Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News States asserting sovereignty?

  1. Mar 2, 2009 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/states_rights_stimulus [Broken]
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2009 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    So they aren't just cynically maneuvering for more handouts for their particular state then?
     
  4. Mar 2, 2009 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  5. Mar 2, 2009 #4
    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.
    They should agree quite often, since they're both delusional morons.:bugeye:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2009
  6. Mar 2, 2009 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Mar 2, 2009 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Mar 2, 2009 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2009 #8
    It would make sense that the problems of nationalism would be remedied my the dissolution of the nation.
     
  10. Mar 2, 2009 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  11. Mar 2, 2009 #10
    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.
     
  12. Mar 2, 2009 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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].
     
  13. Mar 2, 2009 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Mar 2, 2009 #13
    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.
     
  15. Mar 2, 2009 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  16. Mar 2, 2009 #15
    Nobody said foolish actions couldn't be bold.:yuck:

    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.
     
  17. Mar 2, 2009 #16
    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.
     
  18. Mar 2, 2009 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. Mar 2, 2009 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 - earthshaking 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].
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  20. Mar 2, 2009 #19
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  21. Mar 2, 2009 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: States asserting sovereignty?
  1. Forced on the state (Replies: 13)

  2. Self assertion (Replies: 4)

Loading...