Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

You asked

which i tool to mean ok so the big states provide a service what do the smaller states do? So I said the subsidy from the federal government probably negates any income.

This is the rich getting richer. I think that should be pretty obvious.

 

it doesn't help it. You are forcibly conflating two different concepts to salvage your argument. It failed.

 

My argument? I didn't know I had one. I was just talking about subsidy and money flow.

 

I guess this was my "argument"

Just talking about the reasons money flows from rural to urban and the reason rural gets more federal money.

 

This is where I fall into the Ron Paul school of thought. Im not against taxation and im not against the (Fed) government. If we take away what the Fed government doesn't need to operate and leave it to the states, then the states can take care of themselves. This would eliminate much of the lobbyist in washington and force people to be more concerned about their state government. If a state handles it poorly (ahem Louisiana) then move to a better state. I know all of this is just a pipe dream, but I share your thought, if the state produces the money, then they should keep it/receive more.

I don't think its a coincidence. I'd guesstimate that 85% of people live in urban democratic cites.(forget if its a red state or blue state). That really is too large of a sample to simply pin point to once, as it includes both wealthy and poor. I think its a combination of social class and urban people tend to be more liberal (by definition - welcoming of change).

What is more interesting is the rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican. I venture to say this is due to conservative behavior (by definition - embraces tradition), much of it due to religion.

 

But if the fed stops sending the rural states ag subsidy then we might have food shortages and that makes me a sad panda.

 

The fed doesn't have to be the solution for everything. If Gore and his idiotic cap n trade expect companies to buy and sell credits, then I don't see a problem with states working something out between each other.

 

Ag subsidies are probably one topic that the vast majority of the country (except the midwest) agrees on. Sadly, between Iowa being the first state in the primaries, and there being so many agricultural low-population states to be overrepresented in the Senate, no one is ever willing to do anything about it.

 

by this comment, i take it you have a fundamental disagreement with the US form of government and the balance of powers as envisioned by the founding fathers?

 

Isn't it exhausting to be such a monumental tool all of the time?

 

He does pushups. And crunches. He's Captain Crunch.

 

do you agree that low population states are "over represented" in the Senate?

 

If you can't win, change the rules.

The House is defined by population and the Senate is defined by States. The framers set it up this way for a reason. It gets old when the Liberals keep crying that the system is flawed because they can't get their way with everything. Our system of government was setup to challenge each other and not letting a certain group into power to pass whatever legislation they want into law.

 

Not at all. Certain states and regions are overrepresented, but the system was designed that way for a reason.

 

A stupid reason that no longer make sense. When you had 13 independent states getting together it made sense to do it this way to get them to join together. Most of the rural small population states holding up progress were created by the United States which is a unified country and much of states' rights is a useless anachonism.

Under present senate rules 40 senators representing about 10% of the population can block all legislation. Gridlock is only useful for government haters and as problems mount we can't just afford it. Similarly we see the decline of California which has created rules in which a minority can block needed changes.

If we had a new Constituion Convention nobody would design the government to be so prone to gridlock.

 

Speak softly of the no income tax. In recent years, it has become known that adding a state income tax is squarely on the table. Over the long haul, it will likely happen.

Once the decline in real property values hits Texas in earnest (and it will happen to some degree), there will be budget shortfalls from property taxes. The state will have to step in and fund things like school and road construction.

I am sure that you will then cry "socialism" and run like a little girl.

 

But the Constitution was a delicate compromise. The people that framed the Constitution had to strike a balance in order to get it passed at all.

A faction of the framers were very leery of too strong of a Federal government. Hence, every state gets two Senators. There were reasons why it is set up the way it is.

You do not like it because it does not allow a very few states to roll over everybody else. That does not give reason to throw it away and end up with a very different country where people in the smaller states may as well not have the right to vote because it is largely meaningless.

 

I think Special K is pretty good. I like the kind with the almond slivers and vanilla. Good stuff. A healthy diet might lend itself to creating serenity in one's mind, which surely isn't a bad thing. Too much obsession with extreme agendas could produce constipation. In other words, improve your diet, relax, and get out of the toilet... or off the toilet. Whatever produces that serenity so clearly lacking in the lower registers of the human voice, the basso profundo of the human spirit.

Serenity now.

 

so it didn't get old when tea partiers complained about acorn and the like because they can't accept the fact that the electorate voted a black man in with a funny name and gave him a democratic congress?