User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 33

  1. #21
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    nationally centralized redistribution of wealth = federalism.

    they are one and the same.
    In contemporary common usage, federalism refers to recognizing the constitutional perogatives of the fifty states and preventing the usurpation of state sovereignty by the national government (and vice versa, though that's not much of a problem nowadays). In other words, it means actually following constitutional parameters rather than weakly rationalizing that "stretching" those parameters beyond all recognition constitutes fulfilling the "spirit" of the Constitution. Federalism (again, according to contemporary common usage) also refers more generally to maximizing state control over government policy and resources (i.e. taxes), which was my main point.

    As for the cost of public education buildings, I wouldn't be surprised if the insane California regulations had that effect, but its also likely that California just spends their money poorly relative to other states, and an increased education budget will only perpetuate the problem.

  2. #22
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Federalism (again, according to contemporary common usage) also refers more generally to maximizing state control over government policy and resources (i.e. taxes), which was my main point.
    well in practice, it is turning out to be pretty much socialism between states.

    Largest Losers in Federal Balance of Payments
    California -$63,319 Michigan -$20,531
    NEW YORK -$47,338 Connecticut -$15,910
    Illinois -$40,205 Florida -$15,767
    New Jersey -$27,267 Massachusetts -$14,245
    Texas -$23,099 Ohio -$11,699

  3. #23
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    CALIFORNIA PAYS THE MOST TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...
    (Federal taxes paid'96)
    California-168 Billion
    New York-117 Billion
    Texas-88 Billion


    CALIFORNIAN'S PAYS NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH IN FEDERAL TAXES THEN BOTH STATE AND LOCAL TAXES COMBINED...
    (As a percentage of income)

    Federal-22.6%
    State & Local-11.7%

    THE TAX BITE FOR CALIFORNIANS IN A EIGHT-HOUR DAY...
    (The hours and minutes of a work day devoted to paying taxes)

    1:49 Federal Taxes
    0:56 California Taxes


    CALIFORNIA PAYS THE LARGEST SHARE OF FEDERAL TAXES...
    (As a percentage of revenue)

    California-12.1%
    New York-8.44%
    Texas-6.36%
    btw, these numbers are from 1996, the federal balance of payments is like 10 times worse now for California

  4. #24
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    Both the article and your preface are pretty heavily peppered with I'm-right-ism and wording tailored to ridicule, rather than just discuss the issues.

    I can't give it a proper consideration because it's obviously an emotional, non-neutral writing. I immediately suspect omissions and distortions to make ones case.
    I'm not the biggest political crusader out there or anything.. but I don't think just because someone is emotionally attached to a subject that they're less factual than someone objective.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #25
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    well in practice, it is turning out to be pretty much socialism between states.
    Which in turn is due to states such as California repeatedly voting for national politicians who advocate ever more national government programs and ever more interference with state perogatives.

  6. #26
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    In contemporary common usage, federalism refers to recognizing the constitutional perogatives of the fifty states and preventing the usurpation of state sovereignty by the national government (and vice versa, though that's not much of a problem nowadays). In other words, it means actually following constitutional parameters rather than weakly rationalizing that "stretching" those parameters beyond all recognition constitutes fulfilling the "spirit" of the Constitution. Federalism (again, according to contemporary common usage) also refers more generally to maximizing state control over government policy and resources (i.e. taxes), which was my main point.

    As for the cost of public education buildings, I wouldn't be surprised if the insane California regulations had that effect, but its also likely that California just spends their money poorly relative to other states, and an increased education budget will only perpetuate the problem.
    The 14th Amendment disagrees with you. Constitutional parameters apply to the states equally, and no amount of explaining that away will work.

    California's problem is that its property tax rates disproportionately hit the middle class while sparing the very wealthy most of the tax burden (like a rational system would, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest loads). That's what Prop. 13 got you, congratulations, you were duped. Whenever this is noticed and rectification is attempted, those same interests spend a crap ton of money to get it just below the 60% threshold. Meanwhile, initiatives pass through without a hitch.

    This is by nature unsustainable. As soon as the middle class starts feeling a pinch, tax revenues plummet. Rates on the wealthy cannot be raised due to supermajority requirements, and services must be cut to clear the balance. This has been the goal of the Republican Party in the state since Reagan was elected. They wanted it to be a nightmare because that's where their benefactors come out ahead (in the short term, long term, they have a whole lot more to lose in a complete societal breakdown).

    This cannot be fixed by current solutions because the districting system guarantees nothing but ideologues in the state legislature. It is becoming increasingly clear that a constitutional convention is the only way to solve CA's problems. Unfortunately for the GOP, it won't come out well for them as strikes and service cutbacks are attributed to low revenues.

    Federalism is about letting the national government do what it can do best and likewise, letting the states do what they can do best. In a post-industrial economy, the line between those is significantly blurred.

  7. #27
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Which in turn is due to states such as California repeatedly voting for national politicians who advocate ever more national government programs and ever more interference with state perogatives.
    huh? the federal balance of payments got worse under bush for california. now ca pays $80 billion per year subsidizing other states.

    listen, not everything is based on some red vs blue argument.

    basically, federalism = socialism, and its actually been worse under republican presidents than democratic ones.

    but that point aside, yeah, california gets the shaft when it comes to federalist policies.

    In 2003, the federal government spent a total of $6,192 per capita in California, compared to $6,910 per capita nationwide, a spending shortfall for the state of 12 percent.

    On the taxation side of the ledger, Californians paid in $6,611 per capita to the federal treasury, compared to a national average of $6,011 per capita, or a discrepancy of 9 percent.
    California's Balance of Payments with the Federal Treasury, Fiscal Years 1981-2003 -- A Special Report by the California Institute for Federal Policy Research

  8. #28
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The 14th Amendment disagrees with you.

    No, the 14th Amendment made the bill of rights (and other rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution) applicable to the states-which has nothing to do with our little debate. The Tenth Amendment, however, does agree with me.

    Federalism might very well mean socialism within states, but not between states. You are mistaking a centralized, unitary state for a federal state (i.e. federalism).

    Edit: oops, I thought you were Modern Nomad, and I was adressing his statements. Anyway, the purpose of federalism is to limit the power of the national government and promote local control over as many aspects of government as is practical.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 07-13-2009 at 10:30 PM. Reason: self-evident

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    huh? the federal balance of payments got worse under bush for california. now ca pays $80 billion per year subsidizing other states.
    I never claimed to be particularly fond of Bush, either. As for federalism, see above (I seem to have mistaken onemoretime for yourself there).

  10. #30
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No, the 14th Amendment made the bill of rights (and other rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution) applicable to the states-which has nothing to do with our little debate. The Tenth Amendment, however, does agree with me.

    Federalism might very well mean socialism within states, but not between states. You are mistaking a centralized, unitary state for a federal state (i.e. federalism).

    Edit: oops, I thought you were Modern Nomad, and I was adressing his statements. Anyway, the purpose of federalism is to limit the power of the national government and promote local control over as many aspects of government as is practical.
    Fourteenth supersedes Tenth. Equal protection under the law means that all constitutional guarantees apply equally to the states. Tenth Amendment is null and void in that context.

    The purpose of federalism is to devolve power where it is not necessary or advisable for the Feds (post-Civil War). Power inherently comes from We The People, not from any government. If we decide through amendments that the Feds get more (14th particularly the enforcement through all appropriate legislation clause), then the Feds get more, regardless of what the Constitution originally said.

    A document written at the time where the entire nation was agrarian, as thoughtful and forward-thinking as it was, will not be perfectly applicable in an industrialized world. That's why we accept different means for interpretation (amendments, Supreme Court). The Common Law is the original supreme law of the land, and consequently, courts have a lot of power. Most legal scholars admit that the 10th was a truism in the first place - it was to be assumed by the nature of the document. The 14th fundamentally changed that. We The People said that states could not deny people rights.

Similar Threads

  1. Do I have the talent to be playwright? Small sample inside....
    By GarrotTheThief in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-22-2015, 12:00 AM
  2. do you have to be aware of the trends to be a hipster?
    By prplchknz in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 02:41 PM
  3. if you had the power to read thoughts...
    By Lady_X in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 03:52 PM
  4. "If you don't have the balls to be hated...
    By Udog in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 10:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO