red states should stop taking money from Washington

[Deleted member 53821]

The federal government should stop giving states money because it interferes with the people's right in those states to craft the laws they want to. Once the elected officials receive that money they are then given a list of conditions over how they can spend that money and whatever else they want. Washington then begins to get its hands into local elections by shaping local laws. I always thought the people of the state or small town in which they reside should shape their laws but the minute they get money from another government the people begin to lose control of those governments. It really doesn't sound democratic at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

Ok

 

[whats up]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

Ok

First the states in the union need to pay there part for the running of the country. The military for one and there are many others. There are mutual needs that states need such as federal highways and some assistance for massive natural disasters. There are many things that the states can't afford such a federal weather system and many many more. You want your state to get out of the union, go right ahead it would be a disaster for your state and you. If you are not part of the union you are a foreign country. Think twice

 

[Mad Scientist]

As FAQ-U2 stated, Washington should should stop taking money from the States.

But I have a good idea. How about the States take all the Federal Taxes they gather for the Fed, pay off their own yearly debt, then send the rest (if any) to the Fed?

Just cut out the Middle man! Plus, States would know how best to spend that money anyway.

 

[Dot Com]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

So that would end right away wouldn't it?

You want solutions or you just wanna' *****? Nevermind, yer a Liberal.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

Ok

First the states in the union need to pay there part for the running of the country. The military for one and there are many others. There are mutual needs that states need such as federal highways and some assistance for massive natural disasters. There are many things that the states can't afford such a federal weather system and many many more. You want your state to get out of the union, go right ahead it would be a disaster for your state and you. If you are not part of the union you are a foreign country. Think twice

Who said that there should be no money sent to the fed? Apparently you are not understanding what you are reading.

The problem is that the states are taxed cash that is returned in block grants - a process that is utterly asinine. Why take the money from that state in the first place?

The answer is, of course, because it transfers power to the federal government that they are not constitutionally granted. The drinking age is determined by state, not the federal government. However, it is universal in the states because the government essentially extorted the states demanding that they change the law or lose funding from roads. That completely and utterly obliterates the idea of federalism with levels of government that are charged with certain powers and responsibilities.

If the states simply paid for their own roads directly this would not be an issue however the feds basically take the money from the states and return that same money for them to spend on roads. The existence of the middle man is solely to transfer power to the federal government.

 

[Dot Com]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

IOW's- you got nothing You could have saved all that typing FA_Q2 .

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

IOW's- you got nothing You could have saved all that typing FA_Q2 .

I have logical statements and you have baseless statistics lacking any actual analysis.

If you have something concrete – bring it to the table. I am the one that is arguing that this needs to stop whereas you support such asinine practices and yet bring a statistic that does not support your view into the picture. THEN, you completely fail to understand the actual data you think you have.

That is failure on so many levels but far be it from you to actually address the facts and arguments. Instead, blankly claim I have nothing and should not have typed anything in the thread. I sure you would have preferred that – it challenges your deeply held partisan hackery and you can’t have any of that. Continue to accept what others have told you as fact because they have provided you a single figure (without context) that happens to support your bias – it matters to me not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not this stupid shit again.. what next? A thread on how liberals are smarter than everyone else on the planet?

 

[Dot Com]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

IOW's- you got nothing You could have saved all that typing FA_Q2 .

I have logical statements and you have baseless statistics lacking any actual analysis.

If you have something concrete – bring it to the table. I am the one that is arguing that this needs to stop whereas you support such asinine practices and yet bring a statistic that does not support your view into the picture. THEN, you completely fail to understand the actual data you think you have.

That is failure on so many levels but far be it from you to actually address the facts and arguments. Instead, blankly claim I have nothing and should not have typed anything in the thread. I sure you would have preferred that – it challenges your deeply held partisan hackery and you can’t have any of that. Continue to accept what others have told you as fact because they have provided you a single figure (without context) that happens to support your bias – it matters to me not.

you have un-sourced opinion kiddo. Again, stop wasting my, AND OTHER'S, time

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong order.

The federal government TAKES money from the states and then returns it under conditions. States don't need to stop taking the federal governments money - the federal government needs to stop taking the money from the state in the first place.

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

IOW's- you got nothing You could have saved all that typing FA_Q2 .

I have logical statements and you have baseless statistics lacking any actual analysis.

If you have something concrete – bring it to the table. I am the one that is arguing that this needs to stop whereas you support such asinine practices and yet bring a statistic that does not support your view into the picture. THEN, you completely fail to understand the actual data you think you have.

That is failure on so many levels but far be it from you to actually address the facts and arguments. Instead, blankly claim I have nothing and should not have typed anything in the thread. I sure you would have preferred that – it challenges your deeply held partisan hackery and you can’t have any of that. Continue to accept what others have told you as fact because they have provided you a single figure (without context) that happens to support your bias – it matters to me not.

you have un-sourced opinion kiddo. Again, stop wasting my, AND OTHER'S, time

Oh no, as you can see by reading the thread I have not wasted anyone’s time – that would be you with your inability to mount a reasonable argument. I have not eviscerated your statements here for your benefit – you were never open to differing opinions or providing merits of your own opinions on this topic in the first place. I have done so because there are many other readers that read through this and they can discern what I am stating.

I am done doing so now because you are no longer providing anything other than ‘I win’ slogans – the true sign that you have nothing to bring to the table.

You know all those conservatives that you believe are so wrong on these forums when they claim some vaunted victory? You know how dumb they sound when they do so? Well, that is just how the last few posts you have placed here read.

 

[Dot Com]

ummm..... some red states take more than they pay-in so yeah. Your statement is moot

here is the data. I don't expect that its changed much: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State 2005 Tax Foundation

And that has been addressed here a ton of times with complete silence on the part of those that want to parrot that asinine statistic. It is utterly meaningless unless you supply a disposition on WHAT that money is spent on. Statistics without context - pointless.

Either way - doc is correct - you certainly are not calling for an end to the asinine process of pillaging the states and then 'returning' the money with certain conditions so you support this type is silliness.

It is a wonder why you would bring something like this up...

IOW's- you got nothing You could have saved all that typing FA_Q2 .

I have logical statements and you have baseless statistics lacking any actual analysis.

If you have something concrete – bring it to the table. I am the one that is arguing that this needs to stop whereas you support such asinine practices and yet bring a statistic that does not support your view into the picture. THEN, you completely fail to understand the actual data you think you have.

That is failure on so many levels but far be it from you to actually address the facts and arguments. Instead, blankly claim I have nothing and should not have typed anything in the thread. I sure you would have preferred that – it challenges your deeply held partisan hackery and you can’t have any of that. Continue to accept what others have told you as fact because they have provided you a single figure (without context) that happens to support your bias – it matters to me not.

you have un-sourced opinion kiddo. Again, stop wasting my, AND OTHER'S, time

Oh no, as you can see by reading the thread I have not wasted anyone’s time – that would be you with your inability to mount a reasonable argument. I have not eviscerated your statements here for your benefit – you were never open to differing opinions or providing merits of your own opinions on this topic in the first place. I have done so because there are many other readers that read through this and they can discern what I am stating.

I am done doing so now because you are no longer providing anything other than ‘I win’ slogans – the true sign that you have nothing to bring to the table.

You know all those conservatives that you believe are so wrong on these forums when they claim some vaunted victory? You know how dumb they sound when they do so? Well, that is just how the last few posts you have placed here read.

STILL no sourcing You JUST DON'T SEEM TO "GET IT"

I'm done w/ "this one"