Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

> Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?

Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them.

Even every "red state" has plenty of people in need who can't afford to go elsewhere and shouldn't be asked to abandon their families and their lives to just not die.

(EDIT: I normally don't respond to killed comments, because feeding the trolls sucks, but: I live in Massachusetts, dude. I'm used to a state that actually works. I wish you all had them too.)

View on HN

>Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them.

>Even every "red state" has plenty of people in need who can't afford to go elsewhere and shouldn't be asked to abandon their families and their lives to just not die.

>(EDIT: I normally don't respond to killed comments, because feeding the trolls sucks, but: I live in Massachusetts, dude. I'm used to a state that actually works. I wish you all had them too.)

You could write an analogous comment from a perspective of "people in the blue states need saving too".

Are you going to be singing that same pro-federal tune if issues don't go your way at the federal level?

I live in Massachusetts too. While the burning dollars of taxpayers does keep us warm there is no shortage of states in the nation that would revolt if it had government that "works" the way our government "works". People in other states are not so willfully subservient to government in the name of the common good as we are. We step in line for things that would provoke revolt in states with stronger traditions of individualism and distrust for government.

We have a limited federal government for a reason. Massholes like us have no business telling people thousands of miles away with different cultural values and different economic circumstances how to live their lives. The hell do you or I know about what's best Wyoming? Exactly.

This is not specific to one party. There is someone out there, opposite to you, who says the same thing but replace red state with blue state.

The root problem here is the people who insist that their political beliefs should be implemented for everyone in the country, not just for the people around them who agree with those beliefs. This idea that "we can't leave anything up to local government because there might be some local government out there who disagrees with me" is why we have so much federal gridlock.

Of course there is "another side". They're wrong, but they understand it's a fight, and my side still doesn't, so kudos to them at least for that.

I don't particularly care about self-inflicted wounds, but the splash damage upon the people whose lives they make worse in the offing is a damning indictment of this conception of federalism.

Shit's broken, and it's broken for the weakest among us, and it's only getting worse with the "drown it in a bathtub" corps stomping through the White House.

Is this the same "drown it in a bathtub" corps that signed a trillion dollar emergency social welfare spending bill a few months ago?

I respectfully submit that you might want to reconsider your priors and update them if you want to accurately reason about the present state of the USA Republic.

The Trump administration has observably almost fully embraced an MMT style social welfare program. The sovereign currency denominated deficits don't matter position has won. The only thing that's missing is the employment backstop, but the $600 a week federal unemployment bonus arguably achieves the same fiscal effects as paying for busywork.

This is verging on an ad hominem attack: we need more federal powers because those people are awful baby killers!

The reality is everyone cares, they just disagree sharply on how to solve issues or which issues are priorities — to which the solution of several independent approaches seems reasonable.

When people in state A see that state B is doing much better because of policy X, they can choose to enact similar. I’m not sure I understand why they need to be compelled to adopt your preferred policies.

It’s interesting that you discuss “red states” being in need — but ignore the prolific violence in “blue cities” and poor trapped there.

As they say: Cure yourself, doctor.

> Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, expect I feel this is what got us Obamacare instead of a better system - and _even then_, there was a multitude of red states that refused to accept the Medicaid expansion, to the harm of precisely the people you speak of. Pushing societal improvements on states that don't want them feels like buying a sandwich for a homeless person and having them throw it on the ground, and I no longer feel its worth the effort.

It is tempting to agree with you, but a lot of Americans live there that don't deserve to be kicked in the teeth by the FYGM parade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com