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'm sorry but I am in a better place than you young people. Fact is old people like me buy very little. We have our homes, furniture, clothes, ect. We keep everything forever. In other words you wouldn't want to try to make a living selling me stuff. Having said that, no I wouldn't mind paying more for everything.
I don't know how old you are, but I don't buy much either. When I do buy things I often buy used items. But I'm assuming you have to buy food occasionally. And regardless of what you do, I'm positive most in your region (which incidentally, is my region as well) still do purchase many items daily, and very few of them are produced in their own region, including food. Sure, more things could be produced in any one region, but I doubt any region could meet all of its demands alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01
Look, I'm talking about having a central government that actually represents me! I want my government dependent on me! Mr obama, or reed and pelosi for that matter, don't give a tinker's damn about my concerns even as they take my hard earned money. Having a government that represents you = priceless!!
That government doesn't represent you alone. Even in your region, the government has to represent a huge variety of people, many with conflicting interests. Even if our region became it's own country, I'm betting politically we'd still be plenty divided. Maybe not quite as much, but still at odds with one another. For example, I live in the same region as you, but from reading your posts I can tell we would vote for VERY different candidates. That's not a problem for me in particular, because I'm working on leaving as quickly as I can (mainly due to hating the hot weather, but that's another thread). But what about someone who politically would be more in line with me, but ends up in a country with leaders who represent your interests more? In your country that person wouldn't be very well represented. How difficult would it be for that person to legally immigrate to, say, the country of Califoregonington? Especially if this person couldn't afford to move in the first place, never mind the difficulties in becoming a legal citizen in another country. This idea of splitting the country into smaller nations assumes that everyone in each region is the same politically and culturally, or could easily move to one of the other, more politically fitting countries at any time.
Dunno yet. So far I'm not all that impressed. Of course it doesn't matter much as the pack hasn't winnowed yet. Ultimately, it will come down to one of the republicans or mr obama. In the end I don't really have much choice but I'll vote for sure. Always do.
It seems that you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to current choices. We differ, however, in our "ultimate solutions." I don't believe that the great majority of Americans are facing each other across an unbridgeable chasm. I do believe that the partisan politics that we all are witnessing is a scripted drama that is being played out to keep us all distracted while the real power brokers - who remain pretty much invisible and cross both global and ideological lines - continue on with the real agenda.
We are all puppets whose strings are being pulled by invisible puppet masters. The sound and the fury coming from Washington is all smoke and mirrors with the intent of keeping us in turmoil for as long as possible. So far, it seems to be working pretty well...
Unfortunately, that is what would happen. You would face the choice of whether to live under the authoritarian rule of a Christian theocracy or a nanny state liberal social democracy. Either way you would lose some of the freedoms that you currently enjoy. I think the tension of the right/left liberal vs conservative conflict is a good thing for our country. Both sides make a lot of noise but the end result is that the extremists on both sides are forced to compromise and it has a moderating effect on the overall politics that matter in the daily lives of real people.
I don't know how old you are, but I don't buy much either. When I do buy things I often buy used items. But I'm assuming you have to buy food occasionally. And regardless of what you do, I'm positive most in your region (which incidentally, is my region as well) still do purchase many items daily, and very few of them are produced in their own region, including food. Sure, more things could be produced in any one region, but I doubt any region could meet all of its demands alone.
Just like right now we produce those things we can and trade for the rest. The us can disband into a looser coalition and still trade with each other. We can also do what we are doing now, trading with the world at large as well. the laws of economics are still intact even if the union isn't.
Quote:
That government doesn't represent you alone. Even in your region, the government has to represent a huge variety of people, many with conflicting interests. Even if our region became it's own country, I'm betting politically we'd still be plenty divided. Maybe not quite as much, but still at odds with one another. For example, I live in the same region as you, but from reading your posts I can tell we would vote for VERY different candidates. That's not a problem for me in particular, because I'm working on leaving as quickly as I can (mainly due to hating the hot weather, but that's another thread). But what about someone who politically would be more in line with me, but ends up in a country with leaders who represent your interests more? In your country that person wouldn't be very well represented. How difficult would it be for that person to legally immigrate to, say, the country of Califoregonington? Especially if this person couldn't afford to move in the first place, never mind the difficulties in becoming a legal citizen in another country. This idea of splitting the country into smaller nations assumes that everyone in each region is the same politically and culturally, or could easily move to one of the other, more politically fitting countries at any time.
In succession. We wouldn't be as divided as we are now meaning; we'd have a common culture, language, functioning borders, needs, desires, ect. Just contrast that with where we are now, virtually ungovernable.
People would have the freedom to vote with their feet. In other words if they don't like th politics of their region, they can leave. The fact is that is going on right now. Liberals/leftists are congregating in communities, cities, regions, states with themselves. The same thing is happening with conservatives.
....."The Big Sort isn't primarily a political phenomenon. It is the way Americans have chosen to live, an unconscious decision to cluster in communities of like-mindedness"
At a recent dinner party, while discussing potential neighbors soon to move into a nearby house, one of the attendees exclaimed, "As long as they are hip, cool, and liberal, I'll be good." Initially, one might be caught off guard by such an utterance - it seems strange for "liberal" to be included within this string of requirements. Why should someone focus so deliberately on the personal politics of their neighbors? However, as Bill Bishop explains in his text The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart, this woman was merely voicing what is tacitly occurring throughout the United States. Bishop investigates "the Big Sort," tracking patterns of migration that reveal that Americans have, over the past three decades, been increasingly sorting themselves into communities where people share the same lifestyle.......
Can't afford to move? Nonsense. I once "moved" from rock island illinois to colorado in three days, with sixty cents, three packs of marlboros, and a hangover.
Fascism was at the time considered a "third way" between classical liberalism (what the founding fathers were) and socialism/communism. I always felt there was/is much more in common between fascism (national socialism) and socialism/communism. You seem to be equating corporatism with national socialism. I don't see how anyone could think the "corporate oligarchy" of germany had any power over hitler after 1938 if only because they didn't. I certainly don't see how anyone could confuse classical liberalism with fascism/national socialism and socialism/communism.
Just like right now we produce those things we can and trade for the rest. The us can disband into a looser coalition and still trade with each other. We can also do what we are doing now, trading with the world at large as well. the laws of economics are still intact even if the union isn't.
Fine, but it's going to be more expensive for most people. Much more for regions that can't produce as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01
In succession. We wouldn't be as divided as we are now meaning; we'd have a common culture, language, functioning borders, needs, desires, ect. Just contrast that with where we are now, virtually ungovernable.
People would have the freedom to vote with their feet. In other words if they don't like th politics of their region, they can leave. The fact is that is going on right now. Liberals/leftists are congregating in communities, cities, regions, states with themselves. The same thing is happening with conservatives.
Can't afford to move? Nonsense. I once "moved" from rock island illinois to colorado in three days, with sixty cents, three packs of marlboros, and a hangover.
Moving with that little to a new state is not very realistic, unless you have no problem with being homeless. And besides, it wouldn't be as simple as moving to a different state in the same country. You'd be moving to a new country. And unless these new countries decided to make it really easy, it would be difficult and expensive. The only reason I am able to comfortably move to another state right now is due to selling my house and not buying another one when I get there. And I'm single. I can't imagine the expense and complications of trying to move an entire family to a different country. Also, you don't seem to be happy with the U.S. government currently, but I'm guessing you haven't considered moving to a different country to get what you want. Why not?
It seems that you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to current choices. We differ, however, in our "ultimate solutions." I don't believe that the great majority of Americans are facing each other across an unbridgeable chasm. I do believe that the partisan politics that we all are witnessing is a scripted drama that is being played out to keep us all distracted while the real power brokers - who remain pretty much invisible and cross both global and ideological lines - continue on with the real agenda.
We are all puppets whose strings are being pulled by invisible puppet masters. The sound and the fury coming from Washington is all smoke and mirrors with the intent of keeping us in turmoil for as long as possible. So far, it seems to be working pretty well...
Good lord, man. We don't need a "boogyman" to explain what we are seeing. Sometimes things just are what they are. The reality right now is we are a culturally divided people. Here's something for you to think about.........it's getting worse. This article wouldn't have been written twenty years ago.
Disunited: Are Our States Moving in Separate Directions?
Legislatures in red and blue states are enacting very different kinds of laws. Is that for the good?
By Ronald Brownstein and Scott Bland
Updated: July 22, 2011 | 5:13 p.m.
July 22, 2011 | 6:00 a.m.
AP Photo/Tom Strickland (L), Mario Tama/Getty Images (R)(Left) A small collection of flowers honoring Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon sit at the base of a statue of former Indiana Gov. Oliver P. Morton outside the Indiana Statehouse on Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003. O'Bannon died Saturday in Chicago after suffering a stroke Monday, Sept. 8.
At times, the past six months in the imposing state Capitol building in Indianapolis has seemed more like a track meet than a typical legislative session.
After the 2010 election expanded Indiana Republicans’ control of the state Senate and provided them a majority in the state House, GOP lawmakers joined with Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to briskly advance a long list of conservative priorities. Together they adopted tough measures on illegal immigration (including legislation similar to Arizona’s controversial enforcement bill); expanded the school-voucher program; limited collective bargaining by teachers; and overrode local restrictions that prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in many public buildings. To much fanfare, Republicans defunded Planned Parenthood and enacted a raft of constraints on abortion, including a ban on the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy—a provision that critics say violates the constitutional right to abortion that the Supreme Court established under Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Cook Report: A Too-Close-To-Call 2012Two hundred miles to the west, in Springfield, Ill., the Legislature has marched, nearly as rapidly, in the opposite direction. Illinois Democrats have moved aggressively to leverage a 2010 election that maintained their party’s control of the state House and Senate and installed Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn for a full term. While devising a budget to salve the desperate fiscal condition, Illinois Democrats made permanent the state’s longtime moratorium on the death penalty. Quinn withdrew Illinois from a controversial federal illegal-immigration enforcement plan championed by President Obama, and signed a law that provides undocumented immigrants in-state higher-education benefits, including tax-advantaged savings. In January, the governor approved a civil-union bill that provides same-sex couples spousal rights equivalent to those of heterosexual couples. “It was,†Democratic state Rep. Greg Harris said with studied understatement, “a good year.â€..............
Fine, but it's going to be more expensive for most people. Much more for regions that can't produce as much.
Why? Fact is if our taxes are less, we'll keep more of our income to begin with. Hell, right now some 52% of the country isn't paying taxes at all. We cannot use the natural resources that now exist in our territories. Some regions of the country aren't saddled with bloated infrastructures, union bosses and beaurocrats that require two private industry workers to support. Who's to say some regions won't be far better off than they are now?
You realize the socialist inspired philosophies mr obama is so proud of have failed consistantly throughout the globe. You should understand that if only because of the fall of the soviet union and the abandoning of marxist economic models by even the communist chinese.
Quote:
Moving with that little to a new state is not very realistic, unless you have no problem with being homeless. And besides, it wouldn't be as simple as moving to a different state in the same country. You'd be moving to a new country. And unless these new countries decided to make it really easy, it would be difficult and expensive. The only reason I am able to comfortably move to another state right now is due to selling my house and not buying another one when I get there. And I'm single. I can't imagine the expense and complications of trying to move an entire family to a different country. Also, you don't seem to be happy with the U.S. government currently, but I'm guessing you haven't considered moving to a different country to get what you want. Why not?
Of course I have. I came home to arkansas. I've already rejected liberal/leftist ideologies and communities. I've already provided an article whereby the arthor has indicated that is just what is happening even now. You can certainly survive all the pain and agony of packing and moving. The fact is you've indicated you are moving anyway just get your passport in order. I'll hold the gate for ya'.
...I always thought our country was too big and too diverse to stay together to begin with. We have 3 options
1. Complete and total quagmire and self-destruction from politicking and banter in DC. A total mess.
2. We develop autonomous commuities like Spain with a very very loose federal center.
3. We become a confederacy (lower case "c") with emphasis on states rights.
...I always thought our country was too big and too diverse to stay together to begin with. We have 3 options
1. Complete and total quagmire and self-destruction from politicking and banter in DC. A total mess.
2. We develop autonomous commuities like Spain with a very very loose federal center.
3. We become a confederacy (lower case "c") with emphasis on states rights.
I like #2 the most
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.
