Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Succession or States Rights

50 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Delhommey' timestamp='1352390887' post='1987630']
You mean like if States had the power bring about laws that are against Federal laws?
[/quote]

No, more like taking much of the responsibilities from the federal government and give it to the states.

Flipping the tax burden around. Let the federal gov be in charge of interstate travel, and defense, and the state for the rest.

Instead of 5% to the state, and 25% to the federal, have it turned around.

If Mississippi wants bad schools and low income taxes....so be it.

If New Jersey wants awesome schools and high income taxes....so be it.

Give people options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Most of the South would go belly up in 2 years and then you've got failed states within your borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bottom line: states need to be allowed to become more self-sustainable economically

This falls in line with one of my theories about the structure of the country and the way its developed in respect to its land mass, resource hot spots, and population centers

The two big ideological sects in this country fall all the way back to the rural based production areas for either farming or resource extraction and then you have the highly populated zones of highly interactive more shared lifestyle in the city with factory based production. Now that we've gone through the rise and evolution of the American suburbs to a more new urbanist/edge city philosophy where a bulk of the country likes to live, it has blurred the lines between the two ideological ends that have evolved in this country. The founders of this country could not have envisioned the way we have morphed into this technological online office based globally connected lifestyle.

The sides that act as the basis for division just do not match up with our post-modern culture from a physical and societal infrastructure perspective. Without modernization/overhaul, the actual population will continue to evolve and the guys in DC will continue to be stuck in post-war policies and arguments, manipulating from the top, not knowing how to actually serve the evolved lifestyles rather just knowing how to make them feel socially comfortable.

Its not about giving a certain level of government more power but becoming sustainable at the most local level possible in all aspects.

I honestly think in order to do so, we don't need to give more power to the "states" but rather expand and modify the physical boundaries of states. Given how our economy has evolved relative to our technologies and regional make-up, the "state" in many regards has become irrelevant. I think we need more regionally defined states with less representative layers. A total rethink of our in-house borders and government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thefuzz' timestamp='1352391181' post='1987640']

No, more like taking much of the responsibilities from the federal government and give it to the states.

Flipping the tax burden around. Let the federal gov be in charge of interstate travel, and defense, and the state for the rest.

Instead of 5% to the state, and 25% to the federal, have it turned around.

If Mississippi wants bad schools and low income taxes....so be it.

If New Jersey wants awesome schools and high income taxes....so be it.

Give people options.
[/quote]
A state like Mississippi wouldn't WANT bad schools, but that's all they'd be able to afford. The earnings of Miss citizens is so low that the state wouldn't be able to fund anything effectively. Everything would be in shambles.

People with means would leave the state to get away from the poor conditions and the rest would live in developing country-like conditions.

The only states that would survive are the states with large populations, relatively high incomes, and most importantly, a strong corporate presence.

Out of the 20 or so states that actually contribute more to the federal government than they receive back, only one is in the South and that is NC. Texas too if you call that the south (but I just consider Texas as Texas). Both Texas and NC have very strong corporate presences.

Mississippi could try to attract better businesses with low taxes, but realistically, taxes are not the #1, 2 or 3 reason why a company locates where it does. No company is going to locate in a terrible place with poor infrastructure and a low skilled workforce just to save some tax money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Delhommey' timestamp='1352391565' post='1987644']
Most of the South would go belly up in 2 years and then you've got failed states within your borders.
[/quote]


Opinion. Not saying it wrong, but it's certainly an opinion.

If you mean failed like California is now....then what is the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

California is actually a net contributor to the Federal government.

Mississippi takes about $7K per citizen per year more that it sends from the Fed. It's basically on welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Liberals don't mind the idea of state's rights when it comes to things like marijuana legalization and gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='FurdTurgason' timestamp='1352394748' post='1987718']
Liberals don't mind the idea of state's rights when it comes to things like marijuana legalization and gay marriage.
[/quote]
We'd actually prefer those legal from the federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='rodeo' timestamp='1352397593' post='1987797']
We'd actually prefer those legal from the federal level.
[/quote]


This is a major problem with libs. Give the governing power to the states, and be done with it.


Let folks who hate gays move to arkansas, and those who love it move to florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Delhommey' timestamp='1352394449' post='1987708']
California is actually a net contributor to the Federal government.

Mississippi takes about $7K per citizen per year more that it sends from the Fed. It's basically on welfare.
[/quote]


Cool. Let it go broke, or, you know figure out how to make it work.

Why would they change if they can remain the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Delhommey' timestamp='1352394449' post='1987708']
California is actually a net contributor to the Federal government.

Mississippi takes about $7K per citizen per year more that it sends from the Fed. It's basically on welfare.
[/quote]


I bet they would figure it out really quickly.

Oil and Trade through the river could be a huge boom for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thefuzz' timestamp='1352398354' post='1987814']


This is a major problem with libs. Give the governing power to the states, and be done with it.


Let folks who hate gays move to arkansas, and those who love it move to florida.
[/quote]

it's not a problem unless you consider discrimination a "state's right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites