RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better

RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/21/2011 8:03:11 AM)
"He has said repeatedly that Texas is able to stand on its own without any federal government interference." Don't they pay federal taxes in Texas ? I'd bet alot of states would be better off without paying that. What would they do with the money ? Perhaps they could take care of themselves. That's the money game. Pay me the taxes and I'll decide what the money goes for, not you. What is the biggest threat the US government makes to states etc. who don't want to do what the feds say (mandate) ? LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS. Remember the national 55MPH speed limit ? Remember how they got that one over ? The threat of losing federal highway money. Who do they think they are ? I know who. So what is this point I miss ? That a blow hard should cost the citizens of Texas federal assistance ? Sorry, but I think I do get the point. T^T

DomKen -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/21/2011 8:08:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As others have noted above, you fail to see the difference between government intrusion....e.g., the Federal Government coericng the Colorado government to lower their legal limit for drivers who've been drinking through the threat of with-holding federal funding ...= intrusion into a state's business....vs. the government being asked to step in and help in times of natural disaster....= fulfilling one of the roles of the federal government = lend assistance and support that the state does not have available due to much more limited resources than the federal government (promotion of the general welfare) Actually I see the use of the power of the purse strings to convince a state to change their laws to increase safety on the roads as an exercise in promoting the general welfare.

Owner59 -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/21/2011 8:21:38 AM)
Dude....have you been a 4 year nap? The 2008 middle-class ass-fuck is just now starting to end.Fuck`n A.The last few foreclosures dragging the housing market down are just now getting cleaned out. Enough with the whimsical con muses. All your neo-con theory was killed and buried by bush.

CreativeDominant -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/21/2011 12:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As others have noted above, you fail to see the difference between government intrusion....e.g., the Federal Government coericng the Colorado government to lower their legal limit for drivers who've been drinking through the threat of with-holding federal funding ...= intrusion into a state's business....vs. the government being asked to step in and help in times of natural disaster....= fulfilling one of the roles of the federal government = lend assistance and support that the state does not have available due to much more limited resources than the federal government (promotion of the general welfare) Actually I see the use of the power of the purse strings to convince a state to change their laws to increase safety on the roads as an exercise in promoting the general welfare. And as Term notes above...who gave them the money that is IN that purse? The states.... You seem to be real fond of a Big Brother government when they are coming down on the states on liberal issues or in forcing the states to toe the line or in forcing individuals to "do what is best for them". But like it or not, the Federal Government operates only on the money that comes to it from the states....not the other way around.

DomKen -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 9:37:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As others have noted above, you fail to see the difference between government intrusion....e.g., the Federal Government coericng the Colorado government to lower their legal limit for drivers who've been drinking through the threat of with-holding federal funding ...= intrusion into a state's business....vs. the government being asked to step in and help in times of natural disaster....= fulfilling one of the roles of the federal government = lend assistance and support that the state does not have available due to much more limited resources than the federal government (promotion of the general welfare) Actually I see the use of the power of the purse strings to convince a state to change their laws to increase safety on the roads as an exercise in promoting the general welfare. And as Term notes above...who gave them the money that is IN that purse? The states.... You seem to be real fond of a Big Brother government when they are coming down on the states on liberal issues or in forcing the states to toe the line or in forcing individuals to "do what is best for them". But like it or not, the Federal Government operates only on the money that comes to it from the states....not the other way around. Actually the money comes from the people, the citizens and residents of the USA. As a matter of fact the states rely very heavily on money from the federal government which is why the feds can coerce the states.

rulemylife -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 10:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "He has said repeatedly that Texas is able to stand on its own without any federal government interference." Don't they pay federal taxes in Texas ? I'd bet alot of states would be better off without paying that. What would they do with the money ? Perhaps they could take care of themselves. That's the money game. Pay me the taxes and I'll decide what the money goes for, not you. What is the biggest threat the US government makes to states etc. who don't want to do what the feds say (mandate) ? LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS. Remember the national 55MPH speed limit ? Remember how they got that one over ? The threat of losing federal highway money. Who do they think they are ? I know who. So what is this point I miss ? That a blow hard should cost the citizens of Texas federal assistance ? Sorry, but I think I do get the point. T^T The point is the citizens of Texas elected that blowhard. The point is there is a large secessionist movement in Texas. The point is they want to be able to say they can stand on their own but come crying for help when they need it. The point is that is remarkably hypocritical to be denouncing federal intervention and then say that it is the duty of the federal government to intervene when they need help.

rulemylife -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 11:18:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As others have noted above, you fail to see the difference between government intrusion....e.g., the Federal Government coericng the Colorado government to lower their legal limit for drivers who've been drinking through the threat of with-holding federal funding ...= intrusion into a state's business....vs. the government being asked to step in and help in times of natural disaster....= fulfilling one of the roles of the federal government = lend assistance and support that the state does not have available due to much more limited resources than the federal government (promotion of the general welfare) Despite what many....progressive and conservative alike...think, the idea behind the Federal Government is not to continue to grow it. And states' rights to govern themselves...as long as they do not pose a threat to the UNION.... with the Feds available as requested when necessary, should remain paramount. Surprisingly enough, I agree with you to a certain extent. I've never liked the federal blackmail about lowering the drinking limit or lowering the speed limit. The reality though is all those states had to do was turn down the federal funding. If the states want to claim their rights then they have to accept the consequences. As far as the promotion of the general welfare clause, you are using that in a very broad sense to justify your argument. If you want to broaden it to that point then you can also say that lowering the drinking limit and speed limit promote the general welfare.

Termyn8or -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 3:15:27 PM)
"The point is there is a large secessionist movement in Texas. The point is they want to be able to say they can stand on their own but come crying for help when they need it." I almost started a thread about this because this one seems more to be about the blowhard than the issue. But if you think about it, if you pay taxes, federal, state and local, which is the most ? Well if there were no federal services and no federal help Texas would have to charge alot more in taxes to cover all the things they would have to do themselves. But why not ? Many years ago it was published somewhere that most states get back only a certain percentage of the federal tax dollars paid in. One notable exception was California which at the time supposedly was getting back 150%. I used to wonder why since they have all those rich people there, but I grew up. It seems money is for the rich, because the poor in California aren't all that better off than anyone else are they ? But some things I don't know. I read somewhere that Wisconson has among the highest state taxes, but who knows ? In Ohio federal taxes are several times what state taxes are. I suspect it's similar at least in most other states. But what would happen indeed ? Well the taxes would be collected in state and administered in that state. It's possible that there would be more accountability. It's hard to figure all the ramifications because most states are in debt, and the feds are in debt. Where does that leave us ? I think if the country was run right, the feds would just take care of international issues and defense, maybe a couple of other things like standarization of the roads etc. The states would do pretty much everything else. That would mean federal taxes could be alot lower but state taxes would be higher. In dollars it would probably work out close to the same, but maybe the money would be better spent. And then there are the exceptions. Like natural disasters. It's nice to be able to just print money to take care of such things, but printing money is a big part of what got this country into such deep shit. T^T

dcnovice -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 3:24:14 PM)
quote: The point is there is a large secessionist movement in Texas. Of course, letting Texas secede may not be the worst idea in American history. [:)]

Termyn8or -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/22/2011 5:05:44 PM)
But if they're a foreign country we'll have to defend them if Mexico attacks. Right now we can blow them off. T^T

CreativeDominant -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/25/2011 12:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As others have noted above, you fail to see the difference between government intrusion....e.g., the Federal Government coericng the Colorado government to lower their legal limit for drivers who've been drinking through the threat of with-holding federal funding ...= intrusion into a state's business....vs. the government being asked to step in and help in times of natural disaster....= fulfilling one of the roles of the federal government = lend assistance and support that the state does not have available due to much more limited resources than the federal government (promotion of the general welfare) Actually I see the use of the power of the purse strings to convince a state to change their laws to increase safety on the roads as an exercise in promoting the general welfare. And as Term notes above...who gave them the money that is IN that purse? The states.... You seem to be real fond of a Big Brother government when they are coming down on the states on liberal issues or in forcing the states to toe the line or in forcing individuals to "do what is best for them". But like it or not, the Federal Government operates only on the money that comes to it from the states....not the other way around. Actually the money comes from the people, the citizens and residents of the USA. As a matter of fact the states rely very heavily on the federal government which is why the feds can coerce the states. And those people live in states. The money that comes back to the states comes from the citizens. It is no more the Feds to coerce with than it is the states. That money be3longs to the people. This is why some of us hate word "refund"...it makes it sound as if the givernment is giving you something out of the goodness of their little pea-picking heart ...they are returning YOUR money to YOU.

mnottertail -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/25/2011 12:42:11 PM)
coerce? are we reading different constitutions? I am reading the US Constitution.

Mezrem -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/25/2011 1:19:10 PM)
You are kidding right? Both of the ruling parties here have wiped thier ass so many times with the Constitution it's not even funny. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail coerce? are we reading different constitutions? I am reading the US Constitution.

mnottertail -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/25/2011 1:31:38 PM)
still doesn't fall under coercion. but if they are wiping their ass what are any of the disaffected doing to cover theirs, would be my question.

Termyn8or -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/26/2011 12:33:32 AM)
I am a bully and I took your lunch money. Do as I say or go hungry. Not coersion, got it. It doesn't get much simpler than that. T^T

CreativeDominant -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/26/2011 7:23:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail coerce? are we reading different constitutions? I am reading the US Constitution. Can you show me the clause in the Constitution where it gives the Federal Government the right to hold back emergency services/funds just one reason why Jefferson ans in exchange for a change in a state's behavior/laws/attitude? What the Federal Government is attempting to do with Texas is just one reason why Jefferson and others argued against centralization of too much power within the Federal Government.

mnottertail -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/26/2011 7:27:00 AM)
No, can you show me where the constitution says that they have to give anyfuckingthing to any state? Can you show me in the constitution where these are emergency/services funds, or the constitutional definition of emergency/services funds? Opinion noted, but not constitutional.

Termyn8or -> RE: I guess the "oppressive" federal government is looking a lot better (4/26/2011 11:09:41 PM)
"Can you show me the clause in the Constitution where it gives the Federal Government the right to hold back emergency services/funds just one reason why Jefferson ans in exchange for a change in a state's behavior/laws/attitude? " The Constitution does not authorize any humanitarian relief whatsoever. Keep refusing to read about Horatio Bunce and all is lost. The article is called "It's Not Our's To Give". Every Man in congress could donate a weeks pay, because it is their money. The tax money is not their's and they have no right to give it away to anyone anywhere. That is the Law. But with the shitstains on the Constitution, we have become a country of.......... [conceptualizing a new adjective if you don't mind] I got your lunch money, what are you going to do about it ? T^T ETA : Just for the record, the words "federal" and "government" are not to be capitalized.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875