I’d guess the type of people who want to ride motorcycles to Sturgis for a cycle event are different from the type of people who want to get on airplanes and fly to Manhattan for ___ (I don’t know what is even open in Manhattan these days).
The one that said “Border could be in PA or OH, boom solved.”
No that wasn’t sarcasm. I think the notion that NYC would be its own city state is silly and raises too many obvious issues. If we instead formed a country from the northeast states then the issues being noted were solved.
And they do today, even without the international border.
My point is that the addition of an international border does not materially help NYC (or a few NE states) enforce restrictive gun laws. There will be lots of people and stuff traveling across that border. Plenty of opportunity to smuggle handguns.
It certainly does make a big difference, because the second amendment supersedes any law NY might try to pass. If NY was part of its own country we wouldn’t have the second amendment, that’s the point of the difference, not that we’re worried about petty smuggling.
Because we pay taxes to the federal government. I’d like to stop that.
That means compelling OH and western PA to join this BlueUS. Why would we do that?
Who is compelling anyone? It would be by vote, not insurrection.
And you miss the entire point. It’s not “BlueUS”, it’s just a region. There are Democrats and Republicans all through the northeast, but northeast Republicans are a lot different from southern Republicans and vice versa. I think all parts of the country would be happier with the change.
Yep. And one way to do that without starting your own country is to get your congresscritters to start supporting “federalism” – the notion that local stuff should be funded and controlled by local people as much as possible. Airports and local transit are prime examples.
So… Social security (1T), defense (0.7T), Medicare (0.6B), and Medicaid (0.4B) account for well over half of the federal budget. Which of those payments do you want to cut?
defense!
I’m onboard for 20% off defense, 50% off SS, 100% off Medicare, but would probably put most of Medicare in Medicaid.
So… You want old people to starve and have no medical care?
Or do you plan to replace those programs? How would your replacement handle someone who worked all their life in Chicago but wanted to retire to Georgia?
And make sure to account for people who are currently 90, or 70, or 50. Not just for some hypothetical 20 year old who may build up retirement savings in some way.
1 Like
So you want SS to go bankrupt and all the people who depend on it go homeless? You monster.
Case in point, my partner’s mom depends solely on SS to survive.
1 Like
Old, poor people would go on Medicaid. Old, not poor people would buy their own stuff.
I’d eliminate benefits for most of the recipients and it’d just become a basic safety net for poor old people.
Without Medicare, a much larger fraction of the old would be poor. Do you have any idea what medical care costs for old people?
1 Like
This is why I said much of the cut to Medicare would go into Medicaid.
I’m fine with a safety net for people based on socioeconomics, not based on age. The entire point is to stop giving free stuff to old, not poor people… and to cut the military budget.
I’m guessing you are 30.
Many old people can no longer work as effectively as they could before retirement. That’s why we have retirement. It’s a graceful way to refresh your workforce without screwing over old people who worked hard most of their lives.
2 Likes
… nearly 30 and a half