Posted on 12/30/2008 4:52:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The south seceded because of Lincoln’s election...He fought to save the union. A little known fact is that there were slaves in the North as well...the problem was the new states...the North wanted to make it illegal to have slaves in the new states. The civil war was fought to preserve the union not slavery. Fear of losing their rights to own slaves caused the South to secede...however, Lincoln fought to preserve the union. Lincoln was a great president...are you implying that blacks should have been ‘sent back’?
You still can’t secede sorry.
Quite true...it’s a way to vent. I sucks to have lost the last election. My state went blue...Ohio.
However, to offhandedly dismiss the effect massive immigration, much of it needy peoples from socialist countries, has had on American society over the past 40 years simply because there were bigots in the past is folly.
This attitude is widespread, unfortunately (we're scarcely allowed to publicly question the wisdom of our immigration policy), and has helped guarantee this country will stay firmly on the road to socialism for the rest of our lifetimes.
We don’t have access to federal money like they do in the South, we are ‘donor’ states. It’s really quite unfair.
Yes, we need to win an election or a few! I would hope they would be happy that the powers not explicitly given to the Fed or denied to the states are state powers...My wife’s grandpa was a states right man and bitterly lamented the overreach of the federal government...he may have been right.
You might be right about Obama. It’s hard to believe.
What does ‘tipping point’ mean?
It isn’t all that unfair — to the best of my knowledge, we’re still one country. Those who call for “parity” of money received back from the gubmint don’t know what they’re asking for or what the consequences will be. They are as mistaken as those who believe the large cities drain more federal money than the rural areas.
http://gladwell.com/tippingpoint/index.html
Gladwell popularized the phrase a few years ago in his book
I don’t like my tax money given to Southern states that turn around and give it to Toyota. My state is really hurting-second highest unemployment. Why in heaven’s name should I subsidize those who are helping foreign countries drive an industry that is essential to my state out of business.
Although, I would fight to the death if any state was threatened...they might piss me off, but they are Americans.
It’s the same ole American debate — Jefferson versus Hamilton — as someone on this forum pointed out to me not too long ago.
You beef isn’t with the Southern States welcoming Toyota, it’s with the federal gubmint’s trade practices. But just wait until Toyota starts screaming like stuck pigs because the U.S. is letting China sell its cars here. That’ll be the case in a couple of years.
I am mad at Shelby and the others...they subsidized competitors. I understand they wanted jobs...but they should not use federal money for this...state fine-but not federal.
It would be very pleasant to hear Toyota screaming...if people understood the situation, they would not buy these foreign cars. Transplants assemble the cars-simple assembly nothing more. The profits go home to Japan. All R&D is done in Japan...American engineers who have worked for these companies (and still do in some cases)have told me how anti-American Toyota is. They are treated like half wits. Also, if the big three went away, they would pay far less then now...10-14 dollars an hour. A memo was released (without permission) by two Toyota employees who have since been fired discussing this matter.
Trade is definitely unfair. Toyota does not allow American cars in Japan-trade barriers. Korea is the same way. GM had to build plants in Europe and Mexico and China in order to sell cars there. Trade is a disaster and has played a roll in bankrupting this country.
Never say never...and the immigrants are leaving...They’re not leaving if we enforce OUR rules.
To quote Winston Churchill — whose mother was from Brooklyn,
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else.”
I like that...very nice; he had a strong sense of humor-very sarcastic. I love that dry British understated humor.
yes, well Aaron Burr solved this problem...for a while.
You and others have talked about the money a state has paid into the fedgov vs money a state has received from the fedgov, but all I have seen on the tax foundation website is raw numbers. Those raw numbers mean squat because states are not people and there are a huge number of variables that have to be addressed before a per capita plus or minus net can be associated with those numbers to the people, not the states. To calculate a true per capita figure you have to subtract all of the federally owned assets in each state and maintenance for same, funded mandates, federal infrastructure, etc.. Then you have to add all the federally mandated costs to a state like education, health care, and legal costs for illegals plus other things like unfunded mandates. Once all of the different variables are taken into account and reduced to the per capita level, only then can you say that a state has a net loss or net gain relationship to federal taxes.
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.