(07-13-2014 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The result of a loss of transfer payments from blue to red states would be catastrophic for South Carolina. First, an independent 'redlandia' wouldn't get those retirees. They'd stay where their insurance is valid, where their currency is similar etc. Myrtle Beach with no snowbirds? Ugly. And lets try and see how many rural hospitals survive in SC without taxpayer subsidized health care. They'd all go broke - quickly. And then cutting welfare payments. People wouldn't get jobs that don't exist. People wouldn't have as much income, which would kill the retail sector. Call it trickle up economics. Thousands of South Carolinians work in the retail and services sector providing goods and services to low income South Carolinians. Those goods and services are provided with a margin to the producer/provider. Remove a massive amount of income from that sector, and remove the margin. Many businesses in SC would close. Many service providers would either make less income or simply take their skills and move.
'Redlandia' wouldn't have the same military size as the US, even on a per capita basis, because it would be far poorer than the US.
There's little dispersion gains with the current set up AF bases. And why build three of them in Hurricane Zones. They can all fit onto the grounds of Eglin.

Myrtle without snowbirds? I'd be able to get better tee times.

Seriously, though, you've really identified a key point. The blue states are generally more wealthy than the red states, and any income redistribution scheme is going to move money from wealthier areas to poorer areas. But they are more wealthy not because they are blue now, but as a legacy of 200 years of (mostly red) policies. A blue north would be richer than a red south on day one. But if the red states persisted in their red policies and the blue states persisted in their blue policies, the growth would gravitate to the red states and further rust-belt-ization of the blue states would continue. You would find a pretty significant wealth transfer over time, just as is happening internationally now. Take the red south with the resources and infrastructure they have now (some of it admittedly paid for by the blue north) and give it a competitive tax and regulatory structure, and you'd be talking white hot economic growth for decades. Yes you would have one-off wealth development in blue areas, like Silicon Valley. But Silicon Valley is almost exclusively a few people getting very rich with little impact on the rest. Apple doesn't make things in Silicon Valley, can't afford to, so the wealth spreading that manufacturing creates doesn't happen there.

As for the military bases, that seems to be a particular hangup of yours, I guess from growing up where you did. Keesler, Maxwell, Eglin and Tyndall have four very different missions. Yes, you could fit Keesler, Maxwell, and and Tyndall within the footprint of Eglin. But then Eglin wouldn't be able to perform its mission. As for why hurricane zones, well, it's hurricane zones or snow zones, and hurricanes are a lot less frequent.

My own approach to cutting military spending would include exchanging a significant number of active duty slots for a significantly larger number of reserve slots. It's how all of the countries that punch substantially above their weight do it. In that plan, we would clearly need fewer active duty bases. Some would convert to reserve training bases and some would cease to be military bases altogether. The general rule would be convert bases in proximity to large population centers to reserve bases (easier for more troops to get to drills) and drop bases with redundant missions. Neither of those would apply to the four you listed. Keesler is probably the one with the least need to be where it is, but it would be costly to move and the money is already spent there.

The bottom line is that mission should drive expenditures and not expenditures drive mission. The latter results not only in underspending for things you need but also overspending for things you don't need.

Reducing the size of the military is a Democrat vision. I would invite you to compare Obama's military reduction to the World War II era.

I find it interesting that the first thing libertarians go after is the military.

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

(07-13-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

Good post. However, Texas is not blue and I question your claim that Texas relies on Louisiana. Maybe some further detail on that?

Tom,

You so realize each military installation/ Air Force Base is for a certain reason SAC, TAC etc ... The are not a Walmart Super store where F-16's fly out with MC 130's.

As far as SC goes, there are more engineers per capita in Greenville County than any where in the United States. Why you ask..... Jobs and opportunity.

Horry County, the location of Myrtle Beach, is the fastest growing county in the state.

We don't need any more Liberals to infiltrate our state with their delusional politics or money.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-13-2014 11:18 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Reducing the size of the military is a Democrat vision. I would invite you to compare Obama's military reduction to the World War II era.
I find it interesting that the first thing libertarians go after is the military.

Except I'm not reducing the size of the military. I'm increasing it.

What I'm doing is moving a fair portion of it from on the payroll 24/7/365 to on the payroll 2 days a month. That way, we don't have half a million troops sitting around doing nothing except tempting a president to send them somewhere that we have no business getting involved.

And I'm taking away a bunch of the non-fighting BS so the military can focus on war fighting. As Norman Schwartzkopf said, "Armies do two things well. They kill people and they break things." So use the military to kill people who need killing and break things that need breaking--and nothing else. OK, some disaster relief because military assets are uniquely suited to such purposes, but none of the "win their hearts and minds" crap. We're not going to win their hearts and minds. Ever. Period. The only two outcomes are 1) they're going to be afraid to mess with us or 2) they're not going to be afraid to mess with us. Any doubts which one of those is better?

McKinsey did an interesting study in 2010 (link seems to be gone from the McKinsey government page) where they determined that the average developed nation (OECD members) spent 26% of its military budget on combat forces, 11% on combat support (primarily logistics and training), and 63% on admin and other functions. The US spends 16% on combat forces, 7% on combat support, and 77% on admin and other functions. Doing the math, we could save $150 billion a year just cutting the BS stuff down to the level of the rest of the developed world. Without losing a smidgeon of war fighting capability.

(07-13-2014 12:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

Good post. However, Texas is not blue and I question your claim that Texas relies on Louisiana. Maybe some further detail on that?

Much of Texas' refining capacity is fed from Louisiana. That's where LOOP comes in.

(07-13-2014 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 12:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

Good post. However, Texas is not blue and I question your claim that Texas relies on Louisiana. Maybe some further detail on that?

Much of Texas' refining capacity is fed from Louisiana. That's where LOOP comes in.

Both of them are 'red states'. I don't see the point. I'm not the one who brought up breaking off. But I was simply pointing out that the dislocations to 'red states' would be much greater than the dislocations to the 'blue states' in such a scenario.

(07-13-2014 12:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Both of them are 'red states'. I don't see the point. I'm not the one who brought up breaking off. But I was simply pointing out that the dislocations to 'red states' would be much greater than the dislocations to the 'blue states' in such a scenario.

I think the point is that Texas is a net contributor in the statistics and Louisiana is a net recipient.

But this points up the big flaw in this line of reasoning. The federal government is not the economy. The fact that some people living in a state receive more money from the federales than they pay in does not mean that the state as a whole would not be better off separated. There are loads of other factors.

(07-13-2014 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 12:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those numbers done mean anything. States like Texas, California, New York, Illinois etc all rely on resources etc from other states.

It's a mistake to argue which states are worth more because they are entirely interdependent.

Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

Good post. However, Texas is not blue and I question your claim that Texas relies on Louisiana. Maybe some further detail on that?

Much of Texas' refining capacity is fed from Louisiana. That's where LOOP comes in.

I still don't understand that considering Texas has more refineries than any other state.

(07-12-2014 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I've posted before, the leader Obama most reminds me of is Juan Peron, and I see a future much like Argentina's.

I disagree. Peron had been a leader for almost his entire adult life. Obama just had a lifetime worth of connections. His lack of leadership experience made him a perfect candidate for the democrats: He had everything that a good candidate requires and could be the face of a puppet administration headed by the known, unelectable democrats.

(07-13-2014 04:54 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I've posted before, the leader Obama most reminds me of is Juan Peron, and I see a future much like Argentina's.

I disagree. Peron had been a leader for almost his entire adult life. Obama just had a lifetime worth of connections. His lack of leadership experience made him a perfect candidate for the democrats: He had everything that a good candidate requires and could be the face of a puppet administration headed by the known, unelectable democrats.

Agree as far as the history. I mean it more from the perspective of political message. "I'm going to give you everything and make somebody else pay for it," was Peron's--and Obama's--primary message.

(07-13-2014 04:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 12:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Such as what?

The 'support' of four duplicative Air Force Bases within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Alabama?

What resources does New York get from South Carolina or Alabama?

The fact remains that the blue states, on average, put more in on a per capita, AND total basis than they receive from the Federal government.

Energy for one. Your own beloved state of Texas relies on Louisiana, LOOP specifically. The entire nation does. California relies on raw materials from Arizona and Nevada, gold and bauxite. Alabama supplies almost 60% of steel pipe used in the entire nation and 40% of the young cattle raised and slaughtered elsewhere. Which brings is to food, where plains states supply the vast majority of the nation's food. Put bluntly, not a single blue state can sustain itself without its neighbors economically.

Your attempt to try to undermine the value of certain states in the face of others just shows you are either petty and need a talking point to try and run down others or are entirely ignorant of the economic reality.

Good post. However, Texas is not blue and I question your claim that Texas relies on Louisiana. Maybe some further detail on that?

Much of Texas' refining capacity is fed from Louisiana. That's where LOOP comes in.

I still don't understand that considering Texas has more refineries than any other state.

The majority of the unrefined product doesn't come from Texas.

Is the OP's thread title even accurate? social liberalism? maybe. economic liberalism? no chance.
Herein lies what I see as a huge problem in trying to have discussions on here. There is little uniformity in the meaning of terms. Many, myself included, missuse terms to describe situations. There really is no common, agreed to lexicon from which to have a real discussion.

(07-13-2014 05:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Is the OP's thread title even accurate? social liberalism? maybe. economic liberalism? no chance.
Herein lies what I see as a huge problem in trying to have discussions on here. There is little uniformity in the meaning of terms. Many, myself included, missuse terms to describe situations. There really is no common, agreed to lexicon from which to have a real discussion.

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

(07-13-2014 05:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Is the OP's thread title even accurate? social liberalism? maybe. economic liberalism? no chance.

I'd have a different opinion. I'd say social liberalism? Probably not. Economic liberalism? Absolutely.

Don't look now but economic liberalism is already well on the way to destroying us. The left sits here and complains that companies are moving jobs overseas now to get lower costs and lower taxes and less restrictive regulations. But somehow raising costs and raising taxes and imposing ever stricter regulations won't cause them to offshore more in the future. How? How can that be?

Eventually we will ship all of our productive activities overseas and we'll be trying to recover our lost economic power by delivering pizzas to each other. It ain't gonna work. No way. Not close.

Do you accept this definition of economic liberalism? if so, how does it support your argument?

Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]

Economic liberalism is often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital goods, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism or mixed economies.

(07-13-2014 06:46 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Do you accept this definition of economic liberalism? if so, how does it support your argument?
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital goods, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism or mixed economies.

Here we have the problem with labels that I think you referenced earlier.

That economic liberalism is pretty much the same as Friedman's classical liberalism. I would support that sort of system totally and no, I don't believe that sort of system would ever lead to ruin.

What passes for economic liberalism in today's culture is extensive government intervention to alter market outcomes, and that is the definition of economic liberalism I was (probably incorrectly) applying.

Glad to see someone who recognizes classical liberalism.

From a practical standpoint, how can true economic liberalism exist? What we have today looks more like crony or welfare capitalism. I'm not sure how you keep big $$ out of the equation, and further, can't you place some responsibility for the burgeoning beaucracy directly at the foot of big$$ in the form of cronism? Layers and layers of beauracy, with an uneven appliction is a croniests dream.

Friedman adherents buy into magical market thinking involving "the invisible hand". They've taken the rational principle that efficient markets can be used in beneficial ways to solve many problems and twisted it into thinking that markets can solve all problems. Friedman himself took his good economic work and tainted it with his extreme ideology about government. His followers tend to be much more about his extreme ideology than his actual economics.

(07-12-2014 03:20 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  You're asking the wrong question. America, like the rest of the developed world, has and will continue to prosper under liberalism. The question for America is whether is will survive the onslaught of corporatism. I'm an optimist who thinks the continued rise of liberalism will finally put a proper check on the grotesque use of corporate power. The only question is how much damage will be done before liberalism finally wins out.

There is where I see a major blind-spot with Liberals. They always say the problem is that corporations have become too powerful and exert too much influence/control over government. The Liberal solution to this problem is to give even more power to government, believing that this will counter-balance and control the corporations.

Now, I point out the obvious issue. If corporations/special interest control the government, won't giving the government more power just make the corporations/special interests more powerful? They will continue to control government and use it to squash their competition. Liberals are playing right into their hand.

And just so we're all clear, we currently don't have a capitalist system. We have a mixed system that is closer to corporate socialism aka crony capitalism, where your ability to get things from the government controls your success rather than your provision of goods and services. We're far from Laissez-Faire free market capitalism.