Hahaha! That is Socialism. California has one of the highest GDP's in the country. What's the Socialist motto? Tax the rich and redistribute to those in need. I did read that the Millennials who are all for Socialism are against it if it's going to personally cost them anything. Socialism is for the jobless, not so much for those with a paycheck (even a small paycheck).
Of course they do. Now with their high blue state taxes no longer deductible on a Federal level, the Red states will get even more wealth re-distribution. Ain't socialism great? Be careful what you wish for.
I doubt it would be any more likely than it already is, and the Constitution handles it when that does occur.
Another number that is going to be of significance is farm subsudies. Most farm subsidies go to red states b/c red states grow our food. Not to mention all if the subsidies that go to red states for lefty nonsense like ethanol. To make an apples to apples comparison, you need to account for such things.
For the record I am against all of these subsidies, as I regard all of them as unconstitutional. I challenge anyone to cite the clause of the Constitution that allows subsidies.
It is unconstitutional. It also is a slap in the face of voters in a state who vote for candidate A but the electors are given to candidate B.
So subsidies shouldn’t be counted? What other stipulations do you have to counter that the nation largely props up red states?
Then they will be wanting to change the rules again instead of working on policies the people actually want.
AAMF, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment specifically forbids social welfare. However, the SCOTUS in their "wisdom" and word salad decided in the 1930s that it didn't apply. The issue needs to be revisited by people that understand the meaning of the words that the Founders used.
It in no way forbids social welfare, you are likely trying to misconstrue “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Taxes do not seize private property and they are authorized by the constitution itself — even if you can twist this language the benefits to all as a society are a form of compensation for those taxes. You could make the argument that fraud or government abuse (like a taxpayer funded golf trip a week for example) fall outside of compensation however.
Well that may be so, but since it seems you are Republican, it won't be long before TX turns blue. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...Star-State-might-turn-blue-for-real-this-time
The thing is that their candidate will win if the dummies get off their butts and vote. But most people simply don't give a damn. Texas could easily go Blue but the Texas Dems don't care although they are probably the majority of registered voters in the State. The Dem candidate can win simply by picking up Florida and North Carolina. The rest of the Red States can be ignored because they will stay Red.
As I said, I'm opposed to any federal aid as I view it to be unconstitutional. That said, it is misleading to make a blanket statement to say that blue states support red states b/c of the nature of their economies and other factors I've mentioned. Perhaps one could say red states should withhold food from blue states and see how long it takes socialists to starve?? Of course Stalin has already worked the math out on that one
The Union was literally built upon the EC. Smaller states like Connecticut and Rhode Island, to name a few, refused to join a union where more populous states (like Virginia, at the time) would have an effective monopoly on federal policy via their larger population. Thus the 'Great Compromise' that created the EC and convinced the smaller states to join. Im not saying the EC is just or democratic (its certainly not the latter), but it is factually a contractual obligation of The Union. If the EC is anulled (whether officially or just effectively) it will create of breach of contract situation between FedGov and States and will legitimize secession. Personally I believe this Union may be better off with just such a divorce. So Im not judging whether the EC should be enforced or not. But rather I just want to make sure yall know what you're advocating for by promoting the ECs elimination: the dissolving of our Union.
Two guesses which state produces the most food in the nation Hint: it is bright blue. Now guess what red states would do once their elderly is completely disconnected from the welfare of blue states? Aren't arrogant stereotypes fun!
We've had 4 presidents most Americans didn't want. Trying to fix that isn't nullifying votes, literally the opposite.
Um no the bicameral legislature was the great compromise the EC was chosen because they could not think of anything else. The EC was a north vs south compromise the north wanted popular vote the south wanted congress to elect the president, and because they could not come to a conclusion they left voting and electing the president into the hands of the states.
Sure... except the 'um no' part. None of what you said actually refutes anything I said. You just added specific dynamics to my general recounting of history. Which exactly of what I explained are you refuting, and with what?
I am refuting the general argument that any state had the EC as a prerequisite for joining. Any argument that a clause in the constitution that was so badly thought out was the glue to the union is asinine. It is a miracle that the mess with the deadlock tie didn't happen the first election after Washington. All the reasons people say today as to why it is important is revisionist history.
Just because it wasn't a very good solution doesn't mean its not contractually binding... Its a fact that those states wouldn't have joined without it, and its a fact that it was a dynamic in play for all states that agreed to join thereafter. Removing it would be grounds for dissolution under common law and in the perception of the populace.
Who are “you guys” and what “train” are you referring to? I take it the questions were too difficult?