Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Succession or States Rights


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#16 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,368 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:48 AM

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.

#17 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,867 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

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?

#18 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,431 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:07 PM

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.

#19 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:12 PM

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

#20 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,389 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:59 PM

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.

#21 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,867 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:12 PM

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.

#22 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,867 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

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?

#23 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,867 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:14 PM

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.

#24 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

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."

#25 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,867 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

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.

#26 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

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


i don't understand how this refutes my statement.

#27 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,389 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

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.

#28 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:25 PM

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...

#29 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,389 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:25 PM

They could also make a lot of money from bayonnet production.

#30 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

thankfully THE MARINE CORPS STILL USES BAYONETS!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.