#3
The reality is that about 40% of men and nearly 100% of women (Rantburg women excepted) prefer autocratic collectivism where everybody has a secure place funded by parasitizing the innovative and the entrepreneurial.
There is a reason pharaonic Egypt lasted three millennia. Consciously or unconsciously weak humans pine for that sort of secure anxiety-free existence. It takes a special kind of person and an ability to resist the narcotic allure of a magic government paycheck and unfortunately we are living in a time when people with that capability are overwhelmed by people without it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/07/2014 5:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
parasitizing the innovative and the entrepreneurial
....all key and essential measures for gov't control and the urbanization of America.
#8
"O" is the Servant of Destruction - His theme song group - Descender is a Thrash Metal Band from Zagreb Croatia and this is their first album Descending into chaos
Posted by: Walter and Company8955 ||
08/07/2014 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
no mo uro, I think you are right in general regarding the world but the US has always been different and has attracted the folks that don't think that way. That might be breaking down but I'm not so pessemistic that another Reagan couldn't really fix things up.
I don't really see a Reagan out there right now however.
[Ynet] Analysis: Islamic organization is sacrificing Gazoo's residents in the battle against Israel in order to receive funds and weapons from Tehran.
Operation Protective Edge has increasingly weakened the Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, organization and inflicted long-term damage on it.
Tunnels which have been dug for years were bombed by the IDF's Engineering Corps within hours, dozens of the organization's activists were killed every week, and missiles obtained with great effort were mostly "wasted" thanks to the Iron Dome system.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: trailing wife ||
08/07/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
The same Iran that Putin signed the 20 billion dollar deal with and that Obama's been giving away stuff to in hopes of having an agreement.
[TheAtlantic] States like Texas, Florida, and New Hampshire pride themselves on having no state income tax on individuals. But that is only literally true of the 60 or 70 percent of their budgets that comes from state revenue. With respect to the portion derived from federal sources, Washington in effect imposes a high state income tax, which it collects on their behalf. States have no choice about that. Their only viable option is to accept on bended knee the sovereign's offer to return their money back, in exchange for their obedience. It's a fair bet few Americans understand what is really going on behind the façade of federal assistance.
Federal dominance is often justified as the only way to secure uniform laws. But states don't need coercion to achieve that end. The Uniform Commercial Code of 1962, for example, was a marked improvement over the old state common law of contracts, and it greatly facilitated interstate commerce. Every state has adopted it, with the partial exception of Louisiana, which kept its old French civil code for sales. The American law of contracts was successfully modernized and harmonized without any federal involvement, under a scheme that gave free rein to diversity and local choice.
Similarly, Common Core was originally an initiative of the National Governors Association, with no federal involvement, but the Obama administration made participation a criterion for federal education grants. That's where many states cry foul. States that comply are rewarded in part from taxes collected in states that buck Common Core--the familiar coercion at the heart of federal grants.
Money isn't the only lever the feds use to increase their influence over state governments. Formally, the federal government can't require states to implement federal regulations. But environmental regulations show how easy it is to get around that constraint. The Clean Air Act allows the states to issue federal permits--but only under federally approved state implementation plans, or SIPs. Those plans must meet a dizzying number of conditions; otherwise, the EPA trumps with a federal implementation plan, or FIP.
When EPA comes in with its FIP, it often comes to "crucify" local industries, as former EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz boasted at a closed-door meeting early in the Obama administration. The crucifixion takes the form of costly added requirements and endless delays. The federal government basically says to uncooperative states, "Implement our regulations for us, or we'll do it ourselves, and your constituents will be sorry." Predictably, constituents pressure state officials to protect them from the dire prospect of EPA implementing its own regulations, as we saw when Texas at first resisted implementing EPA's new greenhouse gas regulations.
These problems have their roots in a major constitutional transformation that began a hundred years ago. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, allowing Congress to institute a real income tax for the first time. Later that year the 17th Amendment provided for direct election of senators. These two changes made the government much bigger and more "national." That era also gave birth to the modern administrative state, which has steadily absorbed the rule-making functions of Congress. Then came President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, with its insistence on intrusive regulations of labor and agriculture that were clearly outside Congress's constitutional power to regulate commerce "among the several states." RTWT
I'm confused. This is the second Atlantic article I've seen today that makes sense. What's going on?
#3
Reads like it was written by a Tea-Party constitutional scholar.
As opposed to the White House constitutional scholar.
Too bad more people don't have sufficient attention span to finish the article.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/07/2014 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Congress has abdicated its rule-making function. Seldom if ever does it amend or eliminate laws once they are in effect. How simple would it be to simply amend the EPA(Act) to eliminate CO2 emissions from regulation?
#5
In the bad old days when state legislatures chose US Senators, it was far cheaper to buy influence at that level than it now is to buy donate to a senatorial candidate's statewide election campaign. IIRC, that was the basis for the 17th amendment, to give "the people" more say in choosing their US senator. "The people" ain't what they used to be.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
