Republicians going to lower taxes, Trump appointees going to dismantle some federal agencies? The states can make up the slack

[Axulus]

Try living in a real oligarchy like Russia and then come back and tell me what an oligarchy the US is.

So - they had a big head start. But with Trump, we'll catch up quickly because he's a TREMENDOUS LEADER like his Uncle Vlad. What a winner!

The two systems are like night and day. It would take a lot of dismantling of our core liberal democratic institutions to get to that point.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're going to do that sort of thing on a state level, you're really going to need to build a bunch of big, beautiful walls around many of your states. After all, you can't have your own citizens spend years paying higher taxes for the infrastructure to have better schools, hospitals, etc and then just have a bunch of rapists and criminals from Alabama sneak into your state and mooch off of your hard-earned programs. It's not like the best people from those states are going to be leaving them, after all.

How does the EU manage it's Schengen policy with countries like Poland (poorer country) or Ireland (tax haven) as a member?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Funny how pollution in Burns Harbor blows over Ohio and New York... how rivers flow in several states.

Are you saying it is not possible for Ohio and New York to work out such issues with Indiana without involving the federal gov't?

Unfortunately, those actions are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,

 

[Axulus]

Because for 50 states to individually do what various Fed Departments would do would increase the aggregate tax revenues required 20-30 fold.

It is a reckless waste of resources that would massively increase the taxation needed for those programs that are retained and necessitate the elimination of programs that the vast majority of people support and benefit from but can only afford if done at the infinitely more efficient Fed level than every state running and funding its own program.

In addition, the states are not islands. It isn't just things like pollution and the EPA, but virtually every single thing each state does or doesn't do that impacts all other states. Just like pollution, poorly educated and badly mistreated people are free to migrate all over the country, causing damage to those that live there. Not to mention, people with basic human decency care about the welfare of those in other states and don't have such grotesquely perverted ethics that they can eliminate anything to be concerned about simply by moving to a blue state. I will never move to the "south", but I still want my Fed government to ensure the basic welfare and fair treatment of people that live there, partly because their mistreatment affects me and because I have basic human empathy.

First, it seems a bit arrogant and condescending that the southern states will fail to educate their children without the federal government sticking their nose into their business. Can you please present some peer reviewed papers that demonstrate what kind of positive effect the federal government had on the education of children in the states you are referring to?

Second, the people in those states don't want your preferences imposed upon them and they voted strongly in favor to have those preferences thwarted in this last election.

Third, if you are going to play the "empathy" card, wouldn't a far more empathetic policy be to redistribute a massive amount of our wealth to poorer countries around the world? Out of curiosity, would you support, say, having 50% of our federal budget going to those countries that are much poorer?

Finally, how do you think the EU manages these issues? Why are the individual members able to take care of their own without a strong centralized EU government that taxes 20-25% of their GDP?

 

[Elixir]

So - they had a big head start. But with Trump, we'll catch up quickly because he's a TREMENDOUS LEADER like his Uncle Vlad. What a winner!

The two systems are like night and day. It would take a lot of dismantling of our core liberal democratic institutions to get to that point.

Are you forgetting that "dismantling our core liberal democratic institutions" is precisely what Trump promised to do? And also forgot that he's "a winner" who always wins wins wins?
Sure, it might take him a few years. But he has STAMINA, remember?
Unless the Dems collectively grow a pair, and tie his hands in every way possible, we'll be more like Russia than Russia is in four years.

 

[Elixir]

First, it seems a bit arrogant and condescending that the southern states will fail to educate their children without the federal government sticking their nose into their business.

Ya sure, they'll ejamacate 'em all right. Teach them the earth is 6k years old, there's no such thing as evolution and scientists are all on the take. Most important, they'll let them know that their ignorance is just as good an anyone else's nollige.
What will those states do with their oversupply of qualified burger-flippers?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And let's discuss the things you are referring to?

Going to be?

Try living in a real oligarchy like Russia and then come back and tell me what an oligarchy the US is. Being unable to tell the difference between an oligarchy and a liberal democracy spells the death of liberal democracy.

We are a liberal democracy, because I said we were in an oligarchy and according to your statement, my saying it makes it true.

Who pays that 39%? The rich. Who gains the most? The rich. Who hires extra workers they don't need just become they have more money? Nobody. Now to go back to your last statement: How is it hyperbolic to say that the rich are getting even richer? They will most definitely get richer.

What tax changes can the federal government make that can't be reversed by an individual state? What redistribution policy not done by the federal government can not be implemented by a state?

Interesting. This does not address my point at all, that the rich are the beneficiaries of the proposed tax cut and will grow richer.

The federal government is not overly involved in schools. Betsy DeVos wants to eliminate ALL public schools. What about enforcement of Title IX? What about enforcement of discrimination laws?

And Betsy DeVos wants to reduce federal involvement further.

But what about higher-education and federal student aid?

Once again, if people in California are fearful of what Trump admin is going to do in regards to Title IX or discrimination laws, what is preventing them from passing their own versions?

Because they cannot enforce these laws. The laws are dependent upon the threat of sanctions and loss of student aid monies.

And the local governments couldn't handle it before. What makes you think they can handle it now?

Why not? Most states are similar size or even larger than the social democratic EU countries, which seem to be able to handle it just fine.

I'm asking what makes you think local governments can handle this?

 

[Axulus]

Are you saying it is not possible for Ohio and New York to work out such issues with Indiana without involving the federal gov't?

Unfortunately, those actions are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,

You are right, it is more complicated than I realized. However, I will defer again to my OP where I say the federal government has a proper rule in determining pollution standards and people who don't want such standards to be weakened are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

 

[Elixir]

You are right, it is more complicated than I realized.

No worries - Don the Con will SIMPLIFY things.

... people who don't want such standards to be weakened are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

They can just move to some country upwind of the US then. Right?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

First, it seems a bit arrogant and condescending that the southern states will fail to educate their children without the federal government sticking their nose into their business. Can you please present some peer reviewed papers that demonstrate what kind of positive effect the federal government had on the education of children in the states you are referring to?

You mean black schools?

Second, the people in those states don't want your preferences imposed upon them and they voted strongly in favor to have those preferences thwarted in this last election.

You mean like desegregated schools.

Third, if you are going to play the "empathy" card, wouldn't a far more empathetic policy be to redistribute a massive amount of our wealth to poorer countries around the world? Out of curiosity, would you support, say, having 50% of our federal budget going to those countries that are much poorer?

That would be a start, but why can't we help the less fortunate in our own country?

 

[dismal]

Axulus, you can't challenge people's religious beliefs without getting shock and anger.

Blue States obviously can't do things within their own borders because of stuff and things.

 

[ronburgundy]

Unfortunately, those actions are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,

You are right, it is more complicated than I realized. However, I will defer again to my OP where I say the federal government has a proper rule in determining pollution standards and people who don't want such standards to be weakened are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

And I return to my prior post where I point out that everything each state does or doesn't do, not just related to pollution, has very real impact on every other state, and forcing each state to handle these issues themselves infinitely more expensive and thus not possible. Thus, rational people who care about everything the Fed is currently doing are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

As Tom rightly pointed out, your proposal would necessitate controlled borders limiting commerce and movement between states on par with what is currently done between Mexico and the US.

 

[Axulus]

You are right, it is more complicated than I realized. However, I will defer again to my OP where I say the federal government has a proper rule in determining pollution standards and people who don't want such standards to be weakened are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

And I return to my prior post where I point out that everything each state does or doesn't do, not just related to pollution, has very real impact on every other state, and forcing each state to handle these issues themselves infinitely more expensive and thus not possible. Thus, rational people who care about everything the Fed is currently doing are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

As Tom rightly pointed out, your proposal would necessitate controlled borders limiting commerce and movement between states on par with what is currently done between Mexico and the US.

Ridiculous - the EU has a very weak centralized government, far weaker than anything the Republicans will do, and yet have open borders among their members and very open trade among the members, almost as open on both counts as the states within the US. And yet the individual members have far more differences in their cultures and economies than among US states, with members such as Poland, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, and Germany.

 

[ronburgundy]

And I return to my prior post where I point out that everything each state does or doesn't do, not just related to pollution, has very real impact on every other state, and forcing each state to handle these issues themselves infinitely more expensive and thus not possible. Thus, rational people who care about everything the Fed is currently doing are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

As Tom rightly pointed out, your proposal would necessitate controlled borders limiting commerce and movement between states on par with what is currently done between Mexico and the US.

Ridiculous - the EU has a very weak centralized government, far weaker than anything the Republicans will do, and yet have open borders among their members and very open trade among the members, almost as open on both counts as the states within the US. And yet the individual members have far more differences in their cultures and economies than among US states, with members such as Poland, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, and Germany.

The EU has no member countries that are ask ass-backward, theocratic, overwhelmingly racist, and medieval in their ideology as that of many US states. The differences between US states are far greater than between most EU nations, and closer to the difference between Germany and Syria.

 

[arkirk]

So you are saying that the anti-reg folks outnumber the regulation folks in those states? That is the democratic system working then. Try moving to a different state if you don't like the makeup of the people living around you.

Federalism is about more people getting what they want because the majority in each local jurisdiction gets to decide, rather than California, New York, and Texas deciding what happens in North Dakota.

Are you aware of the racist implications of the term "State's rights" and how this was used as justification for Jim Crow, Segregation, and the violation of people's basic human rights to this day?

See? I can ask bullshit rhetorical questions that weren't warranted by your previous statement tooooo!

Don't worry about Axulus. He is always in favor of the rich over the poor, the boss over the slave, the polluter over the people, in general whatever the rich want to do. Disassembly of our national environmental laws has been a goal of the fossil fuel industry as long as I have seen it in action. So I guess Axulus seems to think it is okay for places like North Dakota to be polluted...if the local people can't control the constabularies of all the surrounding states and they have no way to protect themselves from the big interstate polluting corporations that can BUY podunk county sheriffs. Axulus has one hell of a hardon for the common man and does not really believe in the will of the people. The OP was just another attempt to get people opposed to these big monster corporations to shut up and take their share of oil pollution.

 

[dismal]

You are right, it is more complicated than I realized. However, I will defer again to my OP where I say the federal government has a proper rule in determining pollution standards and people who don't want such standards to be weakened are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

And I return to my prior post where I point out that everything each state does or doesn't do, not just related to pollution, has very real impact on every other state, and forcing each state to handle these issues themselves infinitely more expensive and thus not possible. Thus, rational people who care about everything the Fed is currently doing are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

As Tom rightly pointed out, your proposal would necessitate controlled borders limiting commerce and movement between states on par with what is currently done between Mexico and the US.

Most pollution has very localized effect. But even if it didnt surely there are thousands of other things blue states can do on their own to advance the liberal utopia that have nothing to do with pollution.

 

[arkirk]

And I return to my prior post where I point out that everything each state does or doesn't do, not just related to pollution, has very real impact on every other state, and forcing each state to handle these issues themselves infinitely more expensive and thus not possible. Thus, rational people who care about everything the Fed is currently doing are right to be fearful of the Republican control of the federal government.

As Tom rightly pointed out, your proposal would necessitate controlled borders limiting commerce and movement between states on par with what is currently done between Mexico and the US.

Most pollution has very localized effect. But even if it didnt surely there are thousands of other things blue states can do on their own to advance the liberal utopia that have nothing to do with pollution.

Give it up, dismal...your constant reference to "liberal utopia" is nothing but a header to the fact you have no understanding of the functions of government and really no business commenting on it. Global warming...how fucking local is that, mister wise guy? You have no idea how to serve the needs of a whole society. You are a selfish varmint that does not relate to your society and that is why you don't care if most of your fellow men get lead poisoning or killed in war, or any other problem. Your idea is that every man is for himself and empowered to be as violent and irresponsible to society as he chooses to be. You have a stilted notion of the meaning of freedom...close to the same interpretation we have received from Dick Cheney.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) It's a lot easier for big business to gang up on one state to get the rules changed in their favor.

2) All too often the Federal rules pre-empt local rules.

States can't remove the federal rules but they can add on to them.

Federal rules often say states can't add to them, either.

How exactly can big business gang up on California which has overwhelming support for Democratic party?

It's pretty hard in California but in purple places it's certainly possible. And remember the fight about Prop 8 in California.

 

[Sue Sponte]

Never thought I'd get here, but I now think the states seceding is a viable idea. Let California, Washington and Oregon form its own union. Same for the northeast. Let them fund good education and smart citizens, thrive in the modern tech sectors and out of the coal mines, keep their citizens and resources healthy. Let red states gut their governments.

It would take maybe a decade for the red states to come back begging for a return to the old system.

The blue states shouldnt continue to pay more into the federal system than they get out while being told to take care of themselves at the state level. The blue states are positioned to prosper in the new economy. Let the red states go.

It is, in my view, the best way to avoid the red state garbage ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[dismal]

Most pollution has very localized effect. But even if it didnt surely there are thousands of other things blue states can do on their own to advance the liberal utopia that have nothing to do with pollution.

Give it up, dismal...your constant reference to "liberal utopia" is nothing but a header to the fact you have no understanding of the functions of government and really no business commenting on it. Global warming...how fucking local is that, mister wise guy? You have no idea how to serve the needs of a whole society. You are a selfish varmint that does not relate to your society and that is why you don't care if most of your fellow men get lead poisoning or killed in war, or any other problem. Your idea is that every man is for himself and empowered to be as violent and irresponsible to society as he chooses to be. You have a stilted notion of the meaning of freedom...close to the same interpretation we have received from Dick Cheney.

Instead of the "get off my lawn" schtick try keeping up with the topic. This is not about me, but about how leftists in blue states can set about building their own version of paradise. What I think doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Never thought I'd get here, but I now think the states seceding is a viable idea. Let California, Washington and Oregon form its own union. Same for the northeast. Let them fund good education and smart citizens, thrive in the modern tech sectors and out of the coal mines, keep their citizens and resources healthy. Let red states gut their governments.

It would take maybe a decade for the red states to come back begging for a return to the old system.

The blue states shouldnt continue to pay more into the federal system than they get out while being told to take care of themselves at the state level. The blue states are positioned to prosper in the new economy. Let the red states go.

It is, in my view, the best way to avoid the red state garbage ruining it for the rest of us.

Why do they need to secede from the union to, say, fund good education? Education is mostly funded at the state and local level now.

 

[Sue Sponte]

Give it up, dismal...your constant reference to "liberal utopia" is nothing but a header to the fact you have no understanding of the functions of government and really no business commenting on it. Global warming...how fucking local is that, mister wise guy? You have no idea how to serve the needs of a whole society. You are a selfish varmint that does not relate to your society and that is why you don't care if most of your fellow men get lead poisoning or killed in war, or any other problem. Your idea is that every man is for himself and empowered to be as violent and irresponsible to society as he chooses to be. You have a stilted notion of the meaning of freedom...close to the same interpretation we have received from Dick Cheney.

Instead of the "get off my lawn" schtick try keeping up with the topic. This is not about me, but about how leftists in blue states can set about building their own version of paradise. What I think doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Never thought I'd get here, but I now think the states seceding is a viable idea. Let California, Washington and Oregon form its own union. Same for the northeast. Let them fund good education and smart citizens, thrive in the modern tech sectors and out of the coal mines, keep their citizens and resources healthy. Let red states gut their governments.

It would take maybe a decade for the red states to come back begging for a return to the old system.

The blue states shouldnt continue to pay more into the federal system than they get out while being told to take care of themselves at the state level. The blue states are positioned to prosper in the new economy. Let the red states go.

It is, in my view, the best way to avoid the red state garbage ruining it for the rest of us.

Why do they need to secede from the union to, say, fund good education? Education is mostly funded at the state and local level now.

To make the economics fair for those states, who pay more to the current federal system than they get out of it. Instead of seeing that money go to missiissippi and alabama, use it for your own.

You know, real states right stuff.