Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal eglamkowski's Journal: The final death of the post-election pro-states rights thing 28

Journal by eglamkowski

I commented before here in my journal how the lefties almost got the message about the importance of states' rights following the 2004 election, but now, in the aftermath of Katrina, there is no possible question left that their love of Big Federal Government has again completely consumed them.

They complain Bush didn't react fast enough, begging and demanding the feds do more to help. "More federal government, please!" they cry out when feeling most helpless. FOR SHAME! It is exactly when you are most helpless that the feds love to step in and take advantage of your situation to claim all that much more ownership over your lives. It is when you are most helpless that it is most important you seek to avoid federal "aid" (that ALWAYS comes with strings attached, no exceptions!).

Of course, when you've replaced God with The State, it's understandable, but it's an addiction that MUST be overcome if our country is to survive. Like most addictions, withdrawal would be brutally difficult. But, like most addictions, the first step is to admit you have a problem. Let's see how many people are even willing to admit there is a problem. I guarantee we'll just see the classic addiction behavior of denial, enablement by those who know better, and all around refusal to admit to the very real and very serious problem of government addiction.

You see, in the case of New Orleans, it was largely the federal government, though the US Army Corps of Engineers, that caused the problem in the first place. New Orleans never should have existed in its current location, or least not for any length of time. But the feds came in and propped up the levy system, expanded it, made it possible for this folly of a city to not only exist, but to grow and expand and become a major and important city.

Now, the same federal government that created this problem is being begged to fix it.

The problem isn't lack of federal intervention, the problem IS federal intervention! I'm not even entirely convinced its appropriate for the feds to assist the rescue and clean up efforts (the old "Not Yours To Give" story) (though I'll let that slide for the moment), but they sure as hell shouldn't be giving a penny in aid, cash or otherwise, to rebuilding the city. Let the fools who want to live there build their own graves. Don't use my tax money to finance their insanity.

Don't, PLEASE, DO NOT allow the federal government to once again create the EXACT SAME PROBLEM we are trying to cope with right now. Let the state or the city make their own damn mess if they really want to. Keep the feds, and my tax money, out of it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The final death of the post-election pro-states rights thing More

The final death of the post-election pro-states rights thing

Comments Filter:
  • just what New Orleans costs. It is also the contrafactual: what would it cost to satisfy the needs of letting what is left of New Orleans to sink into the sea. Since the city existed for several decades before the foundation of the Union, it is difficult to say that it was anything but the creation of the fiat of French nobility. So why would they create it and why would the United States government see fit to keep it around?

    For the same reason why Chesapeake is vital to the US economy, so is New Orlean
    • Yes, there are very good reasons why Jackson took New Orleans back from the British in 1815. Why it was a major target of the Union during the Civil War. Why it is the US' largest port and one of the largest in the world. Why all 5 major US railroads serve it. And why it has been a major city for longer than anywhere in the US other than some of the oldest cities on the Eastern Seaboard.

      Geography to a large extent determines where cities form and grow. Strategic locations are strategic for a reason. Changes
  • More like "federal government do what it claims to do".

    Asking for FEMA to do it's JOB instead of being utterly clueless ("I didn't know there were people in the superdome!" and "We don't ask the Guard to go in on 24 hour notice unless it's really an emergency.") is not the same thing as, say, creating a department of Homeland Security out of scratch. FEMA existed. It had a mandate, a role to fulfill. It failed at that role pretty disastrously.

    And it seems pretty clear that some leadership from Bush could

    • Let this be a lesson for you then, that when the terrorists strike next, don't expect the feds to get to you in a timely manner - you're on your own. Prepare accordingly.

      If you think the feds are so incompetent when faced with an event for which there was several days advanced warning, imagine how poor their response will be when there is NO warning.

      Get together with your neighbors and plan something like this: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/33 39752 [chron.com]

      Not everybody is helpless without the go
      • Let this be a lesson for you then, that when the terrorists strike next, don't expect the feds to get to you in a timely manner - you're on your own. Prepare accordingly.

        Exactly. So why should we bother paying taxes to that corrupt organization known as the Federal Government if they can't even be bothered to fullfill their constitutional duties?
  • the Republicans are for state's rights, but when it comes to taking money from the poor to give to the rich, the Republicans are for the Republic.

    A hint here- the Republic can not stand, should not stand, if it does not fullfill it's two basic responsibilities- to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. Between the War on Terror (or is it now the Struggle Against Extremeism?) and Katrina, we've had two major examples that the modern Republic does neither- and thus States need to start deny
    • Oooh - let me guess, you're equating lowering taxes with taking from the poor and giving to the rich? Because that couldn't be further from the truth!

      Check this out:
      http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/printerFriendly.p hp?id=1026&PHPSESSID=211336cb5a4189d83f46e65529e08 7d5 [tiadaily.com]
      An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
      by Robert Tracinski
      • Oooh - let me guess, you're equating lowering taxes with taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

        Only a small part of the equation I'm afraid. A much larger one is the utter lack of a maximum wage law, like the one we had in the 1940s. Also, a bigger slice of the pie is the fact that stockholders are allowed to take dividends the very day they invest- instead of say, a delay of several years for maturity. In addition to that, there's the banking industry with their usury, the oil companies with t
        • Only a small part of the equation I'm afraid. A much larger one is the utter lack of a maximum wage law, like the one we had in the 1940s.

          Of course, there is a minimum wage law. You're a liar.

          Beyond that, of course, is the fact that "not forcing people to give extra money to others" is not the same thing as "taking money from others." You're a liar.

          none of that actually explains why the Republicans seem to believe that the common defense and general welfare are NOT responsibilities of the federal governme
          • Stupid lack of preview!

            I blame Bush!
          • Of course, there is a minimum wage law. You're a liar.

            Read it again- I didn't say a MINIMUM wage law, I said a MAXIMUM wage law- something entirely different.

            Beyond that, of course, is the fact that "not forcing people to give extra money to others" is not the same thing as "taking money from others." You're a liar.

            Zero sum game, dude. For any given product, there is a price. Out of that price has to come the wages of the guy who made it, and the raw materials to make the item. The only way to make
            • Read it again- I didn't say a MINIMUM wage law, I said a MAXIMUM wage law- something entirely different.

              LOL. I assumed you were merely making a thinko. I didn't believe even you could be in favor of something so retarded.

              Zero sum game, dude.

              The American economy has proven itself to not be a zero sum game, "dude."

              For any given product, there is a price. Out of that price has to come the wages of the guy who made it, and the raw materials to make the item. The only way to make profit on a given product is
              • LOL. I assumed you were merely making a thinko. I didn't believe even you could be in favor of something so retarded.

                Oh, so Plato's retarded is he?

                The American economy has proven itself to not be a zero sum game, "dude."

                Really? Then why do we have a business cycle?

                That's false. Go back to econ 101, do not pass go, do not collect $200. (And if you do collect it, give it to the government.)

                Really? Then how do YOU justify profit?

                The wage paid to an employee is simply whatever the market will bear
                • Common Defense includes Acts of God?!

                  *blink*

                  I've never heard anyone assert that before. Interesting, but I disagree, and while I don't have time right now to look it up, I'd imagine Madison or others in the Federalist Papers would probably disagree.

                  In fact, the old "Not Yours To Give" story tells us that this is not the case, although obviously that story is not hard fact of the founder's intention, but at least indicates that not everyone would agree with your contention. I certainly don't :-p
                  • Common Defense includes Acts of God?!

                    Yes- for the same reason that an early settlement villiage would gather together and form a bucket brigade when the neighbor's barn got hit by lightning. The more you protect your neighbors, the more you protect yourself. That's the whole basic idea of the commons.

                    I've never heard anyone assert that before. Interesting, but I disagree, and while I don't have time right now to look it up, I'd imagine Madison or others in the Federalist Papers would probably disagre
                    • I'm not talking about taxation or corporations, I'm talking about "Common Defense".

                      You further confuse the issue by talking about the local level whereas I'm referring to the federal level.

                      I would suggest that the only "Defense" against "Acts of God" is prayer. And I really would be surprised if you were suggesting Congress or the President should lead the nation in daily prayer sessions.

                      And regardless, we ultimately will just end up right back at the old argument of how to parse Article I, section 8. I
                    • That's why I'm working for Cascadia to secede

                      To have independent country has no joke. You'd better not try to do in the economic reasons.

                      Aside from that, unlike other countries like Russia, China, UK, US has its unique system of local autonomy, and it has been working well at least from outsider's viewpoint. All other countries have autonomous regions based upon the ethnic background. So there have been severe conflicts involving violence. EC has been struggling to integrate all the countries but so far st

                    • I'm not talking about taxation or corporations, I'm talking about "Common Defense".

                      The deal is that we pay taxes to various levels of government, and in return we get certain protections. If those protections aren't forthcoming- for whatever reason- then the government has become an albatross around our necks and we'd be better off without it.

                      You further confuse the issue by talking about the local level whereas I'm referring to the federal level.

                      The money comes from the local level. If the federal
                    • From the outsider's point of view, maybe. From the insider's point of view, Cascadia is in exactly the same position the original 13 colonies were in: paying taxes to a government 3000 miles away that neither listens to our problems nor helps us with those problems. And occasionally passes laws that make the problems worse instead of better. The only real difference is that it's a mountain range and a huge plain seperating us from them instead of an ocean. Otherwise, it's exactly the same problem imper
                    • Funny, the southern states had the same level of disgust and frustration through the 1850s.

                      The problem is that many of those living in west coast actually LIKE having a big, bloated centralized federal government. They just resent it when the "other guys" are running it. But as long as "their guys" are in charge, they not only willingly accept it, but seek to make it ever bigger and more powerful! Apparently it just never occurred to them that the "other side" could ever gain control over their little ba
                    • Funny, the southern states had the same level of disgust and frustration through the 1850s.

                      Exactly right. But there is a difference- we still think a constitutional centralized federal government makes sense because the First Nation had one for 9000 years before the white man showed up.

                      The problem is that many of those living in west coast actually LIKE having a big, bloated centralized federal government. They just resent it when the "other guys" are running it. But as long as "their guys" are in cha
                  • Common Defense includes Acts of God?!

                    I had to be home to access federal webpages- there's enough hatred in State Government for them to be blocked at work. According to FEMA history page [fema.gov] and about 38,000 others that came up when I googled FEMA history 1803 (I remembered the date but not the specifics, my bad) the predecessor to FEMA was originaly formed in 1803 during the Presidency of George Washington in response to a New Hampshire Town being hit by lighting and burning to the ground. There were abou
        • A much larger one is the utter lack of a maximum wage law, like the one we had in the 1940s.

          Maximum wage law, if it had existed in the 1940s, it would have been as good as socialistic policy. That made our willingness to work unenthusiastic. If it were abolished, it woud be appropriate. I think you were talking about from different views, like corporate exectives received big amount of revenues from the company, but it is utterly based on the princles of capitalism -those who brought about huge profit deser

          • Maximum wage law, if it had existed in the 1940s, it would have been as good as socialistic policy.

            It was a socialistic policy- a direct response to the perfect storm of your country attacking Pearl Harbor and a decade old economic depression. It's intent was to draw workers into the factories, and encourage factory owners to pay higher wages than they otherwise would have (by limiting the owner's salary) and to pay for the war (by confiscating excess money out of the system instead of letting it go to i
    • the Republicans are for state's rights, but when it comes to taking money from the poor to give to the rich, the Republicans are for the Republic.

      First, "the Republic" implies "states' rights."

      Second, the Republicans are not for taking money from the poor to give to the rich. You're a liar.

      the Republic can not stand, should not stand, if it does not fullfill it's two basic responsibilities- to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

      The people who actually designed the Republic disagreed, of
      • First, "the Republic" implies "states' rights."

        Then why is this Republican President taking National Guard troops needed in Louisianna to invade a foreign country that never invaded us?

        Second, the Republicans are not for taking money from the poor to give to the rich. You're a liar.

        Then why does the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than a guy living off of dividends and doing NOTHING to earn his income?

        Why does ConAgra get millions in farm subsidies- but family farmers g
  • They complain Bush didn't react fast enough, begging and demanding the feds do more to help.
    It happens everywhere, and at all levels of government. People see government doing bad things or doing things badly, and they propose to "solve" the problem with this strategy: let's give it more money and power.

    It's boggling.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life's the same, except for the shoes. - The Cars

Close