Governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty
- Thread starter Imhotep
- Start date
'Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.'
Shit they better get back line. A Black man is runnin' this game now!
Shit they better get back line. A Black man is runnin' this game now!
Looks like Oklahoma feels some actions are outside the scope of govt?
I want the confederate states to seceded and give back that bad ole government money like NASA, the military and scientific research, just to name a few, so they can shut the fuck up! It’s time the northeast, Pacific coast and Midwest states stop carrying those fee loaders.
That day may come once the dollar fails to work. So I see one of two scenarios. States declare their sovereignty or the country's independence will be 'given up' to make way for a regional / global govt. Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska & others will be fine because they have a wealth of natural resources.
Oil, the republican’s savior. That’s why GW kissed the Saudi’s asses and immersed us in to the Iraqi debacle.
BTW, are you hoping for Obama to fail?
I don't hope for anyone to 'fail' but what is your definition of "fail"?
source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Fail
Pronunciation: \ˈfāl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English failen, from Anglo-French faillir, from Vulgar Latin *fallire, alteration of Latin fallere to deceive, disappoint
Date: 13th century
1 a: to lose strength : weaken <her health was failing> b: to fade or die away <until our family line fails> c: to stop functioning normally <the patient's heart failed>
2 a: to fall short <failed in his duty> b: to be or become absent or inadequate <the water supply failed> c: to be unsuccessful <the marriage failed> ; specifically : to be unsuccessful in achieving a passing grade <took the exam and failed> d: to become bankrupt or insolvent
transitive verb
1 a: to disappoint the expectations or trust of <her friends failed her> b: to miss performing an expected service or function for <his wit failed him>
2: to be deficient in : lack <never failed an invincible courage — Douglas MacArthur>
3: to leave undone : neglect <fail to lock the door>
4 a: to be unsuccessful in passing <failed chemistry> b: to grade (as a student) as not passing
— fail·ing·ly \ˈfā-liŋ-lē\ adverb
Last edited:
source: New York Times
Paul Krugman
April 19, 2009, 4:05 pm
Poor Texas
Matthew Yglesias notes that Tom DeLay is under the strange misapprehension that Texas is rich thanks to its low taxes and lack of regulation.
Just one minor issue: you really shouldn’t use median income, which can be distorted to the extent that inequality differs across states. You should instead use income per capita. As it happens, the comparison is even more striking. Texas, with its glorious free market regime and deeply incentive-creating 25 percent rate of health uninsurance, has a per capita income of $37,187; nanny-state New Jersey, with its oppressive taxes and regulation of everything (what it takes to get permission to cut down a dying tree … ), has a per capita income of $49,194.
source: Think Progress
Delay Claims Poorer-than-Average Texas is “Wealthy” Because Texans “Work Hard”
A few bloggers have noted that Tom DeLay went on a strange neo-secessionist binge yesterday on Hardball with Chris Matthews. This segment of the interview in which he lays out his substantive rationale has gotten less attention. But DeLay’s conceit is that Texas is a “wealthy state” because of it’s right-wing business-friendly policies, a situation that he specifically contrasts with the environment in California, New York, and New Jersey which have allegedly impoverished themselves with high taxes and overregulation:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zX5LnBn2wyg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zX5LnBn2wyg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
One problem here is that Texas isn’t a wealthy state. Its median household income of $47,548 made it 28th in the country. Below average, in other words. New Jersey is second, California is eighth, and New York is nineteenth. Indeed, of the top ten states in per capita income nine are “blue” states.
The exception is Alaska, whose wealthy is due not to “hard work” on the part of the population or a business-friendly policy environment but to the combination of substantial natural resource wealth and a small population. Texas is like a poor man’s Alaska, with the substantial natural resource wealth but with the wealth spread across a much greater population. Absent oil, Texas would probably look more like its even poorer neighbors Louisiana (46), Oklahoma (44), Arkansas (49), and New Mexico (45). To some extent, I think the relative poverty of the South can really be attributable to the harmful consequences of Dixie-style conservative policies. But beyond that, it’s generally the case that state wealth is highly path-dependent—economic vibrancy attracts high-skilled workers which in turn leads to more economic vibrancy. But however you weigh that balance, the idea that Texas points us forward to a wealth-generating policy environment is absurd.
Similar threads
