CDZ Blue Staters, Reclaim Your Sovereignty

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by MPS777, Dec 17, 2017.

  1. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,614
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,567
    The blue states will not attempt secession for the following reasons:

    The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would leave them defenseless.

    By geography the Blue/Purple states are predominantly red in all but a maximum of seven cases. Internal secession and external secession will go hand in hand with loss of tax base and smuggling. Their position sucks.
     
  2. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +54
    Secession is not the topic of the thread. I’m encouraging blue staters to seek greater sovereignty using constitutional federalism. It’s like when I was listening to one of these California “secessionists” on an interview, and all it seemed to me was that he was looking for greater autonomy. Well yeah, that’s baked into the constitution. As James Madison once said:
    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

    All the California “secessionists” need to do for greater sovereignty is claim the federalism that is their right under the constitution.
     
  3. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,614
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,567
    That would be a violation of what they call their principles.
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    44,190
    Thanks Received:
    7,198
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +24,989
    There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

    And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

    Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
    This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

    Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,614
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,567
    Wage and asset inflation differentials have also been amplified by D policy:

    Blocking TransCanada

    Building high speed rail in areas totally unsuitable for It. High speed rail in the plains would cost less per mile and generate more revenue per mile than on either coast.

    Now that many of these job killing policies are being killed so is the possibility of the Ds recovering any time soon.
     
  6. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +54
    Yeah, I’ve heard all kinds of spin on the maker/taker state issue. Here’s another little tidbit from the ‘Tax Foundation’:
    “The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent).”

    Seriously, 40%?? No state should be relying on fed.gov so much. These people appear to need a good lesson in modern federalism. Here’s a 2017 analysis on the federal spending issue:
    2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
    It’s a very complex issue because there’s basically no longer any wall between federal spending and state spending, so they’ve become nearly hopelessly entangled. So now we as a nation are all at eachothers throats over paying the bills. Again, the founders had warned us against this:
    The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

    >>>”STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models”

    Yep, time to take a hatchet to those.
     
  7. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,338
    Thanks Received:
    1,557
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Having your own words quoted back to you is a real bitch, ain't it? You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?
     
  8. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +54
    This is a straw-man argument. Logical fallacy.

    This is a straw-man argument. Logical fallacy.


    >>>”You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?”

    I’m not in favor of it as it’s currently being authorized under the General Welfare Clause (you can read the link concerning that in post5 as to why that clause can be considered an unconstitutional authorization). In post 5 I also stated:
    “What I think should be done is that a constitutional amendment should be passed which guarantees federal funding backing to all Americans who literally can’t afford healthcare. This could be funded with a national sales tax.”
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    44,190
    Thanks Received:
    7,198
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +24,989
    The % reliance on Federal $$ can be misleading. Again -- there's a world of diff between states, while the benefits laid out on the table are virtually the SAME for all. So if you look at what IS subsidized, sometimes you understand WHY the numbers are high. For instance, agriculture is one the HIGHEST subsidized federal programs. So states that depend heavily on it DO get more $$.. Or military bases or significant govt complexes.

    Interestingly, I DOUBT that that analysis takes into account the CORPORATE subsidies that funnel to businesses WITHIN those states. If they DID -- you'd get radically different results.

    The other confounding factor is DIVERSITY and DEPTH of that particular state's infrastructure and economy.. States with "simple needs" like Montana are LIKELY to find that MOST of the expensive "housekeeping" is covered by Fed $$ -- whereas in New York -- the COMPLEX and DEEP infrastructure overwhelms the Fed support.

    STILL -- just the massive diff in the relative cost of living and wages MORE than explains that fractional disparity between most "maker and taker" states. In FACT -- when controlled for that diff -- we'd likely find that NO ONE gets a return of over or even NEAR a factor of 1.0.. SOMEDAY -- when I have the time -- I'm gonna do that analysis. Unless someone beats me to it..
     
  10. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,614
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,567
    you'll get your answer within 18 months the tax reform bill will equalize out most economic differentials. The reopening of prisons to lower the cost of detainer will also have major impact on the crime rate cost differential.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page