My point being- What exactly prevents you from going another step from nation rights to state rights to county/district/city rights? If the population of the city of Los Angles alone constitutes a third of the population of the entirety of the U.S. in the early 19th century, then how exactly do you think that you can represent all of them fairly with just the state? Or the nation?
You can’t.[/quote]
Today you can. Senators and Representatives are voted in by majority vote. Before the 17th amendment then you could not. I wish we would get rid of the 17th amendment and allow the State legislatures to pick who their Senators are.
[/quote]
Election by majority vote=/=fair and equal representation.
Furthermore, the concept of state’s rights and people’s rights are not inclusive…
[/quote]
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments would tend to disagree with your assertion.[/quote]
I realize. I strongly disagree with the premise behind them.
I do not buy the thought that the state government somehow represents people better than the federal government does. How does this occur when they operate largely on the same methods and standards, and when the population of many states are so large and the people within it so diverse that you cannot even begin to make a claim that there is any sort of homogeneity?
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.[/quote]
Okay, please point out, with facts, when “the rich” were given tax cuts the “non-rich” were not.
Again, with factual representation please. Not a Pitttttbull-esk “da Buzh cutz was da debil” response.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, DM, if the biblical precept about obeying and honoring one’s rulers is to be discussed it’s worth noting that in the grand ol’ USA the “rulers” are The People.
Congressmen, Senators, judges and the president are our servants not our rulers. They work for us.[/quote]
So much idealism. [/quote]
Yes, it is. But spice that idealism with some pragmatism and you will end up with a fine bowl of soup. Edible more than most anyway.[/quote]
Serious question, Push.
When was the last time you honestly felt that your “servants” in Washington were serving you in particular, and the American people in general, and not their own self-interested agenda?
[quote]magick wrote:
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.[/quote]
Okay, please point out, with facts, when “the rich” were given tax cuts the “non-rich” were not.
Again, with factual representation please. Not a Pitttttbull-esk “da Buzh cutz was da debil” response. [/quote]
Did I say that the rich were given tax cuts while the “non-rich” were not?
Don’t twist my words.
My understanding of the Republican trickle-down theory is that if you give tax cuts to wealthy people, then their spending will in turn help to stimulate the economy.
I disagree with this notion.
Either tell me whether I have my definition wrong, or ask me why I disagree with it and go from there.
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.[/quote]
Okay, please point out, with facts, when “the rich” were given tax cuts the “non-rich” were not.
Again, with factual representation please. Not a Pitttttbull-esk “da Buzh cutz was da debil” response. [/quote]
Be fair, Beans. Pitt would just post the dictionary definitions of “trickle” and “down” and “economics” and call it good.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Then prepare to do battle with Madison, et al, and not just a simple country boy like me.
[/quote]
Tell me, in your honest opinion, what makes state government more palatable to you than the federal government?
Why do you think the folks who wrote the Constitution felt that the state government somehow represented people better than the federal?
[quote]
I do believe there is too much government at the state level too.[/quote]
This is what I believe-
If you the Americans somehow kept the Articles of Confederation alive and without it falling apart, then sooner or later people within the states would have demanded liberty from their respective states.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t care for the idea that the government “gives” money to people who have already given a greater amount to the government. That would rely on a fundamental assertion that all money originally belongs to the government.
“Allowing the rich to keep more of the money that was theirs to begin with” is a more accurate description.
[/quote]
You’re probably right. I just disagree with the phrasing used by Republicans, at least in the way I’ve heard it, when they describe the theory.
Clearly the government just hoards and doesn’t spend the money it takes from taxes. (I know this is not a good response)
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
You kill every aspect of Union , You pay as little for labor , you take everything you can from those under you so you can trickle it down on them. We must enrich those job creators
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.[/quote]
Okay, please point out, with facts, when “the rich” were given tax cuts the “non-rich” were not.
Again, with factual representation please. Not a Pitttttbull-esk “da Buzh cutz was da debil” response. [/quote]
But the state of California alone has over 4x the population of the entirety of the U.S. in the early 19th century.
And, besides that, the greatest proponents of state rights among the framers tended to either be from tiny ass states that had absolutely no power, or from giant states (basically Virginia) that wielded so much power that they didn’t want to give it up.
It was power-play.
In other words, whatever reasons the framers thought state rights were important, is probably out of the window now. Personally, I see the whole concept as nothing more than political talk politicians to earn brownie points with people too enamored with the early Republic.
And I think the Articles of Confederation is a piece of crap and evidence of just how hopelessly idealistic the framers were. Not that there’s anything wrong with idealism, but it’s a fucking miracle that the U.S. survived its first 50 or so years.
And you missed the point I wanted to make regarding the Articles of Confederation and its powerful states. If the states were the de facto “states” that governed things, then what exactly prevents people from saying that they want to be separate from that state because it doesn’t do what they want it to do?
I mean, that’s the main reason why people are for state rights currently isn’t it? The federal government does things that the people don’t want it to do, and so they want to curtail its power and give it to the states.
But what if the states did something that the vast majority of the people in a county doesn’t like. Do you just tell them to suck up? But how the fuck can you do that with a straight face if you supported greater state power over federal power?
I’m not baiting you in order to be like “AH HA, I got you!!! Uz iz dumb.”
I’m trying to get you to make your argument in a way that shows you where the holes in your assertion are.
Look, tax cuts will benefit high wage earners, no doubt. They benefit low wage earners as well. Let’s also not forget that just because someone is a high wage earner in year X doesn’t mean they are in years Y or Z.
The whole point of my response to you is your disdain for the party based on a talking point. A talking point that only has some of its roots in reality.
I’m trying to get you to think here, nothing more, nothing less.
You look up JFK’s stance on taxation yet? (Another hint: Regan and Bush43 followed suit.)