CDZ Blue Staters, Reclaim Your Sovereignty

[MPS777]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

 

[william the wie]

Even as separate nations there will be tax flight as with the many Brits, Canucks, Kiwis, Aussies and others who come to the US. The red states are willing to pay for defense, the left is not. And this list can go on forever: the Red states are willing to go to the mat, the blue states are not.

 

[jwoodie]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

So you think the federal government should subsidize state and local taxes?

 

[jwoodie]

Even as separate nations there will be tax flight as with the many Brits, Canucks, Kiwis, Aussies and others who come to the US. The red states are willing to pay for defense, the left is not. And this list can go on forever: the Red states are willing to go to the mat, the blue states are not.

The Blue State "tax imbalance" is a load of BS, pretending that expenditures for national defense do not benefit them and ignoring federal payments (e.g., Social Security) that are made directly to their residents.

 

[MPS777]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

So you think the federal government should subsidize state and local taxes?

Nope, in fact I believe in a flat/fair tax at the federal level. But I think that would have to go hand in hand with the repeal of many of the federal social welfare programs. What I think should be done is that a constitutional amendment should be passed which guarantees federal funding backing to all Americans who literally can’t afford healthcare. This could be funded with a national sales tax. Then I’d repeal social security and medicare along with the federal payroll taxes, and refund people for what they’ve paid in. Obamacare would go too. I’d try to remove all distortions from the federal tax code (especially the corporate health insurance tax deduction). Then at my own state level I’d advocate for a public option healthcare plan. It would be guarantee issue, and have a deductible that shrinks with income. And there would qualification restrictions on it that would prevent out-of-staters from jumping in just to take advantage of the guaranteed-issue.

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

I consider myself a centrist “federalist”.

 

[jwoodie]

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

If federal social welfare spending is not constitutional, then federal health care spending is even less so. Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

 

[MPS777]

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

If federal social welfare spending is not constitutional, then federal health care spending is even less so. Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

That’s the second post now that you’ve tried creating a straw man to argue with. I hope it doesn’t become a pattern. The federal government has broad powers under the Commerce Clause. A repeal of the McCarran - Ferguson Act would probably be deemed constitutional.
McCarran–Ferguson Act - Wikipedia
It wouldn’t bother me much. The American Academy of Actuaries are skeptical that “health insurance across state lines” would make much of a difference:
Selling Insurance Across State Lines

So yeah, go ahead and sell across state lines.

 

[PredFan]

Why don’t those rich 1%ers in blue states want to pay their fair share?

 

[jillian]

Even as separate nations there will be tax flight as with the many Brits, Canucks, Kiwis, Aussies and others who come to the US. The red states are willing to pay for defense, the left is not. And this list can go on forever: the Red states are willing to go to the mat, the blue states are not.

Texas v. White | law case

 

[william the wie]

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

If federal social welfare spending is not constitutional, then federal health care spending is even less so. Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

That’s the second post now that you’ve tried creating a straw man to argue with. I hope it doesn’t become a pattern. The federal government has broad powers under the Commerce Clause. A repeal of the McCarran - Ferguson Act would probably be deemed constitutional.
McCarran–Ferguson Act - Wikipedia
It wouldn’t bother me much. The American Academy of Actuaries are skeptical that “health insurance across state lines” would make much of a difference:
Selling Insurance Across State Lines

So yeah, go ahead and sell across state lines.

A more saleable position might be a WTO compliant uniform percentage tariff with a very short list of exemptions.

 

[william the wie]

The blue states will not attempt secession for the following reasons:

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would leave them defenseless.

By geography the Blue/Purple states are predominantly red in all but a maximum of seven cases. Internal secession and external secession will go hand in hand with loss of tax base and smuggling. Their position sucks.

 

[MPS777]

The blue states will not attempt secession for the following reasons:

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would leave them defenseless.

By geography the Blue/Purple states are predominantly red in all but a maximum of seven cases. Internal secession and external secession will go hand in hand with loss of tax base and smuggling. Their position sucks.

Secession is not the topic of the thread. I’m encouraging blue staters to seek greater sovereignty using constitutional federalism. It’s like when I was listening to one of these California “secessionists” on an interview, and all it seemed to me was that he was looking for greater autonomy. Well yeah, that’s baked into the constitution. As James Madison once said:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

All the California “secessionists” need to do for greater sovereignty is claim the federalism that is their right under the constitution.

 

[william the wie]

That would be a violation of what they call their principles.

 

[flacaltenn]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

 

[william the wie]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

Wage and asset inflation differentials have also been amplified by D policy:

Blocking TransCanada

Building high speed rail in areas totally unsuitable for It. High speed rail in the plains would cost less per mile and generate more revenue per mile than on either coast.

Now that many of these job killing policies are being killed so is the possibility of the Ds recovering any time soon.

 

[MPS777]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

Yeah, I’ve heard all kinds of spin on the maker/taker state issue. Here’s another little tidbit from the ‘Tax Foundation’:
“The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent).”

Seriously, 40%?? No state should be relying on fed.gov so much. These people appear to need a good lesson in modern federalism. Here’s a 2017 analysis on the federal spending issue:
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
It’s a very complex issue because there’s basically no longer any wall between federal spending and state spending, so they’ve become nearly hopelessly entangled. So now we as a nation are all at eachothers throats over paying the bills. Again, the founders had warned us against this:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

>>>”STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models”

Yep, time to take a hatchet to those.

 

[jwoodie]

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

If federal social welfare spending is not constitutional, then federal health care spending is even less so. Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

That’s the second post now that you’ve tried creating a straw man to argue with.

Having your own words quoted back to you is a real bitch, ain't it? You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?

 

[MPS777]

I think there’s a strong case to be made that federal social welfare spending is unconstitutional anyway:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

If federal social welfare spending is not constitutional, then federal health care spending is even less so. Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

That’s the second post now that you’ve tried creating a straw man to argue with.

Having your own words quoted back to you is a real bitch, ain't it? You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?

So you think the federal government should subsidize state and local taxes?

This is a straw-man argument. Logical fallacy.

Why are you opposed to removing federal impediments to competitive health care systems (e.g., insurance across state lines) and letting the states take care of this issue?

This is a straw-man argument. Logical fallacy.


>>>”You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?”

I’m not in favor of it as it’s currently being authorized under the General Welfare Clause (you can read the link concerning that in post5 as to why that clause can be considered an unconstitutional authorization). In post 5 I also stated:
“What I think should be done is that a constitutional amendment should be passed which guarantees federal funding backing to all Americans who literally can’t afford healthcare. This could be funded with a national sales tax.”

 

[flacaltenn]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

Yeah, I’ve heard all kinds of spin on the maker/taker state issue. Here’s another little tidbit from the ‘Tax Foundation’:
“The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent).”

Seriously, 40%?? No state should be relying on fed.gov so much. These people appear to need a good lesson in modern federalism. Here’s a 2017 analysis on the federal spending issue:
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
It’s a very complex issue because there’s basically no longer any wall between federal spending and state spending, so they’ve become nearly hopelessly entangled. So now we as a nation are all at eachothers throats over paying the bills. Again, the founders had warned us against this:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

>>>”STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models”

Yep, time to take a hatchet to those.

The % reliance on Federal $$ can be misleading. Again -- there's a world of diff between states, while the benefits laid out on the table are virtually the SAME for all. So if you look at what IS subsidized, sometimes you understand WHY the numbers are high. For instance, agriculture is one the HIGHEST subsidized federal programs. So states that depend heavily on it DO get more $$.. Or military bases or significant govt complexes.

Interestingly, I DOUBT that that analysis takes into account the CORPORATE subsidies that funnel to businesses WITHIN those states. If they DID -- you'd get radically different results.

The other confounding factor is DIVERSITY and DEPTH of that particular state's infrastructure and economy.. States with "simple needs" like Montana are LIKELY to find that MOST of the expensive "housekeeping" is covered by Fed $$ -- whereas in New York -- the COMPLEX and DEEP infrastructure overwhelms the Fed support.

STILL -- just the massive diff in the relative cost of living and wages MORE than explains that fractional disparity between most "maker and taker" states. In FACT -- when controlled for that diff -- we'd likely find that NO ONE gets a return of over or even NEAR a factor of 1.0.. SOMEDAY -- when I have the time -- I'm gonna do that analysis. Unless someone beats me to it..

 

[william the wie]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

Yeah, I’ve heard all kinds of spin on the maker/taker state issue. Here’s another little tidbit from the ‘Tax Foundation’:
“The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent).”

Seriously, 40%?? No state should be relying on fed.gov so much. These people appear to need a good lesson in modern federalism. Here’s a 2017 analysis on the federal spending issue:
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
It’s a very complex issue because there’s basically no longer any wall between federal spending and state spending, so they’ve become nearly hopelessly entangled. So now we as a nation are all at eachothers throats over paying the bills. Again, the founders had warned us against this:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

>>>”STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models”

Yep, time to take a hatchet to those.

The % reliance on Federal $$ can be misleading. Again -- there's a world of diff between states, while the benefits laid out on the table are virtually the SAME for all. So if you look at what IS subsidized, sometimes you understand WHY the numbers are high. For instance, agriculture is one the HIGHEST subsidized federal programs. So states that depend heavily on it DO get more $$.. Or military bases or significant govt complexes.

Interestingly, I DOUBT that that analysis takes into account the CORPORATE subsidies that funnel to businesses WITHIN those states. If they DID -- you'd get radically different results.

The other confounding factor is DIVERSITY and DEPTH of that particular state's infrastructure and economy.. States with "simple needs" like Montana are LIKELY to find that MOST of the expensive "housekeeping" is covered by Fed $$ -- whereas in New York -- the COMPLEX and DEEP infrastructure overwhelms the Fed support.

STILL -- just the massive diff in the relative cost of living and wages MORE than explains that fractional disparity between most "maker and taker" states. In FACT -- when controlled for that diff -- we'd likely find that NO ONE gets a return of over or even NEAR a factor of 1.0.. SOMEDAY -- when I have the time -- I'm gonna do that analysis. Unless someone beats me to it..

you'll get your answer within 18 months the tax reform bill will equalize out most economic differentials. The reopening of prisons to lower the cost of detainer will also have major impact on the crime rate cost differential.