Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Obamacult]

But if this is the best you can offer --

Proving you to be a hypocrite and a liar?

Seriously dude, you are really starting to bore me with your empty vitriol.

[Obamacult]

Any governor who advocates insane policies that undermine growth to that extent will bankrupt their states in short order and hence invite Federal government bankruptcy restructuring. However, a scenario similar to this and far more damaging would be a federal govt. engaging in financially unsustainable spending that leaves the entire nation bankrupt instead of a single industry within a single state.

Wait, that is what we are currently experiencing on a national level --- a federal govt. that is on the fast track to financial insolvency and with it societal collapse of ALL states.

Hence, nobody is saying that individual states won't be mismanaged -- however, we still have an impartial federal govt. that can intervene to restructure the offending state government.

Yeah, I brought this up before. A saner alternative that avoids entire states going into recurrent cyclical economic collapses is federal policy that preemptively intervenes to prevent them by redistributing resources and managing programs that affect interstate trade.

The national debt problem is due to bad tax policy and, I suspect, stagnating wages due to a growing trade deficit. The first of these is pretty damn easy to solve if you don't have zealous ideological yahoos in Congress obstructing sensible tax reform.

When the federal govt. has accumulated over $50 trillion in unfunded debt, not to mention over $16 trillion in present debt, then it has failed.

Get over it.

The federal govt. is broke, corrupt, unaccountable and unresponsive --- it must be reformed.

Indeed, the architect of the Constitution recognized the most efficient role for the federal govt. and by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure -- it is not bankrupting the Republic by mismanaging entitlements:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."- James Madison

Good night all.

[Death Metal]

Moreover, the architect of the Constitution debunks your biased statist view:

-- James Madison

Madison by his own admission did very little for the Constitution but publish the Federalist Papers. Calling him the "architect" of the Constitution is like calling Evel Kineval the man who discovered the Grand Canyon.

[Obamacult]

Moreover, the architect of the Constitution debunks your biased statist view:

Madison by his own admission did very little for the Constitution but publish the Federalist Papers. Calling him the "architect" of the Constitution is like calling Evel Kineval the man who discovered the Grand Canyon.

Your personal opinion, while greatly appreciated, is not supported based on the historical evidence:

Who's the Father of the Constitution?

[Malgrave]

Go right ahead. I'll offer to purchase NASA and DARPA for 20 dollars before though.

[Mavorpen]

I'll try again since I didn't get a real answer last time. What is the correlation between income and migration?

Here is my post again:

your graphic is production occupations -- hence, I can tell you that Michigan has high production wages, but with few job openings. Moreover, Connecticut also has high wage rates and with it declining population. In contrast, Wyoming has strong population growth and high wages -- this is probably a function of an under supply of production workers. I would suspect that North Dakota would have higher wage rates than most other states today and at the same time it is one of the fastest growing states.

In sum, high wage, high population growth is a function of a growing economy that has a shortage of labor. In contrast, high wage, low population growth states are indicative of low growth, high tax, pro-union policies. Indeed, the eight of the ten fastest growing states are right to work states.

And ten out of ten of the states with the worse domestic migration rates are ALL forced union states (with the exception of Michigan which has recently changed and hence still considered a forced union state) !!!!

What is your point?

Do you have a point?

Except that doesn't answer my question at all. Once again, you fail to answer simple questions and attempt to distract me with rants that have nothing to do with my point.

1. Your post talks about production workers, which has nothing at all to do with my post because I posted a link to median household income overall, not for production jobs. You would know this if you actually clicked the link.
2. Your post talks about unions. What does this have to do with my post? Absolutely jack shit.

You have completely missed the point either on purpose or because you sincerely have no idea how to be consistent. You made the claim that it isn't lower costs of living that determines migration, but higher income. When presented with a source demonstrating that there is absolutely no correlation betwren higher median income and migration, you completely and utterly fail to addresd it.

So once again: do you or do you not have ANY shred of empirical evidence showing a correlation between the two?

[YellowApple]

Go right ahead. I'll offer to purchase NASA and DARPA for 20 dollars before though.

I'll go in with you on that and match your bid, making a $40 combined bid.

[Theopanias]

Course not, the Federal governement whether you like it or not is basically what makes the USA a unified nation and not just a bunch of small nations. If the USA broke apart at the federal level, we'd lose a ton of the benefits we take for granted as a world superpower.

[Obamacult]

Here is my post again:




What is your point?

Do you have a point?

Except that doesn't answer my question at all. Once again, you fail to answer simple questions and attempt to distract me with rants that have nothing to do with my point.

1. Your post talks about production workers, which has nothing at all to do with my post because I posted a link to median household income overall, not for production jobs. You would know this if you actually clicked the link.
2. Your post talks about unions. What does this have to do with my post? Absolutely jack shit.

You have completely missed the point either on purpose or because you sincerely have no idea how to be consistent. You made the claim that it isn't lower costs of living that determines migration, but higher income. When presented with a source demonstrating that there is absolutely no correlation betwren higher median income and migration, you completely and utterly fail to addresd it.

So once again: do you or do you not have ANY shred of empirical evidence showing a correlation between the two?

This was my original post on the matter:

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Source: viewtopic.php?p=13236374#p13236374

This is your strawman rebuttal:

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

Source: viewtopic.php?p=13236434#p13236434

In sum, I never stated any such correlation between higher wages and migration as any objective, independent thinking and rational person can plainly observe.

And now your engaged in this disjointed nonsensical solo argument between your previous strawman and your present strawman of which I have nothing to do with.

C'mon man !!!

[Obamacult]

Course not, the Federal governement whether you like it or not is basically what makes the USA a unified nation and not just a bunch of small nations. If the USA broke apart at the federal level, we'd lose a ton of the benefits we take for granted as a world superpower.

Nobody is asserted any such thing -- simply a return to the 19th century political situation in which the federal govt. was not corrupted and distracted by mismanagement and bankruptcy of economic issues best left to the individual states.

Indeed, the federal govt. could focus on its primary responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing legal contracts.

Not trying to get itself and its cronies rich at the expense of Main Street.

[Grave_n_idle]

Proving you to be a hypocrite and a liar?

Seriously dude, you are really starting to bore me with your empty vitriol.

Nothing vitriolic about it. I showed you were a hypocrite, by showing where you leveled an accusation at someone else that was even more true of yourself - and I showed where you were a liar, by citing your strawman argument.

There's nothing vitriolic about that. No hate is required to link to your posts.

[Obamacult]

Seriously dude, you are really starting to bore me with your empty vitriol.

Nothing vitriolic about it. I showed you were a hypocrite, by showing where you leveled an accusation at someone else that was even more true of yourself - and I showed where you were a liar, by citing your strawman argument.

There's nothing vitriolic about that. No hate is required to link to your posts.

You have produced nothing substantive or objective on this thread, other then unsupported personal opinion.

Simply inane retorts deviod of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence. Indeed, you have contributed nothing of note to undermine the original post or anything else I have posted.

[Mavorpen]

In sum, I never stated any such correlation between higher wages and migration as any objective, independent thinking and rational person can plainly observe.

And now your engaged in this disjointed nonsensical solo argument between your previous strawman and your present strawman of which I have nothing to do with.

C'mon man !!!

Apologies. I expected you to actually be consistent in your claims. If you actually read your own post, you would see that you not only contradicted yourself, but you have now shown yourself to be completely and utterly lying.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

How in the world can the part in red and the part in blue both be true? How can wages/income rates determine migration trends while also not causing people to move to regions and states (and is instead determined by higher standards of living as you claim)? To be quite honest, I didn't catch this at first, but I find it hilarious how you really typed two completely contradicting things in the same post literally back to back.

Furthermore, the part in blue quite clearly states that you are claiming there to be a correlation between wages and migration trends. You blatantly state that it along with cost of living determines migration trends. However, when you actually look at the evidence I provided, no such correlation exists.

[Condunum]

Nothing vitriolic about it. I showed you were a hypocrite, by showing where you leveled an accusation at someone else that was even more true of yourself - and I showed where you were a liar, by citing your strawman argument.

There's nothing vitriolic about that. No hate is required to link to your posts.

You have produced nothing substantive or objective on this thread, other then unsupported personal opinion.

Stop using those words. You're using them completely out of place so often it's rediculous. Half of the things you call it on, possibly more, have no possible objective view. And "substantive" is a very, very subjective realm of view.

[Grave_n_idle]

You have produced nothing substantive or objective on this thread, other then unsupported personal opinion.

Simply inane retorts deviod of any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence. Indeed, you have contributed nothing of note to undermine the original post or anything else I have posted.

Here is the post where you presented your strawman arguments

For ease, here is the part where you admit you know that the arguments you're pretending to address haven't even been made:

"The following list identifies the expected fallacies and myths from the Left and my response to the expected misinformation/disinformation from progressives on this issue".

Here is the post where you accuse 'the peanut gallery' of constructing 'strawman' argument.

For ease, again here is the specific reference:

"I love how the peanut gallery resorts to misinformation and other assorted strawman arguments to attack phantom positions that nobody has offered."

Here's me pointing out that you were guilty of the sin you were accusing 'the peanut gallery' of.

Here is you claiming I was wrong about it.

Here's the post where I present your own words, to show that I was not wrong.


Not my personal opinion. Demonstrably not devoid of evidence. Demonstrably objective.

It's all right there.

[Mavorpen]

It's all right there.

That looks 'shopped.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's all right there.

That looks 'shopped.

I screwed up the tags. Fixed.

[Obamacult]

In sum, I never stated any such correlation between higher wages and migration as any objective, independent thinking and rational person can plainly observe.

And now your engaged in this disjointed nonsensical solo argument between your previous strawman and your present strawman of which I have nothing to do with.

C'mon man !!!

Apologies. I expected you to actually be consistent in your claims. If you actually read your own post, you would see that you not only contradicted yourself, but you have now shown yourself to be completely and utterly lying.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

How in the world can the part in red and the part in blue both be true? How can wages/income rates determine migration trends while also not causing people to move to regions and states (and is instead determined by higher standards of living as you claim)? To be quite honest, I didn't catch this at first, but I find it hilarious how you really typed two completely contradicting things in the same post literally back to back.

Furthermore, the part in blue quite clearly states that you are claiming there to be a correlation between wages and migration trends. You blatantly state that it along with cost of living determines migration trends. However, when you actually look at the evidence I provided, no such correlation exists.

Seriously, it is hard to believe that I am engaged in this 'argument' . That I have to explain the difference between absolute value and a ratio between two values.

Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Let me give you an example to make this clear:

State X has an average wage of $75,000 but a cost of living of $70,000 per year.

State Y has an average wage of $50,000, but a cost of living of $25,000 per year.

Which state would a rational, objective and independent thinking person think would attract the most migration?

Proceed to dig your hole ever deeper.

[Mavorpen]

Apologies. I expected you to actually be consistent in your claims. If you actually read your own post, you would see that you not only contradicted yourself, but you have now shown yourself to be completely and utterly lying.



How in the world can the part in red and the part in blue both be true? How can wages/income rates determine migration trends while also not causing people to move to regions and states (and is instead determined by higher standards of living as you claim)? To be quite honest, I didn't catch this at first, but I find it hilarious how you really typed two completely contradicting things in the same post literally back to back.

Furthermore, the part in blue quite clearly states that you are claiming there to be a correlation between wages and migration trends. You blatantly state that it along with cost of living determines migration trends. However, when you actually look at the evidence I provided, no such correlation exists.

Seriously, it is hard to believe that I am engaged in this 'argument' . That I have to explain the difference between absolute value and a ratio between two values.

It's hard to believe that you still have not even read your own post.

It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Your "or" signified that you were stating either or. In other words, it's a ratio or combination of the two things that determines migration. Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Now, even if we ignore all of this, you STILL made the claim that standard of living is what determines migration and not wages or cost of living, and then you stated the exact opposite in the very next sentence. You have utterly failed to even address this part of my post. Don't think you're getting off that easily by distracting me with your, "Lul u dont understand ratios."

Let me give you an example to make this clear:

State X has an average wage of $75,000 but a cost of living of $70,000 per year.

State Y has an average wage of $50,000, but a cost of living of $25,000 per year.

Which state would a rational, objective and independent thinking person think would attract the most migration?

According to the data, State Y by far. Because as I've shown you over and over, wages and income has virtually no correlation between migration. Meanwhile, cost of living by comparison is at least significantly more consistent.

Proceed to dig your hole ever deeper.

No thank you. I'll continue exposing your contradictory statements and outright lying.

[Obamacult]

Seriously, it is hard to believe that I am engaged in this 'argument' . That I have to explain the difference between absolute value and a ratio between two values.

It's hard to believe that you still have not even read your own post.

It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Your "or" signified that you were stating either or. In other words, it's a ratio or combination of the two things that determines migration. Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Now, even if we ignore all of this, you STILL made the claim that standard of living is what determines migration and not wages or cost of living, and then you stated the exact opposite in the very next sentence. You have utterly failed to even address this part of my post. Don't think you're getting off that easily by distracting me with your, "Lul u dont understand ratios."

Let me give you an example to make this clear:

State X has an average wage of $75,000 but a cost of living of $70,000 per year.

State Y has an average wage of $50,000, but a cost of living of $25,000 per year.

Which state would a rational, objective and independent thinking person think would attract the most migration?

According to the data, State Y by far. Because as I've shown you over and over, wages and income has virtually no correlation between migration. Meanwhile, cost of living by comparison is at least significantly more consistent.

Proceed to dig your hole ever deeper.

No thank you. I'll continue exposing your contradictory statements and outright lying.

I'll leave you to your digging.

[Condunum]

It's hard to believe that you still have not even read your own post.



Your "or" signified that you were stating either or. In other words, it's a ratio or combination of the two things that determines migration. Nonetheless, absolute wage rates is a different animal than the ratio of wages per costs of living.

Now, even if we ignore all of this, you STILL made the claim that standard of living is what determines migration and not wages or cost of living, and then you stated the exact opposite in the very next sentence. You have utterly failed to even address this part of my post. Don't think you're getting off that easily by distracting me with your, "Lul u dont understand ratios."

According to the data, State Y by far. Because as I've shown you over and over, wages and income has virtually no correlation between migration. Meanwhile, cost of living by comparison is at least significantly more consistent.



No thank you. I'll continue exposing your contradictory statements and outright lying.

I'll leave you to your digging.

Is that the closest you get to admitting defeat?

[Mavorpen]

I'll leave you to your digging.

"I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence."

Take your own advice, please. I'll be awaiting your inane retort devoid of any logical, factual, or empirical evidence.

[Condunum]

I'll leave you to your digging.

"I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence."

Take your own advice, please. I'll be awaiting your inane retort devoid of any logical, factual, or empirical evidence.

Beautiful caricature.

[Obamacult]

@Grave_n_idle,


Bullshit.

Here is the post I rebutted:

I love how Obamacult directly acknowledges that his big long list is a list of strawmen. (As in, they're easily refuted arguments, which is why he's refuting them without anyone actually making them.)

Maybe I should just repeat myself too:

Letting each state set their own economic policies with no federal involvement is only a non-terrible idea if that includes letting them set tariffs on imports from other states and/or issue their own currencies.(bullshit, I never advocated this) (Examples: Greece and the Euro crisis; Mexico post-NAFTA and the resulting surge of emigrants to the US) So, basically turning the US into a confederation of countries rather than one country (more bullshit, I never advocated this). Even then, it wouldn't be a great idea. (Economic slowdown and resulting political discord.)

Regulating trade across the entirety of a unified market, and redistributing resources to offset inevitable disparities, is a legitimate and necessary function of government. To say nothing of issues like civil rights (more ill-informed bullshit, indeed removing the federal govt. from mismanaging and being corrupted and distracted by economic issues will insure that it is better positioned and focus to do what I have always stated that it does best: protect life, liberty, private property and enforce contracts). The South only seceded in the first place in order to continue being a bunch of asshole racists; they had nothing else to gain from it. I'll never understand how people can think that isn't a relevant point.

Indeed, I challenge you to cite a single instance in this thread where I advocated the federal govt. aborgate its Constitutional responsibility to regulate trade.

IN sum, read the thread before making these sweeping nonsensical attacks because I really am getting bored.

[Austadama]

Nope. If anything the Federal government needs more power in the US