Posted on 10/02/2019 11:31:06 AM PDT by Jacquerie
I agree.
And I’m from NYS.
I agree, too, and I’m from California. The state and some local governments are careening toward insolvency due to underfunded pensions. Why should the feds bail out?
I give him tremendous credit for trying.
This is DOA in Congress.
The lesson of 2008 is thus:
If you go before the United States Congress with a sufficiently butt-puckering Chicken Little tale of impending doom and collapse, you WILL get a bailout.
Once you bail out the nation’s five or six wealthiest banks nobody else is taking no for an answer.
There should be no state bailout of the Federal government when it goes belly up. All 50 states can fend for themselves. Let the federal government collapse on its own.
Pols sold influence to these unions while putting US on the hook.
i was told that i chose the wrong line of work, when i complained about the rising tax rates to fund government pensions and salaries and healthcare costs... they did not see the lack of fairness in taking more money out of my retirement to fund theirs... our handlers are more important than we are...
it will not end well.
Of course this can’t stand. CA is ‘too big to fail’.
I like this
Add amendment that states must cut benefits to welfare, pensions, employee benefits regardless of union contracts.
If these fools can void contracts on whims like property deeds, etc, why are public union contracts sacred? They are not.
restrict questions to finland us relations...
sheesh
oops... wrong thread.
I agree, but the House is DEM controlled, not GOP.
I might agree for allowing a federal bailout if:
1. Complete federal takeover of the state, its essentially reduced back to territorial status,
2. Complete audit of state holdings & methods of revenue generation. A plan for a path to solvency is implemented and put in place to act for 4 years. No internal state/territory legislature can change it!
3. Current state government invalidated to include all contracts, labor agreemens & state government positions,
4. State/territory can not return to full state status until solvency is reached. Option of breaking up the state into smaller more “financially” governable units if no other methods to reach solvency.
All completely likely unconstitutional. Maybe something like could be implemented within Constitutional boundaries.
Absolutely.
The bail-outs are a transfer of wealth to Democrats.
I like the idea of “back to territorial status.”
Good point. Probably right.
The bail-outs are a transfer of wealth to Democrats.
**************
Bingo! Absolutely true.
Hell no! I believe in states rights. States set their own budgets. They are sovereign. If they mismanage their finances, thats on them.
I dont care about whatever scare tactics the profligate spenders try to trot out to get the federal government to force taxpayers in responsible states to bail out the profligate spenders either. They made their bed. Let them lie in it.
Don’t some states send more in taxes than they receive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.