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.
States still have rights.
Vermont has the right demographic makeup to make it work.
They have an educated populace that work, low poverty rate and very few illegals.
That means that most of the population can afford to pay higher taxes but not too high because they don't have a lot of poor to worry about.
That could never be attempted in Texas though; we have too many poor and too many illegals and the burden on the working populace would be too great.
Yes, they created a federal government. But they didn't create your federal government. Their federal government didn't have over 10,000 agencies with over 2 million employees. Their federal government didn't take the election of senators away from the states. Their federal government didn't tax everyone's income. Their federal government didn't try to set a national school curriculum. Their federal government didn't take money from the states and then only give it back if the states spent it according to the federal government's wishes. Their federal government didn't try to make healthcare choices for private citizens. Their federal government didn't have public sector unions that contributed to the election campaigns of the same people who then negotiated their contracts. While they did create a federal government, it's entirely irrelevant because the government they created was absolutely nothing whatsoever like the government you liberal control freaks have developed. So don't think you're making any point whatsoever with your statement. The founders were all right wing extremists by modern liberal standards. You and your ilk are in no way the spiritual successors of the founders of America. Your vision of government is diametrically opposed to theirs, as spelled out in the Federalist Papers.
Their federal government was designed to evolve based on the will of the people living in the country, so by that logic, their federal government is our federal government.
Your vision of government is diametrically opposed to theirs, as spelled out in the Federalist Papers.
My favorite part of the Federalist Papers is where Hamilton says there is no need for a Bill of Rights, because, after all, why would Government do anything that was not in the Constitution?
Their federal government was designed to evolve based on the will of the people living in the country, so by that logic, their federal government is our federal government.
Threatening, bribing and bringing states to court is not "evolving".
That's strongarm tactics.
"Implement this or we'll hold back money"
"Implement this and we'll give you money"
DOJ taking states to court because they don't like the laws passed by the state.
That's not "evolving" by any means. That's usurping power.
Thank God the courts still recognize that states have rights and tell the Fed to back off.
That's the state motto of New Hampshire, not Vermont.
Thank you for the correction.
Let's see: "Freedom and Unity" is the official motto of the U.S. state of Vermont and the African Nation of Tanzania. that should tell us something
Hmmmmm:There is general agreement that Vermont's motto is about the idea of balancing two seemingly opposite ideals: the personal freedom and independence of the individual citizen, with the common good of the larger community. Writer and Vermont resident Dorothy Canfield Fisher (1879-1958) wrote the following about her adopted state: "the Vermont idea grapples energetically with the basic problem of human conduct – how to reconcile the needs of the group, of which every man or woman is a member, with the craving for individual freedom to be what he really is."
Sounds common sense to me. Socialized medicine so people can be free to be healthy, I guess ...
Threatening, bribing and bringing states to court is not "evolving".
That's strongarm tactics.
"Implement this or we'll hold back money"
"Implement this and we'll give you money"
DOJ taking states to court because they don't like the laws passed by the state.
That's not "evolving" by any means. That's usurping power.
Thank God the courts still recognize that states have rights and tell the Fed to back off.
That is all within the government that was designed for us. Just because you don't like not getting your way doesn't mean it can't be legally done or legally stopped. If a state wanted to reinstate slavery, you can bet the federal government will be there to knock it down.
Are you inferring that businesses would stop competing for top-talent if they were no longer obligated to pay for health insurance? Because that's just ridiculous. There are many first-world economies doing just fine without employer-tied health insurance (Or, health-based insurance schemes at all.). Businesses want to thrive; business owners are not just going to throw in the towel and go homeless because poor people can go to the doctor. (I'm sorry that your father passed.)
Of course businesses will always compete for top talent... ideally at least. Do some research on the "internship" scam that some businesses are pulling these days.
What I AM saying is that in the context of the post WW2 boom, businesses offered lots of bennies to sweeten the pot. With today's labor market, businesses are busy disentangling themselves from the belief that bennies are necessary.
Cant wait to see the reactions of those top 20 business school grads when businesses start pushing back on them as well
That is all within the government that was designed for us. Just because you don't like not getting your way doesn't mean it can't be legally done or legally stopped. If a state wanted to reinstate slavery, you can bet the federal government will be there to knock it down.
That's not even a viable comparison.
Why do you lefties always go to extremes with your "what if...".
State doesn't want bribe money to expand welfare programs.
The state has that right.
State doesn't want to implement a national curriculum.
The state has that right.
State wants to bypass a Federal health insurance subsidy program.
The state has that right.
The constitution of the United States would not allow any state to enact slavery laws so your comment is moot.
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.
