Three Blue States on the Brink

[brindisi]

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.

If we put country before party, as both you and I say we do, perhaps we better start being concerned with fiscal responsibility. This is going to get ugly before it's over, and there is no painless way to deal with it.



NY Times Warning: Blue State Armageddon On The Way

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/06/ny-times-warning-blue-state-armageddon-on-the-way/

The global financial crisis could be heading to a blue state near you: that is the latest grim news from the New York Times: “Mounting Debts by States Stoke Fears of Crisis.“ Normally a cheerleader for the free spending (in bluespeak, compassionate) policies of the public sector union dominated, high tax, high cost states like California, Illinois and New York, the Times now warns that fiscal ruin could be at hand.

If things go wrong in the markets for blue state debt, watch out. If big blue states like New York, California and Illinois hit a point of market failure when private investors will no longer buy their bonds, Washington will have to decide what to do. Fast.

It will be ugly, and it will hurt.

 

[kermit]

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.

That's not what is being argued.

Suppose there are two brothers. One makes $100k and the other $50k. Now suppose the second only manages to balance his household budget because the other brother pays many of this bills for him. Now if at some point the wealthier brother has some financial problems, but still pays is brother's bills, would it be fair to call him financially neglegent? I don't think so as his financial problem are due, at least in part, to supporting his brother.

Personally, I'd love to see no state receive federal aid in their budgets. It might help to dispell the myth that red states are better at living within their means.

 

[brindisi]

That's not what is being argued.

Suppose there are two brothers. One makes $100k and the other $50k. Now suppose the second only manages to balance his household budget because the other brother pays many of this bills for him. Now if at some point the wealthier brother has some financial problems, but still pays is brother's bills, would it be fair to call him financially neglegent? I don't think so as his financial problem are due, at least in part, to supporting his brother.

Personally, I'd love to see no state receive federal aid in their budgets. It might help to dispell the myth that red states are better at living within their means.

This has nothing to do with the brotherly relationships between states. It has everything to do with vote buying, pandering, by state politicians to public sector unions. Brankruptcy, as painful as it would be, is the only way to break this deathgrip. Federal bailouts would only temporarily feed the beast.

 

[blueapplepaste]

This has nothing to do with the brotherly relationships between states. It has everything to do with vote buying, pandering, by state politicians to public sector unions. Brankruptcy, as painful as it would be, is the only way to break this deathgrip. Federal bailouts would only temporarily feed the beast.

OH sure it has something to do with relationships between the states. It's a fact that red states take more money than they put in. I imagine if they got a more fair share, their budget wouldn't be so great, and if the blue states got more back from what they put in, theirs might be a little better.

You can try and ignore the issue, but the fact of the matter is red states are benefitting more from blue states. Not unlike Kermit's brother analogy.

 

[Macx]

If that is true, doesn't the origin of that truth have to be failure of the Blue state's representatives to serve their constituent's best interests? If what you say is true Blueapplepaste, surely it is only true because Pelosi and crew are asleep at the wheel & letting their home states "get rolled" for the benefit of evil red states.

Can't say your take on the issue paints the blue state's elected in a prettier light.

 

[ScottBot]

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.

Theft is a violation of the 7th commandment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If we put country before party, as both you and I say we do, perhaps we better start being concerned with fiscal responsibility. This is going to get ugly before it's over, and there is no painless way to deal with it.

I've always been concerned with fiscal responsibility -- and have always been sorely concerned with the lack of it.

So why is this a calamity for the Democrats and not so much a calamity for the actual people living in those states?

 

[oldbetang]

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

That data is for 2005. What does it have to do with Sarah Palin?

 

[ScottBot]

That data is for 2005. What does it have to do with Sarah Palin?

If you are on the left, all you have to do is say Sarah Palin and it proves your point.

 

[SOAD]

Republicans cannot be trusted. My proof? Palin

I win.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This has nothing to do with the brotherly relationships between states. It has everything to do with vote buying, pandering, by state politicians to public sector unions. Brankruptcy, as painful as it would be, is the only way to break this deathgrip. Federal bailouts would only temporarily feed the beast.

So why not cut off federal funds to all the states, not just the blue ones?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I propose a constitutional amendment that the sum of federal dollars spent in a state can not exceed the sum of federal taxes collected from the state. This would instantly fix the budgets of california, new york, and illinois while forcing the red-state welfare queen leeches to support their own selves. Try on some personal responsibility and quit leeching off of the productive states.

 

[Steve Petersen]

OH sure it has something to do with relationships between the states. It's a fact that red states take more money than they put in. I imagine if they got a more fair share, their budget wouldn't be so great, and if the blue states got more back from what they put in, theirs might be a little better.

You can try and ignore the issue, but the fact of the matter is red states are benefitting more from blue states. Not unlike Kermit's brother analogy.

Red states are largely agricultural. Most of the Fed money probably comes in the form of subsidies to farmers, which I oppose, BTW.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So why not cut off federal funds to all the states, not just the blue ones?

How about just cutting funds that have no Constitutional justification.

 

[ScottBot]

Republicans cannot be trusted. My proof? Palin

I win.

See.

The reason why Obama's approval ratings are going down with his progressive base? Sarah Palin.
The reason why Ben Bernanke is monetizing nearly $1 trillion in new debt? Sarah Palin.
The reason why we aren't building new nucular (nuclear ) reactors to solve our energy problems? Sarah Palin.

 

[ScottBot]

So why not cut off federal funds to all the states, not just the blue ones?

FANTASTIC IDEA!!!!

 

[ScottBot]

How about just cutting funds that have no Constitutional justification.

FANTASTIC IDEA!!!

 

[DaisyDay]

How about just cutting funds that have no Constitutional justification.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, so unless the laws are outright un-Constitutional, rather than merely non-Constitutional or extra-Constitutional, they are justified - Constitutionally speaking.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, so unless the laws are outright un-Constitutional, rather than merely non-Constitutional or extra-Constitutional, they are justified.

That is one interpretation.

The other is that Congress may not exceed its delineated powers.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is one interpretation.

The other is that Congress may not exceed its delineated powers.

One of it's delineated powers is passing laws as needed.