Tea Party Democrats

[thegreekdog]

PhatScotty - probably 80% of those people are merely neo-conservative, big spending Republicans.

Exactly....

But since there is no real Tea Party.. they can do whatever they wish.

No, what will happen is when those Republicans try to spend money, the Tea Party will vote for someone else. At some point, politicians will learn that they cannot get by just pretending to be fiscally responsible.

[Night Strike]

The problem I have with a lot of Nightstrike and now even your arguments are that you tend to be "all or nothing". You keep seeing the government as the enemy. It is not, CANNOT be our enemy. A nation divided CANNOT stand. That is the truth. Whatever our problems, if we are to continue to have a prosperous nation, we have to work within the government, not destroy it.

No, the thing is that for me (and probably TGD), we actually have read the Constitution and want the government to follow exactly those tasks included in the document. The federal government can take care of the military, monetary policy, patents, federal courts, interstate commerce, and the few other tasks delegated to it in the Constitution. EVERYTHING else is up to the states. There is none of this equality crap you keep trying to push because it's not the federal government's job to make sure every person has equal amounts of education, healthcare, jobs, money, and "well-being". The system you want is socialism, and it's not provided in our Constitution.

People can't work with our current federal government because it's too large and too removed from the actual needs of the people. People CAN work with local governments, which is why our Constitution was brilliantly set up to make that the primary government of the people. We need to destroy all of these extra-Constitutional and unconstitutional acts of the federal government; none of us are trying to destroy the entire federal government. And the federal government is supposed to work FOR us, not decree to us what kind of light bulbs we can buy.

[GreecePwns]

Are you really getting bent out of shape on the light bulb thing? Really? And, outside of the usual corporatism, who's to say that light bulb regulation isn't working for the people?

[thegreekdog]

Are you really getting bent out of shape on the light bulb thing? Really? And, outside of the usual corporatism, who's to say that light bulb regulation isn't working for the people?

I'm bent out of shape about the light bulb thing, yes. As I stated before, I already purchase and use energy efficient light bulbs. I just don't think there needs to be a government regulation, along with attendant employees, advisors, and costs, to force people to purchase energy efficient light bulbs (in the guise of "protecting the environment").

[thegreekdog]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

You really think it's far less efficient? Can you explain your reasoning?

The second is the most important.. its just pushing taxes from one pot into another. As much as corporations have power in the US, they have even more at the state level.

Beyond that, I gave a quick answer that lumped everything into one pot, when they are not the same. The federal government plain HAS to be in charge of pollution, environmental concerns. Even just the US is not large enough for some issues, they have to handled on an international level. You can protect a snail darter that is limited to a 50 mile stretch of river, but not most species. Even when it comes to the snail darter, we really need a comprehensive, overall plan. We need to be able to "pick our battles".

Food needs to be national for another reason. The state incomes, etc vary significantly. When people in one area go hungry, it hurts everyone, not just those people in that state. This is never more true than for kids. Now, I am among the first to levy complaints about the federal food program. And, one of the things I truly want to promote is schools purchasing more food locally. However, that change is not about whether the money comes from the state or federal government. I can gaurantee that MY kids are gettiing better food at school because of federal mandates. I can also pretty much assert that kids in Santa Barbara County, CA are likely not getting quite as good food as if the local planners had their say. However, I can also say that I know that kids in both Santa Barbara and my locality are getting decent food at reasonable prices, and that the federal food program is a big reason. Nightstrike, etc have talked about local food pantries and such. A lot of them recieve federal money or surplus food. (as do schools) The key is to have a mix. For example, whether a locality puts pinto beans, red beans or white beans in the food boxes would be a local issue. However, that beans are included maybe would be a federal issue (let's not get bogged down in specifics, please.. I am just throwing out hypothetical examples here).

Education is different again. Certain standards have to be mandated. Mississippi cannot just decide to have a KKK based curriculum. Kansas and Tennessee should not be allowed to eliminate whole sections of biology. Texas should not be allowed to rewrite history to eliminate some facts they dislike (discussion of ideas.. fine, actually altering facts.. no). Florida, however should be allowed to have bilingual education and northern California schools should be free to have project Wild Developed science programs using local species like salmon and redwoods as their base. In Colorado and Wyoming, it makes more sense to concentrate on wolves than on redwoods. The same basic biological principles should be taught in each, just the format differs. These standards can and should change over time and to some extent within regions. The problem with education is that there is not one, set model that "works for all". Also, so much research and evolution in both content (particularly science and business content) and delivery has come out that its hard to set one, clear standard. At least, the biggest thing that comes out is that its hard to have one, set, standard that can be tested on a multiple choice exam. This is why more local control works in that case. A lot of what method works has to do with the actual teachers available, the actual students present, etc. Even "local" control isn't always adaptable enough. What we really need is to allow teachers to truly teach... BUT that means having teachers that are all well qualified and sadly, we don't have that. One thing I do like is the idea of using more technology based programs. For example, having a teacher go over various things, but then letting computers do the basic tutoring.. teaching kids math, some other basic skills. That has to be monitored, with a back up of assistants available to help those kids who have difficulty with that method. However, most kids learn "mechanical" and "rote" type stuff as well or better via computer. (note.. this does require a LOT more explanation, but that would take a thread onto itself). Anyway, this lets the teachers concentrate on more critical thinking and what I call (for lack of a better word) "subtle teaching"... things like picking up on other people's attitudes, etc.

The problem I have with a lot of Nightstrike and now even your arguments are that you tend to be "all or nothing". You keep seeing the government as the enemy. It is not, CANNOT be our enemy. A nation divided CANNOT stand. That is the truth. Whatever our problems, if we are to continue to have a prosperous nation, we have to work within the government, not destroy it.

I didn't see any efficiencies in this post.

[Night Strike]

Are you really getting bent out of shape on the light bulb thing? Really? And, outside of the usual corporatism, who's to say that light bulb regulation isn't working for the people?

1. Arbitrarily killing jobs in the incandescent light bulb industry.

2. 2 of the biggest CFL plants in the US have closed and GE (yes, that GE) moved their plant to China.

3. The government has no business in picking winners and losers in the free market.

[PLAYER57832]

Let me tell you something! It's the Liberals who correct their own MUCH LESS than the conservatives! They come in here with their Obama signs and hit their knees on the concrete fora floor whenever his name is mentioned, but they have no regard for the rising deficit nor his ineffective policies and draconian measures on our freedom and liberty and all sorts of the things and stuff!! [/partisan-play]

Liberals do not like Obama.

[BigBallinStalin]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

You really think it's far less efficient? Can you explain your reasoning?

The second is the most important.. its just pushing taxes from one pot into another. As much as corporations have power in the US, they have even more at the state level.

Beyond that, I gave a quick answer that lumped everything into one pot, when they are not the same. The federal government plain HAS to be in charge of pollution, environmental concerns. Even just the US is not large enough for some issues, they have to handled on an international level. You can protect a snail darter that is limited to a 50 mile stretch of river, but not most species. Even when it comes to the snail darter, we really need a comprehensive, overall plan. We need to be able to "pick our battles".


Food needs to be national for another reason. The state incomes, etc vary significantly. When people in one area go hungry, it hurts everyone, not just those people in that state. This is never more true than for kids. Now, I am among the first to levy complaints about the federal food program. And, one of the things I truly want to promote is schools purchasing more food locally. However, that change is not about whether the money comes from the state or federal government. I can gaurantee that MY kids are gettiing better food at school because of federal mandates. I can also pretty much assert that kids in Santa Barbara County, CA are likely not getting quite as good food as if the local planners had their say. However, I can also say that I know that kids in both Santa Barbara and my locality are getting decent food at reasonable prices, and that the federal food program is a big reason. Nightstrike, etc have talked about local food pantries and such. A lot of them recieve federal money or surplus food. (as do schools) The key is to have a mix. For example, whether a locality puts pinto beans, red beans or white beans in the food boxes would be a local issue. However, that beans are included maybe would be a federal issue (let's not get bogged down in specifics, please.. I am just throwing out hypothetical examples here).

Education is different again. Certain standards have to be mandated. Mississippi cannot just decide to have a KKK based curriculum. Kansas and Tennessee should not be allowed to eliminate whole sections of biology. Texas should not be allowed to rewrite history to eliminate some facts they dislike (discussion of ideas.. fine, actually altering facts.. no). Florida, however should be allowed to have bilingual education and northern California schools should be free to have project Wild Developed science programs using local species like salmon and redwoods as their base. In Colorado and Wyoming, it makes more sense to concentrate on wolves than on redwoods. The same basic biological principles should be taught in each, just the format differs. These standards can and should change over time and to some extent within regions. The problem with education is that there is not one, set model that "works for all". Also, so much research and evolution in both content (particularly science and business content) and delivery has come out that its hard to set one, clear standard. At least, the biggest thing that comes out is that its hard to have one, set, standard that can be tested on a multiple choice exam. This is why more local control works in that case. A lot of what method works has to do with the actual teachers available, the actual students present, etc. Even "local" control isn't always adaptable enough. What we really need is to allow teachers to truly teach... BUT that means having teachers that are all well qualified and sadly, we don't have that. One thing I do like is the idea of using more technology based programs. For example, having a teacher go over various things, but then letting computers do the basic tutoring.. teaching kids math, some other basic skills. That has to be monitored, with a back up of assistants available to help those kids who have difficulty with that method. However, most kids learn "mechanical" and "rote" type stuff as well or better via computer. (note.. this does require a LOT more explanation, but that would take a thread onto itself). Anyway, this lets the teachers concentrate on more critical thinking and what I call (for lack of a better word) "subtle teaching"... things like picking up on other people's attitudes, etc.

The problem I have with a lot of Nightstrike and now even your arguments are that you tend to be "all or nothing". You keep seeing the government as the enemy. It is not, CANNOT be our enemy. A nation divided CANNOT stand. That is the truth. Whatever our problems, if we are to continue to have a prosperous nation, we have to work within the government, not destroy it.

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

[PLAYER57832]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

[Night Strike]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

[PLAYER57832]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

Because we are 50 states, not 50 independent countries.

[BigBallinStalin]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

Because we are 50 states, not 50 independent countries.

The States were 50 quasi-independent countries. Now, much State sovereignty has been given to the federal government, so my comparison is still relevant and reasonable.

Still, you haven't shown that the provision of public goods by State and local governments is less efficient than the provision of said goods from the federal government.

[Night Strike]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

Because we are 50 states, not 50 independent countries.

Right, but we're supposed to have 50 strong state governments and 1 minimal federal government, not 1 strong federal government with 50 puppet states.

[got tonkaed]

But that really isnt what actually is there now, right or wrong. '

I am not really sure Player should have the burden of proof on this one. While it would seem Nightstrike has mentioned advantages that a local government could have in running programs vs a federal one, it would be more persuasive to actually point out a comparison of equivalent programs on the local and federal level.

Especially when one argues from the perspective of changing the status quo as a preferable alternative.

[Night Strike]

But that really isnt what actually is there now, right or wrong. '

I am not really sure Player should have the burden of proof on this one. While it would seem Nightstrike has mentioned advantages that a local government could have in running programs vs a federal one, it would be more persuasive to actually point out a comparison of equivalent programs on the local and federal level.

Especially when one argues from the perspective of changing the status quo as a preferable alternative.

The federal government doesn't allow equivalent programs. Take an issue like Arizona's immigration laws. They got tired of having too many illegal immigrants come into their state and the federal government not doing anything about it, so they passed a law giving their law enforcement officers the powers of concurrent (not overriding) jurisdiction. But the federal government decided that it would rather do nothing than accept the help, so they slapped an injunction on it. Similar things happen with Medicaid, education, etc. The federal government just throws out blanket mandates for everyone to follow instead of allowing states to tailor programs to fit the needs of their people.

[Phatscotty]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

Because we are 50 states, not 50 independent countries.

50 states who's people yearn for more independence

[Woodruff]

Let me tell you something! It's the Liberals who correct their own MUCH LESS than the conservatives! They come in here with their Obama signs and hit their knees on the concrete fora floor whenever his name is mentioned, but they have no regard for the rising deficit nor his ineffective policies and draconian measures on our freedom and liberty and all sorts of the things and stuff!! [/partisan-play]

Liberals do not like Obama.

Moderates aren't very fond of him either.

[Nobunaga]

... He's being beaten now in the polls by "any random Republican" (as opposed to Romney, Palin, Cain, etc..)

... He does not seem well liked at all.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Repub ... Obama.aspx

[PLAYER57832]

Gee, how do countries of less than 330 million people handle such issues?

Apparently, every member of the European Union needs a central government to oversee the provision of each country's public goods; otherwise, it would be so more inefficient.... Oh wait, it isn't. It works just fine.

So, you are advocating for dissolution of the union, of the USA? Thought we already fought that war...

No, he's attacking your argument saying that if countries that have less than 300 million people can run their own countries, why can't our states run their own affairs in regards to health care, education, etc.?

Because we are 50 states, not 50 independent countries.

The States were 50 quasi-independent countries. Now, much State sovereignty has been given to the federal government, so my comparison is still relevant and reasonable.

Still, you haven't shown that the provision of public goods by State and local governments is less efficient than the provision of said goods from the federal government.

Times change. Why is this bad? Ironically, the countries in your example seem to feel they were being harmed by all their independence.. they voted for the EU, after all.

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

You claim the federal government is inefficient. That is true (not as true as you like to argue, because a lot of what you call "inefficiency" is actually the government being effective.. to put the brakes on industry, etc., but true). HOWEVER, you then leap to "we have to go with state power". States are, if anything more rife for abuse. The primary difference between states, localities and the federal government is that the federal government is more static, moves more slowly. That is both good and bad. The other entities, however are more rife for outright fraud and abuse, precisely because they are more able to be changed by anyone with a lot of power... and the power required to do that is less the lower down the ranks one gets. The federal government is absolutely not immune from abuse, but it takes a far, far stronger entity to accomplish it. My state is a prime example of how localities are inefficient. We have so many independent boroughs, townships, villages, etc that it cannot help but be inefficient.

[BigBallinStalin]

The States were 50 quasi-independent countries. Now, much State sovereignty has been given to the federal government, so my comparison is still relevant and reasonable.

Still, you haven't shown that the provision of public goods by State and local governments is less efficient than the provision of said goods from the federal government.

Times change. Why is this bad? Ironically, the countries in your example seem to feel they were being harmed by all their independence.. they voted for the EU, after all.

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

You claim the federal government is inefficient. That is true (not as true as you like to argue, because a lot of what you call "inefficiency" is actually the government being effective.. to put the brakes on industry, etc., but true). HOWEVER, you then leap to "we have to go with state power". States are, if anything more rife for abuse. The primary difference between states, localities and the federal government is that the federal government is more static, moves more slowly. That is both good and bad. The other entities, however are more rife for outright fraud and abuse, precisely because they are more able to be changed by anyone with a lot of power... and the power required to do that is less the lower down the ranks one gets. The federal government is absolutely not immune from abuse, but it takes a far, far stronger entity to accomplish it. My state is a prime example of how localities are inefficient. We have so many independent boroughs, townships, villages, etc that it cannot help but be inefficient.

Ah, so the federal government is less rife with fraud and abuse. Is it time to start talking about Bush and his national security policies and the entire $3 trillion dollar mess he's made? How about Obama's pro-corporate health care insurance plan? Either you place power at a higher level and have more consequences over more people, or you lower it to the respective States. Corruption exists at all levels, but the consequences which follow will affect more people given an organization which is responsible for more people.

Minimize costs by placing responsibility in the hands of the States. You could even remove much of the federal income taxes, and have the States set their own to see which levels are best for their own people. With more decisions being made, a better outcome is more likely to surface. For example, some States chose method A, and look what happened, and some States chose method B, and well, that looks better, so let's emulate that. With more control given to one organization, there's very little room for innovation (thus more efficiency).

As for the EU, it's an economic union dominated by a few major members, but it's no where near the US federal government's ability to control its respective States.

[PLAYER57832]

The States were 50 quasi-independent countries. Now, much State sovereignty has been given to the federal government, so my comparison is still relevant and reasonable.

Still, you haven't shown that the provision of public goods by State and local governments is less efficient than the provision of said goods from the federal government.

Times change. Why is this bad? Ironically, the countries in your example seem to feel they were being harmed by all their independence.. they voted for the EU, after all.

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

You claim the federal government is inefficient. That is true (not as true as you like to argue, because a lot of what you call "inefficiency" is actually the government being effective.. to put the brakes on industry, etc., but true). HOWEVER, you then leap to "we have to go with state power". States are, if anything more rife for abuse. The primary difference between states, localities and the federal government is that the federal government is more static, moves more slowly. That is both good and bad. The other entities, however are more rife for outright fraud and abuse, precisely because they are more able to be changed by anyone with a lot of power... and the power required to do that is less the lower down the ranks one gets. The federal government is absolutely not immune from abuse, but it takes a far, far stronger entity to accomplish it. My state is a prime example of how localities are inefficient. We have so many independent boroughs, townships, villages, etc that it cannot help but be inefficient.

Ah, so the federal government is less rife with fraud and abuse.

I said "if anything" the states are more. Dispersement leads to more inefficient. Local areas are absolutely more inefficient.

Minimize costs by placing responsibility in the hands of the States. You could even remove much of the federal income taxes, and have the States set their own to see which levels are best for their own people. With more decisions being made, a better outcome is more likely to surface. For example, some States chose method A, and look what happened, and some States chose method B, and well, that looks better, so let's emulate that. With more control given to one organization, there's very little room for innovation (thus more efficiency).

This is not what has happened. In fact, quite the reverse. Also, too many of those "efficiencies" have come at the expense of ordinary people. For example, the wonder "efficiency" of moving all credit card companies to Delaware (though I think South Dakota is the new favored location).

And... most of those "efficiencies" result from states competing against each other.. which overall is inherently inequitable.

As for the EU, it's an economic union dominated by a few major members, but it's no where near the US federal government's ability to control its respective States.

The point is they are moving toward our system, away from independence.

[Night Strike]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

[BigBallinStalin]

The States were 50 quasi-independent countries. Now, much State sovereignty has been given to the federal government, so my comparison is still relevant and reasonable.

Still, you haven't shown that the provision of public goods by State and local governments is less efficient than the provision of said goods from the federal government.

Times change. Why is this bad? Ironically, the countries in your example seem to feel they were being harmed by all their independence.. they voted for the EU, after all.

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

You claim the federal government is inefficient. That is true (not as true as you like to argue, because a lot of what you call "inefficiency" is actually the government being effective.. to put the brakes on industry, etc., but true). HOWEVER, you then leap to "we have to go with state power". States are, if anything more rife for abuse. The primary difference between states, localities and the federal government is that the federal government is more static, moves more slowly. That is both good and bad. The other entities, however are more rife for outright fraud and abuse, precisely because they are more able to be changed by anyone with a lot of power... and the power required to do that is less the lower down the ranks one gets. The federal government is absolutely not immune from abuse, but it takes a far, far stronger entity to accomplish it. My state is a prime example of how localities are inefficient. We have so many independent boroughs, townships, villages, etc that it cannot help but be inefficient.

Ah, so the federal government is less rife with fraud and abuse.

I said "if anything" the states are more. Dispersement leads to more inefficient. Local areas are absolutely more inefficient.

Minimize costs by placing responsibility in the hands of the States. You could even remove much of the federal income taxes, and have the States set their own to see which levels are best for their own people. With more decisions being made, a better outcome is more likely to surface. For example, some States chose method A, and look what happened, and some States chose method B, and well, that looks better, so let's emulate that. With more control given to one organization, there's very little room for innovation (thus more efficiency).

This is not what has happened. In fact, quite the reverse. Also, too many of those "efficiencies" have come at the expense of ordinary people. For example, the wonder "efficiency" of moving all credit card companies to Delaware (though I think South Dakota is the new favored location).

And... most of those "efficiencies" result from states competing against each other.. which overall is inherently inequitable.

As for the EU, it's an economic union dominated by a few major members, but it's no where near the US federal government's ability to control its respective States.

The point is they are moving toward our system, away from independence.

So, Delaware gets rewarded for having practically 0% taxes on business; whereas, California will lose business because of its higher taxes. OK, and how is that relevant to your original position that the federal government provides public goods more efficiently than the States?

And how does your response invalidate my point?

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Don't forget about the specifics of those types of studies, and please understand exactly what these studies are comparing. A summary from a news article leaves much to be desired.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. If I recall correctly, that study you cited is more concerned with slight changes in tax levels from the federal government's point of view. "Will only tax breaks really promote business"? "By how much"? "What also encourages business other than a reduction in taxes?" Etc.