Are States Asserting Sovereignty to Counter Federal Overreach?

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    States
In summary, some state lawmakers are fighting against the federal stimulus bill by sponsoring resolutions asserting state sovereignty, in effect giving them the right to ignore federal laws they deem unconstitutional. This has sparked debates over the role of the federal government and the autonomy of states. Some lawmakers have also expressed concern over the potential consequences of taking stimulus money, while others view it as necessary for struggling states. There is also discussion of the future of political parties, with some hoping for a stronger conservative party and others looking towards the Libertarian party as a potential alternative.
  • #36
turbo-1 said:
I enthusiastically supported Reagan, mostly because he promised to shrink the Federal government. I shouldn't have been that stupid. During his first term, the size of the government increased by 25%, and spending increased while revenues dropped in part due to tax-cuts for the rich that were going to "trickle down" and make us all prosperous. What a load of crap! The Democrats could have run a mangy dog against him for the 2nd term, and I would have voted for the dog.

I guess that mangy dog would be Mondale? I voted for that dog as well. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Al68 said:
Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us. Yeah, right. Who could believe that's the position of the other side? Delusion? Blinders?

So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
 
  • #38
turbo-1 said:
I terminated my relationship with a bank about 10 years back after learning about how they got people (generally older black folks in the south) to re-finance at rates that ballooned rapidly so they could foreclose on them. And my wife and I have not had a loan, nor any interest payments, for about 20 years now. Banks have been sucking gullible people into the real-estate boom promising that their loans will be affordable and that the values of the properties will continue to rise. That's crap!


I'm jealous...I want to do that as well! As soon as this housing market recovers, I'm going to sell my house and convert to a life of no credit for sure. Those banks will not get another stinking dime from me after that! :biggrin:
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
Beyond the fact that this problem goes way beyond Fannie and Freddie, the biggest problem seems to be the credit default swaps. I guess this was the fault of poor people as well. :rolleyes:
Obviously Fannie and Freddie were only part of the problem. But they were a big part. And none of this was the fault of poor people, they were the biggest victims.
Al68 said:
The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us.
Uh, where have you been? That was the claim. Are you old enough to remember this or are you just making it up as you go?

Does it make you feel better if we call it supply-side economics?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember Democrats talking about "trickle down economics" to no end. It was a phrase invented by Democrats to twist and convolute the position of their opposition into one that was very easy to argue against. AKA Strawman argument.
 
  • #40
BoomBoom said:
So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
No and no.
 
  • #41
Al68 said:
No and no.


I know this is a rant, but Democrats have rationalized their theft so much that they now have a moral code that actually glorifies their thievery. Their moral code glorifies the act of taking from those "that can afford it" then blaming them for having money left over. Then having the nerve to claim that anyone who opposes their thievery is just taking the side of the rich against the majority. Disgusting and despicable to anyone without that corrupt moral code, but most Americans fall for the hateful propaganda they have been spewing for decades.

Any of that sound familiar? :rolleyes:
 
  • #42
BoomBoom said:
Al68 said:
I know this is a rant, but Democrats have rationalized their theft so much that they now have a moral code that actually glorifies their thievery. Their moral code glorifies the act of taking from those "that can afford it" then blaming them for having money left over. Then having the nerve to claim that anyone who opposes their thievery is just taking the side of the rich against the majority. Disgusting and despicable to anyone without that corrupt moral code, but most Americans fall for the hateful propaganda they have been spewing for decades.
Any of that sound familiar? :rolleyes:
Yep. Nowhere in there did I say that taxes were necessarily theft. My point was that the tax code can be and is used for theft.
So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
By that logic I gave you a car yesterday. (since I didn't take yours).
 
  • #43
Al68 said:
Yes, I'm old enough to remember Democrats talking about "trickle down economics" to no end. It was a phrase invented by Democrats to twist and convolute the position of their opposition into one that was very easy to argue against. AKA Strawman argument.
Apparently you are not old enough to remember the Republican primary, in which George H. W. Bush constantly derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" or you have conveniently forgotten that little (months-long, and nightly on the news) detail. Reagan was a tool of the neo-cons and was the final nail in the coffin of the "conservative" wing of the Republican party.
 
  • #44
turbo-1 said:
Apparently you are not old enough to remember the Republican primary, in which George H. W. Bush constantly derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" or you have conveniently forgotten that little (months-long, and nightly on the news) detail. .
Nope, didn't forget. Actually proves my point that it was Reagan's opponents that claimed such things. And you won't hear me giving HW Bush any praise. He acted like a Dem then, and later trying to undo what Reagan did, ie "read my lips".

Of course HW was either proven wrong, or voodoo works, because annual federal tax revenue doubled during the 80's. The exact result he claimed wouldn't happen.
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.

Obama actually agreed with him on this point.
 
  • #46
turbo-1 said:
Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors? There is plenty to dislike about our two-party system, and about the political tactics of the major parties, and demonizing Democrats isn't a sign that you've got much of handle on that. The banks and investment firms have been pumping money into Washington (on both sides) demanding deregulation. They got their way, and the taxpayers take it in the neck while they collect their huge "retention incentives" (not bonuses anymore) and laugh all the way to the (offshore) bank.

both sides are guilty, but yes. i think the bill that specifically legalized gaming (gambling) in the securities markets was passed on the tail end of Clinton's watch.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top