Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

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

thefuzz

Succession or States Rights

Recommended Posts

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.

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


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

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

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

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

We'd actually prefer those legal from the federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd actually prefer those legal from the federal level.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Any state could also say that there is no such thing at marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any state could also say that there is no such thing at marriage.

i don't understand how this refutes my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That is a major problem with libs (libertarians). States are just as bad or worse than federal, and big states does not = small government. Local government has less accountability (because it's less visible) and is far more likely to be tyrannical. You also take all humanity and life out of the equation by simply saying "move to another state," as if it's as simple as that. That's asking people to break up families and neighbors by idealogical lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet they would figure it out really quickly.

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

if we lived in the 1800s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×