Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is running in a heated three-way Republican primary for governor of Tennessee, has a dire warning about the new health care reform law: If a new Congress and president aren't elected in order to repeal the bill, states might just have to secede. "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," said Wamp, who has also promised to refuse to implement the law at the state level if he is elected, in an interview with the Hotline. Wamp also praised Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) -- who has also floated the idea of secession -- for leading the fight against the health care bill. "Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp. The Hotline asked Wamp's GOP primary opponents whether they are opposed to secession. A spokesman for Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam answered, "Yeah," while Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey blasted "Rep. Wamp's trademark over-the-top temperament and overheated, sometimes crazy rhetoric." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r-separation-from-this-government.php?ref=fpa
That is probably true. All the predominantly blue states are bankrupt. Throw healthcare taxes into the mix and it's over. I am fortunate enought to live in downtown chicago and have a car. The largest purchase I have made in cook county in the 4 years I have lived her is a bar tab. I drive to Indiana to buy everything or buy it online. I don't call the police, fire dept. or amublances. I walk to work and do not take public transportation nor do I have children that attend public schools. As far as I am concerned the crooked democrats in IL can shove it because they aren't getting shit from me nor do I take any of their shit so we are even. I have opted out of the scam and couldn't be happier. If the state goes bankrupt, I will leave. The democrats can bail themselves out, because I will not. the beauty of mobility.
I say shoot the traitors now. But why waste bullets on these maggots when a heavy blunt object would be more satisfying to use.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7803 By Robert Cruckshank Well, well, well. For years now we've been hearing that California's budget problems exist because we "overspend." Others claim it's because our taxes are so high that companies and jobs move to low-tax states. Texas is often held out by those making these claims as an example of what California should emulate - a low-tax, low-services, low-spending state that supposedly has government figured out. Except they don't. California faces a budget deficit of about $18 billion. And how much is Texas's budget deficit? That's right. $18 billion: But as the state's budget shortfall widens-to as much as $18 billion, or about 20% of the next two-year budget, according to the state legislature's latest analysis released earlier this month-critics are complaining that Mr. Perry's policies have left the state with little room to reduce spending. "There is no way that they will be able to come up with $18 billion in cuts," said Eva DeLuna Castro, a senior budget analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income Texans. "They would have to shut down our prison system." Suddenly Texas doesn't look like such a great model for California. They don't have an income tax, yet their revenues have collapsed just as California's have. Texas spends a lot less per resident, with a much smaller level of public services, yet they are still facing a budget deficit about the size of our own. This news should put to an end once and for all the lie that California's budget deficit stems from overspending, or that we should cut our income taxes to "stabilize" revenues, or that we should follow Texas's model of low services. Instead what Texas shows us is that the real problem - as in Greece - is that taxes are too low, especially on the higher end of the income bracket. Higher taxes help balance the budget, sustain the services we need to attract and retain companies. Think that last part is nonsense? Just ask two California companies that are moving to Colorado: As for quality of life, "there's less traffic, less stress, the people are more grounded here. My kids aren't going to school where all the kids drive Porsches and Mercedes," he said. "I should have moved sooner."... One final thought from Hansen: "It's not that we hated Orange County ... We love it. But here we're not spending our time sitting on a freeway. There are trails right by our office." The OC Register article wants to make it sound like Colorado's lower taxes were the key driver. But it sure doesn't sound that way from the quotes. Traffic is a truly massive economic problem here in California, causing lost time and lost money. Had these business owners not had to deal with traffic, because we'd spent our money building alternatives, they may well have decided to stay, since they clearly enjoyed life in the OC. Most decisions made by companies about where to locate their businesses don't revolve around taxes. Cost of living, ability to recruit and retain skilled employees, quality of local schools, infrastructure, and other similar issues tend to dominate the list. Since California has systematically starved those services of revenue, it's becoming harder to create the jobs that will produce recovery. What we're seeing is the "Texas is better" model proven to be the lie that it is. California should look to the model of Pat Brown, who understood that investment in our state's services, schools and infrastructure produced prosperity, for the way out of our budget and economic crisis.
The above quote is not surprising considering the fasciocialists and their hate for individual responsibility, hate for those that create wealth and desire to confiscate their wealth, the desire to disarm them and their history and passion for genocide. Their idiocy is that if the wealth generators are killed off, no one will pay for their health care and welfare.
Its a good thing then that the Liberals are the wealthiest demographic and overwhelmingly favor social programs. "According to a 2004 study by the Pew Research Center, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers", for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_American_liberals
I agree that they "overwhelmingly favor social programs" using other people's wealth stolen from the demographics they hate, like the higher income business owner demographic. The Liberal demographic are parasitic wage manipulators hence their higher income level compared to some other demographics, but not nearly as high as business owners and other wealth creators. Government worker parasites, known as the Liberals, make 64% more than the average psychologically normal worker demographic. The caring Liberal said to me, "Hey, I know how to help people. Tax the wealth creators more to "help" the poor and I can get a cut of that with a huge pay raise. The tax increase won't hit me none, I'm not in that tax bracket. Plus I get huge tax-free benefits. I get my cut of the wealth distribution because I care about others. I give of myself by distributing wealth of others. It's my job. You can't fire me, I work for the government." True story!
Did you even read what the quoted text said, its 'their' money too and they as a group are the highest wage earners. You are completely ignoring what was actually quoted and simply ranting ad hominem.