Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[digitaldog]

The states cannot do these things

Fact-checking this guy's mistakes is a full-time job!

Can State and Local Governments in the US Run Fiscal Deficits?
By THE INVESTOPEDIA TEAM  Updated August 31, 2021
Reviewed by CHARLES POTTERS
Fact checked by MICHAEL LOGAN
There is nothing to prevent state and local governments from running budget deficits in the same manner as the U.S. federal government. However, most state governments are required by law or their constitution to balance their budgets. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that Vermont is the only state that lacks some form of a balanced budget requirement. However, the group notes Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska are sometimes cited as having no balanced budget requirements, as various laws and requirements are open to interpretation. Some states explicitly require balanced budgets, while others place constitutional caps on state indebtedness or have other spending limits.

[Alan Klein]

Yet again you are incorrect. Congress passed and Nixon signed the Clean Air Act on which the EPA's actions are based. This act gave the government broad authority to regulate air pollutants including ones not yet recognized. Yet thru some very arcane legal hand-waving, SCOTUS has ignored this democratically passed bill in favor of, for god's sake, the coal companies.

Congress can't abdicate their responsibilities to federal agencies. Especially when the bill they pass is not clear on something so major that the EPA came up with. These are important issues that should be debated in Congress and decided by democratically elected representatives not federal officials who were never elected and don't report to the people. The Congress isn't doing their job. That's what the Supreme Court says and I agree with that. You don't.

[digitaldog]

Fact-checking this guy's mistakes is a full-time job!

Congress can't abdicate their responsibilities to federal agencies.
(nonsense, nonsense)
 That's what the Supreme Court says and I agree with that.

Word salad that's of course wrong again.
The judicial branch is one part of the U.S. government. The judicial branch is called the court system. There are different levels of courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States.
And:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=42-USC-1379945720-1248715819&term_occur=8&term_src=title:42:chapter:68:subchapter:III:section:5150

[Peter McLennan]

Anyone see a problem with that concept?

(it costs money to draw the government's attention to problems.)



Uh, yah. It's called "corruption".

In the past in America, it was illegal to give money to politicians.  Now, lobbying (bribing) politicians is a huge industry.  All thanks to the machinations (lobbying) of capitalism.

FWIW, in Canada, elections are partially funded with government money.  Same in the UK.

[Alan Klein]

(it costs money to draw the government's attention to problems.)



Uh, yah. It's called "corruption".

In the past in America, it was illegal to give money to politicians.  Now, lobbying (bribing) politicians is a huge industry.  All thanks to the machinations (lobbying) of capitalism.

FWIW, in Canada, elections are partially funded with government money.  Same in the UK.

Direct contribution to politicians is limited in America.  On the other hand, what if you want to start a campaign to allow abortion throughout all 50 states, a very expensive campaign to hire lobbyists and for ads on TV.  Would Canada give you the money to do that?  Or would you have to raise it yourself?  Would you be allowed to raise and spend it?  Would a company be allowed to contribute to that campaign?  Would unions be allowed to contribute?  How do individuals and companies get their voices heard politically?  How do you petition your government if you’re unhappy with certain things?

[Peter McLennan]

Direct contribution to politicians is limited in America.

Yah, sure.  By "super pacs" etc.  The fact is, in America, it's "one dollar, one vote".  The more money you contribute, the more likely your wishes will be fulfilled.

How do you petition your government if you’re unhappy with certain things?

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+are+elections+funded+in+canada%3F&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA918CA918&oq=how+are&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j46i433i512j0i512l2j69i60l2j69i61.3168j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Robert Roaldi]

Direct contribution to politicians is limited in America. ...

Thanks for the best belly laugh of the week.

[Alan Klein]

Yah, sure.  By "super pacs" etc.  The fact is, in America, it's "one dollar, one vote".  The more money you contribute, the more likely your wishes will be fulfilled.



https://www.google.com/search?q=how+are+elections+funded+in+canada%3F&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA918CA918&oq=how+are&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j46i433i512j0i512l2j69i60l2j69i61.3168j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That describes how campaigns and candidates get contributions.  But, you didn't answer my questions of how Canadians fiannce private campaigns to petition the government? 

Let's say the government has disallowed use of your backyard to install a pond.  YOu're not the only one.  So you want to convince a number of candidates to support legislation to overrule the law that stops you and others in the same position.  How do you do that?  How do you get their attention?

[Robert Roaldi]

deficit spending, inflation, and printing are done by the federal government not states.  The states cannot do these things.   

Competition among states to incentivize commercial companies to open up in their states to create new jobs and increase the wealth of those states has nothing to do with  what the federal government does from Washington DC.  States can only reduce state taxes for companies within their state. They'll get back in spades in the long run in addition to state taxes their employees pay the state.    We've discussed this many times before.  Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough.

Yes I realize you keep repeating that argument but it doesn't make any more sense now than the first time.

It's as if you think that the government (meaning the surrounding culture) exists as a support system for commerce.

[digitaldog]

Yes I realize you keep repeating that argument but it doesn't make any more sense now than the first time.

"If an idiot were to tell you the same story every day for a year, you would end by believing it." -Horace Mann

”A sensational lie is far more effective than a complicated truth.”- Fareed Zakaria

[TechTalk]

”A sensational lie is far more effective than a complicated truth.”- Fareed Zakaria

Now, ain't that the saddest damn truth!

[Peter McLennan]

Let's say the government has disallowed use of your backyard to install a pond.  YOu're not the only one.  So you want to convince a number of candidates to support legislation to overrule the law that stops you and others in the same position.  How do you do that?  How do you get their attention?

I would attend public meetings of the municipal council.

[Robert Roaldi]

An interesting podcast from NPR's fresh Air gives details re the Jan 6th riot, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108558773/investigating-the-far-right-militia-groups-of-jan-6.

Blurb from the page: "New York Times journalist Alan Feuer says some members of Trump's inner circle have close ties to the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, whose leaders have been charged with seditious conspiracy."

[PeterAit]

[/b]
If the government doesn't stop spending beyond its means to support the demands of the public for "free" stuff, the dilution of our currency will impoverish us ending this experiment in a constitutional republic.

Why doesn't the government, then, increase it's "means?"

• Institute a wealth tax on any and all assets of the wealthy.
• Adjust income tax brackets so those with 7 or 8 figure incomes pay more.
• Fully fund the IRS so it is able to go after individual and corporate tax cheats.
• Revoke the depletion allowance that is, in effect, a subsidy of the oil industry.
• Make hedge fund managers pay income tax rather than capital gains tax on their earnings.

I hardly need say that the GOP is against all of these.

[Robert Roaldi]

...But, you didn't answer my questions of how Canadians fiannce private campaigns to petition the government? ...

Federally, Canada has a system of registered lobbyists in place. My sister-in-law used to work in the department that looks after their registration. The info about them is freely available online. I don't know how onerous the fees and disclosure obligations are to become a registered lobbyist but all that info is also freely available online. I have no idea if something similar exists at the provincial level.

Constituency offices for both provincial and federal representatives exist in every riding, of course. From what I can tell reading the news, there is no shortage of groups making presentations to the sitting governments at various levels.

[Robert Roaldi]

By way of general information re governance structures and philosophy of government, I found this online discussion between Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute and Jospeh Heath of U of Toronto after the publication of Heath's book Filthy Lucre at about the time of the 2008 financial crisis. It's an old discussion but still very relevant.

To summarize, it's a discussion about economic fallacies that are generally believed by the "left" and the "right", loosely defined. The level of the discussion is a cut above the usual online sound bite. It's a bit over an hour long so requires some commitment of attention span, by way of warning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSqAB4AKnIg

The sound isn't always very good but still listenable.

[PeterAit]

Congress can't abdicate their responsibilities to federal agencies. Especially when the bill they pass is not clear on something so major that the EPA came up with. These are important issues that should be debated in Congress and decided by democratically elected representatives not federal officials who were never elected and don't report to the people. The Congress isn't doing their job. That's what the Supreme Court says and I agree with that. You don't.

WWHHAATT? Of course they can, although "abdicate" is hardly the word. Do you really expect congress to debate whether a certain chemical should be considered a pollutant? Or whether a new drug is safe? Or if a natural area requires protecting? They have neither the expertise or the time. So they create agencies who hire experts to look into the matter and give the agencies the authority to issue regulations.

Do you really not understand this stuff?

[Alan Klein]

Yes I realize you keep repeating that argument but it doesn't make any more sense now than the first time.

It's as if you think that the government (meaning the surrounding culture) exists as a support system for commerce.

I didnp;lt bring up the issue.  I was talking about the federal government printing and deficit spending.  McClennan brought up the issue again.  By the way, I'm not in favor of states trying to induce companies to come to their states and open shop.  But that's different than the federal government picking winners and losers. 

States compete with one another to induce businesses to come to their state and create jobs and pay state taxes.  The Federal government doesn;t compete with other Federal governments.  I don't see how you can't see the difference.  But so be it.

It's no different if Canada lowers income taxes for new foreign companies to convince them to open up businesses there. 

[digitaldog]

I didnp;lt bring up the issue. 

Time to give your bong a good cleaning. 🤯

[PeterAit]

deficit spending, inflation, and printing are done by the federal government not states.  The states cannot do these things.   

Competition among states to incentivize commercial companies to open up in their states to create new jobs and increase the wealth of those states has nothing to do with  what the federal government does from Washington DC.  States can only reduce state taxes for companies within their state. They'll get back in spades in the long run in addition to state taxes their employees pay the state.    We've discussed this many times before.  Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough.

It's not your explanation that is the problem, it's the falsehood of this claim. State incentives for corporations rarely work out to the benefit of the state. Look into it, as I have, and you'll see. But the politicians get to crow about it, that's why it happens.