Are States Asserting Sovereignty to Counter Federal Overreach?

[Astronuc]

Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/states_rights_stimulus

CONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn't a life saver. It's the last straw.

Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban.

In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse's resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote.

"I think that the specter of some assaults on our liberty have become so real and immediate that there is a reaction," Itse said.

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they're fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

. . . .

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Some local prognosticator who publishes something called "Trends", has predicted the break up of the US. I'm sure he and others will use this to fuel their fires.

 

[mgb_phys]

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they're fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

So they aren't just cynically maneuvering for more handouts for their particular state then?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL, then don't take the money! If so many States weren't broke and over budget, we wouldn't have this problem. You can't ask for bailout money and then complain about Federal intervention.

As for the breakup of the union, please, this is just more from the Limbaugh types and other cranks.

 

[Al68]

LOL, then don't take the money! If so many States weren't broke and over budget, we wouldn't have this problem. You can't ask for bailout money and then complain about Federal intervention.

I agree with that, but there's still a problem. If a state chooses not to take the money and go along, the fed gov't will take money from that state in order to give it to the states that do go along. This is how the fed gov't gets their way in areas where they don't have legitimate constitutional jurisdiction.

How often do Bill Maher and Pat Robertson agree on politics?

They should agree quite often, since they're both delusional morons.

 

[turbo]

Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree with that, but there's still a problem. If a state chooses not to take the money and go along, the fed gov't will take money out of that state in order to give it to the states that do go along. This is how the fed gov't gets their way in areas where they don't have legitimate constitutional jurisdiction.

I agree and I've never liked that - I am a huge fan of State's autonomy. But as long as they take Federal money... Remember the golden rule: The man with the gold makes the rules.

Hopefully China won't figure that out for awhile.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They should agree quite often, since they're both delusional morons.:)

Perhaps, but the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Rush. Personally, I hope Limbaugh remains the head of the Republican party. That will be the death of the them.

 

[Scuzzle]

It would make sense that the problems of nationalism would be remedied my the dissolution of the nation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.

Of course he isn't going to refuse the other truckloads of Fed money.

Jindal , what a joke! Did you note that bashing he took over the implication that he hasn't received tons of money for Katrina recovery.

 

[Scuzzle]

Perhaps, but the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Rush. Personally, I hope Limbaugh remains the head of the Republican party. That will be the death of the them.

I hate to agree with you, but I do. If the party were dissolved, it's likely that many of the constituents would make their way over to the Libertarian party, whose values, I feel, are greatly needed these days. Both the Republican Party and Democratic party seem to preach too much dependence on the government, which is why my vote hasn't "counted" in the last two elections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hate to agree with you, but I do. If the party were dissolved, it's likely that many of the constituents would make their way over to the Libertarian party, whose values, I feel, are greatly needed these days.

I agree. In fact Bob Barr has even been reborn as a Libertarian - this is where many old-time conservatives are going. We need a good and strong conservative party, but not a bunch of nuts. [In the past I couldn't stand Barr, but I liked what he had to say that last time I saw him].

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that the Dems are falling all over themselves trying to reenforce the notion that Rush runs the Republican Party. Because of his big fat ego, Rush is playing right into their hands.

 

[Scuzzle]

I agree. In fact Bob Barr has even been reborn as a Libertarian - this is where many old-time conservatives are going. We need a good and strong conservative party, but not a bunch of nuts. [In the past I couldn't stand Barr, but I liked what he had to say that last time I saw him].

My hope is that the foolishness of the Republicans over the last 8 years will combine with the inevitable foolishness of both parties throughout the Obama presidency, and the Libertarians will have a strong enough position to garner enough of the vote to get themselves noticed. With the obvious European-esque socialist track the Democrats are taking this time around, I think it may just happen.

I'm hopeful anyway.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Foolishness? Obama is responding to a national and international crisis. He may or may not be doing the right things, but bold action is almost certainly required. We came within days of a complete collapse of the global financial system. Obama did not create the crisis that we face. We can thank Reaganomics and the Republican model for that one - in particular, we can thank people like Limbaugh and his supporters.

As a former Republican and Reagan supporter, I too have to accept part of the blame. I once bought into the trickle-down sham. It sounded great, but unfortunately all of the money that was supposed to trickle down to us trickled down to China instead.

 

[Al68]

He may or may not be doing the right things, but bold action is almost certainly required.

Nobody said foolish actions couldn't be bold.

We need more boldness in government, just in the other (libertarian) direction.

Despite what is heard in the media, government interventionism caused the problems we have now.

 

[Scuzzle]

Yes, foolishness. I agree with you on the severity of the situation, and the need to act quickly, but band-aid fixes that many renowned economists spoke out against are not the answer. The answer in a word is: deflation. We have to allow the economy to shrink before it explodes and collapses in on itself, and you don't do that by creating debt on top of debt. Reaganomics is definitely at fault here, but you need to allow for the possibility that Keynesian/Rooseveltian economics are just as much at blame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nobody said foolish actions couldn't be bold.

We need more boldness in government, just in the other (libertarian) direction.

Despite what is heard in the media, government interventionism caused the problems we have now.

What caused the problems that we face were greed and a lack of oversight. It is a case of too little government leading to chaos. The credit crisis and the housing crisis are the result of too little regulation.

We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, foolishness. I agree with you on the severity of the situation, and the need to act quickly, but band-aid fixes that many renowned economists spoke out against are not the answer. The answer in a word is: deflation. We have to allow the economy to shrink before it explodes and collapses in on itself, and you don't do that by creating debt on top of debt. Reaganomics is definitely at fault here, but you need to allow for the possibility that Keynesian/Rooseveltian economics are just as much at blame.

From what I understand, Obama is taking the advice of the best economists. In fact many think the bailout is too small. Your solution would be to allow another great depression at the expense of every family in the country. Experts who study that period of time maintain that the worst of the Depression could have been avoided through action like that taken now; that if anything, Roosevelt didn't do enough. THAT is why WWII helped to pull us out: It was a massive federal spending program. Note also that after this massive spending program that propelled us to levels of debt never seen before [122% of GDP], we experienced a long period of growth that made possible the highest standard of living in the world.

Also, Obama is using this as an opportunity to rebuild America. If we are to compete in years to come we must do these things: Rebuild roads and bridges; get health care costs under control; gain energy independence; forge new industries [green industries in this case]; provide hs internet to the entire country; improve our public transportation systems; update and rebuild the public education system; prevent the collapse of State services, as in California, and so on. Obama has his eye and the ball and is trying to transform a crisis into an opportunity to rebuild the country.

He has big ideas - Earth'shaking in their magnitude and scope - and there is big risk, but I don't see that we have any choice. Thank God we have someone who is willing to step up to the plate before it's too late [if it's not already too late].

 

[Scuzzle]

I think this is much more complex than you understand. This is more a question of philosophy and morality than it is economics, and I don't currently have the time to invest in a conversation of that magnitude.

Sorry to leave you hanging.

 

[turbo]

We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.

I enthusiastically supported Reagan, mostly because he promised to shrink the Federal government. I shouldn't have been that stupid. During his first term, the size of the government increased by 25%, and spending increased while revenues dropped in part due to tax-cuts for the rich that were going to "trickle down" and make us all prosperous. What a load of crap! The Democrats could have run a mangy dog against him for the 2nd term, and I would have voted for the dog.

 

[Scuzzle]

What about tax cuts for everyone? That's about the only thing the government hasn't tried. They've taxed us into the ground, to where the average American is "relieved" of 25% (3 months/year worth) of their income. They've also given tax-cuts to corporate America and wealthy America. Neither has been very effective.

I'd like to see tax cuts across the board. A fixed percentage for all of America. No one person should pay out a higher percentage of their earnings than another simply because they "have more money to spare". Of course, this would lead to smaller government, so it will likely never happen of their own volition. You might notice that as much as we are asked to sacrifice, the gesture is never reciprocated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think this is much more complex than you understand. This is more a question of philosophy and morality than it is economics, and I don't currently have the time to invest in a conversation of that magnitude.

Sorry to leave you hanging.

I think you just went over a cliff. This is about mathematics, not philosophy.

It is a matter of a brilliant guy with big ideas being surrounded by teams of brilliant people. We have experts in many fields giving their all to save this country using the best information available. They may or may not make the best choices, but they are the best of the best. Unless or until I see something that betrays my trust, I see this as one of those rare times when one has to have faith and trust our leaders to do the right thing. They will have to answer for their actions on election day. By then we will know which direction this is going.

 

[Al68]

What caused the problems that we face were greed and a lack of oversight. It is a case of too little government leading to chaos. The credit crisis and the housing crisis are the result of too little regulation.

We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.

That's all just utterly false. This problem not only wouldn't have happened with a free economy, it couldn't have happened.

Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.

Then they have the nerve to try to convince people it was the free market that caused the problem. Why not? Their constituency will believe anything they're told, no matter how obviously false it is to anyone who bothers to check out the facts.

Of course they can rely with certainty that their constituents only listen to them. I have yet to meet a Democrat that knows both sides to the economic issues. They know two sides, the Democrat side, and the convoluted misrepresentation by Democrats of the Republican side. The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us. Yeah, right. Who could believe that's the position of the other side? Delusion? Blinders?

Sorry, sometimes I just can't resist ranting. It's just frustrating to see the "mainstream" media completely misrepresent the free market side of the issues, while those watching or reading assume they are seeing two sides when they are not.

 

[Scuzzle]

I think you just went over a cliff. This is about mathematics, not philosophy.

It is a matter of a brilliant guy with big ideas being surrounded by teams of brilliant people. We have experts in many fields giving their all to save this country using the best information available. They may or may not make the best choices, but they are the best of the best.

I think that's a mighty unreasonable assumption to make. History has shown that presidents are much more likely to consult economists who follow their same line of thinking than they are to consult economists they don't agree with. This is evidenced by the fact that for the last 60 years presidents and the government have almost always chosen Keynesian economics, despite Hayek's economic ideals having never been tested on a nationwide scale. Meanwhile, we are under a constant exposure to a boom and bust system whose hold will never weaken as long as government gets bigger and taxes go up.

Universal tax cuts are such a simple idea. More money in the hands of everyone so that the public can save or spend it on consumer goods, which would create a level of stimulation for the economy that stimulus packages could never match. All this would require is smaller government and less military spending. And therein lies the rub.

 

[turbo]

Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.

Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors? There is plenty to dislike about our two-party system, and about the political tactics of the major parties, and demonizing Democrats isn't a sign that you've got much of handle on that. The banks and investment firms have been pumping money into Washington (on both sides) demanding deregulation. They got their way, and the taxpayers take it in the neck while they collect their huge "retention incentives" (not bonuses anymore) and laugh all the way to the (offshore) bank.

 

[Al68]

I think that's a mighty unreasonable assumption to make. History has shown that presidents are much more likely to consult economists who follow their same line of thinking than they are to consult economists they don't agree with. This is evidenced by the fact that for the last 60 years presidents and the government have almost always chosen Keynesian economics, despite Hayek's economic ideals having never been tested on a nationwide scale. Meanwhile, we are under a constant exposure to a boom and bust system whose hold will never weaken as long as government gets bigger and taxes go up.

Universal tax cuts are such a simple idea. More money in the hands of everyone so that the public can save or spend it on consumer goods, which would create a level of stimulation for the economy that stimulus packages could never match. All this would require is smaller government and less military spending. And therein lies the rub.

Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break!

 

[Al68]

Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors?

Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?

 

[Scuzzle]

Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break!

Years ago, when I first came to this realization, I was completely heartbroken. Then, I went through stages of denial, and then extreme activism, before I ultimately realized that all I can do is attempt to live my own life and maintain individuality. The realization that socialists have become the masters and commanders is a necessarily important one to come to, as it will teach you a morality whose strength is unrivaled, which will help you get past all of the petty concerns of the "norm", and reach a level of happiness that is uncompared.

 

[turbo]

Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?

Please provide citations (not flak-job GOP stuff like Limbaugh) to back up your assertions that Democrats forced the banks to make unsafe loans. Predatory lending has been rampant for the last decade or so, and your claim that the Democrats forced the banks to engage in such practices is a bit thin, since the Democrats have been out of power for years, and after re-taking Congress in the last 2 years of W's term, lacked the votes to get ANYTHING through against Republican opposition. Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush and Fox. (And actually believing it - scary!)

 

[Scuzzle]

Not to be insulting, but you are dishing out the typical liberal talking points. Both of you are arguing under the belief that banks are to blame. Everyone is an end in himself. Don't toss around words like "exploited" and "predatory" when the people who accepted the loan agreements had every bit of the fine print in front of them. There is no concession for laziness or ignorance. No matter how much someone pressures you to sign something without reading, you are the one to ultimately make the decision. And if they are able to convince you to sign away your livelihood without reading the rules, that says just as much about how weak and pathetic you are as it does about how "predatory" the lenders were.

Deregulation shmeregulation. Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Edit: In other words, this is a morality issue. This is a problem with America's mindset, not just the financial district's.