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.
Answer is simple: because Madison and Hamilton and Jefferson and Washington were rich men in control and wanted to remain in control. And that is why the U.S. was never set up as a democracy but rather as a plutocracy, with slavery no less. The "founding fathers were no less selfish than Robespierre and Danton, vain, power hungry martinets.
The rich minority is ALWAYS petrified of the poor majority.
Firstly, you understand nothing about mob rule apparently. Secondly, based on your comment history over the years you can't tell me with a straight face you wouldn't be first in line to guillotine the nearest landlord you can find. Because that's how reasonable you are about other people's work and money - if they fall into a bogeyman category like "rich" or "landlord" or any other childish non-nuanced category then they are morally suspect right?
As a someone who lives in an NYC apartment, on a worldwide scale you are disgustingly privileged, over-monied and quite frankly, on a worldwide basis, rich. No doubt you'll soon be selling your belongings and sending the money to those living on $1 per day who really need it in Africa, India and the Philippines. After all, your selfishness doesn't recognize silly international boundaries. Put your money where your mouth is instead. (Rather than other people's money where your mouth is as you are planning).
With built in vote-fixing...not developed over time but BUILT IN to the Constitution. (Electoral College who can nullify ant presidential vote.)
Except that never happened in practice, except in 1824 when there was no majority winner. And this is fairly obvious, since electoral college representatives are elected via a popular vote (winner take all) on election day. The winner take all system is up to the states though, as the founding fathers left it up to the states to decide how they want to pick the electors.
With built in vote-fixing...not developed over time but BUILT IN to the Constitution. (Electoral College who can nullify ant presidential vote.)
The Electoral College is not "vote fixing." "Vote fixing" is when X wins according to the rules, but Y gets the prize.
The Electoral College does not "nullify" the presidential vote. The Electoral College is the presidential vote, in that it's the rule for how we elect a president.
You're confusing the "popular vote" with the rules for electing a president.
This is another liberal talking point that needs to be addressed.
The reason why these states do have less federal funds going to them is because they refuse to take these federal funds in the first place. Whenever the federal government proposes a nuclear test site, a nuclear or chemical waste storage facility, a missile range, or a federal prison, these states are the first to refuse and outsource these "undesirable" programs on the poorer states. So these poorer states end up with more federal government facilities and with more federal government funding flowing to them.
If the good people of Long Island, or wherever else, want more federal government money, I am sure they wouldn't mind the feds opening a Supermax facility in the Hamptons.
Canada has much stricter immigration laws. They do not border any poor countries, and most of their immigrants are rich and educated Asians, Europeans, Americans, and Africans coming through their "Economic migrant" programs. Also, their financial system is much less regulated compared to the US and they are running budget deficits just like the US, but with elevated tax burden already.
Right, I've heard this before in regards to how that federal tax receipt to federal spending ratio occurs, but I haven't seen a breakdown for that. Certainly the tax revenue portion going in makes quite a lot of sense given the household income differences and the progressive tax system.
Weren't the original nuclear test sites and missile ranges in the pacific territories and the desert southwest to be away from population centers and no longer exist? Aren't dumping grounds covered by multiple levels of government and jurisdictions and nuclear waste disposal sites pretty limited and only in unpopulated territory but don't contribute that much to the economy anyhow? What you're saying makes sense in terms of New Mexico (New Mexico votes Democrat mostly, but is a massive net recipient) and a few of the interior western states, but doesn't make that much sense otherwise for many of the southern states.
It also doesn't make much sense in terms of proportions of people on food stamps and other federal supports.
Where is this first refusals that the wealthy blue states get that you're talking about?
And what proportion did you think was spent on federal Supermax facilities? Aren't the vast majority of jails local and state rather than federal institutions? Doesn't New York state and many other states actually have a pretty well distributed number of federal prisons because federal prisons are a separate institution and need to be geographically distributed?
Canada doesn't necessarily have stricter immigration laws than the US as there are a lot of means to get in, but you're right in that those means, though fairly open and transparent, are targeted towards skilled and/or wealthy people. They also take in proportionally far more refugees than the US, even before this presidency, but nowhere near the per capita amount that Sweden does. It's true they don't have that border with the poor countries and that's a significant difference.
Canada has much less regulated financial systems? I'd like to hear more about this, because the history of boom and bust cycles have been much less intense in Canada over the last century, but perhaps that's because of the lack of regulation.
The Electoral College is not "vote fixing." "Vote fixing" is when X wins according to the rules, but Y gets the prize.
The Electoral College does not "nullify" the presidential vote. The Electoral College is the presidential vote, in that it's the rule for how we elect a president.
You're confusing the "popular vote" with the rules for electing a president.
Exactly. There can be legitimate criticism of the process and calls for reform and arguments for and against such reform and how reasonable the current system is, but the process as it is is codified into law and therefore not vote fixing.
Canada has much less regulated financial systems? I'd like to hear more about this, because the history of boom and bust cycles have been much less intense in Canada over the last century, but perhaps that's because of the lack of regulation.
Sure, I can give you one example. Community Reinvestment Act mandates US banks to lend money to low-income customers. Canadian banks can discriminate freely based solely on customers' ability to pay.
Speaking of SALT deductions, another example is mortgages. In Canada, interest on mortgage payments is not tax deductible at all. And there are no ad-hoc entities like Freddie and Fannie creating mortgage bubbles with their subprime guarantees, and no mandates to make every citizen a homeowner. Another example is international trade where Canada has a lot more free trade agreements with other countries compared to the US, making Canadian banks more competitive.
Sure, I can give you one example. Federal Community Reinvestment Act mandates US banks to lend money to low-income customers. Canadian banks can discriminate freely based on costumers' ability to pay.
Speaking of SALT deductions, another example is mortgages. In Canada, interest on mortgage payments is not tax deductible at all. And there are no ad-hoc entities like Freddie and Fannie creating mortgage bubbles with their subprime guarantees, and no mandates to make every citizen a homeowner.
I think there are probably a lot of individual acts that can be argued one way or another, but one overarching feature of the Canadian banking system is that the vast majority of banking in Canada happens within a few different institutions that are highly regulated and under watch while the US banking system encourages a lot more, uh, experimentation and has allowed for far more separate banks overall with generally less supervision. There are supposedly much more strict capital requirements and underwriting standards for Canadian banks compared to US banks. However, this is definitely not my area of expertise as I am not in banking or financial services, so I'd love for anyone to point to some detailed breakdowns as I'd like to learn more.
One thing is, do you agree that Canada does actually have more extensive social welfare support overall than the US and that it leans heavily more towards socialism in its mixed economy than the US does?
Though I can benefit from them, I am somewhat in favor of getting rid of mortgage interest rate deductions. When you say "no mandates to make every citizen a homeowner", you mean Freddie and Fannie and without any actual teeth to enforce they act that way, right? There certainly have been conditions that have essentially made Freddie work against continued home ownership such as its controversial investment portfolio which profits from homeowners not being able to refinance.
The fat lady is about to sing. The party is over. Suddenly Cuomo realizes he needs the Rich to live in NYS.
This is a direct result of the Trump Tax plan and it is having the desired effect. Perhaps now these state and city officals will finally realize they can not spend endlessly and depend on an income tax base that is fleeing, and continuing to raise taxes at any level won't bring them any more money, in fact it will have the opposite effect. This is our Detriot moment. What happens in the next 18 to 24 months will determine the long term fate of this state.
Except that never happened in practice, except in 1824 when there was no majority winner. And this is fairly obvious, since electoral college representatives are elected via a popular vote (winner take all) on election day. The winner take all system is up to the states though, as the founding fathers left it up to the states to decide how they want to pick the electors.
Sorry, Mr. Ganz. The Constitution doles out electoral votes to the extreme advantage of empty states...no state gets less than 3. So each voter in empty Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, de facto, has 4 times the influence of a voter in California.
So the problem lies not with how the states choose electors, but rather how MANY they get to choose.
And this unfair electoral system is very much part and parcel of the Constitution and the so called "founding fathers."
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.
