(06-01-2017 09:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm all for the earth. Better than the alternative

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

I think everyone on both sides and the middle are all for a clean earth.

The question here is the details of this particular accord.

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

And most of those individuals in those "red states" are voting Democrat. Voting maps by county, representation in Congress and demographics maps prove this fact.

The exceptions are Kentucky and West Virginia. Those 2 states are victims of geography more than anything else.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

No they did this themselves. Has nothing to do with Kentucky.



California’s Total State and Local Debt Totals $1.3 Trillion

The total includes bonds, loans and other debt instruments as well as unfunded pension and other post-employment benefits promised to public sector employees. Our estimate of California government debt represents about 52% of California’s Gross State Product of $2.48 trillion.
http://californiapolicycenter.org/califo...-trillion/

Seems fitting since CA and NY are both in the top ten states for CO2 emissions.

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

He didn't leave the poor out. That's a given that "moocher state" is based on. He showed how easily that's canceled out by being honest.

But your reasoning as to the why there are poor in red states was humorous.

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

Umm, that's not the way federal social spending works.

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

But...Spending on the less fortunate is a very small part of federal spending. It is a small drop in the bucket. It is however the one thing that people notice the most because it is "in your face".

(06-01-2017 07:07 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Good for them. They're the initial three states of an alliance that is committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement and taking aggressive action on climate change.

I have no hope my state will ever join in, but perhaps a few more states can join this new agreement. The right always preach state governments should be able to make their own policies so I'm sure no conservatives will find fault with these three states going past Trump and taking matters into their own hands.

So, what actions are they aggressively going to pursue that will not have an adverse and disproportionate impact on their citizens?

As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.


http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-wil...425826963/

Quote:No matter the Paris Climate Agreement, Minnesota officials said Thursday that the state’s march to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will go on.

With a plan adopted in 2007, the state has been a national leader in pursuing an aggressive plan to reduce emissions of the chemicals that cause climate change. And though Minnesota has missed its targets in recent years, President Trump’s controversial decision to pull the United States out of the global climate deal struck last year won’t change what has been slow and steady progress, state environmental officials said Thursday. The president’s decision does, however, put future climate change leadership squarely in the hands of state and local governments rather than in Washington, D.C.

“As damaging as this decision will be, it will not deter our efforts here in ­Minnesota,” said Gov. Mark Dayton, echoing the reaction of many of the state’s elected officials. “We will show the world what we can achieve by working together to conserve energy, to use cleaner and renewable energy, and to leave a livable planet to our children and grandchildren.”

(06-02-2017 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.

I heard an interview with Emmer this morning where he sounded like Dayton had said something about Minnesota doing it..

Listen, if states really want to do this, that's awesome, but if they try to codify as a "state alliance" you start running afoul of the feds ownership of interstate commerce.

They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

(06-02-2017 07:16 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems fitting since CA and NY are both in the top ten states for CO2 emissions.

Bwahahahaha.

(06-02-2017 12:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.

I heard an interview with Emmer this morning where he sounded like Dayton had said something about Minnesota doing it..

Listen, if states really want to do this, that's awesome, but if they try to codify as a "state alliance" you start running afoul of the feds ownership of interstate commerce.

They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

You can create an "interstate compact" with the approval of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

Agreements between States that are not interstate compacts and not approved by Congress though.....not so much.

(06-02-2017 12:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

It can be formal standards, so long as -- just as you said it -- they don't try to put other states or a states' alliance into the language of a state law.

But as I think you were getting at, the simplest and best way to actually write any state laws would be to do it as if each state was acting alone.

(06-02-2017 01:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.

I heard an interview with Emmer this morning where he sounded like Dayton had said something about Minnesota doing it..

Listen, if states really want to do this, that's awesome, but if they try to codify as a "state alliance" you start running afoul of the feds ownership of interstate commerce.

They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

You can create an "interstate compact" with the approval of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

Agreements between States that are not interstate compacts and not approved by Congress though.....not so much.

But, if the compact acted in a punitive manner towards states not in the compact it would be thrown out.

(06-02-2017 01:16 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.

I heard an interview with Emmer this morning where he sounded like Dayton had said something about Minnesota doing it..

Listen, if states really want to do this, that's awesome, but if they try to codify as a "state alliance" you start running afoul of the feds ownership of interstate commerce.

They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

You can create an "interstate compact" with the approval of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

Agreements between States that are not interstate compacts and not approved by Congress though.....not so much.

But, if the compact acted in a punitive manner towards states not in the compact it would be thrown out.

It will also be thrown out by the courts if it tends to increase the power of the states over the federal government.

And a compact between States for the purpose of adhering to a foreign treaty not ratified by the Senate of the United States and rejected by the President...is pretty much the definition of that.

"United States Climate Alliance"

(06-02-2017 01:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:16 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  As far as I've seen, Minnesota has not yet joined this alliance, but it will continue with state policies addressing climate change. Perhaps it will join shortly.

I heard an interview with Emmer this morning where he sounded like Dayton had said something about Minnesota doing it..

Listen, if states really want to do this, that's awesome, but if they try to codify as a "state alliance" you start running afoul of the feds ownership of interstate commerce.

They are best served bye having an *informal* set of standards drawn up to which they can each internally commit their states.

You can create an "interstate compact" with the approval of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

Agreements between States that are not interstate compacts and not approved by Congress though.....not so much.

But, if the compact acted in a punitive manner towards states not in the compact it would be thrown out.

It will also be thrown out by the courts if it tends to increase the power of the states over the federal government.

And a compact between States for the purpose of adhering to a foreign treaty not ratified by the Senate of the United States and rejected by the President...is pretty much the definition of that.

So, like I said, if they want to do this it's best if they don't act as a legally enacted alliance. It would certainly be legally challenged and could very well fail in court.

(06-01-2017 07:07 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Good for them. They're the initial three states of an alliance that is committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement and taking aggressive action on climate change.

I have no hope my state will ever join in, but perhaps a few more states can join this new agreement. The right always preach state governments should be able to make their own policies so I'm sure no conservatives will find fault with these three states going past Trump and taking matters into their own hands.

From a conservative: heck, yeah, let them do what they want.

As far as CA goes, they can add this to the universal healthcare they're trying to pass.

Where they'll get the $$$ for all this is beyond me, but what do I care what they do?

They could tax Hollywood who would pass that tax along in higher movie prices and then we'd see just how long the survive.

More power to them.

(06-01-2017 09:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Red States are the moocher states.

Which red states?

(06-02-2017 05:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You left one out. They have a disproportionate amount of poor due to social policies of red states that require a great deal of social spending at the federal level. The poorest people come from red states.

Which social policies in which red states?