Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

States Rights (Win the battle or Lose the war)

13

Posts

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Aistan wrote: »
    It's not exactly a dogwhistle, Republicans just mean States' Rights in that there's too much Federal regulation and it needs to be gutted so that the States can do whatever they want without outside interference. This then leads to the actual whistle stuff because all they care about is abortion, guns, and screwing over poor (black) people.

    When you model republicans that way, it's no wonder they don't want you telling them how to live their lives.

    I think both sides are going to have to grapple with this issue when it comes to the state's rights question. We have a very divided country - not just red and blue, but urban and rural. Distinct cultures with distinct needs and values and economies. If one of those cultures holds power in the federal government, should they get to tell the other culture what to do? Assume you don't know WHICH side is going to end up in power. How much power do you want the federal government to have? What issues should be decided federally, and why?

    This "separate culture" thing is pure goosery. That's ignoring how contemporary mass media works. It also ignores how few owners there are in mass media.

    There are certainly different facets of media & culture. There are certainly different genres in music, games, movies, and to a certain extent, news. But there's a distinct, overwhelming culture we share. It's so broad and all encompassing a culture that other countries have mandated their media outlets have to produce a certain amount of native media every year instead of just importing everything that the US churns out.

    So I'm going to stop this nonsense right there. We are not a culturally divided nation. Nor are we a values divided nation. Every single one one of us wants to live a safe, civil life.

    What divides exist are wholly manufactured by those seeking a way to exploit fears and uncertainties.

    So you think that the cultures of rural and urban America are identical? You don't see any meaningful differences?

    I didn't say either of those things and feel like you're just looking for ways to keep people divided from seeing their commonalities.

    Yes, people live different lives based on their location. What food they have is a clear example of that. Some people have access to fresh seafood, while others have access to cheap beef. That doesn't mean that either has a different culture.
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    As a few counterexamples: People in rural areas are twice as likely to own a gun. They're more likely to be evangelical Christians. They're very different economically - many rural small towns have economies based on one big local business (ie: mines, manufacturing plants), while cities generally don't. They Vote differently. Would you say all of these are just manufactured and don't matter?

    First "gun culture" is the most manufactured idea of a culture as there has ever been. The NRA of today didn't come about until the 1970s when the group got invaded by a bunch of nutters and staged a leadership coup. And enthusiasm alone for a thing does not give the aspect of a culture any more than a favored painting makes it masterpiece.

    Furthermore, economies are never isolated. The whole study of economics is predicated on trade. So again, no. They're not different. Their goods have to go somewhere and what they buy has to come from somewhere. Everywhere is connected to everywhere else. Everything is shared. This is one of the more enraging arguments about tiered minimum wages.

    The same can be said of religion. Just because one is more prevalent than another doesn't make a bit of difference. The idea of it came from somewhere. And while I may have philosophical, eccumenical, and theological questions for the practicioners of evangelicals it doesn't mean that the overriding sameness of their faith to that of the vast majority of the citizens report to share means anything. It is shared. It is shared almost universally across the whole of the US.

    We have one nation and one culture. The divisions purported to exist for the purposes of your argument are superficial to imaginary.

    Have you ever lived in a rural area? As someone who grew up in the rural South (but whose family was not actually from the rural South) and now lives in the urban South, I might as well be living in a different country.

    Actually, I take that back. I have more in common with people I have met from London and Tokyo than I do with the people I grew up with. In a myriad of different ways, the people in these areas have an entire different moral philosophy and outlook on life and society than those who grew up elsewhere.

    This isn't some media-fueled mirage that hides our true similarities. You are talking about groups of people who do not share any values and whose ways of thinking are alien to each other at fundamental level. If anything, the age of social media has removed the polite fiction of the mass media age that "we are all one big nation" by exposing people to each other's beliefs, and we are just experiencing the wave of mutual revulsion that has resulted in our politics.

    This is incredibly true. Living somewhere in rural Kentucky or Missouri will be like visiting some strange racist planet totally detached from California or New York. It's really hard to articulate if you haven't experienced it.

    PhillishereLoisLaneNobodyCantidoPanda4YouHexmage-PAEdith UpwardsCalica
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Aistan wrote: »
    It's not exactly a dogwhistle, Republicans just mean States' Rights in that there's too much Federal regulation and it needs to be gutted so that the States can do whatever they want without outside interference. This then leads to the actual whistle stuff because all they care about is abortion, guns, and screwing over poor (black) people.

    When you model republicans that way, it's no wonder they don't want you telling them how to live their lives.

    I think both sides are going to have to grapple with this issue when it comes to the state's rights question. We have a very divided country - not just red and blue, but urban and rural. Distinct cultures with distinct needs and values and economies. If one of those cultures holds power in the federal government, should they get to tell the other culture what to do? Assume you don't know WHICH side is going to end up in power. How much power do you want the federal government to have? What issues should be decided federally, and why?

    This "separate culture" thing is pure goosery. That's ignoring how contemporary mass media works. It also ignores how few owners there are in mass media.

    There are certainly different facets of media & culture. There are certainly different genres in music, games, movies, and to a certain extent, news. But there's a distinct, overwhelming culture we share. It's so broad and all encompassing a culture that other countries have mandated their media outlets have to produce a certain amount of native media every year instead of just importing everything that the US churns out.

    So I'm going to stop this nonsense right there. We are not a culturally divided nation. Nor are we a values divided nation. Every single one one of us wants to live a safe, civil life.

    What divides exist are wholly manufactured by those seeking a way to exploit fears and uncertainties.

    So you think that the cultures of rural and urban America are identical? You don't see any meaningful differences?

    I didn't say either of those things and feel like you're just looking for ways to keep people divided from seeing their commonalities.

    Yes, people live different lives based on their location. What food they have is a clear example of that. Some people have access to fresh seafood, while others have access to cheap beef. That doesn't mean that either has a different culture.
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    As a few counterexamples: People in rural areas are twice as likely to own a gun. They're more likely to be evangelical Christians. They're very different economically - many rural small towns have economies based on one big local business (ie: mines, manufacturing plants), while cities generally don't. They Vote differently. Would you say all of these are just manufactured and don't matter?

    First "gun culture" is the most manufactured idea of a culture as there has ever been. The NRA of today didn't come about until the 1970s when the group got invaded by a bunch of nutters and staged a leadership coup. And enthusiasm alone for a thing does not give the aspect of a culture any more than a favored painting makes it masterpiece.

    Furthermore, economies are never isolated. The whole study of economics is predicated on trade. So again, no. They're not different. Their goods have to go somewhere and what they buy has to come from somewhere. Everywhere is connected to everywhere else. Everything is shared. This is one of the more enraging arguments about tiered minimum wages.

    The same can be said of religion. Just because one is more prevalent than another doesn't make a bit of difference. The idea of it came from somewhere. And while I may have philosophical, eccumenical, and theological questions for the practicioners of evangelicals it doesn't mean that the overriding sameness of their faith to that of the vast majority of the citizens report to share means anything. It is shared. It is shared almost universally across the whole of the US.

    We have one nation and one culture. The divisions purported to exist for the purposes of your argument are superficial to imaginary.

    Have you ever lived in a rural area? As someone who grew up in the rural South (but whose family was not actually from the rural South) and now lives in the urban South, I might as well be living in a different country.

    Actually, I take that back. I have more in common with people I have met from London and Tokyo than I do with the people I grew up with. In a myriad of different ways, the people in these areas have an entire different moral philosophy and outlook on life and society than those who grew up elsewhere.

    This isn't some media-fueled mirage that hides our true similarities. You are talking about groups of people who do not share any values and whose ways of thinking are alien to each other at fundamental level. If anything, the age of social media has removed the polite fiction of the mass media age that "we are all one big nation" by exposing people to each other's beliefs, and we are just experiencing the wave of mutual revulsion that has resulted in our politics.

    This is incredibly true. Living somewhere in rural Kentucky or Missouri will be like visiting some strange racist planet totally detached from California or New York. It's really hard to articulate if you haven't experienced it.

    It was always interesting to watch the evolution when a "Yankee" family would move into town growing up. You'd get the initial, "Wow, this town is so cute. Everyone is so nice, and property is so cheap!" euphoria that faded real fast, to be replaced by the "We've got to get the fuck out of this place" panic.

    You can see this in the property values around the Southern blue cities. There's a reason you get the (relatively) expensive city cores and the expanding ring of suburbs, but you don't have huge numbers of people commuting back and forth to the impoverished rural areas despite them not being that far away and many having decent housing stock, especially in the town limits. No one in the blue areas wants to live in those cities until some developer goes in and gentrifies enough gated communities to make them tolerable, and lots of developers have gone bust betting on the wrong towns getting better with a little investment.

    LoisLanedispatch.oSynthesisEdith Upwards
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mobility in general thwarts states' abilities to do "drink your medicine" kinds of unpopular-but-necessary reforms like anything involving tax hikes, because folks can just leave, especially when "low taxes" are what most states compete on to get people to move in except for high-demand residencies like California and the Northeast Megalopolis.

    Sometimes even in high-demand residencies...

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Companies-avoid-34M-in-city-taxes-thanks-to-6578396.php

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    No. It's just a realization that we can't help the people who choose to become your neighbors, because you embrace a philosophy that says it is okay for them to die if they are poor. We can choose to help the ones who become ours, and the best way to do that it is to keep our money close to home.

    Phillishere on
    Harry DresdenPanda4YouEdith UpwardsMegaMekYamiB.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I am spoilering my response but I'm also going to let you guys continue unchallenged. The hate and bitterness in this thread turns my stomach.
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    No. It's just a realization that we can't help the people who choose to become your neighbors, because you embrace a philosophy that says it is okay for them to die if they are poor. We can choose to help the ones who become ours, and the best way to do that it is to keep our money close to home.

    OK but this is hyperbolic rhetoric and your attitude is just as destructive and hateful as the one you are rejecting.

    spool32 on
    DoodmannFrankiedarlingSynthesisNinjeffElvenshae
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    I suppose I didn't put a fine enough point on it above.

    Any policy that penalizes people for moving is going to be regressive (or less progressive than it could be).

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-times-the-average-person-moves/
    The wealthiest individuals are the most likely to stay put: 7 percent of Americans with an annual income of $100,000 or more moved, compared to 13 percent of those earning $5,000 or less.

    That might seem strange if you assume the term “mobility” normally has a positive connotation. But it isn’t always a good thing. When surveyed by the Census Bureau about why they moved in the past year, people gave reasons including searching for a better home (cited by 15 percent of movers), cheaper housing (8 percent), and foreclosure or eviction (2 percent). Sometimes staying put is a sign of stability.

    So, if one of your moves took place recently, the data suggests you’re less likely to be rich, Ron. It also shows that you’re less likely to be white

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Giggles_Funsworth
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    This is a band-aid to a problem that has been killing, and I mean killing, the weakest among us. We have entire sites where people fucking go to beg for someone to help them get medication for their kids. Their fucking kids! We are the richest nation in the world and we have our own youth begging online just for a chance to grow up. The only solution of which has been systematically torn down and smeared for decades.

    Why?

    Because one side will do anything for power while the other side is too "moral and good" to play hard ball. My ideas might have flaws but at least if adopted it would do something. At least someone who might have otherwise died can get the medical care they need. At least some mother doesn't have to choose between keeping the lights on and taking her kid to the hospital.

    So maybe instead of questioning my compassion you can offer some better plan because I am at the end of my rope with this stupid liberal infighting where unless we get exactly what we want nothing gets done.

    LoisLane on
    Panda4YouPolaritieEdith Upwards
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I am spoilering my response but I'm also going to let you guys continue unchallenged. The hate and bitterness in this thread turns my stomach.
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    No. It's just a realization that we can't help the people who choose to become your neighbors, because you embrace a philosophy that says it is okay for them to die if they are poor. We can choose to help the ones who become ours, and the best way to do that it is to keep our money close to home.

    OK but this is hyperbolic rhetoric and your attitude is just as destructive and hateful as the one you are rejecting.

    What's your solution? When two cultures clash the one who isn't dominant will go elsewhere where they feel safe, this goes both ways. It's being human.

    Panda4YouEdith UpwardsMegaMek
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    This is a band-aid to a problem that has been killing, and I mean killing, the weakest among us. We have entire sites where people fucking go to beg for someone to help them get medication for their kids. Their fucking kids! We are the richest nation in the world and we have our own youth begging online just for a chance to grow up. The only solution of which has been systematically torn down and smeared for decades.

    Why?

    Because one side will do anything for power while the other side is too "moral and good" to play hard ball. My ideas might have flaws but at least if adopted it would do something. At least someone who might have otherwise died can get the medical care they need. At least some mother doesn't have to choose between going to the doctor and going for pre-natal care.

    So maybe instead of questioning my compassion you can offer some better plan because I am at the end of my rope with this stupid liberal infighting where unless we get exactly what we want nothing gets done.

    How does any of this justify a 10 year residency requirement?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Julius
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    This is a band-aid to a problem that has been killing, and I mean killing, the weakest among us. We have entire sites where people fucking go to beg for someone to help them get medication for their kids. Their fucking kids! We are the richest nation in the world and we have our own youth begging online just for a chance to grow up. The only solution of which has been systematically torn down and smeared for decades.

    Why?

    Because one side will do anything for power while the other side is too "moral and good" to play hard ball. My ideas might have flaws but at least if adopted it would do something. At least someone who might have otherwise died can get the medical care they need. At least some mother doesn't have to choose between going to the doctor and going for pre-natal care.

    So maybe instead of questioning my compassion you can offer some better plan because I am at the end of my rope with this stupid liberal infighting where unless we get exactly what we want nothing gets done.

    How does any of this justify a 10 year residency requirement?

    The residency was a starting point. What's your idea to prevent a state's health care from the possible 'overburdening' problem?

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Really the left bet is to pick about 30 states to really focus on. There should be attempts at the ones that are primary targets, but we do need to recognize that we currently only have so many resources and have a huge issue with infighting leading to poor results (namely, the whole unicorn thing during elections). Trying to get stronghold in about 30 as the primary goal, gives us some wiggle room for the inevitable "let's go back to the other party that is still espousing the same crap we didn't care for last for for reason." It would also undercut the current alt-right since the GOP would have to run non-alt right candidates, so some the shitty stuff wouldn't fly if the left doesn't control a chamber.

    It's not exactly great; especially, for the people stuck in the other 20 states, but it would be a path towards rebuilding the party and getting into position to win Congress. Also puts pressure on the GOP as a whole to stop being regressive if you have a ton of states that are go for something that isn't slash taxes, screw over minorities, subsidize the rich and let corporations do as they please. The 1920s has shown that the path the current GOP is shooting for is not a viable one.

    Granted this whole discussion of state vs federal, reminds me that it really fucking sucks that we don't have two sane parties. The reality is, thanks to modern tech and new information, we need to re-evaluate what we leave to the states in charge of and what the federal government handles. Instead we have a group that insists the government by the people and for the people, is the problem and that we need to give more power back to the states. Some of the economic problems we see are a result of state governments being terrible at long term thinking, the biggest one is the race to the bottom over who can give companies the best tax break (IMO we probably should have a setup where state tax rates don't apply to companies that operate outside of the state they are head quartered in).

    Harry Dresden
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    This is a band-aid to a problem that has been killing, and I mean killing, the weakest among us. We have entire sites where people fucking go to beg for someone to help them get medication for their kids. Their fucking kids! We are the richest nation in the world and we have our own youth begging online just for a chance to grow up. The only solution of which has been systematically torn down and smeared for decades.

    Why?

    Because one side will do anything for power while the other side is too "moral and good" to play hard ball. My ideas might have flaws but at least if adopted it would do something. At least someone who might have otherwise died can get the medical care they need. At least some mother doesn't have to choose between going to the doctor and going for pre-natal care.

    So maybe instead of questioning my compassion you can offer some better plan because I am at the end of my rope with this stupid liberal infighting where unless we get exactly what we want nothing gets done.

    How does any of this justify a 10 year residency requirement?

    The residency was a starting point. What's your idea to prevent a state's health care from the possible 'overburdening' problem?

    1-2 years would be far more reasonable. 10 years creates a huge class of people who have no access to healthcare yet are having their paychecks drained to pay for the old folks who haven't left their retirement home in 30 years. It would basically be a non-system, there'd be so many people still forced to find insurance under the old system.

    FeraliTunesIsEvilNobodyDoodmannDavid WalgasGiggles_FunsworthQuidSynthesisDarkPrimusEdith UpwardsCaptain Marcus
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    This is a band-aid to a problem that has been killing, and I mean killing, the weakest among us. We have entire sites where people fucking go to beg for someone to help them get medication for their kids. Their fucking kids! We are the richest nation in the world and we have our own youth begging online just for a chance to grow up. The only solution of which has been systematically torn down and smeared for decades.

    Why?

    Because one side will do anything for power while the other side is too "moral and good" to play hard ball. My ideas might have flaws but at least if adopted it would do something. At least someone who might have otherwise died can get the medical care they need. At least some mother doesn't have to choose between going to the doctor and going for pre-natal care.

    So maybe instead of questioning my compassion you can offer some better plan because I am at the end of my rope with this stupid liberal infighting where unless we get exactly what we want nothing gets done.

    How does any of this justify a 10 year residency requirement?

    The residency was a starting point. What's your idea to prevent a state's health care from the possible 'overburdening' problem?

    I'm skeptical whether it is much of a problem in the first place - there aren't a whole lot of studies on the effects of healthcare benefits on intranational-interstate migration, but what little there is suggests that there isn't that big of an effect. (example) Medical benefit migration is a subset of "welfare magnet" effects, and interstate welfare magnet effects are generally less powerful than intuition would suggest (example and example).

    But lets say that there is a huge effect. I'm not sure what a 10 year residency requirement offers over, say, 1 year residency requirement. A state could also include a creditable coverage clause - for example, the state will waive part or all of your 1 year waiting period as long as you show proof that you had coverage prior to moving.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    The real problem with state-level single payer isn't welfare magnet effects, it's employers moving away to flee the tax burden.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I am spoilering my response but I'm also going to let you guys continue unchallenged. The hate and bitterness in this thread turns my stomach.
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    No. It's just a realization that we can't help the people who choose to become your neighbors, because you embrace a philosophy that says it is okay for them to die if they are poor. We can choose to help the ones who become ours, and the best way to do that it is to keep our money close to home.

    OK but this is hyperbolic rhetoric and your attitude is just as destructive and hateful as the one you are rejecting.

    Actually the idea is they are fucked regardless, because Texas is run by the kind of people who cheer the idea of people dying in the streets.

    Harry DresdenPanda4YouForarshrykeQuidEdith UpwardsMegaMek
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I put gun culture on the same level as game/comics culture. Their stores are fucking gross and I don't really want to associate with anyone that is openly a fan.

    In fairness this is highly relative.

    The shop I used to go to in Roseville gradually evolved into this horrible place that was mostly Warhammer gamers, manga, and sexy Amy Rose wall hangings.

    The one I go to in San Jose (well, Santa Clara) now has a safe spaces sign on display, the most helpful staff I've ever experienced, and does cool shit like hosting blood drives.

    I think it's similar to forums, where the owners set a tone for what's acceptable and the clientele reflects that.

    DoodmannNobodyPolaritiePhoenix-DSpoitSynthesisFeralDarkPrimusHexmage-PAdispatch.oEdith UpwardsSleep
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I put gun culture on the same level as game/comics culture. Their stores are fucking gross and I don't really want to associate with anyone that is openly a fan.
    sexy Amy Rose

    :bigfrown:

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    DisruptedCapitalistGiggles_FunsworthCaptain MarcusMegaMekCalica
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    [/quote]

    Have you ever lived in a rural area? As someone who grew up in the rural South (but whose family was not actually from the rural South) and now lives in the urban South, I might as well be living in a different country.

    Actually, I take that back. I have more in common with people I have met from London and Tokyo than I do with the people I grew up with. In a myriad of different ways, the people in these areas have an entire different moral philosophy and outlook on life and society than those who grew up elsewhere.

    This isn't some media-fueled mirage that hides our true similarities. You are talking about groups of people who do not share any values and whose ways of thinking are alien to each other at fundamental level. If anything, the age of social media has removed the polite fiction of the mass media age that "we are all one big nation" by exposing people to each other's beliefs, and we are just experiencing the wave of mutual revulsion that has resulted in our politics.[/quote]

    This is incredibly true. Living somewhere in rural Kentucky or Missouri will be like visiting some strange racist planet totally detached from California or New York. It's really hard to articulate if you haven't experienced it. [/quote]

    Okay, so let's address a few things here.

    First off, you're "no true scotsman"-ing me. So you're question is first illogical and second, condescending.

    If you disagree, then find something to disagree on inside my argument and stop attacking my character. Give some argument that there is a separate culture. So far, your argument is that there is and that's that. I've given you plenty of platform to try to work with. Since you don't seem to see it, I'll be a bit more blatant.

    What is a culture? You say there's a "gun culture". What does that mean? What does it include? And how is it separate from the rest of the American cultural experience that makes it unique?

    And for your information, I live in KC. Five minutes in any direction and I'm smack dab in the middle of the reddest part of not-Texas. For further bonafides, my college years were spent in lovely, oh so lovely, Rolla, MO. So goose you for trying that bullgoosing argument. I do know what I'm talking about. I've lived in those places for an extended time and had to confront dumbgooses for their attitudes.

    Martini_Philosopher on
    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    I feel like the quote tree is wonked there?

    Giggles_FunsworthNobodySleep
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    State legislature season has started up. Is there any good news at all here? Everything I've been seeing has been terrible, from Wyoming wanting to make solar and wind energy next to illegal to Iowa's bill to basically make vaccinations non-mandatory, with exemptions for any reason while there is an ongoing statewide mumps outbreak. Plus dozens of bathroom bills and BS like that.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    I could be missing the forest for the trees by virtue of being a foreigner, but the primary thing I'd take away from that statistic: of the extensive immigration to Texas, very little of it is from California or New York, two other major population centers in the United States. And even fewer people emigrated from Texas to California, the most populous state in the country.

    If anything, this suggests that most Americans, for whatever reason, are very disinclined to cross that political divide--granted, that's ignoring the individual variations within the states (how many people are going from rural California to a city like Austin?), but that's the biggest trend I could take away from it. If you're living in blue America, and you need to relocate, you'll stay in blue America--the same for red America.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    I could be missing the forest for the trees by virtue of being a foreigner, but the primary thing I'd take away from that statistic: of the extensive immigration to Texas, very little of it is from California or New York, two other major population centers in the United States. And even fewer people emigrated from Texas to California, the most populous state in the country.

    If anything, this suggests that most Americans, for whatever reason, are very disinclined to cross that political divide--granted, that's ignoring the individual variations within the states (how many people are going from rural California to a city like Austin?), but that's the biggest trend I could take away from it. If you're living in blue America, and you need to relocate, you'll stay in blue America--the same for red America.

    There are a lot of factors when it comes to uprooting and moving to different states in the US. It would be the equivalent of deciding you want to move from Germany to Qatar.

    You're likely moving from someplace where you have a safety net of some kind, a job, family, a home, to a place that is entirely foreign with likely no safety net, no housing yet, hopefully a job lined up, and you virtually speak a different language. We all speak English, but vocabulary and accents can vary significantly and you've been raised in what might as well be a unique culture.

    It's not an insignificant thing to move from one state to the other even though we are one federated republic.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    I could be missing the forest for the trees by virtue of being a foreigner, but the primary thing I'd take away from that statistic: of the extensive immigration to Texas, very little of it is from California or New York, two other major population centers in the United States. And even fewer people emigrated from Texas to California, the most populous state in the country.

    If anything, this suggests that most Americans, for whatever reason, are very disinclined to cross that political divide--granted, that's ignoring the individual variations within the states (how many people are going from rural California to a city like Austin?), but that's the biggest trend I could take away from it. If you're living in blue America, and you need to relocate, you'll stay in blue America--the same for red America.

    There are a lot of factors when it comes to uprooting and moving to different states in the US. It would be the equivalent of deciding you want to move from Germany to Qatar.

    You're likely moving from someplace where you have a safety net of some kind, a job, family, a home, to a place that is entirely foreign with likely no safety net, no housing yet, hopefully a job lined up, and you virtually speak a different language. We all speak English, but vocabulary and accents can vary significantly and you've been raised in what might as well be a unique culture.

    It's not an insignificant thing to move from one state to the other even though we are one federated republic.

    Living in Omsk is a very different experience from living in Grozny, but the same passport and documents apply (and both cities suffering extensively after 1991, for very different reasons).

    It's not unique to the United States by any means. I happen to come from a country that's small enough that the distinctions across cities from one end of the island to another are quite minimalist, dwarfed by the distinction from moving from a major city to a small village in countryside or mountains.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/20/texas-top-destination-domestic-migrants/

    4.8 million people moved to Texas in the years between 2005 and 2013. It wasn't because they wanted to be fucked either - in 2013, over 62k of them came from California and another 21K from New York. In California's case, it's double the numbers of Texans who left for CA.

    Your idea is seriously to tell 4.8 million people they can get fucked for an entire decade, and that it serves them right for moving to a red state? I guess they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

    This is your compassionate solution to care for the health of the people of this nation. At least we agree on one thing - heathcare definitely isn't a capital R Right in either of our philosophies.

    I could be missing the forest for the trees by virtue of being a foreigner, but the primary thing I'd take away from that statistic: of the extensive immigration to Texas, very little of it is from California or New York, two other major population centers in the United States. And even fewer people emigrated from Texas to California, the most populous state in the country.

    If anything, this suggests that most Americans, for whatever reason, are very disinclined to cross that political divide--granted, that's ignoring the individual variations within the states (how many people are going from rural California to a city like Austin?), but that's the biggest trend I could take away from it. If you're living in blue America, and you need to relocate, you'll stay in blue America--the same for red America.

    There are a lot of factors when it comes to uprooting and moving to different states in the US. It would be the equivalent of deciding you want to move from Germany to Qatar.

    You're likely moving from someplace where you have a safety net of some kind, a job, family, a home, to a place that is entirely foreign with likely no safety net, no housing yet, hopefully a job lined up, and you virtually speak a different language. We all speak English, but vocabulary and accents can vary significantly and you've been raised in what might as well be a unique culture.

    It's not an insignificant thing to move from one state to the other even though we are one federated republic.

    Living in Omsk is a very different experience from living in Grozny, but the same passport and documents apply (and both cities suffering extensively after 1991, for very different reasons).

    It's not unique to the United States by any means. I happen to come from a country that's small enough that the distinctions across cities from one end of the island to another are quite minimalist, dwarfed by the distinction from moving from a major city to a small village in countryside or mountains.

    Now imagine that you're not just moving from a major city to a small village within reasonable proximity, but then you're moving into one that's a couple of Taiwans away from each other, in regions with different cultures, laws, climate, etc.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Synthesis
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.

    mrondeauOrcaLoisLaneBigJoeMDarkPrimusAistanSpoitFeralShadowfireshrykePanda4YouEdith UpwardsSleepMegaMekCalicaMartini_PhilosopherGiggles_Funsworthminirhyder
  • HandgimpHandgimp R+L=J Family PhotoRegistered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.

    I could be persuaded.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.

    Granted that this feeds right into Putin's hands...we're in full "save what you can" mode.

    I do fear for what it means as precedent in the future...but that's for a future that doesn't have concentration camps extreme vetting.

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
    mrondeau
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.

    How's the job market looking in California? Because I could move.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.

    How's the job market looking in California? Because I could move.

    California is enormous, so the job market ranges from booming to heart-crushing poverty and everything in between.
    NBUkL.png

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    dispatch.oJragghenCptKemzikLoisLaneHavelock2.0Nija
  • hsuhsu Registered User regular
    I cannot believe people even think that a state can withhold federal taxes. It's not like the state collects the federal taxes - it's the opposite, individuals & corporations pay the feds directly through the IRS. Medicaid & Social Security taxes are the same, paid directly to the federal government. Any individual or corporation that fails to pay the IRS basically gets their asses handed to them in federal court, with punishments ranging from direct wage garnishment to property seizure to jail time.

    Those Sacramento politicians are basically advocating individuals & corporations commit tax fraud without providing any plans for a safety net when the IRS knocks on your door.

    iTNdmYl.png
    AiouaSynthesisMrMisterCaptain MarcusCauldElvenshaeCalicaGiggles_Funsworth
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    hsu wrote: »
    I cannot believe people even think that a state can withhold federal taxes. It's not like the state collects the federal taxes - it's the opposite, individuals & corporations pay the feds directly through the IRS. Medicaid & Social Security taxes are the same, paid directly to the federal government. Any individual or corporation that fails to pay the IRS basically gets their asses handed to them in federal court, with punishments ranging from direct wage garnishment to property seizure to jail time.

    Those Sacramento politicians are basically advocating individuals & corporations commit tax fraud without providing any plans for a safety net when the IRS knocks on your door.

    Aye. Some of that can get dangerously seditious and runs along the same lines as tactics used by racist geese of yore.

    Same time, i don't like the idea that the feds can just cut off a state's funding for noncompliance with some laws, given that the funding is taxpayer dollars being returned to it, similar to objections to the GOP plan to scrap Social Security for youngsters and you don't get a cent of what you've paid in already.

    Giggles_Funsworth
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/california-could-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

    In response to threats to cut off funding from the Feds, CA is looking to cut off revenue going to the Feds, as CA pays a lot more than they get. Up to and including recommending non-compliance with the federal tax code.
    How soon until this backfires spectacularly and Trump starts quoting Andrew Jackson on nullification?

    Also we used to be the party of States' Rights. Now you are! It's odd.

    ISIS delenda est
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    I cannot help not note the irony in democrats being super states rights.

    Like, I totally get why, but interesting times indeed.

    OrcaCaptain MarcusLoisLaneCauldschussShadowfireRedTide
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Gundi wrote: »
    I cannot help not note the irony in democrats being super states rights.

    Like, I totally get why, but interesting times indeed.

    Democrats want to use states rights to make people be less shitty to each other.

    Republicans want to use states rights to allow people to be more shitty to each other.

    Weird world we live in.

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
    shrykeLoisLanemrondeauDarkPrimusAistanEtiowsaSpoitHavelock2.0QuidShadowfirePanda4YouelectricitylikesmeRedTideRhesus PositiveCalicaArdolMartini_PhilosopherGiggles_FunsworthEdith Upwardsminirhyder
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Democrats should fix their foundations in local government for a few cycles to ensure some sort of fallback if the federal fight fails.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Orcadispatch.oCaptain MarcusLoisLaneShadowfireNobodyTryCatcherCalicaEdith Upwardsminirhyder
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    As far as I know we have always been about expanding protections to people from discrimination and violent assault when the federal government would not. Often times, the protection is FROM the federal government.

    Edit: "always" being my lifetime. I don't pretend to understand the 1800-1950s Democrats.

    dispatch.o on
    OrcaLoisLaneMegaMekelectricitylikesmeEdith Upwards
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    As far as I know we have always been about expanding protections to people from discrimination and violent assault when the federal government would not. Often times, the protection is FROM the federal government.

    Edit: "always" being my lifetime. I don't pretend to understand the 1800-1950s Democrats.

    They were the modern Republicans on race, and usually shitty on the working class too but not from 1932 on.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    shrykeSpoit
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    I cannot help not note the irony in democrats being super states rights.

    Like, I totally get why, but interesting times indeed.

    Democrats want to use states rights to make people be less shitty to each other.

    Republicans want to use states rights to allow people to be more shitty to each other.

    Weird world we live in.

    That applies to federal power too.

    Just straight up the difference has always been the same since the start of the current party system:

    The Republicans want to be more shitty to people, so they will use federal power to override state power or state power to override federal power, depending on whichever accomplishes that.

    The Democrats want to be less shitty to people, so they will use federal power to override state power or state power to override federal power, depending on whichever accomplishes that.

    When the rubber hits the road, neither are actually committed to state's rights or it's opposite on any real philosophical level. It's just kinda looked like they were because since the civil war it's mostly been the federal government acting as the main arm of keeping incredibly racist states from being too horrible.

    rockrngerPhoenix-Ddispatch.omrondeauDarkPrimusAstaerethSpoitQuidMegaMekTryCatcherMayabirdFencingsaxEdith Upwards
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Yes, don't forget that when pubs say "states rights", they always mean it in the original sense : slavery 'cism

    steam_sig.png
    mrondeauDarkPrimusQuidLoisLaneAistanFeralMegaMekPanda4YouFencingsaxdispatch.oGiggles_FunsworthEdith Upwards
Sign In or Register to comment.