We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If you do not currently live in a red state, there’s a good chance you will be in the near future. Either you will flee to a red state or a red state will come to you—because voters fed up with blue-state fiscal irresponsibility will elect candidates who promise to pass red-state policies.
Seems to me that most of it is about pols being in bed with government unions, and splitting the pie at the taxpayers' expense. In blue states, who represents the citizens against the union machines? My state government (CT) is owned, top to bottom, by the government unions and functions like a Mafia conspiracy preying on the taxpayers.
In the two years Reid and President Obama have controlled Washington, government jobs have increased 13.5 percent to 2.1 million.
During that same time, 2.5 million private-sector jobs were lost.
Perhaps the goal is to have everybody working for our government overlords. Feudalism.
Government jobs are a necessary evil and are functionally parasitic, not a basis for the real economy which is required to work and make a profit to pay those government bills. McConnell is right: These are local and state concerns, not federal concerns. The federal government has enough to deal with as it is with its constitutional duties, and is not doing a very good job with that. States and localities have to run themselves, or surrender their sovereignty to the feds. Like Greece. That is not a good idea.
Illinois resident here. It wasn't too long ago we had Republican Senators and Republican governmors. But now the number of people who are tax consumers (public employees and welfare recipients) outnumber the tax producers (employees of private companies) and the State government is run by the people they elect.
In California, the electorate is so skewed to big cities that the rest of the state, which is quite red, is very much trapped in the nightmare of liberalism/progressivism that has engulfed the golden state. Like a drunk, there will be no change here until the bottom is reached, the only question being how bad it has to get to be "the bottom."
The idiocy of the voters in returning Jerry Brown to office is jaw dropping.
In our land of fiat money, Government unions are exceedingly dangerous. Especially since very few voters understand what fiat money is and how it works - and as long as we all stay in the dark about this - we may not be doomed but we are in trouble.
Sure am glad Senator Sanders picked some Modern Money Theory experts to be on his panel of experts to help draft legislation to reform the Federal Reserve.
The comments on the Forbes article are comedy gold, with Leftards quoting that old study that supposedly Blue states are subsidizing Red ones. You know, the one that doesn't take into account how many Blue State retirees move to Red states, or how much of Red states is FedGov owned, or that the Red states are actually willing to have the military around...
Coming from a formerly socialist land, I have always viewed socialism as a return to feudalism, featuring an all-powerful caste of rulers, a well-muscled caste of enforcers, and then the other 90%, who have no rights, only the duty to follow, obey and labor enthusiastically in the masters' fields.
My formula: socialism = feudalism with a populist face. (and, to let Winston Churchill to have his say, "...made more sinister and perhaps more protracted by the lights of perverted science.").