics but just for the lifestyle I could live with my income. My kids would have better opportunities there as well.
But back to the point. Someone mentioned above that they would only live in blue states. Under the Romney vision, some states would have strong social programs while others would have none. Would the moochers move to the states that provided an easy life for them? How would people in those states like that, or more importantly, pay for all of that? Would they move to avoid the staggering tax implications?
I have often thought of moving to Brazil. Not because of politics but just for the lifestyle I could live with my income. My kids would have better opportunities there as well.
But back to the point. Someone mentioned above that they would only live in blue states. Under the Romney vision, some states would have strong social programs while others would have none. Would the moochers move to the states that provided an easy life for them? How would people in those states like that, or more importantly, pay for all of that? Would they move to avoid the staggering tax implications?
LMAO. Yeah, they'd have a better opportunity of either becoming a criminal or a victim.
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.
