It was bound to happen...

[TheGame]

So prof, you think setting expectations for 1% of the money that you give away is wrong?

I think the people who are doing the fear mongering is the republican party and yourself. You're expecting the absolute worst from the government.. You know, the government has and had the power to dictate where 100% of that money went right? But we cry over 1% like its the end of the world...?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

So prof, you think setting expectations for 1% of the money that you give away is wrong?

No, I think the Federal government dictating budgetary policy of a state is wrong, no matter how small. I'm sorry if you think it's not. The triviality of 1% if irrelevant. It could be for a $1 and it still would be wrong. The problem is not with the amount, it is with the act even taking place.

The Federal government has assumed powers that are not theirs. I can remember many people screaming to high hell about the Bush administration being dictators when they pushed through the patriot act. If you believe that is true, I fail to see how this is different. In fact, I see actions like this affecting far more people far more greatly than the patriot act ever did because of how it affects the economy of the state (which affects every resident of the state).

I think the people who are doing the fear mongering is the republican party and yourself. You're expecting the absolute worst from the government.. You know, the government has and had the power to dictate where 100% of that money went right? But we cry over 1% like its the end of the world...?

I'm a little tired of the dismissive "fear mongering" label. I pointed out that what this administration did to Chrysler was fascist. No one disagrees with this assessment, and yet I'm a fear monger? I point out that the administration threatened to refuse stimulus money promised to state swimming in debt in order to enact a policy change, and how it is a huge assumption of power by the Federal government over state government, and I'm a fear monger? Funny, I thought I was pointing out the obvious. I thought people had heard of the 10th amendment. But I guess when point out something people don't want to hear, it's expected that their initial reaction will be hostile.

Perhaps you disagree with my analysis of these two items, and thats fine, but trying to dismiss an argument that is at the very least considerable benefits no one.

[TheGame]

Before I go to our disagreement, let me start with the thing I think we do agree on.. As it stands right now the Fed does have too much power. They have too much control over our currency in general.

But the thing about that is that's a problem that's always been there. And decisions made these days are not going to make much of a difference, we were put on the tracks to this damn near 100 years ago, and at this point I don't think it can be derailed.

I doubt anyone in the government has the ability to affect this without causing havoc. That's just how I feel.

Originally Posted by Professor S

No, I think the Federal government dictating budgetary policy of a state is wrong. I'm sorry if you think it's not.

The Fed isn't dictating this, you can call it that, but once again past decisions led to this. California has been in debt for as long as I can remember. And it was our state government's decision to take the money. If they had their sh** together to begin with we wouldn't have this problem.

And I think only pushing one thing that only accounts for 1% of the funds provided is perfectly reasonable. It'd be unreasonable, if they gave the funds... and then pushed for a lot more to be done, I can't label an exact line on it cause its grey.. but I'd say it depends on how long the state had the money also. 1% this early in is nothing...

If they asked for say, 5% 3 years later, or a return.. then that's when I'd be throwing a fit too.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The Fed isn't dictating this, you can call it that, but once again past decisions led to this.

No but the Fed does everything BUT dictate this by holding billions over their head like a cudgel. If the Federal government were to actually take over control formally, I think the constitution would literally explode and take out the entire Library of Congress. This is a Constitutional end-around, and everyone knows it.

California has been in debt for as long as I can remember. And it was our state government's decision to take the money. If they had their sh** together to begin with we wouldn't have this problem.

To me, the dire straits of California are a reason NOT to meddle with their budget, especially when they're trying to CUT IT. Also, did the Federal government let the states know that they would be micromanaging them if they took advantage of the stimulus money? No. I wouldn't be this offended if they had. Also, the amount of money being offered is near or more than the total tax revenue of the state and meanwhile they're billions in the red. California was made "an offer they couldn't refuse", but it was never in the power of the Federal government to make the offer in the first place.

And I think only pushing one thing that only accounts for 1% of the funds provided is perfectly reasonable. It'd be unreasonable, if they gave the funds... and then pushed for a lot more to be done, I can't label an exact line on it cause its grey.. but I'd say it depends on how long the state had the money also. 1% this early in is nothing...

Except a violation of the 10th amendment. Thats a sticking point with me, and I don't think there should be any exceptions regardless of the situation. Once we start bending our constitutional laws, I think we will twist them until they don't resemble what they once were. It's human nature.

This is a dangerous precedent, IMO. Once a government begins to take power, they normally don't give it back, or stop acquiring it. This administration's hand has been VERY heavy, beginning with business, and now with California. I'm curious to see if this will happen with other states.

If it stops HERE, I think what has happened hasn't been that bad and in some cases may work out. But we're barely over 100 days in this administration, and so far the precedent that's being set does not bode well for future governmental decisions.

[TheGame]

Prof, you act like the Fed having us by the balls is a new thing. This situation didn't start with Obama being elected. I can understand your concerns, but this is a conversation we could have been having long ago.. the only thing that's different now opposed to a year ago is that the financial meltdown is bringing to light power that has always existed.

[Typhoid]

Keep in mind I have had a few beers at this point, but I would just like to state:

You think that it's ok for the Federal government to essentially extort and micromanage states into doing what they say by lording billions of dollars over their head? What gives them the RIGHT?

Well, the fact they are the government/essential "ruler" of the country sort of gives them the right.




Anyways, my two cents:


I agree with both sides here.
The fact that they are saying "Here, take X amount of dollars, but make sure that 100/X goes towards ____ or else you don't get X dollars" is entirely wrong. It's wrong in the sense they're saying they have to spend a certain amount, nomatter how small on something. However, they are the overall government, which does technically overrule state power.

On the other hand, it is only 1% of the fund they are giving, so no - realistically, it's not a huge deal. If they were saying 60% has to go towards ____, then yes, I could see why it's a big uproar.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Keep in mind I have had a few beers at this point, but I would just like to state:



Well, the fact they are the government/essential "ruler" of the country sort of gives them the right.




Anyways, my two cents:


I agree with both sides here.
The fact that they are saying "Here, take X amount of dollars, but make sure that 100/X goes towards ____ or else you don't get X dollars" is entirely wrong. It's wrong in the sense they're saying they have to spend a certain amount, nomatter how small on something. However, they are the overall government, which does technically overrule state power.

On the other hand, it is only 1% of the fund they are giving, so no - realistically, it's not a huge deal. If they were saying 60% has to go towards ____, then yes, I could see why it's a big uproar.

60% would definently be an outrage. Its hard to draw a line though, because it just means if the government tosses a state enough extra money they can get the state to change any little thing they want. Potentially... which is what Strangler is scared of.

I can see how 1% is an annoyance to prof also, but the fact that they could be pulling for a lot more and only asked for one little thing is reassuring in a way. If they really wanted to abuse their power they could, and nobody could stop them.

Some people just chose not to trust the government and make wild assumptions about what will happen. Honestly, I don't trust the govt much, but I'm not gonna sit there and cry about what they could possibly do. Get mad when they actually pull more stunts and don't show contraint. I'm mad at the first bail out package, biggest waste of money ever.

For all I know the first bail out bush made was just done so that future bail outs would come with some more rules attached to them, and people would have to accept them. Who knows? We can't really control what is coming.

[Seth]

I don't think being the Federal government removes constitutional restraint just because so much attention is paid to the elecion every four years. Localized government is more meaningful and direct in it's implications, the US is built around that ideology. Who wants to be under the 'control' of a centralized system, without more local representation? What happens when Obama(figurehead not policy maker) decides that fascist maneuvering takes precedence over a stagnate economy? The millions of t-shirt wearing morons embrace it because obviously a polar opposite partisan is going to be doing 'good' in contrast to the last 8 years of 'bad'.

so, is the 2nd amendment relevant prof_S? just curious as to your thoughts since you hold the 10th as vitally important.


we're all gonna be obamanated pretty soon. I predict that, at this rate, within 4 years they're gonna have to make use of all the empty detainment centres located throughout the country. Not everyone's going to step in line to suck the presidents dick everytime he talks about hope when food stamps and 'socialized healthcare' are prescribed for the upcoming onslaught of consequences resulting from the now overt fascist meandering. ahaha, but that's just pessimistic. Dabble away el presidente

You know there's laws recently in place that make adherence to local state law over federal law a crime. doesn't bode well for Montana folk.