View Full Version : Republicans Hate The Middle Class and Labor
rastaman
02-07-2009, 06:11 AM
Republicans Hate The Middle Class and Labor
The attack on government, (along with labor and the middle class,) began in the early 1980's with Ronald Reagan.
Here's a quote from the so called "Great Communicator"
"The nine words that I fear the most are 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help.'"
Of course, after Reagan delivered this line on a few occasions, it was always followed by chuckles from his (CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN) audience. But what was Reagan and his conservative movement really saying? They were saying they don't believe in government. How do you expect them to govern then?
We need only look back to hurricane Katrina and to see how a government which can't govern, reacts to a national crisis. Or take for example, the thwarted attack on Social Security, for a "privatized" system, that no matter how you crunched the numbers, did nothing to address any short falls the system may encounter in 40 years.
All that scheme really proposed was an attempt by anti-government, anti-democratic conservatives, to "shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." As conservative brain-trust, Grover Norquist stated. It always seems to boil down to the private sector and the free market will cure all.
Our founders created a government that was of the people, by the people, for the people. We, as a collective whole, decide that it is in our best interest as a society, to have certain programs that benefit society. Conservatives want to call such things "socialism." Things like the socialist Social Security system, like the socialist public education system, like socialist police departments, like the socialist fire departments, like the socialist military. Oops, wait, the military is ok.
The mistake that many Liberals and Progressives make, is to focus their wrath on the last 8 years of the failed Bush Administration. Versus focusing on the true intent of the Republican party that started over 40 years ago with the Nixon Administration of which Cheney and Rumsfeld were cabinet members of! Who would have ever thunked right!!!
The true enemy of democracy and freedom is the conservative agenda. It's bigger then Bush, Cheney, Abrahmoff, Rove, or any single Republican extremist that draws the ire of the masses. It's about a movement that doesn't believe in democracy. It doesn't believe in rule by the people. It believes in rule by multinational corporations. It believes in a Aristocracy. Wealth and power to the few, as the rest of us become serfs to their accumulating monopolies.
The Republicans/conservatives don't serve the best interest of the public as a whole. Try to find 1 law introduced by Republican's that has served the benefit of the people and not corporations in the past 8 years.
These traitors to democracy don't believe in our system of government. They are the same corporate royalists that took arms against the insurgent colonists in the Revolutionary War. There agenda is not new.
These are the people that so incompetently run or government today. Remember, you can't govern if you don't believe in government. The Republican's and conservatives don't believe in government.
The only thing scarier than folks who don't believe that government can fix every problem and take care of us, are those who do.
The 20th century left behind tens of millions of corpses that proved that totalitarianism a very bad idea - yet some folks still believe that it can work. rastaman, for example.
rastaman
02-07-2009, 08:42 AM
The only thing scarier than folks who don't believe that government can fix every problem and take care of us, are those who do.
The 20th century left behind tens of millions of corpses that proved that totalitarianism a very bad idea - yet some folks still believe that it can work. rastaman, for example.
Yeah sure Wiggles! The only problem with people of your ilk is that you continue to follow and believe in corporate dominance and privatization is the answer! Unbriddle & unfettered coporate capialism w/o laws to adhere to is doomed for failure.
Spider
02-07-2009, 08:45 AM
The only thing scarier than folks who don't believe that government can fix every problem and take care of us, are those who do.
The 20th century left behind tens of millions of corpses that proved that totalitarianism a very bad idea - yet some folks still believe that it can work. rastaman, for example.
Can you point to a time where deregulation and total free market has worked for us ?
Yeah sure Wiggles! The only problem with people of your ilk is that you continue to follow and believe in corporate dominance and privatization is the answer! Unbriddle & unfettered coporate capialism w/o laws to adhere to is doomed for failure.
I'm not an anarchist, and I do understand that the government has limits. It's not clear that you do.
Can you point to a time where deregulation and total free market has worked for us ?
Deregulation of the airlines has worked wonderfully. More people can and do fly more places for less cost than ever before.
I'm not an anarchist - there do need to be laws and regulations. However, we have far too many laws and regulations. I don't know of anyone who can legitimately and credibly say otherwise.
rastaman
02-07-2009, 11:07 AM
I'm not an anarchist, and I do understand that the government has limits. It's not clear that you do.
Its not clear that you understand the Private Corporations should have limits to the power they are able to weld and lord over workers in this country.
Would repealing the Reagan tax cuts equal anarchy!!!
rastaman
02-07-2009, 11:12 AM
Deregulation of the airlines has worked wonderfully. More people can and do fly more places for less cost than ever before.
I'm not an anarchist - there do need to be laws and regulations. However, we have far too many laws and regulations. I don't know of anyone who can legitimately and credibly say otherwise.
THIRTY years ago this fall, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Since then, America’s airline system has greatly deteriorated.
Our airlines, once world leaders, are now laggards in every category, including fleet age, service quality and international reputation. Fewer and fewer flights are on time. Airport congestion has become a staple of late-night comedy shows. An ever higher percentage of bags are lost or sent to the wrong airports. Last-minute seats are harder and harder to find. Passenger complaints have skyrocketed. Airline service, by any standard, has become unacceptable.
Consolidation will not resolve the woes of individual carriers, nor will it fix the nation’s aviation problems. Delta and Northwest agreed to a merger last week, and that deal is likely to be followed by other proposals. But the case for mergers is unpersuasive. Mergers will not lower fuel prices. They will not increase economies of scale for already sizable major airlines. They will create very large costs related to consolidation. And they will anger airline employees, who will perceive themselves to be hurt by the mergers.
Although the system could conceivably be operated by a single efficient carrier, consumers clearly benefit from the existence of multiple airlines. The absence of competition never fosters better customer service.
Market-based approaches alone have not and will not produce the aviation system our country needs. We do not need to return to the over-regulation of the past, but some government intervention is required. The objectives of a national aviation policy should be to enable people to move easily from one place to another, to assure safe, courteous and on-time service for consumers, and to improve the financial performance and international competitiveness of America’s airlines.
The first steps toward achieving these goals should be to improve our outdated air traffic control system, to build much-needed new runways and airport facilities, and to lower the heavy taxes and fees now imposed on airlines and their customers.
Today, aircraft movements are constrained by a radar-based air traffic control system that locks aircraft into predetermined, often crowded routes and that gives pilots little information about the locations of other planes. The system worsens congestion in the air and on the ground.
A new air traffic control system, based on the use of the global positioning system, is in the works. It will reduce costs and congestion by providing pilots with information about other planes, freeing them to choose optimal routes. Unfortunately, Congress has not provided the money to put the new system in place as quickly as possible.
Until the new system is in place, the number of flights at major airports needs to be reduced. Right now, airlines schedule more flights than the runways, terminals and air traffic control system can accommodate. Airlines cannot unilaterally reduce flights because doing so would grant other airlines a competitive advantage. In the short term, the only solution is a government mandate that limits flights to the number the system can handle. To create capacity for future demand, we need to build more aviation facilities, including high-speed rail systems that would encourage the use of airports that are farther away from the cities they serve.
The financial standards for new airlines also need to be made more stringent. In the years since deregulation, nearly 200 airlines have come and gone. These inadequately financed carriers — whose principal goal has often seemed to be merely to exist long enough to reap the rewards of an initial public offering — have consistently cut prices to attract passengers. This downward pressure on prices has hurt airlines that seek long-term success.
We should also revisit the basis on which we negotiate international aviation agreements. Since the 1980s, our government has too often agreed to “consumer friendly” pacts whose sole apparent purpose has been to try to lower prices for travelers. Because the United States has long been the world’s largest aviation market, these agreements have provided more opportunities for expansion to foreign airlines than to our own, with predictable consequences.
Given the recent concerns about aircraft safety, offshore maintenance of American aircraft should be prohibited. Maintenance performed in the United States is done under more demanding rules and a far higher level of Federal Aviation Administration oversight than work done abroad. Keeping the work here would enhance any safety improvements that result from the Transportation Department’s new plan to overhaul its oversight procedures. Moreover, bringing aircraft maintenance work back to the United States will re-create many thousands of skilled jobs.
Fees and taxes can be as much as 50 percent of the purchase price of an airline ticket and typically amount to about 15 percent, according to a study done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Daniel Webster College in Nashua, N.H. Reducing these charges would make it easier for the carriers to recapture their costs without pricing travel beyond the reach of many customers.
Finally, we need to restore balance to the relationship between management and labor in the airline industry. Revising our bankruptcy laws to prevent failed airlines from continuing to operate would focus management and labor on the virtues of cooperation rather than confrontation. Similarly, binding arbitration of labor disputes would encourage both sides to avoid unreasonable positions and would free the nation’s transportation system from the threat of work stoppages.
We need to be realistic: whether there are mergers or not, airline fares are going to increase. Every business must charge enough to cover its operating and capital costs. Regulatory and oversight changes intended to make our carriers more successful may well force prices up faster than would otherwise be the case. But we will be better off with higher fares and more competitors than with higher fares and fewer competitors.
The enormous economic importance of our once peerless aviation system is indisputable. Adding some sensible regulations and making the investments needed to give our airlines opportunities for success would be a far better way to safeguard that economic contribution than further airline consolidation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/opinion/21crandall.html?pagewanted=print
Fedaykin
02-07-2009, 11:54 AM
The only thing scarier than folks who don't believe that government can fix every problem and take care of us, are those who do.
The 20th century left behind tens of millions of corpses that proved that totalitarianism a very bad idea - yet some folks still believe that it can work. rastaman, for example.
Extreme Capitalism/Corporatism is just as bad a extreme Communism. Both forms of extremism lead to ruin (see 1920's America for example).
Spider
02-07-2009, 12:07 PM
Deregulation of the airlines has worked wonderfully. More people can and do fly more places for less cost than ever before.
I'm not an anarchist - there do need to be laws and regulations. However, we have far too many laws and regulations. I don't know of anyone who can legitimately and credibly say otherwise.
after how many bailouts ? didnt reagan step in and in the strike ?
Its not clear that you understand the Private Corporations should have limits to the power they are able to weld and lord over workers in this country.
So form your own corporation that treats employees as you think they ought to be treated, and you'll get rich and make everyone happy.
Would repealing the Reagan tax cuts equal anarchy!!!
Do you give the IRS more than you're legally obligated? Why not?
THIRTY years ago this fall, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Since then, America’s airline system has greatly deteriorated.
Even the NYT recognizes the problems are with the parts of the air travel system that are State-controlled:
The first steps toward achieving these goals should be to improve our outdated air traffic control system, to build much-needed new runways and airport facilities, and to lower the heavy taxes and fees now imposed on airlines and their customers.
Bingo. Release the rest of the air travel system in this country from the parts (ATC, airports, and taxes and fees) that are still under State control.
barryr
02-07-2009, 12:47 PM
Government control is a disaster whenever and wherever it's tried since there is little to no accountability and no competition to help motivate those to do a good job, yet bozos still live in denial and pretend it'll work regardless of its history.
Spider
02-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Government control is a disaster whenever and wherever it's tried since there is little to no accountability and no competition to help motivate those to do a good job, yet bozos still live in denial and pretend it'll work regardless of its history.
the amount of drugs that you was introduced to while still in the womb must have been enormous ..........
Rohirrim
02-07-2009, 01:34 PM
The only thing scarier than folks who don't believe that government can fix every problem and take care of us, are those who do.
The 20th century left behind tens of millions of corpses that proved that totalitarianism a very bad idea - yet some folks still believe that it can work. rastaman, for example.
An almost insanely ludicrous proposition. Do you even realize how nutso you sound? Government = totalitarianism? Only jihadists and crystal swingers spout the kind of blind drivel you indulge in.
Government control is a disaster whenever and wherever it's tried since there is little to no accountability and no competition to help motivate those to do a good job, yet bozos still live in denial and pretend it'll work regardless of its history.
Perhaps you would do well to remember that this great nation of ours was founded and has been in fact controlled for over 200 years by a government! You can no longer see the forest for the trees. Would you say the last 200 years have been a disaster?
An almost insanely ludicrous proposition. Do you even realize how nutso you sound? Government = totalitarianism? Only jihadists and crystal swingers spout the kind of blind drivel you indulge in.
Re-read what I said.
Do you believe government can fix every problem?
epicSocialism4tw
02-07-2009, 08:45 PM
This thread smells like poo...or dreadlocks...the two smells are indistinguishable.
SoCalBronco
02-07-2009, 09:17 PM
Versus focusing on the true intent of the Republican party that started over 40 years ago with the Nixon Administration of which Cheney and Rumsfeld were cabinet members of! Who would have ever thunked right!!!
Someone is writing and/or posting on crack, but that's not entirely surprising. If you knew anything about the Nixon administration, you would know that it was actually one of the most liberal and progressive administrations in recent history.
Oh and by the way, neither Rumsfeld or Cheney served in the actual Cabinet. Rumsfeld was in charge of streamlining the OEO and Cheney was only a bit player in the administration totem pole, but you wouldn't know that, would you?
It might be a better idea to educate yourself on these subjects before throwing out garbage.
Garcia Bronco
02-07-2009, 09:35 PM
Government = totalitarianism?
That's not what he said, nor implied.
Bronco Bob
02-07-2009, 10:35 PM
Deregulation of the airlines has worked wonderfully. More people can and do fly more places for less cost than ever before.
And the service has gotten so ****ty that instead of being a joy to fly
it has gotten to the point where it is such a burden it's only one step
above waterboarding. Incredible delays, from good food to lousy
food to peanuts to now no food. Cramped and crowded planes.
Lost luggage. I took a flight from Colorado Springs to Tucson.
Got at the airport at 10:00 am. Got to the airport in Tucson
at 9:00 pm. I have driven in a car from one city to the next
in 14 hours, and that included stopping for gas, to get something
to eat, and taking a nap a few times along the way.
I'm not an anarchist - there do need to be laws and regulations. However, we have far too many laws and regulations. I don't know of anyone who can legitimately and credibly say otherwise.
When you have the kind of stuff that Peanut Corporation of America
was doing, it leads a person to think we need all the regulation we can get.
And the service has gotten so ****ty that instead of being a joy to fly it has gotten to the point where it is such a burden it's only one step above waterboarding. Incredible delays, from good food to lousy food to peanuts to now no food. Cramped and crowded planes.
Lost luggage.
Customer service has gone downhill - but that's partly a function of the fact that people are flying in huge numbers. Would you rather have the air travel system we have today, or the pre-Carter one - in which only the elite few could afford to fly and the government dictated routes?
When you have the kind of stuff that Peanut Corporation of America was doing, it leads a person to think we need all the regulation we can get.
I wouldn't go that far - why do you?
Rohirrim
02-08-2009, 06:26 PM
Customer service has gone downhill - but that's partly a function of the fact that people are flying in huge numbers. Would you rather have the air travel system we have today, or the pre-Carter one - in which only the elite few could afford to fly and the government dictated routes?
I wouldn't go that far - why do you?
Flying in the 70s was ten times better than it is today.
Flying in the 70s was ten times better than it is today.
It cost at least 10 times more and there was likely a several times greater chance of dying in an accident.
Or perhaps you meant that flying then was better because there were far fewer of the riff-raff about - Greyhound was good enough for them.
Bronco Bob
02-08-2009, 09:48 PM
Customer service has gone downhill - but that's partly a function of the fact that people are flying in huge numbers. Would you rather have the air travel system we have today, or the pre-Carter one - in which only the elite few could afford to fly and the government dictated routes?
Having flown since the Nixon era and seeing what flying was like then
verses what it has become now, I opt for the pre-Carter era. Hell,
I could afford an airline ticket when I was in the Navy, I hardly
considered myself well to do at the time, and the routes took me
to the places I needed to go to.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-09-2009, 02:45 AM
The last time we had a new Democratic president, essentially the same thing happened. Republican congressmen voted against Bill Clinton's 1993 tax and budget proposals, uniformly predicting doom. Raising marginal income tax rates a few points on the wealthy, they charged, would lead to economic ruin.
Instead, the exact opposite happened. Over the ensuing eight years, the nation witnessed the creation of 25 million new jobs, a balanced federal budget and steadily rising prosperity.
Today, an act of historical memory is required to recall that when Bush took office in 2001, people actually worried about paying down the national debt too fast. No problem. The new president embraced what it's tempting to call Limbaughnomics, the absurd belief that tax cuts invariably lead to greater government revenues and more and better jobs.
Instead, Bush presided over a sluggish economy, the worst record of job creation since World War II, growing inequality and the current banking crisis, a direct result of "free market" deregulatory fundamentalism combined with a speculative real estate bubble that sustained the illusion of prosperity until it burst. Oh, and yes, runaway budget deficits, thanks mainly to the combination of Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq.
TailgateNut
02-09-2009, 06:25 AM
Government control is a disaster whenever and wherever it's tried since there is little to no accountability and no competition to help motivate those to do a good job, yet bozos still live in denial and pretend it'll work regardless of its history.
Your total ignorance is AMAZING.
No accountability? How much money was "misplaced and lost" during Dumbyas term?
No competition? Can you say Halliburton?
Paladin
02-09-2009, 06:37 AM
From the Culture of Corruption to the Culture of Insurgency. Repugnicans sure know how to present ideas on how to deal with the mess created by Bush43 and his pals. These guys do not deserve to be representatives of a dog house. They are totally irrelevant....
They can "oppose" themselves right into irrelevancy. Totally bereft of ideas and anything that bespeaks of a concern for the Middle Class, and the loss of jobs, the mortgage issues, the frozen credit, and the mess in foreign affairs. Tax cuts do not help at all, and there are some 40% of American Corporations that pay no tax at all! What a bunch of freaking idiots.
I proposed that all taxes be rescinded. That there would be not a single tax on the books at any level of government. And I challenged anyone to tell us what they thought the country would look like for a Repugnican or Lie-bertarian point of view.
Paladin
02-09-2009, 02:00 PM
Ha! No response to the "no taxes" idea? Well, then which taxes do you believe are necessary?
This is the second time the neocon group has not been able to respond to this challenge. Why? becasue it is easier to bi**h about taxes than to come up with ideas on how to deal with the serious economic problems this country has. How do you wish to undo Bushie's gaffs?
Garcia Bronco
02-09-2009, 02:06 PM
From the Culture of Corruption to the Culture of Insurgency. Repugnicans sure know how to present ideas on how to deal with the mess created by Bush43 and his pals. These guys do not deserve to be representatives of a dog house. They are totally irrelevant....
They can "oppose" themselves right into irrelevancy. Totally bereft of ideas and anything that bespeaks of a concern for the Middle Class, and the loss of jobs, the mortgage issues, the frozen credit, and the mess in foreign affairs. Tax cuts do not help at all, and there are some 40% of American Corporations that pay no tax at all! What a bunch of freaking idiots.
I proposed that all taxes be rescinded. That there would be not a single tax on the books at any level of government. And I challenged anyone to tell us what they thought the country would look like for
For one it would be the complete destruction of the Federal government. I don't think anyone is advocating that. We do need less taxes though and a weaker federal government and stronger state and local governments. The Feds are to far reaching into our lives and hold the states hostage with funding and laws. It's a ponzi scheme. The only thing the Feds should concern themselves with is the defense of this nation. That's it. Not schools, not health care, not even energy.
Do you think the Feds are too strong, too weak, just about right?
barryr
02-09-2009, 02:10 PM
Your total ignorance is AMAZING.
No accountability? How much money was "misplaced and lost" during Dumbyas term?
No competition? Can you say Halliburton?
Talk about an idiot. You just further proved my point. Maybe you should take up basket weaving.
SonOfLe-loLang
02-09-2009, 02:31 PM
For one it would be the complete destruction of the Federal government. I don't think anyone is advocating that. We do need less taxes though and a weaker federal government and stronger state and local governments. The Feds are to far reaching into our lives and hold the states hostage with funding and laws. It's a ponzi scheme. The only thing the Feds should concern themselves with is the defense of this nation. That's it. Not schools, not health care, not even energy.
Do you think the Feds are too strong, too weak, just about right?
I dont think the feds are too strong, i just think there needs to be a smarter, uniform style instead of all the infighting and corruption. I dont think government is the problem, i think a lot of the people IN government are the problem. But i think lessening government would just lead to chaos, especially in the economic sector.
Paladin
02-09-2009, 02:35 PM
For one it would be the complete destruction of the Federal government. I don't think anyone is advocating that. We do need less taxes though and a weaker federal government and stronger state and local governments. The Feds are to far reaching into our lives and hold the states hostage with funding and laws. It's a ponzi scheme. The only thing the Feds should concern themselves with is the defense of this nation. That's it. Not schools, not health care, not even energy.
Do you think the Feds are too strong, too weak, just about right?
Cannot happen.
In the late 1700's, when the States were loosely connected by the Articles of Confederation, a number of issues cropped up. States got into massive disagreements over the rights to the oysters in the Bay. They were about to get into serious blows, and that led to discussions about commerce between and within the States. You may also remember that the various states were into charging different tolls for the same road, so getting products to market was a hodge podge of laws, rules and tax collectors. Different States had different rules about their militias and the control of interstate criminal activities, including the selling of whisky and tobacco. They printed up their own money, and some State did not accept the species of other States.
Issues such as these led to the Constitutional Convention, and the need for a strong Central Government became clear. Thus the Constitution was proposed as opposed to the Articles of Confederation. The Consistution took a number of years to get ratified, but th evariious States finally understood the role of the Central Government. Some didn't like it, and there was a Civil War fopught over it with Slavery being one of the issues, but States' Rights as the major issue.
Your conception of the role of the Federal Government is naive. Maybe you should give more thought as to what the role of the Federal Government actually is. The States could not do what they do with out the Federal Government to mediate the differences. Some States would not even exist today if it were not for the Federal Government. Care to figure out why?
You know what? There are some areas I would wish the Feds would stay out of my life. The Patriot Act is one.
No, I think the Feds do what they have to do to protect your sorry arse - and mine - from foreign and domestic threats. That includes keeping the playing field level for all business and for all persons in this country incliuding access to education. Your college education involved Federal money and Federal rules to one degree or another. Where would you be without them?
Try again.
Garcia Bronco
02-09-2009, 02:36 PM
I dont think the feds are too strong, i just think there needs to be a smarter, uniform style instead of all the infighting and corruption. I dont think government is the problem, i think a lot of the people IN government are the problem. But i think lessening government would just lead to chaos, especially in the economic sector.
Smarter? The smarter thing to do is stop Government subsidized programs. They always collapse without more and more resources. Nothing in nature produces more that you put in it. Nothing.
Garcia Bronco
02-09-2009, 02:46 PM
Cannot happen.
In the late 1700's, when the States were loosely connected by the Articles of Confederation, a number of issues cropped up. States got into massive disagreements over the rights to the oysters in the Bay. They were about to get into serious blows, and that led to discussions about commerce between and within the States. You may also remember that the various states were into charging different tolls for the same road, so getting products to market was a hodge podge of laws, rules and tax collectors. Different States had different rules about their militias and the control of interstate criminal activities, including the selling of whisky and tobacco. They printed up their own money, and some State did not accept the species of other States.
Issues such as these led to the Constitutional Convention, and the need for a strong Central Government became clear. Thus the Constitution was proposed as opposed to the Articles of Confederation. The Consistution took a number of years to get ratified, but th evariious States finally understood the role of the Central Government. Some didn't like it, and there was a Civil War fopught over it with Slavery being one of the issues, but States' Rights as the major issue.
Your conception of the role of the Federal Government is naive. Maybe you should give more thought as to what the role of the Federal Government actually is. The States could not do what they do with out the Federal Government to mediate the differences. Some States would not even exist today if it were not for the Federal Government. Care to figure out why?
You know what? There are some areas I would wish the Feds would stay out of my life. The Patriot Act is one.
No, I think the Feds do what they have to do to protect your sorry arse - and mine - from foreign and domestic threats. That includes keeping the playing field level for all business and for all persons in this country incliuding access to education. Your college education involved Federal money and Federal rules to one degree or another. Where would you be without them?
Try again.
I worked my way through college paying my own bills. I didn't take a federal dime. My school might have, but I sure as hell didn't. And I paid for private school for high school as well. And I doubt you even begin to understand all the areas the Patriot Act touches to protect our "sorry asses"
I am from Virginia, they teach this is first grade history. We've gone past the need of Federal intervention well over to the other side of too much Federal control. This isn't 1792 and the states are much better equiped to handle these issues. Bottom line, the never will as long as a bunch of grubby parasites deny then their freedom under the contract. Education is a State matter. Healthcare is a state matter. Energy is a state matter. We've allowed the Feds to become too big and it's no a matter of if it will collapse but a matter of when. One thing is for sure, if Obama passes that bill he'll have sped up the process.
Paladin
02-09-2009, 03:28 PM
I worked myself through Grad School, paid my own bills. I took lots of Federal dimes in undergraduate school. Know why? My dad died a POW in Korea, and I got a modified GI Bill to go to school. Look up the school and check out the amount of Federal dollars it got. Land Grant Colleges were Federal efforts to get agricultural education out to the various States. I am sure you know what Land Grant Colleges were. You think Virginia supports that school all by itself?
The issues from the 1700's are still present in the various laws and court issues. The arguments are still used in one context or another. I think you exaggerate in your assertion that they "teach this in first grade". I do not think Alabama and New York are equally equipped to handle the energy issues. In fact it was that need for electrical power that led to the Tennessee Valley Authority that provided power to most of the Southern States. Neither one of them alone could have developed that sort of effort.
States are not equipped to provide many services without the Federal Government. There are many examples, and I hope you can think what some of them may be. Think to compare one State to another. And think about how the States would do business with each other without the Feds as mediator.
Garcia Bronco
02-09-2009, 03:33 PM
States are not equipped to provide many services without the Federal Government.
Something the federal governemnt has assured by weakening the states since 1828
Spider
02-09-2009, 03:59 PM
I got a plan , but it involves a Cadillac and a Elvis impersonator
I proposed that all taxes be rescinded. That there would be not a single tax on the books at any level of government. And I challenged anyone to tell us what they thought the country would look like for a Repugnican or Lie-bertarian point of view.
I propose that all wealth be taxed at 100% of value.
I challenge you to show me how the country would look for this socialist ideal.
Hint: Witness North Korea.
Paladin
02-09-2009, 08:50 PM
Do you always miss the point?
Do you always miss the point?
The only "point" you have is the one at the top of your head.
Paladin
02-09-2009, 09:14 PM
The only "point" you have is the one at the top of your head.
Ha, ha.
Heard that in grade school. You are losing your touch, old man. Go to bed now.....
Bronco Bob
02-10-2009, 06:22 PM
I propose that all wealth be taxed at 100% of value.
I challenge you to show me how the country would look for this socialist ideal.
Hint: Witness North Korea.
Poor example. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. The purpose
of North Korea is to serve and give pleasure to Kim Il Jong.
How about instead Sweden as an example?