Raise Taxes or Granny Gets It

[PLC1]

What a joke of a proposal...

It sounded to me like it was meant as a joke.

Pretty good one, too.

how about we stop sending money to districts who get more back than they paid in to begin with?

Yes, indeed, like Texas for example.

However, if that actually did occur, it would be the end of the Democratic Party for the next decade.

Why would that be? Aren't most of the states getting back more than they paid in the red states?

I seem to recall a quote from the President at the beginning of his term.

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

Yes, he did win. I wonder if sometimes he wishes he hadn't?

Now that the tables are reversed, how quickly that sentiment goes out the window. Let us not forget either that President Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling last time...interesting the 180 he has done.

It is, isn't it? He doesn't sound quite the same any more. In fact, he sounds a lot like that other guy, you know, the one who was in the White House before him, what was his name again?

 

[Openmind]

What a joke of a proposal...how about we stop sending money to districts who get more back than they paid in to begin with?

However, if that actually did occur, it would be the end of the Democratic Party for the next decade.




I seem to recall a quote from the President at the beginning of his term.

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

Now that the tables are reversed, how quickly that sentiment goes out the window. Let us not forget either that President Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling last time...interesting the 180 he has done.

Well, Rob. . . if you take that "joke proposal" (and I believe it was "tongue in cheek" remark, before you took it too seriously) one step further, and you apply it to "each State will only get back from the Federal government proportionally to what they contribute to the whole of the economy". . .

I'm afraid that if you look at the map, you may notice that "red states" are concentrated in the South and the center of the US. . .many, actually, in the "Bible belt!" They are not exactly the "richest" states, not exactly the most educated states, not necessarely the states that contribute the most to the economy, but many who "survive" by having huge government investments (i.e., military bases!).

The most successful states appear to be the North East and the West.

So, this joke may be a real joke for MANY of the Red states. . .who may decide that they want to find out what makes the Blue states more successful!

 

[BigRob]

It sounded to me like it was meant as a joke.

Pretty good one, too.

I recall a story about a California state senator talking about such an idea lately.

Yes, indeed, like Texas for example.

Texas actually receives $0.92 cents for every dollar they send in...

Why would that be? Aren't most of the states getting back more than they paid in the red states?

It depends, and I think to really get a good picture you need to break it down more along the lines of Congressional districts.

Look at Mississippi (they are ranked the top of this list.) We often think of them as a "red" state, but in reality, Democrats control one branch of their two branch state house.

Or, move to Louisiana. Such a state is considered a "red" state, but Democrats lost control of the state house for the first time since reconstruction in 2010. Additionally, the Governor prior to Jindal was a Democrat, and 1 of the 2 Senators is a D as well.

It is simplistic to simply call something a "red" or "blue" state. If Democrats actually went through with such a thing, it would destroy their party at the local level.

Yes, he did win. I wonder if sometimes he wishes he hadn't?

I hope not, but who knows. I imagine being President is a stressful job.

It is, isn't it? He doesn't sound quite the same any more. In fact, he sounds a lot like that other guy, you know, the one who was in the White House before him, what was his name again?

Such is the life of actual governing...one figures out pretty quickly you cannot govern with a talking point.

 

[BigRob]

Well, Rob. . . if you take that "joke proposal" (and I believe it was "tongue in cheek" remark, before you took it too seriously) one step further, and you apply it to "each State will only get back from the Federal government proportionally to what they contribute to the whole of the economy". . .

I'm afraid that if you look at the map, you may notice that "red states" are concentrated in the South and the center of the US. . .many, actually, in the "Bible belt!" They are not exactly the "richest" states, not exactly the most educated states, not necessarely the states that contribute the most to the economy, but many who "survive" by having huge government investments (i.e., military bases!).

The most successful states appear to be the North East and the West.

So, this joke may be a real joke for MANY of the Red states. . .who may decide that they want to find out what makes the Blue states more successful!

I would be interested to see a breakdown by congressional district, instead of state.

As for "red" states and "blue" states, please see my response above. Often that is quite a misleading term.

You also need to factor in costs of living etc... for example I may make $100,000 in New York, but that $100,000 is going to go a lot further in a place like Alabama. (generally).

 

[PLC1]

I would be interested to see a breakdown by congressional district, instead of state.

As for "red" states and "blue" states, please see my response above. Often that is quite a misleading term.

You also need to factor in costs of living etc... for example I may make $100,000 in New York, but that $100,000 is going to go a lot further in a place like Alabama. (generally).

You do have a point about Congressional districts. I live in the dark blue state of California, but am surrounded by Republicans who decry the fact that San Francisco and Los Angeles regularly outvote them.

I wonder just how the money does flow if you look at more local entities? I'd be willing to bet that ultra liberal San Francisco is a source for a lot of federal and state tax revenue, but I don't know for sure.

 

[ProudLefty]

 

[Openmind]

I would be interested to see a breakdown by congressional district, instead of state.

As for "red" states and "blue" states, please see my response above. Often that is quite a misleading term.

You also need to factor in costs of living etc... for example I may make $100,000 in New York, but that $100,000 is going to go a lot further in a place like Alabama. (generally).

I do agree that cost of living should enter in calculations. I'm used to it because, over my husband's international career, we never took an assignment that didn't include cost of living adjustement (usually upward) to move to Paris, or London, or California.

However, when you begin splitting hair not only by States, but by congressional districts. . .we would probably need to keep going to Neighborhoods, and Streets, and maybe even Odd and Even sides of the street!

How far can one split hair? The fact is that, we are ONE nation, and ONE people. If we begin argueing that "truth," we can just wave America good bye!

 

[PLC1]

It looks as if we have a redistribution of wealth, by state.

 

[Openmind]

This "stuff" about the U.S. Constitution and U.S. history is way over your head. Just skip over the "technical" stuff and wait for the thread to revert back to leftist bumper sticker slogans and defending Obama's ineptitude and ignorance.

Why do you keep on insisting in being insulting?
It doesn't prove you right.
It doesn't make you look smart.
and it doesn't add anything to the thread.

What are you trying to prove? That you can keep on insulting people and derailling threads juste. . .because you can?

Well, I think you should either get on with posting, or leave like your friend.

Right now, all I read from you is bitterness, amertume, insults, and ridiculous ultra partisan statements.

You're a bore, a troll, nothing more. And I was really hoping that, as smart as you have (sometimes) demonstrated you can be, you would finally contribute positively!

 

[Openmind]

Very interesting. It seems to support my observation that many of the red states are on the list of "take more than they receive."

 

[BigRob]

Very interesting. It seems to support my observation that many of the red states are on the list of "take more than they receive."

But it ignores the local level politics that will destroy the Democratic Party if they actually went through with such a plan.

 

[BigRob]

Very interesting. It seems to support my observation that many of the red states are on the list of "take more than they receive."

Additionally, let's look at who is doing the actual taking. I grew up some in New Orleans, and it was hardly uncommon to see, on a typical work day, large amount of people just sitting out playing cards in the middle of the street. It was the running joke that these people were collecting welfare and unemployment checks...so while Louisiana (a semi-red state) might get back a lot of money, we have to ask what it is for exactly, and who is doing the taking.

 

[ProudLefty]

But it ignores the local level politics that will destroy the Democratic Party if they actually went through with such a plan.

I can not think of a scenario where the Democrats come out with a bigger black eye than Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised.

The oft-repeated claim by Republicans that there is enough money coming in to pay bills so there is no real problem reminds me of my daughter in college whose attitude was that if she had checks then she had money.

If there is enough money coming in to pay bills then we are not exceeding the debt limit anyway, so no problem in the first place, eh?

 

[Openmind]

Additionally, let's look at who is doing the actual taking. I grew up some in New Orleans, and it was hardly uncommon to see, on a typical work day, large amount of people just sitting out playing cards in the middle of the street. It was the running joke that these people were collecting welfare and unemployment checks...so while Louisiana (a semi-red state) might get back a lot of money, we have to ask what it is for exactly, and who is doing the taking.

See, I told you if we went down that road we would end up splitting hair, not just by States, but by Counties, by districts, and by neighborhood, and by streets, and by homes on each streets, and by people in each home!

This is why we are in all this together, as a Country.

This is why Germany, and France, and Belgium and the Nederlands are ready to bail out Greece, and Spain, and Portugal. . .because the prosperity of the whole of the European Union depends, not on the "strongest link," but on how well they can move forward, or fail together.

And NOW, we, the UNITED STATES, are to the point of looking at "splitting" hair between who is fairly or not so fairly participating in the economy of the U.S?
As I said before. . .be careful going too far that way! Most of the "take more" states ARE either VERY strong, or VERY leaning Red States! Do you think we should just "let them fail" and cut them off?

 

[BigRob]

I can not think of a scenario where the Democrats come out with a bigger black eye than Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised.

The oft-repeated claim by Republicans that there is enough money coming in to pay bills so there is no real problem reminds me of my daughter in college whose attitude was that if she had checks then she had money.

If there is enough money coming in to pay bills then we are not exceeding the debt limit anyway, so no problem in the first place, eh?

We are $14 trillion in debt...clearly there is not enough money coming in to pay the bills.

I think Republicans will ultimately raise the ceiling, but it ignores the central issue. If spending is never brought under control, the whole economy is going to collapse anyway, and it will kill the dollar.