What would your third party be?

[Calabrio]

It would be nice if you enlighten us as to exactly what would happen, and how, with nationalization.
Actually it is the only thing that will save this once great country.
Anything short of taking back our country will leave us as a pawn to the rest of the world.
I say nationalize, and put America back on top once again, too never be put in our current position again.
Bob.

First, I'm going to continue to presume that when you say "nationalize" you actually mean something more like "isolate," and that you simply don't understand what the word "nationalize" means.

Because, nationalization is when all of the industry becomes publicly owned, state controlled.

Isolationism is where you basically put a wall around the country and prevent any foreign goods from gaining access to your markets.

Now, the consequences of your isolationism would be many and dramatic. It's actually difficult to synopsize into a brief post, it's also difficult to think of where to start, so I'll just hit too points-

Let's begin with the fact that the United States has NEVER been an isolationist nation when it comes to trade. Even today, as bleak as things may appear, we still export about a trillion dollars of goods every year. From durable goods, cars, livestock, agriculture, tools, entertainment, ect.

If you isolate the country, we lose the ability to export goods.

Also, if we isolate the country, who's going to continue buying our debt? Will the Chinese be willing to do so? It won't matter, they won't be able to do so. Same goes for Japan.

And if we aren't trading with these countries, WHY WILL THEY CONTINUE TO HOLD OUR DOLLARS?
They won't. They'll sell them off. And because of those two things, our currency would crash in a matter of days.

The issue isn't that other countries sell their good here.
The problem is that government has increasingly made the United States a hostile and unpredictable place (because of regulation) to do business. The answer IS NOT to exclude and isolate, the answer is to EXPAND the industry in this country. We don't want to prevent Porsche or Honda from selling in this country, we want them to BUILD plants IN this country and EXPORT cars to Europe that were built in Alabama.

 

[shagdrum]

That "isolationist" mentality was a big part of what lead to the Great Depression, BTW.

Unfortunately, America has always had an isolationist streak even though the idea doesn't really solve anything and tends to make most of the situations worse that it is proposed to "correct". However, it is a very emotionally appealing "solution".

 

[shagdrum]

And the federal tax liabilities need to be reduced and those "social welfare" responsibilities taken on by the fed need to be turned over to the states. There, the populations can decide if they want to support them through their state taxes or not. But a guy in Texas shouldn't have his money taken to D.C. and then sent to someone in California in the form of "welfare."

Agreed. There is NO credible moral argument for my money here in Kansas to be redistributed to someone in New York.

There can be a moral argument for me to assist my family, friends and immediate community when they are down on their luck, but beyond that, all you get is moralizing which inherently distorts morality.

 

[cammerfe]

Legal Robbery

Shag, the moralizing you speak of comes from the same mentality that pushes the idea of 'Taxing the Rich'.

A wise man once said to me that, 'What somebody else owns has nothing to do with what's in MY pocket.' And DEMANDING that that person 'share', is a form of robbery.

Did you ever notice that the liberal/progressive noise in that direction always involves taking money out of the pockets of someone OTHER than the noise maker's?

KS

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, you going to tell us what your platform would be or simply nitpick other's ideas?

Shag - maybe you should check post #18 - I listed quite a few things.

Your phony little attempts at driving a wedge are pathetic and transparent. So now you want to wage war, eh B. Smilt? Kinda imperialistic of you. It's also contradictory to your original position of weakening the US Military. Can't decide what you are now?

The US couldn't protect it's borders during the Article of Confederation foss - because the states wouldn't pay for any military, since it was optional.

I think a strong military is important - but, I also think we throw a lot of money away in the military - there is a lot of waste there. There could be a lot of cost saving in the military. I pretty much agree with what Cal stated in #25... We can't be isolationist - but, we can be smarter with our military dollar.

Agreed. There is NO credible moral argument for my money here in Kansas to be redistributed to someone in New York.

Well, shag - maybe those in Kansas should be grateful that those in New York don't feel that way -

The state of Kansas gets $1.12 for every $1.00 they send to the Feds, thanks, partially, to those in New York who only get $.79 for each dollar they send into the Feds...

 

[Calabrio]

Well, shag - maybe those in Kansas should be grateful that those in New York don't feel that way -

No they shouldn't.
But a car mechanic in upstate New York shouldn't be forced to send his money to DC to have them subsidize a corporate farm in Kansas either.

And this kind of reasoning is similar to the logic of "only more government can solve the unintended consequences of big government."

Urban liberals condescendingly impose these tax policies and liberty stealing policies on a population, THEN they argue that since the urban areas pay more in taxes that the more conservative rural populations should shut-up. Everytime I go to New York or Virginia, that's all I hear. "we pay most of the taxes, those people in (the south of the state in Va, upstate in NY) should just shut up and be thankful."

I'd rather keep the 79cents than accept the dollar from D.C.
I'd also speculate that the 79cents would have done more benefit to the economy than the dollar after it was redistributed by D.C. along with all the strings attached to it.

 

[fossten]

The US couldn't protect it's borders during the Article of Confederation foss - because the states wouldn't pay for any military, since it was optional.

So you admit that the Constitution was a way for the Fed to force the states to pay for the Fed's wars...how FASCINATING! And how is the Fed doing protecting our borders with all the money available to it today, hm? Oh, that's right, the Fed is SUING the State of Arizona for having the temerity to try to protect itself since the FED has ABDICATED its role, despite STEALING billions of dollars from the states. Good argument, fox, I hope we can have it again sometime.

I think a strong military is important - but, I also think we throw a lot of money away in the military - there is a lot of waste there. There could be a lot of cost saving in the military. I pretty much agree with what Cal stated in #25... We can't be isolationist - but, we can be smarter with our military dollar.

Everything after the word 'but' invalidates everything before it.

Typical liberal pacifist. Funny how you don't see the same kinds of waste and opportunity in every other aspect of Fed spending. Why is it only wasted in the military? What about the billions stolen by Obama and given to the unions and to Senators to bribe them for votes? You don't seem to have a problem with that, do ya foxy. Again, you remind me of Judas Iscariot in John chapter 12:

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Well, shag - maybe those in Kansas should be grateful that those in New York don't feel that way -

The state of Kansas gets $1.12 for every $1.00 they send to the Feds, thanks, partially, to those in New York who only get $.79 for each dollar they send into the Feds...

This old canard again? We should be 'grateful' to our government OVERLORDS for confiscating our taxes? How many times do we have to have this discussion? You're just shooting yourself in the foot, revealing yet again that you're a statist.

 

[foxpaws]

No they shouldn't.
But a car mechanic in upstate New York shouldn't be forced to send his money to DC to have them subsidize a corporate farm in Kansas either.

And this kind of reasoning is similar to the logic of "only more government can solve the unintended consequences of big government."

Urban liberals condescendingly impose these tax policies and liberty stealing policies on a population, THEN they argue that since the urban areas pay more in taxes that the more conservative rural populations should shut-up. Everytime I go to New York or Virginia, that's all I hear. "we pay most of the taxes, those people in (the south of the state in Va, upstate in NY) should just shut up and be thankful."

I'd rather keep the 79cents than accept the dollar from D.C.
I'd also speculate that the 79cents would have done more benefit to the economy than the dollar after it was redistributed by D.C. along with all the strings attached to it.

it was satire cal - that is why the winky smilie at the end of the part where I showed how Kansas benefits from wealthy states.

So, you would be quite content allowing the south to become destitute? It would feed on itself - fewer services - people would leave to go to rich states - leaving behind only those who probably needed even more services.

So you admit that the Constitution was a way for the Fed to force the states to pay for the Fed's wars...how FASCINATING! And how is the Fed doing protecting our borders with all the money available to it today, hm? Oh, that's right, the Fed is SUING the State of Arizona for having the temerity to try to protect itself since the FED has ABDICATED its role, despite STEALING billions of dollars from the states. Good argument, fox, I hope we can have it again sometime.

Yep - it certainly was a way for the Fed to keep out the (at the time) Brits and Spanish.

When it comes to the military - we need the entire country to pay for it - or, states will 'opt' out and we are no longer a nation united, but a nation divided. California (along with many other states) wouldn't pay for any war at this time - so, we would be destined to lose any war we would wage. And not only that, we would be extremely vulnerable to attack, if our enemies knew that our defense could easily be undermined by states that pulled out their funds.

However, you are for the Articles of the Confederation. In that case, we wouldn't have to worry about any of this - once again, the states would vote not to support a military at all, just like they did at the latter part of the 18th century - leaving us quite vulnerable to attack. One of our greatest generals, Washington, hated the Articles, because they left him with no supplies and no men. There is a perfectly good reason we no longer are under the Articles of the Confederation - they didn't work for the few years they were in effect - let alone for the 200+ years that we have had the Constitution. The Constitution has worked - the Articles didn't.

Typical liberal pacifist. Funny how you don't see the same kinds of waste and opportunity in every other aspect of Fed spending. Why is it only wasted in the military? What about the billions stolen by Obama and given to the unions and to Senators to bribe them for votes? You don't seem to have a problem with that, do ya foxy. Again, you remind me of Judas Iscariot in John chapter 12:

I may say that comparing me to Judas is a nice touch Foss.... Perhaps someday you will see that your silly tirades are seen by most as a weakness (best revert to a personal attack, when you have nothing else).

I see lots of waste throughout the Fed - if you noticed I wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education, eliminate the Fed, I think the health care reforms would be much better administered at a state level (much like welfare). The military is just one area where better money management is needed. Our defense spending is the largest part of the discretionary budget, it is a rather obvious place to start -

 

[fossten]

Yep - it certainly was a way for the Fed to keep out the (at the time) Brits and Spanish.

When it comes to the military - we need the entire country to pay for it - or, states will 'opt' out and we are no longer a nation united, but a nation divided. California (along with many other states) wouldn't pay for any war at this time - so, we would be destined to lose any war we would wage. And not only that, we would be extremely vulnerable to attack, if our enemies knew that our defense could easily be undermined by states that pulled out their funds.

You're making a specious argument, but the last time I got into this with you, you called me 'nuts,' so I have no desire to bother with it again given your closed minded attitude.

However, you are for the Articles of the Confederation. In that case, we wouldn't have to worry about any of this - once again, the states would vote not to support a military at all, just like they did at the latter part of the 18th century - leaving us quite vulnerable to attack. One of our greatest generals, Washington, hated the Articles, because they left him with no supplies and no men. There is a perfectly good reason we no longer are under the Articles of the Confederation - they didn't work for the few years they were in effect - let alone for the 200+ years that we have had the Constitution. The Constitution has worked - the Articles didn't.

Yeah Washington didn't like it that he couldn't just demand money from the states and it magically appear, so he supported forcing them to pay.

The Constitution has NOT worked - UNLESS you believe its original purpose was to foster big government and eliminate freedoms. Now we have Hamilton's dream - a FED that taxes us to death. You can't have it both ways, Schlox.

Speaking of which - have you replied to the OP yet?

I may say that comparing me to Judas is a nice touch Foss.... Perhaps someday you will see that your silly tirades are seen by most as a weakness (best revert to a personal attack, when you have nothing else).

I notice that you don't deny your true motives as I've exposed them. Your method of nitpicking others without taking a stand of your own is seen by most as weakness - if you don't stand for any principles, just attack everyone else's.

You can push that meme all you want - I can quote the post where you called me 'nuts' during one of our discussions, if you like, Miss Hypocrite Victim. Or maybe we could go over your frequent attempts to paint Aundy as a male chauvinist pig. Would you like me to publish the email you sent to truthreallymatters.com so everybody can see how obsessive you are about digging into my personal life? Everybody here is familiar with your writing - maybe we should let them be the judges.

Just climb down off the cross already.

I see lots of waste throughout the Fed - if you noticed I wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education, eliminate the Fed, I think the health care reforms would be much better administered at a state level (much like welfare). The military is just one area where better money management is needed. Our defense spending is the largest part of the discretionary budget, it is a rather obvious place to start -

You want to get rid of the Dept. of Education? That's news to me, considering you claim the best example of government creating wealth is education.

 

[Calabrio]

So, you would be quite content allowing the south to become destitute?

I don't accept your premise.
I would be quite content for the federal government to stop stealing, wasting, and redistributing the wealth of the citizens, regardless where they live.

It would feed on itself - fewer services - people would leave to go to rich states - leaving behind only those who probably needed even more services.

Again, I don't accept this ridiculous premise.
The population of the North East, California, and all of the other historic liberal meccas are declining. This has been a very long, ongoing trend.
The states and cities are going bankrupt.

Next flaw in your logic, are you saying that people only move to states like Florida, Texas, and the rest because they are seeking a bigger chunk of federal government cheese? That's absurd.

Another flaw, many of the states that are receiving a greater number of federal dollars then they send to Washington are handicapped BY the federal government. This is done a variety of ways, but I'll give one big example- through the federal management or ownership of lands limiting the states the ability to develop or harvest the land or other natural resources, or develop it and expand the economic base.

And before you write the strawman argument response, no. I don't want to strip mine the grand canyon, or pour oil in the blow hole of a dolphin.

However, how much of the state of Utah is "owned" by the federal government?
Look at New York.

I know there are historical reasons to explain that, but there are political ones too.

 

[Calabrio]

The Constitution has NOT worked - UNLESS you believe its original purpose was to foster big government and eliminate freedoms. Now we have Hamilton's dream - a FED that taxes us to death. You can't have it both ways, Schlox.

Again, this claim is absolutely absurd.
Honestly, is there some conspiracy theory associated with idea?
Is it some kind of stupid Free Mason thing?
It's really foolish.

The Constitution has worked, but it requires a vigilant population to guard it.
We have not had that and the system has been corrupted. It's that simple.

Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."​

Whether the story is actually true, the message of it has long been known.

 

[fossten]

Again, this claim is absolutely absurd.
Honestly, is there some conspiracy theory associated with idea?
Is it some kind of stupid Free Mason thing?
It's really foolish.

The Constitution has worked, but it requires a vigilant population to guard it.
We have not had that and the system has been corrupted. It's that simple.


Whether the story is actually true, the message of it has long been known.

"Shut up," he explained.

No, I'm basing my claim on the actual writings of the founders and actual study that I've done. You have done study as well, and you may have arrived at a different conclusion, but that doesn't mean I disrespect you or your conclusion. It also means that you haven't read what I've read. IIRC, the last time we had this conversation you acknowledged the writings I quoted but dismissed my conclusion without actually countering my evidence. But since you're now reverting to personal ridicule and ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to comment in this thread any further. I could follow your example and accuse you of blind document-worship, but I won't go there.

 

[Calabrio]

No, I'm basing my claim on the actual writings of the founders and actual study that I've done.

Such as?

It also means that you haven't read what I've read.

We all have to be selective at time.
Unless the alias was Publius, you're probably right, I haven't read it.

IIRC, the last time we had this conversation you acknowledged the writings I quoted but dismissed my conclusion without actually countering my evidence.

IIRC, the last you had this conversation, you never provided any evidence, told us you'd look into it further. I thought you'd proven the theory wrong by now.

But since you're now reverting to personal ridicule and ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to comment in this thread any further. I could follow your example and accuse you of blind document-worship, but I won't go there.

You can make any charge you like, I won't take it personally.
And if you honestly think I engaged in "ridicule and ad hominem attacks" in my previous post, I may be inclined to make a joke regarding sand and a vagina.. but I won't go there either.

But I will again ask, is there some kind of "free mason" conspiracy associated with that? Is it some kind of "one-world order" kind of thing? Because if the goal would have been to centralize power, to establish an American theocracy, or something to that affect, it could have been accomplished by a man like Washington.

And who was involved in this plot? Jefferson and Franklin weren't interested in liberty and they signed on? The anti-federalists were dupped? Without the illuminati or Freemason conspiracy angle, I don't know how anyone can write a semi-plausible mulitgenerational narrative for the claim.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, shag - maybe those in Kansas should be grateful that those in New York don't feel that way -

The state of Kansas gets $1.12 for every $1.00 they send to the Feds, thanks, partially, to those in New York who only get $.79 for each dollar they send into the Feds...

How is any of that relevant to the point I raised? It simply seems like a snide comment that only misdirects from the point I raised.

Let me repeat it for you:
There is NO credible moral argument for my money here in Kansas to be redistributed to someone in New York.
Care to confront that point or are you simply going to dance around and purposely distract from it with specious and false "arguments"?

 

[fossten]

Such as?

You've already poisoned the well...are you really interested in discussing this without calling me stupid or foolish like you just did?

We all have to be selective at time.
Unless the alias was Publius, you're probably right, I haven't read it.

IIRC, the last you had this conversation, you never provided any evidence, told us you'd look into it further. I thought you'd proven the theory wrong by now.

You will recall that the name calling from you and Schlox got so vicious that I felt it not worth my time.

You can make any charge you like, I won't take it personally.
And if you honestly think I engaged in "ridicule and ad hominem attacks" in my previous post, I may be inclined to make a joke regarding sand and a vagina.. but I won't go there either.

Calling me stupid and foolish isn't a personal attack? Whatever dude, you're out to lunch.

But I will again ask, is there some kind of "free mason" conspiracy associated with that? Is it some kind of "one-world order" kind of thing? Because if the goal would have been to centralize power, to establish an American theocracy, or something to that affect, it could have been accomplished by a man like Washington.

No. But Hamilton certainly wanted a big, strong government with lots of control, and he got it.

And who was involved in this plot? Jefferson and Franklin weren't interested in liberty and they signed on? The anti-federalists were dupped? Without the illuminati or Freemason conspiracy angle, I don't know how anyone can write a semi-plausible mulitgenerational narrative for the claim.

Jefferson wasn't there, remember? He was in France. I guess you didn't study as hard as you thought. And Franklin's quote, in your post, shows that even he had his doubts.

You are creating a false choice by stating it has to be either Illuminati or Freemasons. Nice try.

I guess your goal here is to chase me off. Knock yourself out...I won't be back. I've got better things to do with my time than respond to personal attacks.

 

[Calabrio]

You've already poisoned the well...are you really interested in discussing this without calling me stupid or foolish like you just did?

You can't just make a statement like that without providing some hint of supporting information without expecting some resistance. At least take a few paragraphs and lay out the bigger points associated with it. Lay out a brief summary. Give a few bullet points... do something.

It's absolutely appropriate to simply call such an unsupported theory "absurd" or "foolish" based on the available information.

You will recall that the name calling from you and Schlox got so vicious that I felt it not worth my time.

No, I don't recall it that way.
In fact, I remember that you said you'd come back to the issue when you finished your research. I assumed that you'd completed your research, saw it for the 'hologram' it was, and just concluded that the author was just a whacky opportunist.

If I could remember the title of the thread, I would be willing to bet the last post in it is your own saying that you'd come back to it later.

Calling me stupid and foolish isn't a personal attack? Whatever dude, you're out to lunch.

Again, this thread is far too short for you to claim that anyone called you "stupid" or "foolish." However, the Royce argument still is "absurd" and "foolish."

No. But Hamilton certainly wanted a big, strong government with lots of control, and he got it.

Yes, before being killed in a duel, Hamilton supported stronger and more invasive centralize government.
But that alone does not support a creeping conspiracy theory.

How did Hamilton trick Madison into going along with the scheme?
Unlike Hamilton, Madison was aligned with Jefferson, is largely credited for the bill of writes, wrote about a third of the federalist papers, and is considered the "father of the constitution."

And where does the Bill of Rights factor into this theory?

Jefferson wasn't there, remember? He was in France. I guess you didn't study as hard as you thought. And Franklin's quote, in your post, shows that even he had his doubts.

No, Jefferson didn't write the constitution, but it wasn't as though he had voice in the matter either. He was involved in the process through letter writing. And it's not as though he returned from France condemning what took place.

The role of the anti-federalists in the constitution can't be ignored either.

And Franklin's quote doesn't express doubt in the constitution, but it's a statement about the nature of government.

You are creating a false choice by stating it has to be either Illuminati or Freemasons. Nice try.

No, I was not. I wasn't creating any choices, I was asking a question and speculating as to what the theory could have been.

I guess your goal here is to chase me off.

I called your theory "absurd" and "foolish."
The theory is both absurd and foolish.
You're just mistaken on this one.

I don't intentionally chase anyone off.
But when you provide a wild conspiracy theory that has even more radical long term consequences associated with it, you should expect to get a little push back on it.

Not only should you expect it, you should WELCOME it.
Why wouldn't you want such a radical idea challenged? Why wouldn't you want to test it?

And I can promise you, if foxpaws came up with something equally as....shall we say, "BOLD," she'd have experienced a fair bit or resistance as well. And I doubt you'd refrain yourself to simply calling the argument "absurd" or "foolish."

I simply expect everyone to provide some supporting arguments or explanations for such a claim.

Knock yourself out...I won't be back. I've got better things to do with my time than respond to personal attacks.

Wow. Wash out that sand, come back when you're freshened up.
Then you can explain this theory in a little more detail.

 

[foxpaws]

The population of the North East, California, and all of the other historic liberal meccas are declining. This has been a very long, ongoing trend.
The states and cities are going bankrupt.

Got census number on that Cal - that those place are declining in population?

Between 1990 and 2000, California's population grew from 29,760,021 to 33,871,648, an increase of 13.8%. In 2009 it was 36,961,666. The population is projected to reach 49.3 million by 2025.​

Next flaw in your logic, are you saying that people only move to states like Florida, Texas, and the rest because they are seeking a bigger chunk of federal government cheese? That's absurd.

The state cheese - look at state income tax there... and the availability of services in Florida is skewed to the large retired population there. Yes - Federal funds -

And before you write the strawman argument response, no. I don't want to strip mine the grand canyon, or pour oil in the blow hole of a dolphin.

However, how much of the state of Utah is "owned" by the federal government?
Look at New York.

I know there are historical reasons to explain that, but there are political ones too.

almost entirely historical - because of the creation of the park system, the indian reservations, and the preservation of the American west - and Teddy Roosevelt - look at those areas - it is historical cal

 

[Calabrio]

Got census number on that Cal -

Here's an excerpt from the 2008 article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/18/business/fi-leaving-california18

For the fourth year in a row, more residents left the Golden State than moved here from other states, according to a report released Wednesday by the California Department of Finance.

The outflow -- last seen during the economic and social struggles of the 1990s -- started when it became too expensive for most people to buy homes in the state, and has kept going throughout the bust with the loss of so many jobs.

Want some more:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/15/local/me-california-delegation15

California could lose House seat after 2010 election
... California's congressional delegation is unlikely to grow and could even lose a seat after next year's census for the first time since stagecoach days.

If the state loses a seat, it could weaken California's clout in Washington and reduce the amount of federal money flowing to the state. It could also set off a game of political musical chairs, forcing two incumbents to run against each other.

As if that weren't enough, the state that stands to gain the most new seats is California's longtime rival, Texas, the second most populous state....

The entire population is increasing and California's numbers are bolstered by the "Hispanic" population. But like most of the hard blue areas, more people are leaving the state than moving there.

Same applies to New York:

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2010/12/20/new-york-could-lose-1-or-2-house-seats.html
New York is poised to lose one seat in the House of Representatives -- and perhaps two -- when the U.S. Census Bureau releases official 2010 population figures on Tuesday.

almost entirely historical - because of the creation of the park system, the indian reservations, and the preservation of the American west - and Teddy Roosevelt - look at those areas - it is historical cal

Because it took place in the past, that doesn't mean politics weren't involved at the time, nor does it mean that the continued seizure and regulation of lands and territories today aren't political either.

You've overlooked the issue I brought up about the federal government limiting that ability for many of those "dependent" states to generate their own wealth. That regulations and federal ownership prevent the state from harvesting resources or using the property to create local economies or even generate property tax revenue. They lock up resources. Whether it's TR or Obama who did it, it doesn't matter.

 

[foxpaws]

You're making a specious argument, but the last time I got into this with you, you called me 'nuts,' so I have no desire to bother with it again given your closed minded attitude.

I may have questioned if you were nuts - "are you nuts?"

I also remember that you were going to write an essay about how wonderful the Articles were - I don't remember seeing that yet Foss - maybe that didn't work out for you.

Speaking of which - have you replied to the OP yet?

????

I notice that you don't deny your true motives as I've exposed them. Your method of nitpicking others without taking a stand of your own is seen by most as weakness - if you don't stand for any principles, just attack everyone else's.

I have taken a stance - I have stated a lot of practical things I would change - things that can change. Foss - do you think that we will be replacing the Constitution with the Articles anytime soon? At least my ideas are feasible.

Just climb down off the cross already.
You want to get rid of the Dept. of Education? That's news to me, considering you claim the best example of government creating wealth is education.

local government foss - not the feds...

 

[foxpaws]

The entire population is increasing and California's numbers are bolstered by the "Hispanic" population. But like most of the hard blue areas, more people are leaving the state than moving there.

Hispanics don't count?

California is growing... but I didn't know that they might lose a congressional district - that is interesting - where is the seat going to end up - in a red state?

Because it took place in the past, that doesn't mean politics weren't involved at the time, nor does it mean that the continued seizure and regulation of lands and territories today aren't political either.

Politics may be the cause for a small amount of that federal land explosion in the west - but cal - it really had to do with the expansion of the west - and the idea that the country wanted to keep the west 'pristine'.

You've chosen to ignore the issue I brought up about the federal government limiting that ability for many of those "dependent" states to generate their own wealth. That regulations and federal ownership prevent the state from harvesting resources or using the property to create local economies or even generate property tax revenue.

Why do some states 'succeed' and other states don't cal - they all deal with the feds - why are some states unable to generate their own wealth? Colorado has huge tracts of land that is controlled or owned by the feds - yet we are one of the states that generate a lot of wealth. All states deal with the same regulations - but some states seem to be able to generate growth, while other states are declining... why blame the fed if it only happens in some cases...

 

[foxpaws]

There is NO credible moral argument for my money here in Kansas to be redistributed to someone in New York.

Well - once again - your money isn't going to New York - New York's money is going to Kansas....

However, I know that isn't the issue - you just used a poor example shag.

Why do we take money from one state and give it to another? Because the infrastructure of the states needs to be maintained to make the US strong, and some states can't afford to keep up the infrastructure as well as other states. Population breakdowns also require differing federal funds - Florida gets a lot because of SS, their average population is quite old. New Mexico gets a lot because of the large native American population. Part of the reason Kansas gets a lot of federal funds is because of Fort Riley, Levenworth, and other federal institutions in Kansas.

We are a nation of states - and to keep the nation strong it makes sense to keep at least a 'minimal' standard in each state.

 

[Calabrio]

To further reinforce the point I made earlier about population migration, another story from today regarding the census:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...erdict-on-congressional-gains-losses-20101217

Some excerpts:

Those certain to be shorted a seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Sure bets to gain congressional clout: Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

And then there are states that don't know how big the gains or losses may be.
Like Texas:

Texas, which gained two seats in 2002, is the big winner of 2012: the Lone Star State will gain three or four House seats.

Like Florida:

Florida is certain to gain at least one additional seat in this year's reapportionment of congressional districts; the question is whether it will gain two, as it did in 2002.

And like New York, which could lose one or two seats:

As recently as 1952, the Empire State had 45 seats in the House, the most of any state. In 2012, it will have either 27 or 28 seats, depending on Tuesday’s census numbers.

 

[shagdrum]

Well - once again - your money isn't going to New York - New York's money is going to Kansas....

I take this as an admission that you can't confront the point I raised.

And since you will inevitably try and claim you did confront it, let me point out two things.

First, trying to turn the argument from one of principle to one of "pragmatism" (subjectively defined, of course) is simply another way to dodge the point I raised.

Second, attempting to turn the argument from one of income redistribution to one of infrastructure support is also an attempt to dodge my point.

The point I was making is that there is NO moral imperative for my income to be taken to help a homeless man in New York City. Attempts to shift the focus to states instead of individuals or to subjectively defined utilitarian concerns instead of ethics only serves to change the subject.

And then there is this little gem...

We are a nation of states - and to keep the nation strong it makes sense to keep at least a 'minimal' standard in each state.

This statement assumes that the states are, by their nature, dependent on the Fed for certain, vaguely defined "minimal" standards.

 

[foxpaws]

So it looks like the red states will gain - 6 seats? In 2000 blue states gained 13 I think...

It changes all the time cal - 6 seats is a pretty small shift - but a shift nonetheless.

How much of it has to do with the aging of America I wonder.... The southern states pick-up population - mostly elder Americans. While our birthrate is down.

However, Florida has been on the cusp of going blue a couple of times here lately - will the need for federal services by an aging population move it blue?

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues.

Oh - the attrition from New York all went to CA they rolled downhill - during that time (1952-2010) California gained 23 while NY lost 18

 

[Calabrio]

So it looks like the red states will gain

You can stop right there...everything else you contribute will be nothing more than an effort to blur the lines and muddy the waters. You could have just acknowledged that I was right.

And I didn't make this sub-topic simply about the "color" of the state. It was about movement AWAY from areas with historic legacies of progressive politics. Those areas, which are hard blue, are in decline.

And just like a virus, after the area is destroyed, those progressive will move to another area, one that still has some freedom, take it over politically, and then get to work destroying it with their "utopian" schemes as well.