Great idea from California

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, May 4, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    Too many elected representatives are voting to take services and assistance away from people they don't represent. I say make your representatives' votes count. If they vote on your behalf to cut the budget, then that budget cut should come from services offered in your district.

    Right-wingers should support this, considering they advocate that liberals should voluntarily pay more taxes instead of changing the tax code.
     
  2. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #2
    I think to would be more fair to advocate meeting them half way, a tax increase in certain areas where the services would remain, and cutting services in areas where taxes would be unaffected.

    I'm not a huge fan of governing based on political break down. Its seem like opts of coming to a real agreement. We have local government so people can have more local say, so the can cut taxes for their local schools.

    Theres an establish set up, and changing that to this system seems risky and a bad move.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Another example of this insanity is that conservative states tend to be net beneficiaries of federal tax dollars. DC, MD, and VA are outliers because the federal government is located in the DC metro area, but other than those three basically democratic voting states contribute to the federal budget and republican voting states take from the federal budget.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States

    Republicans who believe what they say they stand for should advocate massive cuts in federal support to the big leach states: Alaska, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma.
     
  4. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #4
    So by the same token, if they vote on your behalf to raise taxes, should those tax increases come from the pockets of taxpayers in those districts only?
     
  5. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #5
    Pretty sure each of these states are already facing massive cuts in revenue - not necessarily federal revenue. It's one thing to talk about taking a moral stand. It's another to actually implement it. Reducing federal funding to these states would harm a lot of people.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Of course, which is why I wouldn't advocate it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    problem with that is a lot of people get punished for polical punishment and only make the system worse.

    Also it is not like we really have much of a say in our polical leaders for congress and the houses due to the geurmanderring killing off any real choice.

    How is it far that people I vote for are not in office and I would oppose the one cutting services yet the jackasses get into office and I recieve the punishment. Chances are those same people who represent districts getting everything cut would get reelected again.

    our system is broken. This winner take all crap hurts everyone but the major 2 parties. The elected people petty fights hurt the rest of us in the cross fire for petty revenge.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    California's republicans represent some of the poorest areas of California. Especially those in the Central Valley. Such a move would be devastating and might well change politics as we know it.
     
  9. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    Umm... yeah, this is how our country was originally setup. With individual states, and individual localities which would tax/spend as much as they wanted... while the federal government took no income tax whatsoever. Then, people could vote with their feet... if they wanted to live in a low-tax low-service locality, they could. If they wanted to live in a high-tax high-service locality, they could.

    Growth in federalism, growth in the large federal government has eliminated this choice for everyone. Now we ALL have to live in a high-tax high-service locality, and our spending isn't unique to our area so Iowans are forced to pay for BS 'green' subsidies that Californians want, and Californians are forced to pay for BS crop subsidies that Iowans want. Nobody wins.

    How about we return the federal government to the relatively weak republic it was originally designed to be and return more power to people of the states and localities?
     
  10. Hastings101 macrumors 68000

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #10
    That's not practical. Most people can't afford to "vote with their feet" in modern America. What you describe might have worked well 100+ years ago, but not today.

    Wanting a much weaker central government is also silly. We had that at the very beginning of our nation, and it did not go well.
     
  11. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    Right... because today people are less wealthy and travel is significantly more difficult than 230 years ago. Brilliant.

    Weaker central government went brilliantly for us at the beginning of the country. We grew faster, stronger, and more prosperous than any nation our size. There was more individual liberty, and more variation between the states allowing citizens to choose the Republic which fit their values the most. I'm assuming you're implying something in regards to slavery... what a tired and completely misguided fallacious argument.

    Lefties would have you believe that small government = slavery and big government = no slavery. Hardly true. Slavery was born out of the biggest government possible... the English crown. It was born out of a big government system where individuals and individual liberty meant nothing. As Jefferson wrote the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." America's small government experiment set a new precedent and begun a steady march towards freeing the slaves and a government of true liberty for all. It's a system that values the life of each human. Had a different system been put in place, a larger government, the plight of the slaves would have lasted much longer.
     
  12. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    Slavery was created by men who cared more about profit than people who looked different. Everything else is window dressing.

    There are a bunch of people in the "small government, tea party" crowd who advocate for policies and care more about profit than people who are different.
     
  13. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    Amazing that so many in this country still have NO IDEA about what exactly made us different, what made us special, what made us the place for millions upon millions of legal immigrants to stream here after our founding. This is why conservatives feel that many liberals hate this country... When you ask liberals if they hate the country, they think of the people, and they think of the land, and they think "hell now, how dare you say I hate my country!" and it's true, they don't hate those things, they love them. However, these aren't the things that make America what it is. It isn't about land, it isn't about geography, it's about principles, it's about political philosophy. What made America different was the focus on the individual. The country was founded around individuals, individual responsibility, individual entrepreneurship, individual opportunity, individual liberty. It wasn't about big redistributive government, it wasn't about handouts and bailouts, it wasn't about pitting one group vs. another whether based on race or on social standing. Conservatives think Liberals hate America because their views are so often diametrically opposed to the foundational views the country was founded on. You can't be an advocate for personal liberty and for big-government at the same time. The two ideas stand at odds. You be an advocate for individual responsibility and advocate for an ever-expanding entitlement system which threatens to undercut the very fiscal foundation of the country at the same time. You can't be an advocate for individual opportunity and for rights based on groups at the same time. The two ideas stand at odds.

    Slavery is a phenomenon that could never be born out of a country that actually valued individuals and individual liberty, that knew all men were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. To blame slavery on small government is a joke, it takes big government which controls its populous and doesn't defend basic human liberties.
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    5p, you are so tiresome. Your posts resemble the rants of Glenn Beck. Pseudo-intellectualism, personal interpretation of history, glimmerings of paranoia.

    What really is your point?
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15

    http://www.economist.com/node/18584204?story_id=18584204

    Sounds like victorian Britain.

    So why did the US take so long to ban it, and even longer to make blacks equal citizens?
     
  16. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #16
    Right, because the only choices are between the USSR and Somalia
    sophist
     
  17. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I don't see anything remotely extreme about 5ps post. It's scary that so many people disagree.
     
  18. Hastings101 macrumors 68000

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #18
    I just don't think it's feasible for most Americans to sell their house and move whenever they disagree with something their local or state government does.

    Oh, and I wasn't talking about slavery. I was talking about the U.S. as a confederacy - pretty much the ultimate weak central government, which it sounded like you want. 13 states acting almost like mini-nations made it impossible for anything to get accomplished, I can't imagine 50 states doing that.
     
  19. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #19
    Fascinating that neither one of you deny in the slightest that I've accurately laid out what America actually is, and that those on the left actually do hate it. Fascinating that all Ugg can do is call me names, while Eraserhead suggests that the small-government founding of America was similar to an era in British history named for the queen of their monarchy. ;)



    Who in the world suggested that was the case? I'm fairly certain the constitutional representative republic set up by Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, and the like shared almost no resemblance to that of Somalia. As for your middle ground of a 'socialist democracy', that's what Europe is for... not America. Lefties have been subverting the constitution in an attempt to transform us more in the vein of Europe... and now we're reaping our just rewards, including the explosive expansion of our welfare/warfare spending resulting in nothing short of financial insolvency.



    Taking your logic to it's end, perhaps we should have a global government... after all, it isn't feasible for someone to leave their country whenever they disagree with something their federal government does. :rolleyes: C'mon... Do you seriously disagree that more local government and less federal government gives individuals more control, not less, of their lives and of how their government operates? Why would you want to give people less control? Why should one institution decide what's best for Iowa and California simultaneously? Is what's right for Alaska, right for Florida?



    Any rational person with a decent grasp of U.S. history wouldn't. The posters I quoted above don't 'love' America, they wish to fundamentally change America into something it was never designed to be. They HATE America, they hate what it was supposed to stand for; freedom, liberty, small-government, individual responsibility... not bailouts, handouts, and burdensome taxation. America was not setup to be a warfare/welfare state, but that's exactly what it's being turned into.
     
  20. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
  21. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #21
    How about when you called me a sophist?
     
  22. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    Yes, I do. People have maximum control over their lives, when they aren't starving to death, when they aren't slaves to their jobs, when they can actually survive and know that a missed paycheck won't result in having to choose between their medicine and dinner. People have control over their lives when their investments are regulated, when their water is clean, and when they know their government works for them, not the corporation with heavy ties to the middle east and oil production.

    People who talk like you are the ones in charge in Michigan, and look how well that is working out for "local control." You righties are trying to take away local control by arging for it. You talk a good game, but the reality is that you righties hate democracy and you hate the way America is and are radically trying to change it into a corporate run, profit driven, discrimination-is-ok, gated community. (Two can play the wild accusation game).

    If you would like, I can make stuff up about our history too, but I choose not to because it damages your credibility...
     
  23. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #23
    Ah, giving up liberty to gain security, eh mcrain? Great argument. ;)

    Also, what exactly have I made up about history, mcrain? Do you disagree with my assessment as to the values our country was founded on?
     
  24. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    When did I make that argument? It's you righties that are taking away liberty and also taking away security.

    Go back and read what I posted. I never said we should give away "liberty" in order to gain "security." (Is that a "strawman"?) What I said was that people have maximum liberty when they are secure with their basic human necessities. That liberty is further increased when government works on our behalf, not the behest of corporations and profit motive. You are supporting and defending the people who are doing exactly what you say you oppose.

    I'll tell you what. Provide links for your little history lessons. I've proven statements you have made wrong so many times it's silly expect me to keep doing it. (Edit) A perfect example of a Fivepoint misrepresentation of history can be found in his statement in another currently active thread that income taxes were only created to redistribute wealth. I bet FP never really intended that to be a factual statement either.
     
  25. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #25
    What mcrain fails to realize is that labor and the fruits of one's labor is inherently - property. The forcible seizure of such property is as such an obvious reduction in personal liberty. As a society we accept some such seizures in the form of equal taxation of sales, property, etc. as these taxes are generally considered fair and just as the taxation is related to the amount of consumption. The income tax represents a huge diversion from this moral enterprise by taxing the value one adds to the economy at which point the vast majority of funds are used in the straight forward redistribution to other classes of citizens who the state deems worthy. As such, the income tax represents a direct attack on one's labor/property/liberty. Liberals have trouble grasping that by 'guaranteeing' someone income from the state in the form of welfare, that they are simultaneously reducing the liberty of other citizens to make it possible. What's even more troublesome, is that they seem wholly incapable of even admitting the fact that this is going on, and in fact go so far as to say it's the moral duty of those to be taxed for the expressed purpose of redistribution, and in some cases that upwards of 50-100% of their income should be confiscated as such without any seeming consideration for the other side of the equation... for every 'good' done, there is a cost. A cost both directly to those paying income taxes (the top 51% of wage earners), and to everyone in the form of reduced business growth, reduced job opportunities, reduced wealth, reduced prosperity, security, etc. Why is that we never hear the left discuss the cost honestly?
     

Share This Page