That's a tired "point" that progressives often use to justify everything they do in an effort to marginalize the importance of the South and Western economies. We could further discuss and debate that point, but it's has little to nothing to do with the point I made.
The Northern economies are in a shambles. Industry and capitalists are fleeing from the region to escape the repressive taxation, regulation, and union influences up there. The economic landscape of the region has been decimated by progressive government policies and the unions. Are you contesting that point?
Yes I am - if the north can continue to subsidize the south via federal funds - then obviously they are doing better - economically.
Link Foss.
The north has it's problems... but, not as many as the south. The south has to deal with low income jobs, a less educated workforce, unhealthy lifestyles, more people on government programs, more elderly, and a per capita income that is less than the north.
Plus, I find it odd that the south has been willing to siphon off the wealth of the north for decades – but, they have a tendency to vote for lower and lower taxes within their own states. So, the north ends up subsidizing them even more, because their state governments are so poor that they can’t take care of ‘state run initiatives’ that the rest of the country uses state taxes for.
Don’t tax me – but I’ll be glad to take other people’s money seems to be the rule of thumb in the south.
Are you implying or willing to argue that the Soviet Union wasn't a threat, directly or indirectly? Is that an implication or are you going to argue that the military was not in need of funding?
Reagan’s fear of communism - that is fodder for another thread - but, his fear of communism (I didn't place a judgment - I didn't state it was a misplaced, or irrational fear) helped to drive up the debt in the 80s to huge numbers.
He signed it.
So who wrote, passed it, and put it on his desk?
Regarding the SS bailout of the 80’s – here is a bit of Reagan’s
speech as he was signing the bill…
Just a few months ago, there was legitimate alarm that social security would soon run out of money. On both sides of the political aisle, there were dark suspicions that opponents from the other party were more interested in playing politics than in solving the problem. But in the eleventh hour, a distinguished bipartisan commission appointed by House Speaker O'Neill, by Senate Majority Leader Baker, and by me began, to find a solution that could be enacted into law.
Obviously Reagan was taking credit for the bill, claiming it as ‘bipartisan’ along with Tipp in the house and Howard in the senate.
I'm not going to anticipate what they will ultimate lead to, if anything. But it was a natural expression of disapproval for Washington. People are angry, they are deeply concerned for the future, and they want real CHANGE. And people are motivated enough to turn out in large numbers in public and peacefully and passionate express this demand.
Why I am so interested in this Cal? Because it seems like there may be good ideas that could come out of this/these groups – however, unless there gets to be some sort of cohesiveness among the groups, they will be marginalized. They very much will be marginalized if the economy turns around before the 2010 elections.
If you read your statement above, you could be talking about the war protesters of the 60s and 70s (usually peaceful – that part is a little different – not always peaceful in the case of the war protesters). They protested Johnson and Nixon, both sides of the political spectrum. The biggest riots were at the Democratic National Convention in 1972. That group also had other interesting ideas, which ranged far beyond the war effort. But, when the war ended, they become marginalized and basically absorbed into the Democratic party. Their voices were muted.
I know grassroots movements – I have been a part of those as well. They are very different than organized political groups. Look at NRLC, NOW and others – they started out as grassroots movements, but soon realized that to be effective they had to be politically involved. Unlike the war protesters who have fallen away, sort of old relics now instead of viable voices.
Most 'piling on's' that I have been involved in have been rather fun, albeit sticky. This doesn't seem like the same sort of fun (although it is fun, in its own, perverse way), and definitely not sticky...