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

[Axulus]

All the people in the blue states who are fearful of what Trump will do domestically, why is that? A large portion of the things that will be done, which you disagree with, can be implemented by the states instead. In other words, we have a federal system. When the federal government takes a step back from something, the individual states are then free to pick and choose if they want to pick up the slack.

I've seen hyperbolic rantings on how the US is going to be turned more into an oligarchy, with the rich getting even richer and the poor masses scrounging around the dumpster for food. Yet such histrionics doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Republicans going to lower individual taxes from 39% to 33% and cut back programs for the poor? Then the states that don't like that can raise taxes and fund these programs. In fact, most of the blue states pay more in federal taxes than they get back (a lot of that money goes to the red states), so, overall, this would be a net benefit to those states.

Don't like the labor laws that will potentially be overturned by the new Sec. of Labor? Pass your own laws, then.

Don't like the education reforms the new Sec of Education will implement? Pass your own laws to strengthen public education and funding.

Now, things like the EPA and environmental protection in general, you have a good point. We need such laws to be implemented nationally if the pollution from one state affects another state, or if it affects the globe as a whole. However, most of the stuff we are talking about doesn't relate to that.

If you are worried about the poorer people in the red states getting harmed, ok, but at least they have the option to move to another state. Not every state and every citizenry is going to have the same preferences for safety net level, level of taxation, and government services. A weaker federal government just simply transfers the decision making on these issues to a more local level.

My biggest worries about the Trump presidency are the erosion of liberal democratic institutions, international relations, and crony capitalism. Not necessarily the bulk of the things I see a lot on the left worry about in regards to taxation and income distribution, because the states will then get that power back to decide how they want to handle.

 

[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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goodness... not the local state control shit again. Because the local states which Republicans swept into power thanks to lies about ACA in 2010 won't do shit either.

It reminds me of the local school funding... yet when a local school opens a prop for a funding levy, an anti-tax group pops up like a weed to fight against it. The right-wing is full of shit when it comes to any regulation being local. They don't want regulations period. They want to return to the days of burning rivers, visible smog and soot in the air, low wages.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

All the people in the blue states who are fearful of what Trump will do domestically, why is that? A large portion of the things that will be done, which you disagree with, can be implemented by the states instead. In other words, we have a federal system. When the federal government takes a step back from something, the individual states are then free to pick and choose if they want to pick up the slack.

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

I've seen hyperbolic rantings on how the US is going to be turned more into an oligarchy, with the rich getting even richer and the poor...

Going to be?

Republicans going to lower individual taxes from 39% to 33% and cut back programs for the poor? Then the states that don't like that can raise taxes and fund these programs. In fact, most of the blue states pay more in federal taxes than they get back (a lot of that money goes to the red states), so, overall, this would be a net benefit to those states.

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.

Don't like the labor laws that will potentially be overturned by the new Sec. of Labor? Pass your own laws, then.

Which labor laws are you referring to? Child labor? Union Labor? States have a whole lot of labor laws.

Don't like the education reforms the new Sec of Education will implement? Pass your own laws to strengthen public education and funding.

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?

If you are worried about the poorer people in the red states getting harmed, ok, but at least they have the option to move to another state. Not every state and every citizenry is going to have the same preferences for safety net level, level of taxation, and government services. A weaker federal government just simply transfers the decision making on these issues to a more local level.

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

 

[Axulus]

Oh goodness... not the local state control shit again. Because the local states which Republicans swept into power thanks to lies about ACA in 2010 won't do shit either.

It reminds me of the local school funding... yet when a local school opens a prop for a funding levy, an anti-tax group pops up like a weed to fight against it. The right-wing is full of shit when it comes to any regulation being local. They don't want regulations period. They want to return to the days of burning rivers, visible smog and soot in the air, low wages.

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

 

[LordKiran]

Oh goodness... not the local state control shit again. Because the local states which Republicans swept into power thanks to lies about ACA in 2010 won't do shit either.

It reminds me of the local school funding... yet when a local school opens a prop for a funding levy, an anti-tax group pops up like a weed to fight against it. The right-wing is full of shit when it comes to any regulation being local. They don't want regulations period. They want to return to the days of burning rivers, visible smog and soot in the air, low wages.

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

I get the distinct impression that you were unprepared for this conversation.

 

[Axulus]

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

I get the distinct impression that you were unprepared for this conversation.

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.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I get the distinct impression that you were unprepared for this conversation.

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.

So are you for the break up of the United States?

 

[LordKiran]

I get the distinct impression that you were unprepared for this conversation.

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!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goodness... not the local state control shit again. Because the local states which Republicans swept into power thanks to lies about ACA in 2010 won't do shit either.

It reminds me of the local school funding... yet when a local school opens a prop for a funding levy, an anti-tax group pops up like a weed to fight against it. The right-wing is full of shit when it comes to any regulation being local. They don't want regulations period. They want to return to the days of burning rivers, visible smog and soot in the air, low wages.

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

Thanks for apparently agreeing with the right-wingers are bullshitting about wanting any regulations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get the distinct impression that you were unprepared for this conversation.

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.

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

 

[Axulus]

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!

Your contributions to this thread have been so insightful! Before you came along this thread was so dull...

 

[Axulus]

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.

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?

Additionally, try rereading the OP where I specifically talk about pollution and agree the federal government has a place for pollution reg and people are right to be worried.

- - - Updated - - -

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

Thanks for apparently agreeing with the right-wingers are bullshitting about wanting any regulations.

Not sure what that has to do with the contents of my post, but OK.

 

[Axulus]

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.

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

 

[Axulus]

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

I've seen hyperbolic rantings on how the US is going to be turned more into an oligarchy, with the rich getting even richer and the poor...

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.

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?

Which labor laws are you referring to? Child labor? Union Labor? States have a whole lot of labor laws.

Any or all of them. What labor law repealed by the federal government can not be implemented by a state?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Are you saying you never studied the Articles of Confederation and why they failed as a national governing document?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[Elixir]

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!

 

[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?

Are you saying you never studied the Articles of Confederation and why they failed as a national governing document?

Dude, Republicans being in control of the federal government a weakening of the EPA isn't even close to a return to the Articles of Confederation.

A weaker and/or smaller federal government would make the US slightly more like the EU (and yet we still have the advantages of fiscal and monetary/currency union, unlike the EU which has resulted in problems). Last I checked, the EU wasn't a big shithole whose individual countries couldn't take care of their own residents.