First DEI

[Marvin the Martian]

I think the first DEI program in the US was the US Senate. Small states wanted equality with big states and didn't want to have to work for it, you know, attract population. So we created a DEI program, NH would have equality with NY.

So in eliminating DEI, we need to revise the Constitution and stop giving small states what they do not earn.

 

[NPT]

So in eliminating DEI, we need to revise the Constitution and stop giving small states what they do not earn.

At the same time we would need to stop people in NY, CA from bullying people in AK, WY ,etc and return power to state governments. 🤣

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I think the first DEI program in the US was the US Senate. Small states wanted equality with big states and didn't want to have to work for it, you know, attract population. So we created a DEI program, NH would have equality with NY.

So in eliminating DEI, we need to revise the Constitution and stop giving small states what they do not earn.

It will never happen, but as a matter of fact, we should absolutely get rid of equal suffrage in the Senate. States are just lines on a map, now, and all this does is concentrate more power in the hands of a few people who happen to hail from the right ones. There must be better ways to balance regional concerns than what we've come up with.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It will never happen, but as a matter of fact, we should absolutely get rid of equal suffrage in the Senate. States are just lines on a map, now, and all this does is concentrate more power in the hands of a few people who happen to hail from the right ones. There must be better ways to balance regional concerns than what we've come up with.

They aren’t just lines on a map though.

That was (and remains) the whole idea. Each of the several states is a sub-sovereign. The very structure of the country as a federal republic was predicated upon this notion.

 

[Eppy99]

I understand the points being made but isn’t there a balance of power given congressional seats are unbalanced based on population?

 

[NPT]

They aren’t just lines on a map though.

That was (and remains) the whole idea. Each of the several states is a sub-sovereign. The very structure of the country as a federal republic was predicated upon this notion.

Exactly..... if the federal government would keep their hands out out every thing in our lives then I could go along more with states are just lines on the map but since they don't then status quo is good. Sure we need a strong federal government for some things.... defense, FDA, etc but they don't need to have their hands in everything.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

They aren’t just lines on a map though.

That was (and remains) the whole idea. Each of the several states is a sub-sovereign. The very structure of the country as a federal republic was predicated upon this notion.

That's the theory, but it's less of a reality now. And it certainly doesn't justify equal suffrage.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I understand the points being made but isn’t there a balance of power given congressional seats are unbalanced based on population?

It would hurt my "side" but that is the argument I think would be likely to garner grudging logical support from me. Just revisit the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act. If you wanted equal representation, there are 590,000 people in Wyoming and they get 1 House Rep. There are 334.9 million citizens (roughly) in the US. Increase the house size to 567 and you would have everyone about as close to equally represented as you will get.

I think if you did that you would have to institute some rules addressing gerrymandering to some degree as well.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's the theory, but it's less of a reality now. And it certainly doesn't justify equal suffrage.

Why is it less of a reality now?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Why is it less of a reality now?

The civil war and the administrative state are the two biggest reasons, I reckon.

 

[Spartans9312]

The civil war and the administrative state are the two biggest reasons, I reckon.

Can you expound on this ?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Can you expound on this ?

The civil war proved that state sovereignty is limited and subordinated to the national, and the administrative state has shifted much of the day-to-day governance that actually affects people to a bureaucracy for which the ultimate decision making happens on a federal level.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The civil war proved that state sovereignty is limited and subordinated to the national, and the administrative state has shifted much of the day-to-day governance that actually affects people to a bureaucracy for which the ultimate decision making happens on a federal level.

I cannot recall the name of the book, but there was one where the author discussed the impact of the Civil War on American thought. Or as I like to put the Civil War into legal theory, US v Lee decided for US.

Before the war, Americans travelling abroad would say they were Virginians or Texans or whatever. After the war, people would say they are American.

I do know it was Shelby Foote who said:

Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."​

​

​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Let us base representation on amount paid into federal government vs amount received. If your state makes the US a profit, you get more representation. If your state loses US money, you get less.

Think of it this way, will your elected officials vote for pork barrel that eliminates their seat in Congress?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Let us base representation on amount paid into federal government vs amount received. If your state makes the US a profit, you get more representation. If your state loses US money, you get less.

Think of it this way, will your elected officials vote for pork barrel that eliminates their seat in Congress?

Would you extend the same logic to the level of the taxpayer viz voting?

 

[ribbont]

The civil war proved that state sovereignty is limited and subordinated to the national, and the administrative state has shifted much of the day-to-day governance that actually affects people to a bureaucracy for which the ultimate decision making happens on a federal level.

Well, is that not the crux of disagreement between the left and right? The federal administrative state has become too big and taken too much day to day governance from the states? Seems like this admin is looking to reverse that imbalance. Not sure the US needs to eliminate equal suffrage in the Senate, as you suggested.

 

[larsIU]

Would you extend the same logic to the level of the taxpayer viz voting?

Some would say Citizens United already did.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Some would say Citizens United already did.

Something did, billionaires now run everything...

 

[Stuffshot]

At the same time we would need to stop people in NY, CA from bullying people in AK, WY ,etc and return power to state governments. 🤣

Do you really think individual state governments are more capable of working together to solve common problems than Congress is?

 

[Stuffshot]

Exactly..... if the federal government would keep their hands out out every thing in our lives then I could go along more with states are just lines on the map but since they don't then status quo is good. Sure we need a strong federal government for some things.... defense, FDA, etc but they don't need to have their hands in everything.

Actually, state governments themselves are doing a very good job right now of butting into "every thing in our lives."

And, state governments don't appear to be hamstrung by inertia as Congress is.

 

[NPT]

Do you really think individual state governments are more capable of working together to solve common problems than Congress is?

It's according whether it's a national problem or state problem. I think state governments come nearer knowing what's good for THEIR state. For example, someone posted last year about the federal government telling states they couldn't put anything funny on Interstate road signs (I can't remember exactly how it was stated)..... stupid that they don't have anything better to do that worry about what's on a road sign. Of course the federal government has a big role in a lot areas but it should be kept to a minimum. Did you ever read any books about the making of the constitution. They fought like dogs and cats... one side wanted a limited federal government and the other wanted a strong federal government.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Actually, state governments themselves are doing a very good job right now of butting into "every thing in our lives."

And, state governments don't appear to be hamstrung by inertia as Congress is.

I see AL and GA have bills making NIL money tax free. If those pass we can toss out any ideas state governance is good.

 

[Stuffshot]

That's the theory, but it's less of a reality now. And it certainly doesn't justify equal suffrage.

It isn't really "equal" either -- for decades, leaders/speakers/chairmen in Congress have disproportionately come from small states. In this respect, small states have had far more power than expected.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Some would say Citizens United already did.

I’m thinking along the lines of voting itself, not campaign finance.

A man’s vote is weighted between how much they paid in taxes versus how much they received in benefit.

It’s an interesting concept, anyway.

 

[ribbont]

Something did, billionaires now run everything...

When did they not?

 

[Stuffshot]

It's according whether it's a national problem or state problem. I think state governments come nearer knowing what's good for THEIR state. For example, someone posted last year about the federal government telling states they couldn't put anything funny on Interstate road signs (I can't remember exactly how it was stated)..... stupid that they don't have anything better to do that worry about what's on a road sign. Of course the federal government has a big role in a lot areas but it should be kept to a minimum. Did you ever read any books about the making of the constitution. They fought like dogs and cats... one side wanted a limited federal government and the other wanted a strong federal government.

Your post incorrectly elevates states rights and the original debate over the Constitution (which debates were never the law in the first place) above the Constitutional provisions enacted following the Civil War.

While your post disagrees with federal power as to confusing highway signs on federally funded roadways, the current administration is using federal funding right now to overrule state governments on many social issues. These are social issues that state governments had already decided "what's good for THEIR state" as you posted, but the current administration is overruling them.

Don't you oppose the administration's current intrusion into the powers of the states?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Do you really think individual state governments are more capable of working together to solve common problems than Congress is?

Is this a joke??? Congress is fcking worthless. Absolutely I’d rather have shit at the state level

 

[Stuffshot]

I see AL and GA have bills making NIL money tax free. If those pass we can toss out any ideas state governance is good.

Ask Stoll about this, but I'm 100% sure many states have long ago passed laws exempting money earned from certain Federal investments (like US Treasury Bills) from taxation under state income tax laws. That income is still taxable income under federal tax laws, however.

Sounds like AL and GA may be doing something similar as to state taxation of NIL.

 

[Stuffshot]

Is this a joke??? Congress is fcking worthless. Absolutely I’d rather have shit at the state level

Yes, Congress is pretty much worthless. I don't think cooperation between states as to matters of mutual concern is any more likely than cooperation on such issues between representatives of states sitting in Congress.

Hell, seems like states are actually suing each other a lot right now.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ask Stoll about this, but I'm 100% sure many states have long ago passed laws exempting money earned from certain Federal investments (like US Treasury Bills) from taxation under state income tax laws. That income is still taxable income under federal tax laws, however.

Sounds like AL and GA may be doing something similar as to state taxation of NIL.

I thought T bills were tax free in all states. NIL is crazy.

 

[Stuffshot]

I thought T bills were tax free in all states. NIL is crazy.

This says you are correct:

How Are Treasury Bills (T-Bills) Taxed?

Interest from Treasury bills (T-bills) is subject to federal income taxes but not state or local taxes, and is reported on Form 1099-INT.

www.investopedia.com

More people should look into T bills as a possible alternative to dividend-paying mutual funds, depending where they live. State income tax can be above 10%.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I think the first DEI program in the US was the US Senate. Small states wanted equality with big states and didn't want to have to work for it, you know, attract population. So we created a DEI program, NH would have equality with NY.

So in eliminating DEI, we need to revise the Constitution and stop giving small states what they do not earn.

Shit, if the senate went DEI, we’d all have left this country instead of succumbing to California’s law. Why do you think employers are fleeing and growing companies refuse to establish a state presence?

 

[NPT]

Don't you oppose the administration's current intrusion into the powers of the states?

I sure do.... It doesn't matter to me who is president or who controls congress.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Shit, if the senate went DEI, we’d all have left this country instead of succumbing to California’s law. Why do you think employers are fleeing and growing companies refuse to establish a state presence?

Haven't all the jobs left the US.

Simply put, with no clear definition of DEI anyone has presented, the Senate fits. Saying Wyoming has to be equal to CA is it. And per person, Wyoming has more congressmen per person than CA.

 

[larsIU]

I’m thinking along the lines of voting itself, not campaign finance.

A man’s vote is weighted between how much they paid in taxes versus how much they received in benefit.

It’s an interesting concept, anyway.

I’m just being cheeky about the perverse influence money has on our way of government.

Campaign finance determines who we “get” to vote for. Independents don’t win. The two major parties need money to compete in an ever escalating arms race. It’s just logical they would eventually conform to the will of the highest bidder.

Many people would call that a rigged system. I’m sure many voters on both sides, and maybe in equal measure, would agree.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

When did they not?

I’ve long said that there’s only one way to get big money out of government. And that would be to get government out of big money.

But that ship has sailed. And it’s probably unavoidable in a global economy, anyway. Foreign trade has always been a big issue. But never so big as it is today.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’m just being cheeky about the perverse influence money has on our way of government.

Campaign finance determines who we “get” to vote for. Independents don’t win. The two major parties need money to compete in an ever escalating arms race. It’s just logical they would eventually conform to the will of the highest bidder.

Many people would call that a rigged system. I’m sure many voters on both sides, and maybe in equal measure, would agree.

To some extent, I agree. But I also think the value of money in politics is overrated - or at least it has diminishing marginal utility.

Harris spent more than double what Trump spent. And other very well-funded candidates have gone nowhere. Jeb Bush, Michael Bloomberg, Giuliani.

A candidate needs to be sufficiently funded. That much is true. But piling more on top of that doesn’t do them much good.

 

[NPT]

Harris spent more than double what Trump spent.

It doesn't matter how much you spend you can't make a silk purse of of a sow's ear. 🤣

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It doesn't matter how much you spend you can't make a silk purse of of a sow's ear. 🤣

Yeah, that’s my point!

Money doesn’t turn a weak candidate into a strong one. A lack of money can hurt an otherwise strong candidate, though. Depends on the numbers.

 

[ribbont]

I’ve long said that there’s only one way to get big money out of government. And that would be to get government out of big money.

But that ship has sailed. And it’s probably unavoidable in a global economy, anyway. Foreign trade has always been a big issue. But never so big as it is today.

I wonder if returning admin back to the states would help remove money out of politics? At least a little. Lobbyists and funding would then have to be more directed to each state versus DC.