Not even sure the guy has a bank account.
Clearly we're not speaking of any general case here; merely pointing out that there are more dimensions to the question of power than your over-simplified, carnal model encompasses.
Nobody said abolish; they said limit their powers. And yes, states government's powers should be more limited than their constituent cities, for precisely the reasons you list.
So have you ever worked retail, then? Your earlier statement was based on a lot of fact-free and erroneous assumptions about retail employees, the type of assumptions that almost without fail come only from people who have never worked the floor themselves. You didn't bother to reply to that part - which is the part that more directly relates to this JE.
I worked in a theater years ago, at minimum wage or thereabouts, before entering the military. I'm sure that there is some rider whereby this doesn't count.
I'll give you that the country remains on a Progressive course
If by that you mean "progressively more economically conservative at every possible turn", then I agree with you. The horribly regressive income tax brackets that were implemented by the previous CEO in chief still remain in effect, and nobody in Washington has actually done anything about the disappearance of economic opportunity for the middle and lower classes in many decades. We currently have a battle between one party that is too cowardly to actually do anything (those democrats that you so deeply openly hate) and another party that thinks the system should be restructured to guarantee that nobody has any such opportunity (your dear republican party).
The policies of the last century, Republican & Democrat, have concentrated power in DC. That you still think we have a plural number of parties is quaint.
the party that brought in ObamaCare
You guys really thought you'd be able to punk Obama on this one, didn't you? You started with a state bill that was passed by a conservative governor that didn't accomplish any of the liberal goals that Obama originally aimed for.
You then passed it through the conservative Heritage Foundation before presenting in congress as "the only bill we will sign". You then refused to sign it because you realized it just might make Obama look good if it were to find any kind of public approval. However, you realized that you also put him in a near-perfect pickle by way of the fact that if he vetoed it, he would never see another health care bill during his presidency. Well played. But don't go around fooling yourself into thinking that you can get actual liberals to actually support the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010.
Yeah, that's been debunked: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/ But you keep playing that card as you whistle past the graveyard, girl. Obama's perfidy is too publicly on display. The Democrats own it.
the political targeting of American citizens by the IRS
If such a thing happened, that would indeed be terrible. Too bad for your sake no such thing happened. I should not need to remind you of this, but the IRS is explicitly tasked with the enforcement of tax code. If they have reason to believe that someone is cheating on their taxes - say, because they openly advocate for people to do such things - then they are obligated to investigate. It is no different from the DEA investigating members of NORML who spend their free time preaching pro-pot propaganda in states where pot is still illegal.
Your "not one smidgen" argument is thoroughly belied by Lois Lerner's actions. But I don't expect anything resembling honesty from you. Gave that up a long time ago.
Republicans who are speaking of reform, e.g. Cruz, are labeled as "extreme"
Just wait. As the country continues to march further to the right, he will soon be considered a centrist candidate.
I hope so. The prospect of having some actual liberty is a nice one, but Republican and Democrat thieves are standing by to perpetuate the entitlement slavery. So it's not going to be easy
In any case, do you have the courage to demand reform and an end to this idiotic Progressivism?
I would love to see an end to the progressively more conservative policies of our federal government. Unfortunately we haven't had even so much as a left-of-center presidential candidate in decades.
But, but, but Obama has a pen and a phone and a reset button and stuff! He owns you, and he's all the Progress you get!
I raised three items which you apparently blame on progressives:
(1) Actual independent, non-partisan agenda-free investigations into events
(2) Government representation of the people, elected by the people
(3) Having federal agencies do the job they are tasked with
So why is it that you hate those ideas so much? What was so bad with these ideas? And what problems do you anticipate being able to solve by ridding the federal government of them?
(1) When do you think, for example, Benghazi had a "non-partisan agenda-free" investigation? The IRS? Fast & Furious?
(2) When have you understood what the Founders were out to achieve, and "non-partisan agenda-free" thought to the matter? I'm not letting the GOP off the hook for being a pack of statist creeps here, either. The empirical results of Progressivism have been vast debt, income inequality, flight from Blue States, union thuggery. In a word: collapse. How about a little courage and intellectual honesty from you?
(3) Are you talking about the IRS? To say the IRS was merely carrying out orders is almost to have an echo of Nuremberg in the voice.
God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker