I believe they exercised control. They decided to hemhorrage cash into foreign military conquests, rather than invest those billions upon billions in the American people’s well being.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
States have to balance budgets[/quote]
Since when has this ever been true? 48/50 don’t.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, why I always laugh when people want “state’s rights.”
Yea, fuck the states!! Central authority rules! You must’ve been a big fan of communist Russia, certainly of Cuba or Venezuela.
Right. Because, you know, there’s no in between. You’re either like the pre-Revolution America or the Soviet Union. OK buddy.
Back to reality. Irish,
You might want to try being there in the first place.
I recommend Mark Levin’s book, “Liberty And Tyranny”. In it he discusses the concept of mobility. Mobility is what gives a person the freedom to escape the oppressions of a governing body. Which is easier to get out from underneath; state regulations, or federal. Now, it certainly doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that It’s easier for me to leave a back assward Michigan, than it is for me to leave the US. Statists generally don’t like the idea of mobility, it lessens their grip on the individual.
This is why I will always fight to empower the states vs the feds. Remember, that’s how it’s supposed to work. Read up on federalism.
Ideally you’re not running away from your government, you’re working to match it closer to what you think it should look like.[/quote]
Exactly, which is better accomplished at a local level.
As am I. However, as a firefighter, I’ve rallied at the state capital many times protesting or supporting certain bills, I’ve met my representatives face to face on several occasions through the MPFFU on legislation days; trust me Irish, my state reps are easier to yell at than the folks representing Michigan in Washington. Also, if you think that State level government is too large, why do you make the case for Federal government? Your position is intellectually inconsistent.
Again, you’re making the case for more LOCAL government, not federal. we are indeed a nation with greatly varying political ideals. As you’ve said, what works in one state, doesn’t work in another. So, let the states work this shit out!! If Massachusetts wants to be ultra liberal, so be it. If the folks in Michigan want to keep voting in shitbags who can’t get the job done(and we always do), then that’s how we roll. The key here, as I’ve said previously, is mobility. The ability to pack my shit and head to a section of the country that better represents my ideals. That is freedom.
It’s hard for me to believe that you actually think it’s harder for the feds to be more onerous than the folks representing me from my capital.
Trust me Irish, I live in Michigan, I know full well how the state can fuck shit up at the local levels. we see this in the fire service all of the time. However, as I’ve said, it’s much easier to holler at my reps in Lansing, than it is to get their ear in Washington.
Also, as it’s been said already, states have a mandate for a balanced budget. They HAVE to balance the budget, they don’t get to dick around and not make the hard choices. It’s too bad Washington isn’t held to the same standards.
I think the disconnect between politicians at all levels is palpable and real. I hear my state reps crying about the feds, and my county/township officials whining about how the state is “screwing them”. I think this is probably universal.
Bullshit. I think that since it is happening at a local level, you simply see it more. which is of course, the beauty of local government.
I’m betting that Michigan is not nearly corrupt as NJ is, however in the Ineptitude category, Michigan is second only to California. All of this, IMHO, actually makes the case for state and local government. And yes, I would agree with you Irish in that I would prefer control to be yet even more local, right down to the county level. A state however, is much more capable of representing the unique ideals and morals of it’s people than Washington will ever be.
My fear is that we are no longer going to be the United States of America, and become the United Socialist States of America. All of us working for the “mother land”. I know this sounds silly, but be honest with yourself, are we not on that path?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
States have to balance budgets
Since when has this ever been true? 48/50 don’t.[/quote]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lyk2tbbsnsiqrn3o0rrzo52t))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-Article-IV-31
§ 31 General appropriation bills; priority, statement of estimated revenue.
[i]Sec. 31.
The general appropriation bills for the succeeding fiscal period covering items set forth in the budget shall be passed or rejected in either house of the legislature before that house passes any appropriation bill for items not in the budget except bills supplementing appropriations for the current fiscal year’s operation. Any bill requiring an appropriation to carry out its purpose shall be considered an appropriation bill. One of the general appropriation bills as passed by the legislature shall contain an itemized statement of estimated revenue by major source in each operating fund for the ensuing fiscal period, the total of which shall not be less than the total of all appropriations made from each fund in the general appropriation bills as passed.[/i]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
States have to balance budgets
Since when has this ever been true? 48/50 don’t.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lyk2tbbsnsiqrn3o0rrzo52t))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-Article-IV-31
�??�?�§ 31 General appropriation bills; priority, statement of estimated revenue.
[i]Sec. 31.
The general appropriation bills for the succeeding fiscal period covering items set forth in the budget shall be passed or rejected in either house of the legislature before that house passes any appropriation bill for items not in the budget except bills supplementing appropriations for the current fiscal year’s operation. Any bill requiring an appropriation to carry out its purpose shall be considered an appropriation bill. One of the general appropriation bills as passed by the legislature shall contain an itemized statement of estimated revenue by major source in each operating fund for the ensuing fiscal period, the total of which shall not be less than the total of all appropriations made from each fund in the general appropriation bills as passed.[/i]
Hmmmm…Montana has a balanced budget requirement in its state constitution…so I guess that means that MT and MI are the only two states that Mr. PB thinks have balanced budgets? I don’t think so.[/quote]
different sources are reporting different things, ive seen numbers between 9 and 2 states are the only ones reporting budget surpluses/balanced for 2010. MI has not been one of them on any of those sources, MT and ND are the 2.
a lot of states pass “balanced budgets” by their deadlines but they become quickly become unbalanced because it was all based on projections.
maybe its becuase i live in California that im not entirely convinced that state/local government is any more responsive or efficient. In San Diego were spending millions upon millions of dollars to remove seals and clean up a tiny stip of beach, as if we don’t have enough, simply because its supposed to be a public beach.
even the hippies are railing on the local conservatives about unnecessary spending and deficit spending.
but hey, at least we haven’t had a bridge no where yet.
From the Wall Street Journal:
“This situation developed because Alaska’s transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin’s use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.”
Only Dems would abuse laws in this way.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sarah in '12! Go get 'em, Sarah! Get their balls in a vice-like grip and hear the libs squeal like little girls!!
HH- why do you like this woman? She’s not a fiscal conservative…
Still boggles my mind why “conservatives” like her.[/quote]
She shot herself in the foot, with her bubbly prom queen personality, and lack of exuding intelligence, articulation, and confidence. When she was hidden away from interviews and questions, it really shows a side of someone who isn’t ready for a presidency. Because let’s be honest, anything can happen at any time, and do we want to think about someone who might hide away when leadership is needed?
How would she have reacted to 9-11? We don’t know and I hope we never know, but she doesn’t show that she can be a president who behaves presidential. Can she handle the scrutiny Obama is getting right now by Republicans and even some Democrats? Is she going to avoid her duties because people will criticize her? You need some thick skin to be president, and I don’t think she has it. Not from what she is showing.
Even the way she resigned as Governor, very tacky, rushed, and didn’t appear to be well thought out. I think she will be laughed off the podium if she runs in 2012.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
<<< You need some thick skin to be president, and I don’t think she has it. Not from what she is showing.
Even the way she resigned as Governor, very tacky, rushed, and didn’t appear to be well thought out. I think she will be laughed off the podium if she runs in 2012. [/quote]
I agree on both counts.
Whatever else may be said about GWB that ol boy has some kinda space age phaser proof exo-skeleton where most people have skin.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
She shot herself in the foot [/quote]
clearly the opinion of this thread is that shes a saint, and never did a single thing wrong. Its all the democrats doing.
sure the media went overboard on a lot of her doings, but thats becuase shes an easy target, shes a democrat in republican clothes, they know their own kind well. Sure she tows the culture warrior charade, but she no more fiscally responsible than the Obama admin.
glaring example of the two faced single party we have, where the only appreciable differences between repubs/dems is social issues, they both like the printing presses on high.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
She shot herself in the foot
clearly the opinion of this thread is that shes a saint, and never did a single thing wrong. Its all the democrats doing.
sure the media went overboard on a lot of her doings, but thats becuase shes an easy target, shes a democrat in republican clothes, they know their own kind well. Sure she tows the culture warrior charade, but she no more fiscally responsible than the Obama admin.
glaring example of the two faced single party we have, where the only appreciable differences between repubs/dems is social issues, they both like the printing presses on high.[/quote]
The best way to be a target, is to not present yourself as a target. If you stand up and exude confidence, the media is less likely to pounce, and if they do, THAT is when you showcase your ability to lead. When she was questioned and interviewed, rather than quiver and shake like booty meat, if she relaxed and spoke intelligently and articulatly, I would say with confidence that she would have been viewed with more respect.
If she didn’t want bad press, don’t give the media anything to work with. It’s clear the media will hound you til hell freezes over, so it’s best to just not provide them the opportunity. No politician is perfect, by any means, but the less you feed them, the more likely they will look for other prey to feast on.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
From the Wall Street Journal:
“This situation developed because Alaska’s transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin’s use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.”
Only Dems would abuse laws in this way.[/quote]
I had seen elsewhere that the legal cost of defending against all these charges had run to $500K.
If she had to pay this personally, rather than – in those instances where no wrongdoing was found, which basically was all of them except on the one where she should have contributed to the cost of her children travelling with her – the state providing the legal defense for its governor, then pretty clearly the situation was untenable.
Pretty stupid of a state to have things where political opponents can make it financially impossible for a governor to remain in office… if that is the case.
At any rate, I would think that while, if that is the case, she really had no choice but to resign, as such legal costs are unaffordable, that also ended any national prospects. As personal opinion.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I agreed until right here. To say that Democrats are more guilty because of personal philosophies is garbage. [/quote]
Incorrect - because of that “personal philosophy”, we can’t correct the problem. The Democratic Party doesn’t think that there is a such thing as an inappropriate federal expenditure, and so there is no way to slay the Golden Goose.
[quote]Just as many Republicans do the SAME exact thing. You are just bullshitting me… or maybe yourself… if you think that Republicans are more responsible with money.
Once again- who tripled the debt?
Who gave tax cuts while starting two wars, leading to an incredibly massive debt? Wasn’t no Democrat. [/quote]
I don’t carry water for the Republicans and I have already noted how awful they are. But if you refuse to admit to the Democratic Party isn’t actually a worse version of the profligacy of Republicans, then you simply aren’t being honest.
If you need any evidence of this point, read the news.
[quote]Another thing that you’re forgetting- while the state must balance their budget, they also declare that the municipalities must balance theirs. That being said, the state continues to mandate expensive programs costing money, and the municipality makes up for it with rising property taxes.
So while there’s a limit on what the state can use, there’s no limit to the amount of taxes that the municipality can raise in order to account for shortfalls. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with the problem that highlighted. It might be a problem in and of istelf - tax rates being forced up, thus choking the taxpayer - but it has nothing to do with the Money Mechanism that actually places some restraint on state politics to the exclusion of the feds.
The point is not cost - that is a problem, but it is an aside - the problem is that political corruption thrives when there is zero brake on the money that greases the wheels of the corruption.
in a way it does not for the federal government.
No, they don’t - not the problem I highlighted. As I said, there is other avenues of corruption and waste, but states are bound by the hard choices of restrainst outside their control. The federal government - unbound in terms of any fiscal responsibility once it realized it can borrow and print with impunity - has no such restraints, and as such, needs less power to abuse.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
<<< You need some thick skin to be president, and I don’t think she has it. Not from what she is showing.
Even the way she resigned as Governor, very tacky, rushed, and didn’t appear to be well thought out. I think she will be laughed off the podium if she runs in 2012.
I agree on both counts.
Whatever else may be said about GWB that ol boy has some kinda space age phaser proof exo-skeleton where most people have skin.[/quote]
Tiribulus:
This may send you into seizures…but even BILL MAHER agree with you!
In essence ; he said that you may disagree with everything Dubya did and stood for; but he would take a stand; stick with it; and tell his critics and the media to kiss his White Texas Ass!
Mufasa
Agree:
And I’ll say it again.
Forget the DEMS. She would get eaten up in the GOP Primaries and Debates.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Agree:
And I’ll say it again.
Forget the DEMS. She would get eaten up in the GOP Primaries and Debates.
Mufasa[/quote]
She will get eaten alive, the Dems will never get off her for leaving Alaska, and so will the other Republican candidates. I don’t think she has too many allies to lean on if she runs. She is done like dinner.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
She shot herself in the foot
clearly the opinion of this thread is that shes a saint, and never did a single thing wrong. Its all the democrats doing.
sure the media went overboard on a lot of her doings, but thats becuase shes an easy target, shes a democrat in republican clothes, they know their own kind well. Sure she tows the culture warrior charade, but she no more fiscally responsible than the Obama admin.
glaring example of the two faced single party we have, where the only appreciable differences between repubs/dems is social issues, they both like the printing presses on high.[/quote]
This is what I don’t really dislike about our system right now. I live in a very liberal area, but every person I speak with really wants someone who is fiscally responsible. Liberals don’t like the way their tax dollars are being spent any more than conservative are. Does anyone here really think that McCain/Palin would be spending less?
When the only difference between the candidates are social issues, this is what we are stuck with.
While no fan of McCain, yes, I absolutely don’t think McCain would have spent as much as Obama is doing and has planned for the next 10 years. There’s no reason to think that. Obama’s behavior in this has been unique to him, unlike any previous American president. I would also expect that none of the other Democratic candidates would have spent this much.
[quote]Christine wrote:
<<< Does anyone here really think that McCain/Palin would be spending less? >>>[/quote]
Yes?
I doubt if Micheal Jackson in the Whitehouse, in his worst perpetual Christmas, Toys R Us, let’s dump money out of cargo planes state of mind could have concocted more ways to spend more money that doesn’t exist than this crew. They have done it as part of a plan that Hugo Chavez couldn’t have designed better if he were contracted to intentionally destroy this nation’s economy.
Yes I do think the McCain/Palin camp would have spent less. I think one of the problems with McCain and Palin is that John presented himself as somewhat of a crotchety old man, and Sarah was the bubbly prom queen who was uninformed and lacked intelligence IMO. Obama was smart in that he presented someone who sounded great on paper, but who is not shining so brightly now in office. He, like other presidents, fed the people what they wanted to hear, and now that he is in office is doing whatever he wants at will. Shit, they can’t even print the money fast enough to keep up with his spending.