Three Blue States on the Brink

[questftbest]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy. They will likely go to the Federal government begging for help (i.e. money). The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills. I agree and I live in one of these states. This would be a calamity for the democrat party. What do you think?

 

[Staccato]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy.

If you say so. First I've heard of it to be honest, but I haven't been keeping up with news lately.

The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills.

Will they also tell the red states that take more federal dollars than they pay in to take a hike when they come for their 'handouts' as well?

I agree and I live in one of these states.

If you work in one of these states, then that's pretty silly.

This would be a calamity for the democrat party.

Why? Looks to me as though it would be pretty strong campaigning leverage against Republican candidates in those states in 2012.

 

[Goodtry]

Maybe they should just ask Bush for a bank-type bailout.

 

[Schneiderman]

Maybe they should just ask Bush for a bank-type bailout.

Why? Bush can't write a bill and put it through congress.

 

[Nathan45]

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

Federal spending in each state per Per Dollar of Federal Taxes paid by that state (2005):

...

New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Illinois: $0.75

... these states are not exactly leaching off the rest of the country...


and just for the record:
Texas: $0.94

(some people think that all red states receive more federal spending than they pay out. That's true of most red states, but Texas is an exception!)

This one's for Sarah Palin:
Alaska: $1.84

P.S. california is democratic but it's government system is disfunctional. It's impossible to raise taxes there and the fiscal policy so fas been pro-cyclical for about the past 10 years at least. You can't blame california's mess on Keynesians--it's just the opposite.

 

[Schneiderman]

^Are you aware that states have budgets, besides the federal tax dollars they receive?

 

[jgarden]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy. They will likely go to the Federal government begging for help (i.e. money). The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills. I agree and I live in one of these states. This would be a calamity for the democrat party. What do you think?

Why does the "new Republican House" make negotiating to keep the Bush "tax cuts" for the wealthy their top priority - while telling the rest of America to "... take a hike and pay their own bills?"

 

[Nathan45]

^Are you aware that states have budgets, besides the federal tax dollars they receive?

apparently you think i'm a moron, and yes i am aware of this but what is your point? obviously their state budget is busted right now. (really are there any states that don't have busted budgets right now? )

(edit: if you're confused about my remark about it being impossible to raise taxes in california, this is because there's a state constitutional amendment that requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature for any tax hike which will never happen).

what i'm saying is that if there were a federal bailout of these states you can hardly say they're leaching off the rest of us because they pay in more tax dollars than they get back.

 

[Staccato]

(edit: if you're confused about my remark about it being impossible to raise taxes in california, this is because there's a state constitutional amendment that requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature for any tax hike which will never happen).

And if I remember rightly they only just removed the amendment that forced such a majority for actually passing a budget in the first place.

The financial insanity of California is a poke in the eye to all those folks who think that government gridlock somehow brings utopian libertarianism.

 

[katherine2001]

Why does the "new Republican House" make negotiating to keep the Bush "tax cuts" for the wealthy their top priority - while telling the rest of America to "... take a hike and pay their own bills?"

I think those states should tax the wealthy at a rate of 70%--then they will have the money to pay their own bills. The Feds should do the same--it would help pay off the National Debt.

 

[jgarden]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy. They will likely go to the Federal government begging for help (i.e. money). The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills. I agree and I live in one of these states. This would be a calamity for the democrat party. What do you think?

**********************************************************

Data sets : Federal Spending in Each State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes
Created at: Jan 13 2010
Data source: US Census Bureau
Description: A summary of total federal expenditures for each state divided by the total taxes collected from that state, as a dollar value. Commonly thought of as how much of your federal tax dollar comes back to your state.

State - Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes
**********************************************
New Mexico - $2.03
Mississippi - $2.02
Alaska - $1.84
Louisiana - $1.78
West Virginia - $1.76
North Dakota - $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota - $1.53
Kentucky - $1.51
Virginia - $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii - $1.44
Maine - $1.41
Arkansas - $1.41
Oklahoma - $1.36
South Carolina - $1.35
Missouri - $1.32
Maryland - $1.30
Tennessee - $1.27
Idaho - $1.21
Arizona - $1.19
Kansas - $1.12
Wyoming - $1.11
Iowa - $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont - $1.08
North Carolina - $1.08
Pennsylvania - $1.07
Utah $1.07
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island - $1.00 (national average)
Florida - $0.97
Texas - $0.94
Oregon - $0.93
Michigan - $0.92
Washington - $0.88
Wisconsin - $0.86
Massachusetts - $0.82
Colorado - $0.81
New York - $0.79
California - $0.78
Delaware - $0.77
Illinois - $0.75
Minnesota - $0.72
New Hampshire - $0.71
Connecticut - $0.69
Nevada - $0.65
New Jersey - $0.61

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...l-spending-in-each-state-per-2/versions/2.txt

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...deral-spending-in-each-state-per-2/versions/2

"The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills."
(questftbest)

"Questftbest" and his conservative friends talk a good line but a review of transfers to the states indicates that all except one "red state" (Texas - $0.94) is currently feeding at the Federal trough!"

With respect to California ($0.78), Illinois ($0.75) and New York ($0.79), these "blue states" all contribute more money to the federal budget than they receive.

Any time these "fiscally responsible" Republican politicians want "to put their money where their mouth is" and return their state surpluses to the federal government funds so that their federal taxes equal the federal money they receive (1.00), I'm sure the Obama Administration will be able to accommodate them - but Democrats aren't holding their breathe!

 

[MichaelHelp]

New Mexico - $2.03
Mississippi - $2.02
Alaska - $1.84
Louisiana - $1.78
West Virginia - $1.76
North Dakota - $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota - $1.53
Kentucky - $1.51
Virginia - $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii - $1.44
Maine - $1.41
Arkansas - $1.41
Oklahoma - $1.36
South Carolina - $1.35
Missouri - $1.32
Maryland - $1.30
Tennessee - $1.27
Idaho - $1.21
Arizona - $1.19
Kansas - $1.12
Wyoming - $1.11
Iowa - $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont - $1.08
North Carolina - $1.08
Pennsylvania - $1.07
Utah $1.07
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island - $1.00 (national average)
Florida - $0.97
Texas - $0.94
Oregon - $0.93
Michigan - $0.92
Washington - $0.88
Wisconsin - $0.86
Massachusetts - $0.82
Colorado - $0.81
New York - $0.79
California - $0.78
Delaware - $0.77
Illinois - $0.75
Minnesota - $0.72
New Hampshire - $0.71
Connecticut - $0.69
Nevada - $0.65
New Jersey - $0.61

Interesting...

 

[kermit]

^Are you aware that states have budgets, besides the federal tax dollars they receive?

But those budgets are made with full knowledge of how much federal money is coming in.

 

[Schneiderman]

apparently you think i'm a moron, and yes i am aware of this but what is your point? obviously their state budget is busted right now. (really are there any states that don't have busted budgets right now? )

(edit: if you're confused about my remark about it being impossible to raise taxes in california, this is because there's a state constitutional amendment that requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature for any tax hike which will never happen).

what i'm saying is that if there were a federal bailout of these states you can hardly say they're leaching off the rest of us because they pay in more tax dollars than they get back.

The point is that the issue being discussed is state budgets, not how much federal money goes to particular states. That information is irrelevant, and all you've done is derail the thread, though I'm inclined to believe that was your intention, so job well done.

Since the thread has been fully derailed I'll go ahead and comment on the new direction that it has taken... so what if "red states" take in more federal dollars than blue ones? Guess what, I'm a libertarian and "fiscally conservative", but if the federal government offered me 50 billion dollars you can bet I would take it. Why? Because, whether I support the federal government wasting money or not, if the money is going to be wasted then I'll have it wasted on me! As long as the government is being irresponsible, I'll take advantage of it. If the red states are getting more money, that means they're better at taking advantage of the feds.

The federal government shouldn't be giving that money to anybody, but if it's going to be given away, then to the victor go the spoils.

 

[blueapplepaste]

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

Federal spending in each state per Per Dollar of Federal Taxes paid by that state (2005):

...

New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Illinois: $0.75

... these states are not exactly leaching off the rest of the country...


and just for the record:
Texas: $0.94

(some people think that all red states receive more federal spending than they pay out. That's true of most red states, but Texas is an exception!)

This one's for Sarah Palin:
Alaska: $1.84

P.S. california is democratic but it's government system is disfunctional. It's impossible to raise taxes there and the fiscal policy so fas been pro-cyclical for about the past 10 years at least. You can't blame california's mess on Keynesians--it's just the opposite.

It is an interesting statistic, that the red states take in more money than the blue states. You would think if all of the Republicans and conservatives were so anti government spending they might start by setting an example. Guess not.

 

[brindisi]

Why does the "new Republican House" make negotiating to keep the Bush "tax cuts" for the wealthy their top priority - while telling the rest of America to "... take a hike and pay their own bills?"

They negotiate to keep lower tax rates (Bush tax cuts) for EVERYONE

 

[brindisi]

The point is that the issue being discussed is state budgets, not how much federal money goes to particular states. That information is irrelevant

Thank you for emphasizing that again. Don't let the thread get highjacked.

We can add my state of Connecticut to that list. Connecticut has the distinction of having the highest per capita debt burden in the nation according to Moody's Investors Service as reported on CNNmoney.

It has nothing to do with how much or how little it gets in federal funds. It has almost everything to do with unfunded pension obligations. It's unsustainable, and I see no political will to deal with it. That, plus the fact that Connecticut today has fewer private sector job than 20 years ago due to unfriendly business environment, makes debt default all but inevitable.

 

[rambot]

The point is that the issue being discussed is state budgets, not how much federal money goes to particular states. That information is irrelevant, and all you've done is derail the thread, though I'm inclined to believe that was your intention, so job well done.

So the source of income is irrelevant to a state budget? That's ludicrous. Or are you suggesting that the title of this thread (indicating that 3 democrat states that pay MORE in federal tax money compared to their republican recipients) are fiscally irresponsible compared to their tight money belted republican counterparts?
Because that is just as ludicrous.




Since the thread has been fully derailed I'll go ahead and comment on the new direction that it has taken... so what if "red states" take in more federal dollars than blue ones? Guess what, I'm a libertarian and "fiscally conservative", but if the federal government offered me 50 billion dollars you can bet I would take it. Why? Because, whether I support the federal government wasting money or not, if the money is going to be wasted then I'll have it wasted on me! As long as the government is being irresponsible, I'll take advantage of it. If the red states are getting more money, that means they're better at taking advantage of the feds.

The federal government shouldn't be giving that money to anybody, but if it's going to be given away, then to the victor go the spoils.[/quote]So if the tables were reversed and your state was paying more, you'd hold the same attitude?? No. I rarely even hear democrats complain about it. What they complain about is the hypocracy and self righteousness of the needy red states.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy. They will likely go to the Federal government begging for help (i.e. money). The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills. I agree and I live in one of these states. This would be a calamity for the democrat party. What do you think?

I think it would be a far bigger calamity for the states themselves -- but then again, I'm one of those loons who puts Country before party.

 

[Schneiderman]

So the source of income is irrelevant to a state budget? That's ludicrous. Or are you suggesting that the title of this thread (indicating that 3 democrat states that pay MORE in federal tax money compared to their republican recipients) are fiscally irresponsible compared to their tight money belted republican counterparts?
Because that is just as ludicrous.

The states that are in trouble, are not in trouble because the federal government isn't coddling them enough. It's because they have incompetent governments.

So if the tables were reversed and your state was paying more, you'd hold the same attitude?? No. I rarely even hear democrats complain about it. What they complain about is the hypocracy and self righteousness of the needy red states.

Look at my location. My state DOES pay more. Which means, I am paying more than I get back, but that would be true in any case because I am a producer and not a leach. But your response has ignored my point entirely. If I am forced to pay into a bad system- and that's the case, I am being FORCED, if I had any choice in the matter I wouldn't be paying into it- then I am willing to exploit that bad system, like everyone else does. When I was eligible, I used federal financial aid. I'm opposed to the federal government offering financial aid, but if it's going to offer it, I'm going to use it! That's MY money they are spending! Get out of my way, I'm here to collect!