Abolish the Senate.

[MrWonka]

Exactly. Go find another state, if your kind of government is adopted, Charleston won't be worth shit. Why is it that rich people want to be communists?

Got some bad news for your chief, but Charleston is controlled almost exclusively by Liberals, and its success in recent years is heavily driven by that fact.

 

[MrWonka]

South Carolina is a red state. Don't like it? Move to China.

Charleston, where I live, is a blue city, and I didn't move here for the politics, I moved here for the weather and the golf.

As with almost every part of the South that is doing well economically, you'll find that it is brimming with Liberals who came for the weather. As states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan turn a bit purple you're going to see states like Texas, Colorado, Georgia, Arizona, and the Carolinas turning bluer as well.

 

[it's just me]

Got some bad news for your chief, but Charleston is controlled almost exclusively by Liberals, and its success in recent years is heavily driven by that fact.

That's why I don't go there anymore, and Charlestons success is driven by the tourist trade. Try not to screw it up.

 

[it's just me]

Charleston, where I live, is a blue city, and I didn't move here for the politics, I moved here for the weather and the golf.

As with almost every part of the South that is doing well economically, you'll find that it is brimming with Liberals who came for the weather. As states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan turn a bit purple you're going to see states like Texas, Colorado, Georgia, Arizona, and the Carolinas turning bluer as well.

Dont count on it. People like you have been saying that shit for 30 years, or for as long as I have been watching. When they get their tax bills they'll be deserting Charleston like they've been deserting California.

 

[MrWonka]

Dont count on it. People like you have been saying that shit for 30 years, or for as long as I have been watching. When they get their tax bills they'll be deserting Charleston like they've been deserting California.

Got some bad news for you again. When people leave California, it's generally not because of the tax bill, it's because of the huge cost of living.
The huge cost of living? That comes from the fact that Millions of people want to live there.

But that's also why it's so important to make sure most income tax is collected at the Federal level and redistributed back to the states with conditions on its use. It helps prevent shitty Republican states from trying to steal wealthy people and corporations from awesome Liberal states by letting them avoid paying their fair share of tax.

 

[BlueTex]

Got some bad news for you again. When people leave California, it's generally not because of the tax bill, it's because of the huge cost of living.
The huge cost of living? That comes from the fact that Millions of people want to live there.

But that's also why it's so important to make sure most income tax is collected at the Federal level and redistributed back to the states with conditions on its use. It helps prevent shitty Republican states from trying to steal wealthy people and corporations from awesome Liberal states by letting them avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Hmmm... People really want to live there and therefore drive up the real estate prices and thus the cost of living... It's almost like a free market..

 

[aociswundumho]

Got some bad news for you again. When people leave California, it's generally not because of the tax bill, it's because of the huge cost of living.
The huge cost of living? That comes from the fact that Millions of people want to live there.

No, it comes from the fact that the supply of new housing is severely restricted by government regulation. Consider San Fransisco:

Causes
Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.[11] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.[12] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.[13] During the same time, there was rapid economic growth of the high tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley, which created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The resultant high demand for housing, combined with the lack of supply, (caused by severe restrictions on the building of new housing units[14]) caused dramatic increases in rents and extremely high housing prices.[15][16][17] For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units.

San Francisco housing shortage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The sky-high housing prices in California are due to progressivism.

 

[it's just me]

Got some bad news for you again. When people leave California, it's generally not because of the tax bill, it's because of the huge cost of living.
The huge cost of living? That comes from the fact that Millions of people want to live there.

But that's also why it's so important to make sure most income tax is collected at the Federal level and redistributed back to the states with conditions on its use. It helps prevent shitty Republican states from trying to steal wealthy people and corporations from awesome Liberal states by letting them avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Right, right, when people leave California it's because of the huge cost of living, which is because of people wanting to live there. Sounds like Yogi Berra logic.

I'd rather go to New Orleans these days, there's more to do there, better food, whereas Charleston is right down there with Myrtle Beach.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not sure why you think I dislike it so much, seems very odd to me.

you seem to want to dismantle it and make it look like other lesser countries.

I simply want to improve it, you know, turn it into a more democratic nation that allows the majority to have direct control over government within the boundaries of the constitution. The kind of stuff we lecture other nations about all the time, maybe we should listen to our own advice.

setting us up to live under the tyranny of the majority an improvement? It was set up the way it was specifically to avoid that.

Democracy is dictatorship. That exists in North Korea and in China why do you want to make our country suck more that seems like it's out of hatred. Perhaps it's out of ignorance

 

[it's just me]

Hmmm... People really want to live there and therefore drive up the real estate prices and thus the cost of living... It's almost like a free market..

That still doesn't explain why people are leaving in droves. If it's so great there why do they leave?

 

[BlueTex]

That still doesn't explain why people are leaving in droves. If it's so great there why do they leave?

Are they selling their properties at a loss? That tells me it is so great someone is willing to pay the the higher price... It's funny, I was looking at property in San Mateo County today... Just a five years ago it was valued at around $5M.. today it is valued at $13M... Have any idea what the monthly payment on that is?

 

[Phys251]

That still doesn't explain why people are leaving in droves. If it's so great there why do they leave?

Actually California is gaining people, just at a slower rate than the national population growth.

 

[MrWonka]

No, it comes from the fact that the supply of new housing is severely restricted by government regulation. Consider San Fransisco:

Umm... in order for there to be an incredibly short supply of new houses you need to have more people wanting to live there than what currently do.

So basically what you're telling me is that California is so awesome they can easily afford to charge a higher cover charge even though they know it might turn some people to say.

 

[it's just me]

Well, it's good to know you libs are for the working man. I, on the other hand, am not that greedy.

By the way, my property is worth twice what I paid for it, too, but I have better sense than to spend millions on a piece of property I can't take with me.

 

[Peter]

We have something similar in the UK.
The House of Parliament writes a law and sends it to The House of Commons who can amend it and send it back but in drastic cases, the Parliament can vote for a law 3 times and force it through without Commons consent. The UK also doesn't have anything like a filibuster to slow the process.

I made a mistake here, sorry.

The House of Commons is where the MP's all sit and debate and make laws and where PMQ's are.

The Lords is a mostly unelected (the idea is it's supposed to be filled with experts in all sorts of things who are awarded a lordship by the queen) house where laws are scrutinised and changed and sent back but this can be overridden by the elected upper house.

Just as a fun aside by tradition the MP's aren't allowed to say The Lords and must refer to it as "The other place" if they want to say anything about them.

 

[Ishm]

I made a mistake here, sorry.

The House of Commons is where the MP's all sit and debate and make laws and where PMQ's are.

The Lords is a mostly unelected (the idea is it's supposed to be filled with experts in all sorts of things who are awarded a lordship by the queen) house where laws are scrutinised and changed and sent back but this can be overridden by the elected upper house.

Just as a fun aside by tradition the MP's aren't allowed to say The Lords and must refer to it as "The other place" if they want to say anything about them.

That's such a classic British (English perhaps?) style idiosyncrasy.

What seems apparent in more recent history (few decades) is that the seperation of powers and style of congressional control has become so intensely politicaly divided that it has reduced the 'nimbleness' that enables some other countries to adapt to change faster today. I think in previous times the US was able to be more of a leader, with better/faster ability to adapt to change. Or am I just imagining that?

 

[it's just me]

Are they selling their properties at a loss? That tells me it is so great someone is willing to pay the the higher price... It's funny, I was looking at property in San Mateo County today... Just a five years ago it was valued at around $5M.. today it is valued at $13M... Have any idea what the monthly payment on that is?

Keeps the blacks out, doesn't it?

 

[Athanasius68]

No other Parliamentary House on the planet allows the minority to block the majority indefinitely. Only the US Senate.

They all do-- most of these parliamentary democracies are led by heads of government who:
1. Never faces a national electorate-- only the electorate of the particular district (ow whatever the term used) he or she was elected.
2. Most heads of government rely upon coalitions of other parties to stay in office. They themselves cannot claim to have majority support. In other words, the head of government represents a head of government that has MINORITY support throughout the country.
3. In such a situation as #2, a minority party can block government action by threatening to withdraw from the coalition, thus possibly bringing down the government.

This notion that the majority rules untrammeled across the globe in parliamentary governments is, like so much of progressive thinking, without factual foundation.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Maybe the US senate can be abolished by executive order

The US constitution has a mechanism for changing things.

Why not contact your state representatives and start the process?

 

[Individual]

Now all the sudden redistribution is bad?

We could easily put an end to this by repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments, and eliminating all forms of Federal redistribution spending making them wholly the responsibility of State government tax/spending.

 

[CLAX1911]

We could easily put an end to this by repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments, and eliminating all forms of Federal redistribution spending making them wholly the responsibility of State government tax/spending.

I haven't looked at amendments beyond the 14th

 

[SarahSun]

You shouldn't assume anybody that points things like this out is automatically on the opposing side of the issue.

My position has been pretty consistent taxation is theft.

I agree. Politicians take money from people who earn, give it to those who dont, then brag about helping people. Its the people whose money was taken who did the helping.

 

[SarahSun]

I like the senate just like it is. Lets say republicans get 55 senate seats, the house and president and decide to make all abortion a crime. Id be happy then if 45 dems could block it.

 

[MrWonka]

I like the senate just like it is. Lets say republicans get 55 senate seats, the house and president and decide to make all abortion a crime. Id be happy then if 45 dems could block it.

Abortion is a constitutional right. If Republicans could make it illegal that easily they would have done it during Trump's first term in office when they had all of those things.

The reason that Abortion may very well become illegal in the not-so-distant future is that Republicans controlled the Senate and White House despite the fact that the majority of Americans didn't vote for them.
That allowed them to pack the court with 3 right-wing wackjobs who can radically alter our Constitution without ever having to convince the American people they should be allowed to.
Without the Senate, the responsibility of confirming judges would fall to the House, and while it is still possible for a minority of Americans to control the House, it is far less likely.

 

[SarahSun]

Abortion is a constitutional right. If Republicans could make it illegal that easily they would have done it during Trump's first term in office when they had all of those things.

The reason that Abortion may very well become illegal in the not-so-distant future is that Republicans controlled the Senate and White House despite the fact that the majority of Americans didn't vote for them.
That allowed them to pack the court with 3 right-wing wackjobs who can radically alter our Constitution without ever having to convince the American people they should be allowed to.
Without the Senate, the responsibility of confirming judges would fall to the House, and while it is still possible for a minority of Americans to control the House, it is far less likely.

Its not directly in the constitution so its only a constitutional right unless the SC says it isnt. Why have it even get that far?