Illinois:
Not if you want to stay a Republican you can’t.
So Democrat policies (like raising taxes) don’t work, and when they don’t the Democrats can get themselves out of their self-imposed mess by implementing Republican policies. Republicans are the smart ones, because when their policies lead to near-bankruptcy they can always raise taxes.
I mean, seriously?
Seriously, only blue states ever have to actually contemplate bankruptcy or a federal bailout. And blue cities of course. Let’s not for get NYC.
Oh, of course; red states just experience “fiscal distress”.
Which can be corrected by simple legislative action. Blue states experience “Oh shit! We can’t raise anymore money and we stupidly entered into contracts that make it hard to cut spending! We’re screwed! Save us federal government!”
You said they could just implement GOP policies to save their states. I just think that there is a glaring flaw in your argument:
When Democratic states run into fiscal trouble, they can use Republican policies to get out of it. This shows that Republican policies are superior.
When Republican states run into fiscal trouble, they can use Democratic policies to get out of it. This shows that Republican policies are superior.
Is that not what you’re saying, or do you just not see a problem with it?
I didn’t understand your argument, but now that I do it’s a good one.
Rather than continue to have this debate though, let’s just say that some states are continually problematic in managing their finances, and that the majority of states, blue and red, do just fine in that regard. If there was a way to prove that one ideology was unworkable by looking at the states, we’d have done it by now. Brownback has mismanaged Kansas, but Pence has done fine in Indiana, Walker and Rick Scott are doing fine(at least in terms of economic and budget performance) in their states, most of the Western states are red and are still doing quite well. Fallin’s performance in Oklahoma has been particularly good. North Carolina under GOP rule has seen some of the best job growth in the country.
Its like Votaire’s Dr. Pangloss reborn as a Republican.
Tell ya what, the Democrats are absolutely free to try to use Kansas to demonstrate the failure of GOP policies. And my side will use Illinois and California to demonstrate the failure of liberal policies. Let’s see who gets more traction with that argument.
BTW in regards to the President, he’s still a wimp:
WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering a delay of his most controversial proposals to revamp immigration laws through executive action until after the midterm elections in November, mindful of the electoral peril for Democratic Senate candidates, according to allies of the administration who have knowledge of White House deliberations.
I’ve never seen a Republican acknowledge that (until now, I guess). The only claim I hear is that being a less generous welfare state will lower poverty, incentivizing the lazy bums to get a damn job.
That’s kinda like Democrats believing that spending money saves money(it can when spent wisely, but the government rarely does that), or Republicans thinking that lowering taxes raises revenue(only if tax rates are ungodly high). Many of us like to delude ourselves that there are no tradeoffs to the policies we support. I try not to do that.
Wait – are you saying that a politician is considering making political considerations? He’s thinking about what to do and when to do it? Stop the presses!
He’s a wimp if he doesn’t take executive action, gets sued if he does. Either way, it’s clearly his fault.
Typical response from you. Perhaps if he hadn’t talked about how he’s determined to take action for the good of the country because Congress won’t, and it’s going to happen this summer, and… oh wait, I guess now’s not a good time after all. Never mind. After the election.
When you talk big and back down, something this guy does a lot, it makes you look like a wimp. And none too bright a wimp either. He was so confident, sure that this was an issue that favored him, and when it turned out to not be the case, he folded like a lawn chair.
The best thing to do is not talk about taking illegal executive actions. Once you talk about it, you put yourself in a catch-22. He made it worse by not backing down on the legal aspect, which would have been consistent with HIS OWN STATEMENTS on immigration law. “I wanted to do something, but there’s just not much I can do on my own.” Instead, he’s walking it back for political reasons. For the constitutional professor, the law means nothing. Politics is all that matters to him.
The issue is so urgent, the separation of families so cruel, enforcement so draconian… but it can wait until December.
So he’s made a decision? You can read the President’s mind? I thought he was just considering his options, according to your link.
Or is it the future you can predict?
Or is this just the typical incoherence?
One thing’s for sure – any article that’s not 100% Obama cheerleading will be interpreted by adaher as showing the President as weak/stupid/dishonest/evil.
We are allowed to use logical deduction here. If he’s delaying the decision until after the election, he obviously intended to legalize and permit to work a whole bunch of people. So it would be fair for Republicans to accuse him of planning to do so after the election in campaign ads.
The Republicans can (and will) say anything they want. But “the President is considering delaying a decision” means pretty much nothing… this is such a vague and wishy-washy statement that it probably pretty much applies to every non-war decision any president makes ever.
And this is my point. The NYT reports a vague and mostly-nothing story – like the President my delay a decision on something – and you decide it means he’s already made a decision, and you know what the decision is. That’s very foolish. And unfortunately, not surprising at all. If you just put a little bit more thought into your posts, I bet you could do a whole lot better.