Friday, June 21, 2013 2:23:06 PM
@lauriloo: California, New York (both State and City) and other "liberal" states are... BROKE! The poo is going to hit the fan, hard. All those years of "freeloading" will break them: culturally, economically, physically... (Cali will split in two...)
It's a lot easier to remove a crappy State level politician than a "Czar" unilaterally appointed by a President. Doesn`t matter which President, but again Obama is the worst case example...
@patchy: Life was GREAT under Mao! The people were SO HAPPY! They had to or they`d be F*CKING SHOT! China`s economy ONLY turned around when capitalist programs were introduced... and a few other reforms...
Friday, June 21, 2013 12:00:34 PM
No country has developed under a Socialist economy. Just remember that. China did. Perhaps it wasn't *pure* socialist, but then there aren`t many *pure* examples of any type of economy. China has heavy state control and state-owned businesses run the majority of the key economic departments. Banks are also regulated by the government; if they tell the banks to lend more, they do. In the US with the housing bubble and whatnot, the government told the banks to loan more and they were extremely reluctant. So I`d say China has a semi-privatized economy that is dominated by government control. So it`s kind of a planned economy, but for all intents and purposes it is mostly socialist.
few corrupt state politicians There are in the federal government already! Seriously, let's say the EPA goes crazy (they already did btw), who can stop them? Nobody. Let`s say Georgia`s EPA goes crazy. People will start leaving Georgia. The damage is mitigated by the population.
[quote]mostly run by Republicans[/quote] Couldn`t help yourself, could you? See California and New York (and Ohio, and Michigan, and...).
[quote]We are the UNITED states of America, not fifty states who happen to hang together.[/quote] You were so close. We are the UNITED STATES of America; as in, we are a bunch of sovereign, independent states (like European countries) grouped together for the common good (like the EU).
Seriously, you need to read into political history.
The reason the southern states aren't more of a poohole It`s actually culture that`s at fault. California and New York are "pooholes" too; I`m originally from New York.
[quote]would be basically uninhabitable[/quote] A bit dramatic, even for you. Yes, some states would make bad decisions. Some would make great decisions. Over time, the states that made bad decisions would try to emulate those that made good ones.
Let`s say Wyoming comes up with this amazing law that saves them 50% on healthcare. Obviously we should make it a federal law because it is better than anything we have now, right? No! If we do that, we get stuck there for a very long time; new ideas - potentially even better ones - won`t be able to be tried. Besides, all the other states have a HUGE incentive to mimic Wyoming anyways.
Friday, June 21, 2013 10:11:50 AM
The reason the southern states aren't more of a poohole than they currently are is because of the support they get from the gov and being basically forced to be better. If every state were left to their own devices, many large portions of the US would be basically uninhabitable and the good states would become overcrowded. If states regulated their own pollution, food safety, education quality, there would be more than a few corrupt state politicians who would gladly put their citizens at risk to encourage corrupt companies to come into their state and spend their money. States have plenty of things they control on their own and we can already see that many local governments (mostly run by Republicans) can`t handle the responsibility without some kind of anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor agenda. You want to expand THAT. no thanks. We are the UNITED states of America, not fifty states who happen to hang together.