Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

I've been looking into an interesting trend in the legislatures of a number of States, which seems to have brewing over the past decade or so. By demographic, it seems to be the Red states are joining the neo-confederate uprising, leaving the left coast, California, and Minnesota as the Blue, neo-union. But, I'm not sure California, with its looming bankruptcy, and extreme libertarian drug laws will be solidly in the new union. :)

Read more at Huffington, Palin and Perry Skirt Secession or at Constitutional Law Prof Blog -- The State Sovereignty Movement, or The American Thinker --'10th Amendment Movement' gaining steam in states .

Of course, I probably wouldn't need to comment that I am certainly in favor of political action moving to a more State or local level, rather than the poorly conceived, one size fits all, poorly (un)funded Federal programs we've (US citizens, etc.) become dependent upon.

Seriously though, with the budget deficits proposed over the next 10 years, and with the emerging realization by the citizenry of what that means, I'm predicting that this is only going to become a bigger, and bigger issue as more people, and States revolt.

[Jester]

My prediction? Total non-issue.

-Jester

[Thenryb]

My prediction? Total non-issue.

-Jester

What is your prediction on whether this will turn into one of those threads which you ultimately cannot view in outline format?

[--Pete]

Hi,

What is your prediction on whether this will turn into one of those threads which you ultimately cannot view in outline format?

Likely.

--Pete

[Jester]

What is your prediction on whether this will turn into one of those threads which you ultimately cannot view in outline format?

However likely Pete thinks it is, I'll say that, plus half again. (We might even end up over probability one, and have to invent new mathematics to describe it!)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

(We might even end up over probability one, and have to invent new mathematics to describe it!)

That would be hyper-probable, which, if you use an affine projection of infinity, puts it into the over maximum improbability domain. Thus, we can answer the question of the third stage of civilization with "anywhere".

--Pete

[Jester]

That would be hyper-probable, which, if you use an affine projection of infinity, puts it into the over maximum improbability domain. Thus, we can answer the question of the third stage of civilization with "anywhere".

Good thing, too. I'm jonesin' bad for some cheerfully suicidal beef.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good thing, too. I'm jonesin' bad for some cheerfully suicidal beef.

I've got us a reservation for a corner table -- cheerful beef and Guinness all around. With a side order of diodes for the non-carbon based. :w00t:

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Where does this leave us Canadians?

[Nystul]

Where does this leave us Canadians?

Hoping the northern states have control over the nukes. :shuriken:

[Sir_Die_alot]

Where does this leave us Canadians?

In the cold.:D

[Sir_Die_alot]

Seriously though, with the budget deficits proposed over the next 10 years, and with the emerging realization by the citizenry of what that means, I'm predicting that this is only going to become a bigger, and bigger issue as more people, and States revolt.

I think the issue here is why do people keep voting for politicians who have obviously very left leaning views on taxes, government, and social policies, yet when voting on the issues directly they are defeated soundly? (Example: recent California special election, prop 8) In California at least, it seems people want their cake and to eat it too. I think this more than anything has lead to our current financial issues. They want the assistant secretary to the head supervisor of delta environmental conservation and preservation (totally made up position, but I bet there is someone with a very similar title getting a check from California) to have his job but don't want to pay high taxes.:huh:

[kandrathe]

I think the issue here is why do people keep voting for politicians who have obviously very left leaning views on taxes, government, and social policies, yet when voting on the issues directly they are defeated soundly? (Example: recent California special election, prop 8) In California at least, it seems people want their cake and to eat it too. I think this more than anything has lead to our current financial issues. They want the assistant secretary to the head supervisor of delta environmental conservation and preservation (totally made up position, but I bet there is someone with a very similar title getting a check from California) to have his job but don't want to pay high taxes.:huh:

They have a long history, going back well past proposition 13 of wanting their cake and eating it as well. The main result was that it forced cities to engage in huge deals with developers to not only build the homes and businesses, but also the community infrastructure as well. Or, in other words, they would allow the developers to build only if they were willing to toss in a bunch of civil projects for free. Of course, now many years later they are smacked with the reality of maintaining existing communities with a marginal tax base.

It is interesting, but even in the companies I've worked within, there are many who are very eager to grow infrastructure without concern for sustainability (i.e. how it contributes to profit). Sound government should be grounded on the same principle of sustainability, whereas the city infrastructure should reflect the taxes the people are willing to pay. Imagine if a corporation tried to do what our feds are doing, and you'd see the top executives replaced in a heartbeat.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think the issue here is why do people keep voting for politicians who have obviously very left leaning views on taxes, government, and social policies, yet when voting on the issues directly they are defeated soundly?

Because most people don't understand TANSTAAFL. If asked, "Do you want universal health care?", most will say yes. Ask those same people, "Do you want to pay a third of your income for health care?", and they'll overwhelmingly say no.

Most people are for the benefits, against the costs, too stupid to realize that that is an illogical position, and they're still allowed to vote.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Imagine if a corporation tried to do what our feds are doing, and you'd see the top executives replaced in a heartbeat.

Nah they'd just get millions of dollars in bonuses because they made their company "too big to fail"! ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Nah they'd just get millions of dollars in bonuses because they made their company "too big to fail"! ;)

Followed by an offer of a cabinet position. Or the presidency of a university. :w00t:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Nah they'd just get millions of dollars in bonuses because they made their company "too big to fail"! ;)

Who gets to bail out the USA because it is too big to fail? China? EU?

For Sale: Pan Global Military Industrial Complex, many orbiting satellites of various uses, large expanses of unsettled land, 200 million workers with medium to high skills, and the Ark of the Covenant. Asking 12 trillion or BO.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Because most people don't understand TANSTAAFL. If asked, "Do you want universal health care?", most will say yes. Ask those same people, "Do you want to pay a third of your income for health care?", and they'll overwhelmingly say no.

Most people are for the benefits, against the costs, too stupid to realize that that is an illogical position, and they're still allowed to vote.

--Pete

Yes, or, "you get what you pay for", or in the case of the government you get 60 percent of what you pay for if you are lucky. 40 percent comes off the top for administrative overhead.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Most people are for the benefits, against the costs, too stupid to realize that that is an illogical position, and they're still allowed to vote.

--Pete

Worse: Since they hold the majority this can't change without something drastic. Oh look at the topic title... :rolleyes:

[Crusader]

Hi,
Because most people don't understand TANSTAAFL. If asked, "Do you want universal health care?", most will say yes. Ask those same people, "Do you want to pay a third of your income for health care?", and they'll overwhelmingly say no.

Most people are for the benefits, against the costs, too stupid to realize that that is an illogical position, and they're still allowed to vote.

--Pete

I'm Dutch. Around 60% of my income goes to taxes. Taxes on my paycheck. Taxes on everything I buy (3-19%), Taxes on my mortage, Tax on electricity, gas, phone, sewers. all in all, in the end 60% of my money goes to the government. No joke.

But I still live a good life and if things go bad, the government will take care of me. It will guarantee a minimal income, healthcare (equivalent to what everyone else gets and it's very good, if you want more you can always go to a private clinic, but that's mostly for cosmetic 'enhancements'), the government will pay me if I have kids, will pay for their schoolbooks, help you pay your monthly mortage (yes, first they tax you on it, then they help you pay it), etc.

No one pretends to understand our tax system. We pay an outrageous ammount compared to, say, the United States. But we get a lot back. In the end it works out and we have something to complain about (favourite national pasttime). Everyone wins!