Louisiana Central Credit Union: Fill & Download for Free

Q : Why does the Conservative right in the US constantly vilify Liberal and Socialist values?Do you mean the actual economic philosophy called small “s" socialism, or what decades of right-wing pro-corporate propaganda has convinced the uneducated American laity is “Socialism"?If you mean the actual economic system proposed by Karl Marx, where the employees of a corporation share ownership of it and its profits, then the style of business generally called “cooperatives" are an example of socialism. Publix and credit unions are cooperatives.If you mean what stupid Americans call “Socialism”, which uses the word as a mere name, then you probably mean a situation where the government does anything for the people. In that case the military, postal service, roads, infrastructure in general, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, police, fire stations, emergency rooms, welfare, and everything else that modern culture deems necessary for a civilized society, are examples of “Socialism" in America.andThis is a weather map. It’s created by the NOAA in cooperation with NASA and several other government agencies. It is effectively a state-run corporation operating a public good not based on its profitability. It is an abomination in the eyes of capitalists.andandThe Tennessee Valley Authority is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power companies serving 10 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. In addition to operating and investing its revenues in its electric system, TVA provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation.andAre public libraries funded by the government?Public libraries receive virtually all of their funding from local city, county and state taxes. Some libraries receive grants from the federal government as well, though this is not typical. Many also receive donations from members of their local community.andThe United States Postal Service is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States, including its insular areas and associated states.andThe Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States of America. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.and 'Like a Soviet-type economy': GOP free traders unload on Trump’'Like a Soviet-type economy': GOP free traders unload on Trumpand YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND ITEP ...In November 2018, Together Louisiana released "Why Louisiana stays poor," highlighting the impact of industrial tax exemptions on Louisiana's economic and social outcomes.You want to understand ITEP ...Since 1936, Louisiana has been the only state in the nation to endow a state-level board with the authority to approve corporate exemptions from local property taxes, without the approval, or even knowledge, of the local entities paying the cost of those exemptions. It’s called the industrial tax exemption program, or ITEP, and it is the largest program of state subsidies to corporations in the nation.and The Socialism of VaccinesIs vaccination policy in the USA socialism?The Socialism of Vaccines - Being Libertarianandedit 11/17/2019 watch this………..

I see that you are cherry picking places to fit your assumptions. Maine, after all, is also part of the United States, and has as many Francophones as Louisiana (if not more), yet you mentioned them not. Why? Because they are not “poor”?Louisiana was not always “poor,” not by anyone's definition. Nouvelle Orléans was a large, rich city, so key to trade in the United States that that country was prepared to pay $10 million for the city alone, and prepared to fight for it if that plan failed. In the years after the vente de la Louisiane, a third of all the wealth in the United States was concentrated in Louisiana, along the Mississippi River.It was not until after the Civil War, la Guerre des Confédérés, that Louisiana became “poor.” This, for obvious reasons. The cost of the war left the State as a whole devastated, not only because of the loss of slavery, but the loss of life, of material property, infrastructure like levees and railways, stability, and land. The State didn't have money to pick itself up; the Francophones within it certainly weren't any better equipped.Whereas Francophones (both of color and not of color) had had some political power and standing prior to the war, we had none after. We were a minority (Francos) within a minority (the Anglo-South); those Francophones of color were triple minorities. We felt that in many ways, and still feel that today. We've never really, as Francophones, had control over our school systems. The schools, land, and politics were taken over by Anglos from the north and south; the Church was taken over by Anglos and Irish from the North. To imply that we, as Francophones, are responsible for the state of the State would be to give us a little too much credit.It's worth noting, of course, that Louisiana isn't the poorest in the Union. It ranks 44th by median household income (not adjusted for cost of living). It boasts many local resources and industries, from agriculture to oil to service. What Louisiana doesn't boast, is Francophones. With a population of 5 million, less than 100,000 speak French.So, it seems a little odd to ask why Louisiana, as a French-speaking state, is poor. As if one necessarily had something to do with the other!

Sovereign immunity at the state level is… well, it’s weird.The first thing you have to understand is that when the Constitution was adopted, the idea of federalism was really untested and most of the drafters were strongly suspicious of it. These states viewed themselves as states, as their own little countries as fully sovereign and independent as Germany or France.The States didn’t see themselves as semi-autonomous provinces of a larger single nation, and that was the premise behind the original governing structure of the United States - the Articles of Confederation. That was more like the European Union.But the Articles had failed pretty miserably by 1787. The Continental government was broke, the States were engaged in economic trade wars, and the United States were on the verge of disintegrating. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and a few others realized that the only way to hold these fractious states together was a stronger, more unifying system: the federation, rather than confederation.There are varying degrees of the idea of federalism. Strong federalism takes the approach of a strong, centralized government that controls semi-autonomous provinces with their own local governments for local problems.But, to those who had just fought a war against centralized governments in the form, this smelled waaaay too much like monarchy; indeed, one of the chief pejoratives lobbed at those who supported a federalist model was that they were, in fact, “monarchists” and that the very notion of federalism was simply meant to be a stepping stone to a new monarchy.So, Madison, Hamilton, and others deliberately weakened the federalist model.This weak federalism takes a “dual sovereignty” view, instead. The States are co-equal with both the federal government, and with each other. In order to keep the states together, where issues between the states arose, the federal government would be supreme, and each State would be required to give “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”But, this full faith and credit leads to a bit of tension: what happens if someone sues another state in their home court? What if someone sued the State of New York, in Pennsylvania? Would New York have to honor the decision of Pennsylvania? What about their sovereignty?Article III explains what happens if citizens of one state want to sue citizens of another state: that’s where federal courts come in, to provide a neutral arbiter, because a state court might favor their state’s residents. And Article III also provides the federal courts as an arbiter between the States themselves. But, Article III also seemed to suggest that the federal courts could also settle disputes between the citizens of one state and another state.That issue came up rather quickly in Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which decided that the Constitution did not afford the states any sovereign immunity. Congress retaliated and immediately passed the Eleventh Amendment in 1794, and the States almost immediately ratified it in 1795.The Eleventh Amendment says that the citizens of a state (or foreign residents) cannot sue the government of any other state in federal court. And that pretty much settled things for a good long while.Hans v. Louisiana (1890) reaffirmed this principle - no using the federal court system to sue the states.Other cases through the 20th century reaffirmed the principle with some small exceptions for places where the Bankruptcy Code (which is only federal and explicitly pre-empts any state law attempts at creating bankruptcy provisions) is concerned, or where the Federal Constitution applies to the States through the 14th Amendment.Until Hall.Nevada v. Hall blew this framework up and threw it out the window. And it was quite controversial for its time. The future Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a rather scathing dissent to Hall noting that it was throwing out nearly two centuries of precedent on the subject by allowing the state court of one state to dictate a judgement against another state.In Hall, the plaintiffs were California residents, on a California highway, who got in a car crash with someone who was employed by the University of Nevada and driving in California on official business. Basically, the employee was functioning as a part of the Nevada government. So, the State of Nevada would then be on the hook for the liability, went the reasoning.The plaintiffs didn’t want to have to file everything in Nevada, though. So, they filed in a California state court. After bouncing back and forth, where the California Supreme Court ruled that they could haul the State of Nevada into a state court in California, Nevada wanted the California court to apply a Nevada statute that limited their own liability to $25,000. The California state court refused, deciding that since the accident occurred in California, the principle of “lex loci” (the law of the place where the wrong occurred) applied, used California law, and a jury awarded a $1.15 million judgment against the State of Nevada.The State of Nevada asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, claiming that the Full Faith and Credit Clause meant that the California court had to apply Nevada law because, as a matter of co-equal sovereignty of the states, it could not enter a judgment against Nevada that Nevada itself could not enter under its own laws. Otherwise, this could force Nevada to be subject to California’s laws (or any other state).The Court reasoned, however, that this argument was a double-edged sword for Nevada. Nevada would, by not upholding the California judgment, be forcing a limited liability statute on the residents of California, who had no say in Nevada’s enactment of that statute.In this Nation each sovereign governs only with the consent of the governed. The people of Nevada have consented to a system in which their State is subject only to limited liability in tort. But the people of California, who have had no voice in Nevada's decision, have adopted a different system. Each of these decisions is equally entitled to our respect.It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established limits on liability. They are free to do so. But if a federal court were to hold, by inference from the structure of our Constitution and nothing else, that California is not free in this case to enforce its policy of full compensation, that holding would constitute the real intrusion *427 on the sovereignty of the States—and the power of the people—in our Union.The Supreme Court then upheld California’s judgment against Nevada.Hall itself relied more specifically on the Full Faith and Credit argument, largely because the State of Nevada had abrogated (to a limited extent) its sovereign immunity by allowing tort claims against the Nevada government for things like when an employee got in a car crash somewhere.States are able to limit their liability, or even allow themselves not to be sued at all. There were some good (if pragmatic) reasons for this at the time. The States were largely broke from the Revolutionary War, and remember: the individual States were really concerned about any State asserting jurisdiction over any other. Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure the reluctant States that it was okay to adopt the new proposed Constitution because Article III would not allow states to be sued without their consent. This was what the Chisholm court rejected, and why the Eleventh Amendment was then so quickly drafted and ratified — the States were pissed about the idea that they could be sued by the residents of other states without their consent.The Hall court looked at that, and basically decided that the Eleventh Amendment didn’t really apply here because the Eleventh Amendment pertained to federal courts. So, it was all right for the California state court to haul Nevada in, grant a judgment against it in accordance with California law, and put it on Nevada to pay up, if Nevada consented to be sued in the first place.More recently, the “federalist revolution” started by the Rehnquist Court has greatly expanded the idea of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and simply as an “inherent” principle of the Constitution.In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Supreme Court determined that the State of Maine had not consented to be sued and that the States enjoyed a broad sovereign immunity at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and that Congress couldn’t simply override that on its own as a matter of that “dual sovereignty” view of federalism.I’ll ride right past the part where the textual originalists who decry reading anything into the Constitution that isn’t explicitly there and who dislike looking for anything in the “penumbra of the Constitution” for matters of privacy have no problem reading sovereign immunity into the document when it’s not written there. But I digress.Hyatt essentially overruled Hall by applying the holding of Alden and stating that Hall ignored the historical context of the relationship between the States when the Constitution was drafted. The Court specifically noted that when the Supreme Court in Chisholm abrogated the idea of sovereign immunity for the States, the States themselves quickly put it back, indicating that everyone just assumed that sovereign immunity for the States was a given.So, the Court isn’t necessary overruling old precedent willy-nilly for any old reason it so feels like. In this case, the essential holding of Hyatt had long been an aberration of interstate conflicts of laws, not the norm. And given the Court’s history in Alden and its progeny, this ruling was simply a matter of time.This is long and complicated and I didn’t provide any pictures. Here, have an adorable duckling.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.