PLAYER57832 wrote:Except Nevada is ALSO pretty rich in natural resources, etc. If low taxes were indeed the driving force, it should have other industry.
Isn't Nevada also the state that has the most of its land owned by the federal government? Furthermore, you can't demand states harvest natural resources while at the same time pushing massive new environmental regulations. It's those regulations that keep natural resources from being used and the economy from picking back up.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
notyou2 wrote:America is in need of cooperation, not partisan politics, yet you are in the midst of your worst bout of partisan politics ever.
You are too far polarized for anyone to succeed. Wake up and stop the rhetoric before it's too late you morons.
You can't cooperate with people who want to write blank checks and continue to run massive deficits.
Then why do you keep arguing for electing them.
I'm trying to elect Tea Party members and conservatives who WON'T be doing that.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote: Conservatives are WAY past rhetoric: we're trying to deal with the reality of massive debt brought about by almost 100 years of progressivism.
I see, so Reagan and Bush were progressives, now...
Bush was. Reagan actually worked to decrease the tax and regulatory burdens on people, but then he caved to the Democrats who controlled Congress and was unable to cut spending. Reagan is possibly the only non-Progressive president we've had since before Wilson.
If this is a "jobs bill", why does it blatantly (and unconstitutionally) trample on state rights??
With the introduction of The American Jobs Act, Americans may soon witness a rerun of the Obama healthcare struggle. Much like its predecessor, president Obama’s newest bill contains certain provisions that would appear to benefit those who wrote the bill more than those for whom the bill was supposedly written.
For instance, buried deep, deep on page 133 of the bill, it states:
SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.
(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.
Come again? Under the bill’s authority, states are not immune from federal prosecution if they “violate” the act. In the event this bill passes, it will override a state’s sovereign authority as defined and protected under the 11th amendment:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
By what authority does a bill that seeks to “create jobs” and concern itself with things such as “payroll relief” and “teacher stabilization” have the right to override the 11th amendment?
It gets even better:
(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act [emphasis added].
Any state that receives Federal assistance under the direction of bill automatically forfeits its sovereign immunity. Should an employe of the act seek federal prosecution, the state must abide.
They will literally make a Federal case out of it. The bill continues:
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.
c) Remedies Against State Officials- An official of a State may be sued in the official capacity of the official by any employee or applicant for employment who has complied with the applicable procedures of this Act, for relief that is authorized under this Act.
(d) Remedies Against the United States and the States- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding against the United States or a State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.
It would seem that The American Jobs Act was drafted in order to achieve statist goals rather than create jobs. The authority of individual states is all but thrown to the side.
Much like the healthcare struggle, provisions such as the ones mentioned in the above will incite a strong reaction. As well it should–the stakes are too high.
Dick Morris said it well when he wrote:
It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them.
The American Jobs Act may or may not create jobs. It will, however, lessen and diminish the individuality of the states.
“Liberty once lost is lost forever,” John Adams said.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Except Nevada is ALSO pretty rich in natural resources, etc. If low taxes were indeed the driving force, it should have other industry.
Isn't Nevada also the state that has the most of its land owned by the federal government? Furthermore, you can't demand states harvest natural resources while at the same time pushing massive new environmental regulations. It's those regulations that keep natural resources from being used and the economy from picking back up.
Wait, I thought taxes were the reason the economy isn't picking back up? You need to get your excuses figured out, Night Strike.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
notyou2 wrote:America is in need of cooperation, not partisan politics, yet you are in the midst of your worst bout of partisan politics ever.
You are too far polarized for anyone to succeed. Wake up and stop the rhetoric before it's too late you morons.
You can't cooperate with people who want to write blank checks and continue to run massive deficits.
Then why do you keep arguing for electing them.
I'm trying to elect Tea Party members and conservatives who WON'T be doing that.
When will you be electing someone who wasn't already vested into the current system? Because the clowns that were elected don't seem to be simply playing partisan politics with it, while lining their own pockets. That's the problem...people like you are buying into what they're telling you instead of looking at what they're doing and what they've already done.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote: Conservatives are WAY past rhetoric: we're trying to deal with the reality of massive debt brought about by almost 100 years of progressivism.
I see, so Reagan and Bush were progressives, now...
Bush was. Reagan actually worked to decrease the tax and regulatory burdens on people, but then he caved to the Democrats who controlled Congress and was unable to cut spending. Reagan is possibly the only non-Progressive president we've had since before Wilson.
My God, man. It's like you don't even understand the words that you're typing. I know I've told you this before, but you REALLY BADLY need to start getting some of your information from sources that aren't painfully right wing. You're so deluded into what they're telling you that it's embarrassing.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Obama's "deficit reduction plan" is not something I could support.
Nightstrike, from where you sit and where I sit (which is not the same) every President including Reagan was left of center.
I believe that the federal government has no legitimate purpose other than providing for the common defense (military and international diplomacy) and a reasonable system of commerce between the states (the UCC, basic transportation, and some reasonable measure of pollution controls). I understand this is sacriligious to some people.
I would guess that NS you would exclude pollution controls from the purveyance of the Federal Government, which to me sounds good, but would be wholly impractical and could result in a race to the bottom by each state in an effort to attract business.
rockfist wrote:I would guess that NS you would exclude pollution controls from the purveyance of the Federal Government, which to me sounds good, but would be wholly impractical and could result in a race to the bottom by each state in an effort to attract business.
You should read more of my posts then. Every business that does things like dump waste into rivers should be prosecuted and heavily fined.
I've heard you say that before, but what I am saying is that I think the Federal Government should handle those prosecutions not the states or private individuals/corporations.
notyou2 wrote:America is in need of cooperation, not partisan politics, yet you are in the midst of your worst bout of partisan politics ever.
You are too far polarized for anyone to succeed. Wake up and stop the rhetoric before it's too late you morons.
You can't cooperate with people who want to write blank checks and continue to run massive deficits. It's either be responsible and live within your means or don't and rack up more and more debt. "Compromises" just include spending more money, but less quickly than the run-uppers want. America doesn't win with that sort of cooperation or compromise. Conservatives are WAY past rhetoric: we're trying to deal with the reality of massive debt brought about by almost 100 years of progressivism.
what did you do to rid your country of the previous government that was prosecuting 2 wars and spending far beyond it's means?
rockfist wrote:I've heard you say that before, but what I am saying is that I think the Federal Government should handle those prosecutions not the states or private individuals/corporations.
Tempted to agree. However I realize politicians can be bought at both the state and the federal level, granted it's probably harder federally. I think there should be both, and the Feds can step in mostly when it's a multi-state problem and a few other instances, but overall would like to see the EPA greatly reduced. Reduce government, increase penalties.
rockfist wrote:I've heard you say that before, but what I am saying is that I think the Federal Government should handle those prosecutions not the states or private individuals/corporations.
Tempted to agree. However I realize politicians can be bought at both the state and the federal level, granted it's probably harder federally. I think there should be both, and the Feds can step in mostly when it's a multi-state problem and a few other instances, but overall would like to see the EPA greatly reduced. Reduce government, increase penalties.
I agree on the penalties. I am for less policing of things like that, but higher salaries for the policeman (to avoid bribes) and harsh penalties for violations (including capital punishment for gross pollution violations that kill others). I'd like to see the EPA more answerable to Congress.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Except Nevada is ALSO pretty rich in natural resources, etc. If low taxes were indeed the driving force, it should have other industry.
Isn't Nevada also the state that has the most of its land owned by the federal government? Furthermore, you can't demand states harvest natural resources while at the same time pushing massive new environmental regulations. It's those regulations that keep natural resources from being used and the economy from picking back up.
Nice try, but no.
and the bottom line is low taxes don't create industry. Having good products people want to buy makes industry work, in ANY economy. That means paying attention to production instead of just stockholders.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
notyou2 wrote:America is in need of cooperation, not partisan politics, yet you are in the midst of your worst bout of partisan politics ever.
You are too far polarized for anyone to succeed. Wake up and stop the rhetoric before it's too late you morons.
You can't cooperate with people who want to write blank checks and continue to run massive deficits.
Then why do you keep arguing for electing them.
I'm trying to elect Tea Party members and conservatives who WON'T be doing that.
Sorry, but "cut the government" is not going to produce anything but grief to all but the wealthiest and the biggest businesses.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote: Conservatives are WAY past rhetoric: we're trying to deal with the reality of massive debt brought about by almost 100 years of progressivism.
I see, so Reagan and Bush were progressives, now...
Bush was. Reagan actually worked to decrease the tax and regulatory burdens on people, but then he caved to the Democrats who controlled Congress and was unable to cut spending. Reagan is possibly the only non-Progressive president we've had since before Wilson.
LOL... LOL....LOL
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Except Nevada is ALSO pretty rich in natural resources, etc. If low taxes were indeed the driving force, it should have other industry.
Isn't Nevada also the state that has the most of its land owned by the federal government? Furthermore, you can't demand states harvest natural resources while at the same time pushing massive new environmental regulations. It's those regulations that keep natural resources from being used and the economy from picking back up.
Nice try, but no.
Player, 85% of Nevada is owned by the US Government.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Except Nevada is ALSO pretty rich in natural resources, etc. If low taxes were indeed the driving force, it should have other industry.
Isn't Nevada also the state that has the most of its land owned by the federal government? Furthermore, you can't demand states harvest natural resources while at the same time pushing massive new environmental regulations. It's those regulations that keep natural resources from being used and the economy from picking back up.
Nice try, but no.
Player, 85% of Nevada is owned by the US Government.
That is not why Nevada lacks industry.
ALSO, it is because Nevada has so much federal land that it can keep taxes so low. The federal government pays the state some compensation (how it does this varies and gets complicated).
notyou2 wrote:America is in need of cooperation, not partisan politics, yet you are in the midst of your worst bout of partisan politics ever.
You are too far polarized for anyone to succeed. Wake up and stop the rhetoric before it's too late you morons.
You can't cooperate with people who want to write blank checks and continue to run massive deficits. It's either be responsible and live within your means or don't and rack up more and more debt. "Compromises" just include spending more money, but less quickly than the run-uppers want. America doesn't win with that sort of cooperation or compromise. Conservatives are WAY past rhetoric: we're trying to deal with the reality of massive debt brought about by almost 100 years of progressivism.
what did you do to rid your country of the previous government that was prosecuting 2 wars and spending far beyond it's means?
Ohhhhh, just started the Tea Party.
Phatscotty: The Al Gore of the Tea Party!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
ALSO, it is because Nevada has so much federal land that it can keep taxes so low. The federal government pays the state some compensation (how it does this varies and gets complicated).
Perhaps you've never heard of casinos.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
ALSO, it is because Nevada has so much federal land that it can keep taxes so low. The federal government pays the state some compensation (how it does this varies and gets complicated).
Perhaps you've never heard of casinos.
lol.... yes, though I also understand a lot of their income goes ... elsewhere.
Anyway, yes, that is true. However, neither are really preventing industry in Nevada.
I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.
HaireWolf1 wrote:I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.
You know it's bad when they are admitting it, and usually it's even worse than that. What I don't get is why these people don't just go get waivers. It's like, duh, everyone has a waiver!
Don't worry about the race-baiting. They will all be gone soon enough, and I hope our adversaries start coming up with speech of substance and context, because their party isn't going to perform well in any elections until they do. They are about 4 years behind the Republicans, who cleaned house within their own party and sent a new breed of leaders to Washington. The lack of a Constitutionally focused and fiscally sane Democrat Party is one of the last things standing in the way of America's great awakening.
HaireWolf1 wrote:I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.
lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
PLAYER57832 wrote:lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
Socialized healthcare is against the Constitution. What's the real shame is that some of you aren't intelligent enough to follow it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
Socialized healthcare is against the Constitution. What's the real shame is that some of you aren't intelligent enough to follow it.
We know, anything YOU,. personally don't happen to like is "against the constitution", but try to bring it out for anything you oppose.. and suddenly its the opposite.
Once again, the national government is vested with the power to make laws necessary for the well0-being of the country. This happens to be one. AND, its financially intelligent, for ALL except, perhapst he very wealthy who might have to pay a tad more than they do now for society.
PLAYER57832 wrote:lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
Socialized healthcare is against the Constitution. What's the real shame is that some of you aren't intelligent enough to follow it.
We know, anything YOU,. personally don't happen to like is "against the constitution", but try to bring it out for anything you oppose.. and suddenly its the opposite.
Once again, the national government is vested with the power to make laws necessary for the well0-being of the country. This happens to be one. AND, its financially intelligent, for ALL except, perhapst he very wealthy who might have to pay a tad more than they do now for society.
The power to create a national healthcare system was not granted in the Constitution, so that power is reserved to the states. And many people would argue that such a system would even violate the well-being clause as well (since government would be dictating what treatments you can or cannot get). In fact, I can guarantee you that Herman Cain would disagree with you. If you watched the debate last week (which I'm guessing you didn't), you would know that he clearly stated that if Obamacare had been in place when he was diagnosed with cancer, he would be dead. His cancer was defeated because he was able to immediately begin an aggressive treatment regimen that would have been outlawed (or been approved too slowly) under a massive national bureaucracy.
HaireWolf1 wrote:I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.
lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
I'm sure it has more to do with liberty than intelligence. However, your friendly republicans and tea parties are all for states doing healthcare how the state wants to, as well as peoples freedom to live in whatever state you choose for whatever reason that is best for you.
I'm not even touching your "according to them" because that's just drivel and I just took a shower. You know that isn't true anyways, but you need people to believe that don't ya.
PLAYER57832 wrote:lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.
What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.
Socialized healthcare is against the Constitution. What's the real shame is that some of you aren't intelligent enough to follow it.
We know, anything YOU,. personally don't happen to like is "against the constitution", but try to bring it out for anything you oppose.. and suddenly its the opposite.
Once again, the national government is vested with the power to make laws necessary for the well0-being of the country. This happens to be one. AND, its financially intelligent, for ALL except, perhapst he very wealthy who might have to pay a tad more than they do now for society.
The power to create a national healthcare system was not granted in the Constitution, so that power is reserved to the states. And many people would argue that such a system would even violate the well-being clause as well (since government would be dictating what treatments you can or cannot get). In fact, I can guarantee you that Herman Cain would disagree with you. If you watched the debate last week (which I'm guessing you didn't), you would know that he clearly stated that if Obamacare had been in place when he was diagnosed with cancer, he would be dead. His cancer was defeated because he was able to immediately begin an aggressive treatment regimen that would have been outlawed (or been approved too slowly) under a massive national bureaucracy.
Herman Cain is wrong. He would be able to pay for aggressive health care, even with Obama's adjustments to Medicare. The two really don't have much to do with each other. Herman Cain is a millionaire. His health care won't change too much. Unless he gets to hold political office, of course. It'll probably improve, in that case.
I did read a transcript of the president's jobs speech. I also read the various arguments for and against the bill, which seemed to be tied more to the raising taxes on the rich part than anything about creating jobs.
Frankly, I think the jobs bill is merely a political ploy by the president. One of those, "Hey look, I'm doing something." He apparently needed to energize the base a little bit. After placating the business owners, investors, and other rich people that last two years with stimulus and ineffective regulations and tax breaks, he needs to demonstrate to the hardened Democrats that he's going to fight for them now. This is kind of borne out in his speeches over the last few weeks (including his speech to the Congressional Black Caucaus).
The only way the government can create jobs is by hiring people. Tax breaks, tax credits, etc. only offer an incentive for companies to hire people. The companies don't have to hire anyone, so that's not necessarily something that will work (as we saw in the original stimulus). I'm not sure that President Obama's bill incentivized job creation, but I don't think that's the point of the bill in any event.
I think what the government should focus on are three things: (1) why are jobs leaving the United States; (2) how do we get those jobs back in the United States; and (3) if we can't get a lot of those jobs back in the United States, what else can we get people to do (i.e. alternative employment). I'm not sure the president's jobs bill focuses on those things.
