Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: vicious796 on October 15, 2012, 05:07:16 PM ---My point is now, has been, and will continue to be that our federal government is too large. When put practically, it's obvious. Most federal branches have state-level equivalents in every single state. There's nothing wrong with having oversight but there is something wrong with being redundant. How many people does it take to set state minimums for education and environmental issues? It certainly doesn't require the hundreds and thousands of jobs they currently have under employ. Jobs that have excellent benefits and a guaranteed 3.5% raise every year. Jobs that are nearly impossible to be fired from.
The size and power of the fed is enormous. It wouldn't be a problem if the entire US all thought, acted, and lived the same - but we don't. It's the same reason I support a universal healthcare system but only on a state level with federally mandated minimums.
--- End quote ---
I was going to reply yesterday, but I had a lot happening last night. Now, I gotta get ready for work in a few minutes, so I'll have to keep it short. You know me in a nutshell -- liberal, college educated, 16 years out of college, home owner for 7 years, IT professional for 12 years. Never been on welfare or the like, paid for my college schooling with academic scholarships & money I earned by working part-time.
While I like that the U.S. has a lot of diversity, at the same time I think that the federal government has an obligation to set and maintain standards for certain things throughout the entire country. Education, healthcare, and other things that provide the backbone of our society are important enough that I think all citizens should be on equal footing as much as possible. The problem I have is with how government at the federal, state, and local levels is managed, not with the idea that government should have a hand in these things. Big government in itself isn't bad, but government run poorly is a disaster, and I don't think that government is inherently or inescapably inefficient.
Personally, I want to see the entire healthcare insurance industry disappear. I think the federal government should set the prices for healthcare services across the entire country, and I'd like to see some fed-controlled agency handle direct payments to doctors & hospitals for healthcare services. Pricing of healthcare related materials, equipment, and consumables should be subject to some regulation, but it would have to balanced to not stifle research & development. I'd like to see healthcare services funded primarily by a separate income tax.
As far as the military is concerned, I've never been thrilled with the idea that young people look to the military as an opportunity for education. I'd like to dramatically cut our military budget, withdraw our soldiers from much of the world, particularly from Europe & the Middle East, and funnel the money into education and/or infrastructure instead.
Gotta go, no more time for now.
jaybug:
1. I am not a conservative. It's only how far left you are that makes me seem so. Maybe you ought to move to Eugene, Oregon. You'll fit right er left in.
2. So it's data that has changed since last I saw them. Federal spending changes over time. Where federal dollars gets spent changes also. And when you have the spending from TARP and the Stimulus Bill, that will change about every dynamic.
3. What would those California tax figures look like if Larry Ellison, and all those in Hollywood, basically the 1% of California, were removed from the calculation?
4. It also amazes me that California is such a big tax exporter, when all their crap is in such poor condition. But I guess it is all stuff from before Proposition 13, and not related to federal spending. So much of California is military property, how are they not a tax importer?
5. What will those figures look like when the Stimulus Bill monies are finally doled out, and not replaced with additional federal largess?
vicious796:
--- Quote from: zherok on October 15, 2012, 11:48:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: jaybug on October 15, 2012, 10:02:12 PM ---You can look it up for your self, I will not hold your hand for you, which states are net providers, and which are net takers.
--- End quote ---
I googled it. The list accounts for population and tax revenue. Fairly sensible to me, it makes little sense to pretend Wyoming should pay an amount commensurate with it's population but receive the same amount California does with 66 times the population of Wyoming.
The top 10:
10. North Dakota
9. Connecticut
8. West Virginia
7. Alabama
6. Kentucky
5. New Mexico
4. Hawaii
3. Maryland
2. Virginia
1. Alaska
I color coded them with the way they went in 2008 for the presidential election, some of them are obviously in play for the current one (well, really only Virginia, though it's leaning blue still). As the article relates, the reason for most of these states ending up on the list is due to military spending. Kentucky interestingly enough seems to be spending it largely on social welfare programs. Fucking blue staters, amiright?
--- End quote ---
Traditionally, Maryland flops and VA goes conservative. The most recent election threw that off, of course, but historically VA is a conservative state and MD follows suit with VA. Source? My family has lived here since the first boat came (literally, I'm descended from the Woodleaf family that was sent over to govern). I'm nitpicking, of course, but only because it hits so close to home and I hate being considered blue.
--- Quote from: Ixarku on October 16, 2012, 10:06:28 AM ---
--- Quote from: vicious796 on October 15, 2012, 05:07:16 PM ---My point is now, has been, and will continue to be that our federal government is too large. When put practically, it's obvious. Most federal branches have state-level equivalents in every single state. There's nothing wrong with having oversight but there is something wrong with being redundant. How many people does it take to set state minimums for education and environmental issues? It certainly doesn't require the hundreds and thousands of jobs they currently have under employ. Jobs that have excellent benefits and a guaranteed 3.5% raise every year. Jobs that are nearly impossible to be fired from.
The size and power of the fed is enormous. It wouldn't be a problem if the entire US all thought, acted, and lived the same - but we don't. It's the same reason I support a universal healthcare system but only on a state level with federally mandated minimums.
--- End quote ---
I was going to reply yesterday, but I had a lot happening last night. Now, I gotta get ready for work in a few minutes, so I'll have to keep it short. You know me in a nutshell -- liberal, college educated, 16 years out of college, home owner for 7 years, IT professional for 12 years. Never been on welfare or the like, paid for my college schooling with academic scholarships & money I earned by working part-time.
--- End quote ---
I know you break the mold but, seriously, you and my step-father are the only two I really know (and I really only know him if you know what I mean).
--- Quote ---While I like that the U.S. has a lot of diversity, at the same time I think that the federal government has an obligation to set and maintain standards for certain things throughout the entire country. Education, healthcare, and other things that provide the backbone of our society are important enough that I think all citizens should be on equal footing as much as possible. The problem I have is with how government at the federal, state, and local levels is managed, not with the idea that government should have a hand in these things. Big government in itself isn't bad, but government run poorly is a disaster, and I don't think that government is inherently or inescapably inefficient.
--- End quote ---
What's important here is the phrase "as much as possible". You're right - we're very, very diverse. However, we're also very spread out and we tend to cluster with those of our own ilk. Families in North Dakota have different backgrounds historically, medically, and culturally than families in Virginia and a single federal mandate in most things won't work for both groups. The Nords that call ND home suffer from different genetic issues than the British living in VA.
Are we a melting pot? Sure - but each state has its own set of citizens that happen to share a background, especially medically. A lot of that is environment. People in CA are more prone to skin cancer than people in Minnesota due to their sunshine and lifestyle. At the same time, people in MN are more likely to get the flu every year due to the cold weather and amount of air they inhale. Two different problems with two different treatments that cost two different amounts.
Educationally, there's a high Asian population in CA and those families are traditionally more school focused than, say, poor white, black, and hispanic families in Louisiana. That high population of Asian students sets a bar that other students want to compete with that the LA kids don't have. Why should citizens of CA, who discipline their children to do well in school, pay for the parents that don't in LA?
--- Quote ---Personally, I want to see the entire healthcare insurance industry disappear. I think the federal government should set the prices for healthcare services across the entire country, and I'd like to see some fed-controlled agency handle direct payments to doctors & hospitals for healthcare services. Pricing of healthcare related materials, equipment, and consumables should be subject to some regulation, but it would have to balanced to not stifle research & development. I'd like to see healthcare services funded primarily by a separate income tax.
--- End quote ---
The problem with this is the lack of potential profit. The government will have a set wage to work with and, therefore, will have to make sacrifices. The doctor's offices will have to all file through the same means which can create a bottleneck of payments. Centralizing things on this large of a scale simply does not work. State level will.
--- Quote ---As far as the military is concerned, I've never been thrilled with the idea that young people look to the military as an opportunity for education. I'd like to dramatically cut our military budget, withdraw our soldiers from much of the world, particularly from Europe & the Middle East, and funnel the money into education and/or infrastructure instead.
Gotta go, no more time for now.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this, 100%. I agree we should downsize our military and redirect some of those funds into education. I don't know why community colleges across America actually cost money (almost as much in tuition as some regular state universities) and only offer 2-year degrees (there are exceptions, of course). However, again, I feel this should be state regulated - just a difference of opinion.
Lillymon:
--- Quote from: jaybug on October 16, 2012, 11:34:49 AM ---1. I am not a conservative. It's only how far left you are that makes me seem so.
--- End quote ---
Relevant video.
sdedalus83:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on October 16, 2012, 10:06:28 AM ---As far as the military is concerned, I've never been thrilled with the idea that young people look to the military as an opportunity for education. I'd like to dramatically cut our military budget, withdraw our soldiers from much of the world, particularly from Europe & the Middle East, and funnel the money into education and/or infrastructure instead.
--- End quote ---
No president will touch this, since by accident or by design, our military spending provides several million jobs, many of which are occupied by people who would not be employed, or would be earning far less, in the private sector.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version