Conservatives. Establishment Republicans are happy to have another excuse for bankrupting the nation. Roberts is no conservative. Hanging is the appropriate response.
Opinionson the Chris Christie/CPAC issue
- Thread starter tecoyah
- Start date
Conservatives. Establishment Republicans are happy to have another excuse for bankrupting the nation. Roberts is no conservative. Hanging is the appropriate response.
Then you know Sandy doesn't compare. It did an equal amount of economic $ damage as populations/structures are more dense in NE.
And if you know aabout hurricanes, you know how to prepare, you know how to respond, and you know how to survive...you wouldn't be asking the government for handouts. Unfortunately, not all are like you..or me.
Many....as was obvious...depend on the government, in fact cannot do without. Sad reality
When there is public damage, who do you expect to help? There are emergency prep systems in all states and when there are resource shortages the Federal government is the last call for EVERY state. The states that often get hit with hurricanes are naturally more prepared to deal with hurricanes than those that don't. You can't prepare for everything or you go broke doing it. Have a blizzard down in Florida and see how they run into a very similar mess.
[youtube]gx0YDFJuHq8[/youtube]
Hurricane Sandy was a game changer in the presidential race and Governor Christie may have played a role in Obama's resurgence in the polls. But he technically did not endorse Obama when he praised Obama's handling of the disaster situation and GOP moderates such as Christie and Scott Brown find it tough to survive in today's political environment and CPAC is dominated by very conservative groups.
Hurricane Sandy was a game changer in the presidential race and Governor Christie may have played a role in Obama's resurgence in the polls. But he technically did not endorse Obama when he praised Obama's handling of the disaster situation and GOP moderates such as Christie and Scott Brown find it tough to survive in today's political environment and CPAC is dominated by very conservative groups.
myp, there are many who expect the federal government to be there first. You are correct, emergency systems are put into place, many states must prepare for hurricanes, others possible earthquakes, or flood damage, avalanches, etc. States....like Louisiana and Mississippi, and any other Gulf State not to mention the entire Eastern Seaboard are better prepared. Or should be. New Orleans obviously wasn't and rather than thank God Katrina missed them, New Orleans asked to be shown money.
Yes...I actually watched it unfold. The federal government, despite rescuing many and coming with massive aid anyway, was held completely responsible for any response shortcomings, my point proven by Mayor Ray Nagin's re-election while the city still has disdain for Bush.
Both storms myp, underscored what has happened to us as a society, imo , we seem wholesale incapable nowadays to prepare and then respond to any act of God. Our Presidents are praised and asked to be given thanks for showing up, taking pictures, pointing more taxpayer money, and moving on.
Missing the entire 800lbs elephant in the room. We have entire cities and regions of many states who are dependent on a central government, a theme not exactly healthy for a democracy not true to our heritage of independence and rugged individualism. We're becoming soft.
Or... this is exactly what it was supposed to be. The Articles of Confederation failed. Since that time, there have been states that put in more money Federally than they get out and vice-versa. Look at states like NY or California vs. states like Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. It is nothing new though and it isn't necessarily a bad thing- look at the alternative that is Europe. Our interlinked fiscal situation is quite important to not only our nationhood but in more tangible terms, a monetary policy that works for every state.
What does having a monetary policy that is effective for all the states have to do with Marx?
Observation....on a faceless anonymous talk forum?
Please David, this isn't reality, may I submit you may be taking it all a bit too seriously. Lighten up, please.
??? You are the one that suggested effective monetary policy has something to do with Marxism...
I'm saying you take this too seriously if you're making observations on an anonymous faceless talk forum. Try to remain on point and about content, I think that would improve your posts. In my opinion.
Hmm... I am still not sure what you are trying to get at. That there shouldn't be a central bank or government money? If that is the case remember that many great capitalists have been in favor of central banking. In fact, the only school that probably hasn't is the Austrian school. Every single President to date from Wilson on has been pro-Fed including Reagan, the Bushes, etc. So have many great economists from Milton Friedman to JM Keynes to George Stigler and on and on. Those people are hardly Marxists.
Out of curiosity though, what is your preferred monetary system if you are anti-central banking?
A central bank for and facilitating the Federal government, myp. I believe many of those you just listed supported a private banking system and the Fed being a separate entity from the federal government. Setting rates and engaging monetary policy quite independent from government policy or doctrine, am I not correct there cause I think I very much think I am. You are suggesting a federal POLICY that makes sense for each and every state as if each and every state shouldn't be it's own entity, we are the united states of America.
And that monetary policy you suggest does have a marxist flavor and I will take issue with you, I very much do think you know what I'm trying to get at.
You misunderstand what I said. What I said is that the fiscal unity allows for monetary policy effectiveness. The fiscal unity has always been there since the Articles of Confederation were ditched- the transfer of wealth from rich states to poor states has always been there and it is needed for the monetary policy (which yes is and should be run independently as is) to work. The ECB is learning that the hard way right now.
I really don't. The biggest influence on me has probably been Milton Friedman- a lot of my economic viewpoints align with him including on monetary policy. But then again, what modern economist isn't a Friedmanite when it comes to monetary policy? He won the debate of his time and by the definitions of that time we're (for the most part) all monetarists now. Except probably the tail ends like the Austrians, etc. and possibly your school of thought if you think monetarism is Marxism.
Similar threads
