Trump-flation Hits the Dollar Tree

[rambot]

And how do you tax a population who has so many people below the poverty line?

But wait. They have so many people below the poverty line but they are getting LESS intergovernmental money? Thta doesn't make sense.

 

[Pommer]

Cute picture, where’s it from?

 

[rjs330]

But wait. They have so many people below the poverty line but they are getting LESS intergovernmental money? Thta doesn't make sense.

I know right. But that's how it is. The people there pay less taxes because of lower incomes. That's why they get more money back per tax dollar. That's why this whole thing is misleading.

Cute picture, where’s it from?

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/

 

[rambot]

Unemployment Rates for States
So given that the southerners are not blatantly out of wack in terms of their unemployment numbers; care to take another stab at the "impoverished" label? You indicate that poverty is a problem because of lack of jobs and yet, clearly that doesn't seem to be a HUGE problem. Soooo....next?
Cost of living tends to refect average wages too:
Cost of Living Annual Average 2018

 

[Pommer]

I know right. But that's how it is. The people there pay less taxes because of lower incomes. That's why they get more money back per tax dollar. That's why this whole thing is misleading.


https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/

Thanks.
From your link
”Nearly two-thirds of spending, [Pew study] note[s,] goes to individuals, not to state governments or groups. That makes it more difficult to attribute to one state. If a couple from Michigan retires and spends five months each year in Florida, to which state are their Social Security checks attributed? Their legal residence may be in Grand Rapids, but it is quite possible that they spend more of their money in Tampa.”

Yet this Intergovernmental Expenditures
specifically notes,


“Intergovernmental expenditures are ‘amounts paid to other governments as fiscal aid in the form of shared revenues and grants-in-aid, as reimbursements for performance of general government activities and for specific services for the paying government, or in lieu of taxes. Excludes amounts paid to other governments for purchase of commodities, property, or utility services, any tax imposed and paid as such, and employer contributions for social insurance-e.g., contributions to the Federal Government for Old Age, Survivors', Disability, and Health Insurance for government employees.

So, playing fast and loose with obscure terms seems to be right up the Federalists’ alley!

 

[iluvatar5150]

I read an interesting article delineating and kinda beating down the "red/blue" state thing. Fact is that the blue states don't have DEADBEATS. The blue states keep their tax rates artificially low so that republicans keep getting re-elected. It's not that the WHOLE state is poor. It's that their government refuse to implement at tax that matches their expenses. So they get money from other states.

rjs330, I know you're looking for hypocrisy but I'm not sure you'd find it. If those state governments would be willing to tax at a rate that would provide appropriate support for their citizens, and then if their citizenry could not afford that, I would think that even the bluest of states would feel comfortable helping out.

But don't trump about how BLUE and fiercely independent y'all are when you can't support yourselves through appropriately planning.

I think you're getting your colors mixed up.

 

[rambot]

I think you're getting your colors mixed up.

Shoot I did! Apologies. I'll fix it (I hope!)

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Ah I see... You sound bigoted with those statements. You only complain when impoverished people in red States get help.

Again, I didn't complain about impoverished people in red states getting help. You need to re-read and try again to understand. Fantine already explained it to you and I even pointed to that. And it's not "impoverished people" in red states who take the handouts. It's ALL the people in the red states. ALL of them, every single conservative especially. ALL the CONSERVATIVES. But that's not what I'm complaining about. I'm complaining about them pretending they don't take the handouts and saying foolish things about the liberals like me who are GIVING them a free ride. I don't know how much more clearly to put it.

You just want to write your own narrative and not listen to me, apparently.

I honestly haven't looked at why those states are more impoverished.

So then why are you arguing with me if you don't have any idea?

Apparently you have. You have determined they are lazy, ignorant and unproductive. All because they live in a red state. Do you say the same about the poor in your state? Are they lazy, ignorant and unproductive too? You are doing exactly what most liberals accuse conservatives of doing. You do know that a LOT of the poor in Mississippi are African American right? Did you just call them lazy, ignorant and unproductive? Or is just the poor white people that are lazy, ignorant and unproductive?

Someone else said that states like mine are governed irresponsibly because we elect irresponsible leadership. That is wrong. But you didn't argue with that. I'm setting the record straight. States like mine have responsible leadership but our high taxes come from our willingness to help the poor welfare states that have their hands out constantly.

Now, as for why those states are impoverished, it is clear that the conservatives who are the majority in those states don't live up to their talk. If they were responsible for themselves they would have states that could pay their own way. Every state has poor people. Our capitalist system requires them in order to take advantage and economically rape them. But the red states have tons of conservatives who are not in the bottom level of poverty and are just above it. They do not thrive. They do not take responsibility for themselves. They accept handouts in order to survive. They talk a good game but do the opposite.

As for race, black people are unfairly taken advantage of in this nation due to our systemic racism. That's in every state because it's done at the federal level. Mississippi isn't the only state with black people - every state has black people, including poor black people.

What's different from state to state and city to city is which ones are liberal or conservative. It's no coincidence that the red states leech off the blue states - it's a matter of productivity, that's just a fact. I'm sorry you don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You realize of course that this based on income right? More rich people live in a lot of your blue states than live in places like Mississippi. Thus those states don't need the funding. But one thing to note here is that this whole argument is misleading. Another favorite thing the left likes to do. Here is something to note.

So you're arguing here that since the blue states "don't need the funding" then it is logical to share their wealth with the poorer (red) states that need it. I agree, but you're arguing for socialism. Thanks for agreeing with liberals about socialism.

Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple.

Much of the reason people are poorer in those states are lack of jobs. And we could have a great discussion over why there are fewer job opportunities there. And we could discuss what could be done about it.

I don't care about your one-sided numbers. Go back and find out how much each state is giving per capita and then let's talk. Of course blue states will get back more per capita because we pay WAY more per capita. If I pay $1000 in federal taxes and get back $500 but someone in Mississippi pays $200 and gets back $350, then I might be getting back $150 more BUT I paid $800 more. That's the part you conveniently leave out, but it's very transparent and you're not fooling anyone. People in poor red states get back more than they actually pay - that difference comes from me and people in affluent blue states like mine. Even with that, they may not get as much per capita but they're still the ones coming out ahead of the game.

I would think a good liberal wouldn't care who's getting the help. All they want to do is help people and not judge them right? Hmm... Not so much apparently.

Well then you think wrong. Liberals don't want to help those who don't need it. We don't want to have welfare that goes to corporations - that's something conservatives want. We want to help the needy and vulnerable. In my case, and that of most Christian liberals, it's because God commands us to help and serve the needy and vulnerable in our societies. I don't want conservatives to redistribute my wealth to Amazon, Wells Fargo, and General Motors. I'd rather see it go to the working people who can use the help. The poor, the old, the sick, the children, etc.

My "complaining" is not about the red states taking from the blue - that's the way it works and I'm fine with that.

My real complaint is against conservatives who try to pretend they're not on the dole by making up falsehoods such as that blue states have irresponsible leaders who don't tax them enough at the state level to run their states when in reality we not only fund our states but we fund the states of the conservatives who pretend to be responsible and pay their own way.

So to make it very clear for you, that's the problem I have with the red states - they take our money, which is fine, but the people in those states pretend they don't and they say false things that are the opposite of the truth which is that they are taking handouts constantly from liberals. Not sure why you don't understand this unless you're trying to not understand it.

 

[Arcangl86]

Jersey City. You?

Hey, I live in JC.

 

[Pommer]

Hey, I live in JC.

Isn’t that part-and-parcel of Christianity?

 

[Fantine]

And the box scores are in. At this stage of Obama's presidency, the Dow was up 56%. Under Trump, It's 21%.

So much for the skills if the six-times bankrupt businessman.
S&P 500 Has Performed Far Worse Under Trump Than Under Obama

 

[rjs330]

Unemployment Rates for States
So given that the southerners are not blatantly out of wack in terms of their unemployment numbers; care to take another stab at the "impoverished" label? You indicate that poverty is a problem because of lack of jobs and yet, clearly that doesn't seem to be a HUGE problem. Soooo....next?
Cost of living tends to refect average wages too:
Cost of Living Annual Average 2018

Why ddidnt you look at the poverty level?

Top 10 Poorest States in the U.S.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks.
From your link
”Nearly two-thirds of spending, [Pew study] note[s,] goes to individuals, not to state governments or groups. That makes it more difficult to attribute to one state. If a couple from Michigan retires and spends five months each year in Florida, to which state are their Social Security checks attributed? Their legal residence may be in Grand Rapids, but it is quite possible that they spend more of their money in Tampa.”

Yet this Intergovernmental Expenditures
specifically notes,


“Intergovernmental expenditures are ‘amounts paid to other governments as fiscal aid in the form of shared revenues and grants-in-aid, as reimbursements for performance of general government activities and for specific services for the paying government, or in lieu of taxes. Excludes amounts paid to other governments for purchase of commodities, property, or utility services, any tax imposed and paid as such, and employer contributions for social insurance-e.g., contributions to the Federal Government for Old Age, Survivors', Disability, and Health Insurance for government employees.

So, playing fast and loose with obscure terms seems to be right up the Federalists’ alley!

I dont believe they are. The thing you quoted It's talking about amount paid to the Federal Government. Not the Federal Government payments to people. It is also talking about employer expenditures which also is not payouts to individuals.

The Federalist is talking of expenditures of government.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why ddidnt you look at the poverty level?

Top 10 Poorest States in the U.S.

All solidly in the Red... politically as well as financially.

 

[rjs330]

Again, I didn't complain about impoverished people in red states getting help. You need to re-read and try again to understand. Fantine already explained it to you and I even pointed to that. And it's not "impoverished people" in red states who take the handouts. It's ALL the people in the red states. ALL of them, every single conservative especially. ALL the CONSERVATIVES. But that's not what I'm complaining about. I'm complaining about them pretending they don't take the handouts and saying foolish things about the liberals like me who are GIVING them a free ride. I don't know how much more clearly to put it.

You just want to write your own narrative and not listen to me, apparently.


So then why are you arguing with me if you don't have any idea?


Someone else said that states like mine are governed irresponsibly because we elect irresponsible leadership. That is wrong. But you didn't argue with that. I'm setting the record straight. States like mine have responsible leadership but our high taxes come from our willingness to help the poor welfare states that have their hands out constantly.

Now, as for why those states are impoverished, it is clear that the conservatives who are the majority in those states don't live up to their talk. If they were responsible for themselves they would have states that could pay their own way. Every state has poor people. Our capitalist system requires them in order to take advantage and economically rape them. But the red states have tons of conservatives who are not in the bottom level of poverty and are just above it. They do not thrive. They do not take responsibility for themselves. They accept handouts in order to survive. They talk a good game but do the opposite.

As for race, black people are unfairly taken advantage of in this nation due to our systemic racism. That's in every state because it's done at the federal level. Mississippi isn't the only state with black people - every state has black people, including poor black people.

What's different from state to state and city to city is which ones are liberal or conservative. It's no coincidence that the red states leech off the blue states - it's a matter of productivity, that's just a fact. I'm sorry you don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative.


So you're arguing here that since the blue states "don't need the funding" then it is logical to share their wealth with the poorer (red) states that need it. I agree, but you're arguing for socialism. Thanks for agreeing with liberals about socialism.


I don't care about your one-sided numbers. Go back and find out how much each state is giving per capita and then let's talk. Of course blue states will get back more per capita because we pay WAY more per capita. If I pay $1000 in federal taxes and get back $500 but someone in Mississippi pays $200 and gets back $350, then I might be getting back $150 more BUT I paid $800 more. That's the part you conveniently leave out, but it's very transparent and you're not fooling anyone. People in poor red states get back more than they actually pay - that difference comes from me and people in affluent blue states like mine. Even with that, they may not get as much per capita but they're still the ones coming out ahead of the game.


Well then you think wrong. Liberals don't want to help those who don't need it. We don't want to have welfare that goes to corporations - that's something conservatives want. We want to help the needy and vulnerable. In my case, and that of most Christian liberals, it's because God commands us to help and serve the needy and vulnerable in our societies. I don't want conservatives to redistribute my wealth to Amazon, Wells Fargo, and General Motors. I'd rather see it go to the working people who can use the help. The poor, the old, the sick, the children, etc.

My "complaining" is not about the red states taking from the blue - that's the way it works and I'm fine with that.

My real complaint is against conservatives who try to pretend they're not on the dole by making up falsehoods such as that blue states have irresponsible leaders who don't tax them enough at the state level to run their states when in reality we not only fund our states but we fund the states of the conservatives who pretend to be responsible and pay their own way.

So to make it very clear for you, that's the problem I have with the red states - they take our money, which is fine, but the people in those states pretend they don't and they say false things that are the opposite of the truth which is that they are taking handouts constantly from liberals. Not sure why you don't understand this unless you're trying to not understand it.

All that just to say you are complaining about red States getting money. I quoted you and you still deny it. Interesting. Here's another quote from you.
It's no coincidence that the red states leech off the blue states - it's a matter of productivity, that's just a fact. I'm sorry you don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

The red States "leech". That's your words. I quotes the other words you uses like lazy and unproductive. When you use those words to describe the people in your state that receive government assistance then we can talk. Until then, your just being a hypocrite or bigoted to towards conservatives. Either that or you can retract those words.

And like I pointed out. The blue states get more governmental money per person than the red States do.

Lastly, I did some research and learned a bit more about the lower incomes. And it makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. But Urban verses rural. In most blue states the cities bolster the incomes. The large cities have higher income people living there. The rural areas have less income and few rich people live there because they prefer the cities. A lot of the red States are primarily rural places and as such have fewer people with fewer.opportunities.

And as I pointed out again, blue states get more money per person than those red states.do.

And as far as your comments about all those conservatives in the red States like Mississippi saying they don't take government money, please prove that. And giving from states is based upon income. You are saying the less fortunate should pay more. Don't deny it. You said this.

Go back and find out how much each state is giving per capita and then let's talk. Of course blue states will get back more per capita because we pay WAY more per capita. If I

Of course they pay more they have higher incomes. You want these red States to pay more? They have less money. So those with less.money should pay more? Do you say that about the less fortunate in your state? I doubt it.

 

[Fantine]

What we are basically saying, rjs, is that if the coastal blue states formed their own country--separated physically, like Pakistan--that the new nation would be the economic center for high tech, finance, entertainment, media, and more. If Minnesota and Illinois joined in the truth would become even more obvious--that the rest of the country takes a lot more than it gives to the equation.

What does the rest of the country give the blue states? Homicidal chaos with far too many guns. Theocratic preachers trying to enshrine their beliefs into the Constitution. Climate-denying insanity from politicians. And outstretched hands.

This is an oversimplification, of course, but you get the point.

 

[rjs330]

Ate you trying to say that all these great things you mentioned are in the blue states just cause they are blue?

 

[Pommer]

I dont believe they are. The thing you quoted It's talking about amount paid to the Federal Government. Not the Federal Government payments to people. It is also talking about employer expenditures which also is not payouts to individuals.

The Federalist is talking of expenditures of government.

Uh-huh.
No.
Sorry.
Dismissing a valid counterpoint to your article with hand-waving doesn’t cut it.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

All that just to say you are complaining about red States getting money. I quoted you and you still deny it. Interesting. Here's another quote from you.
It's no coincidence that the red states leech off the blue states - it's a matter of productivity, that's just a fact. I'm sorry you don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Again, nowhere in there did I complain about the red states leeching off the blue states. In fact, I said I understand it has to be that way and I'm supportive of our federal system. The problem is when people from those red states pretend that this isn't the case and even go so far as to claim it's the other way around, that blue states leech off red states. Simply not true, but conservatives like to make up stories to perpetuate that myth.

This whole exchange between you and me came from my response to such a conservative poster who posted a myth, made from whole cloth, that the blue states tax their people too much due to ineffective leadership at the state level because they are Democrats or liberals rather than acknowledging the FACT that red states TAKE money from the blue states in order to lower or eliminate state-level taxes.

I don't know if you are not understanding this because you lack comprehension or you're being selective in what you're reading so as to bolster your own arguments, but either way it's very clear to anyone reading that you're trying to twist things your way by ignoring what I'm actually saying.

The red States "leech". That's your words. I quotes the other words you uses like lazy and unproductive. When you use those words to describe the people in your state that receive government assistance then we can talk. Until then, your just being a hypocrite or bigoted to towards conservatives. Either that or you can retract those words.

I use those words for conservatives because they are the ones who believe that those who need help are those things. So, when conservatives are leeching it's their own word that I'm using to describe what they're doing. When a red state is leeching that's their own definition of what they're doing although they like to pretend that it doesn't happen.

Here are examples of what conservatives think of welfare recipients:
Welfare Leeches Furious at New Bill
Obama just called out Fox News for making the poor out to be a bunch of "leeches."

Republicans/conservatives believe that receiving welfare is the fault of the recipient for being too lazy:
Most Republicans think poverty caused by laziness, new poll finds

So don't get mad at me for the facts about what conservatives think about welfare recipients are. Don't get mad at me for using their own terms to describe them. I will gladly stop doing so when they do.

And like I pointed out. The blue states get more governmental money per person than the red States do.

And like I pointed out, the amount tells only part of the story whereas you need to look at what was given first. Blue states get back less than they give, so even if the amount is greater it is less than what they put in. Red states get back more than what they give, so even though the amount is lower they are actually gaining instead of losing.

Let me try to make it clearer for you. Would you rather:
A. Give me $1,000 and I'll give you back $500
OR
B. Give me $200 and I'll give you back $350

By your logic, going only by the amount, you should choose A, because the AMOUNT you get back is MORE. Would you really choose option A? If so, then that offer stands and you can put your money where your mouth is.

But you probably won't, because the point I'm making is true, which is that that conservatives do NOT put their money where their mouth is, but instead say one thing and do the opposite.

Lastly, I did some research and learned a bit more about the lower incomes. And it makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. But Urban verses rural. In most blue states the cities bolster the incomes. The large cities have higher income people living there. The rural areas have less income and few rich people live there because they prefer the cities. A lot of the red States are primarily rural places and as such have fewer people with fewer.opportunities.

Which is why it's so puzzling that the people in red states vote against their interests so often. But the fact of the matter is that big cities which thrive are in blue states because the framework of liberal populations allows for spreading the wealth such that more wealth can be created. In red state there is little opportunity because of the greed. In red states, people have the conservative mentality to make money and not share, make money off someone else, make money and keep it, "gubmint hands off MAH money!!!", etc. etc., conservatives and libertarians and "patriots" who think they are helping themselves by being selfish.

We liberals help you in spite of yourselves. And that's fine, I have no problem with helping you. The problem is when conservatives pretend they are doing things on their own and that they are "self-made" when in fact they aren't.

And as I pointed out again, blue states get more money per person than those red states.do.

And I'll point out again with my example that amount back alone is not meaningful as it doesn't tell the whole story; you need to look at what was first given and THEN the amount given back is in context.

AGAIN - would you rather:
A. Give me $1,000 and I'll give you back $500
OR
B. Give me $200 and I'll give you back $350

AGAIN, by your logic, going only by the amount you get back, you should choose A, because the AMOUNT you get back is MORE. Would you really choose option A? AND AGAIN, if so, then that offer stands and you are welcome to put your money where your mouth is.

And as far as your comments about all those conservatives in the red States like Mississippi saying they don't take government money, please prove that. And giving from states is based upon income. You are saying the less fortunate should pay more. Don't deny it. You said this.

This whole exchange between you and me started from my reply to someone who made the claim that blue states pay more in taxes due to irresponsible liberal/Democratic leadership and NOT because red states are taking money from them. So there's the example of why I'm saying conservatives make such claims because someone right here made the claim and I responded to it. You decided to argue against me about it and since then you're digging your hole deeper. I don't know what else to tell you about that.

Go back and find out how much each state is giving per capita and then let's talk. Of course blue states will get back more per capita because we pay WAY more per capita. If I

Of course they pay more they have higher incomes. You want these red States to pay more? They have less money. So those with less.money should pay more? Do you say that about the less fortunate in your state? I doubt it.

They shouldn't pay more nor should they receive back proportionately more than they pay in. That's if we are being "fair" by conservative/capitalist standards and not being "socialist" by redistributing the wealth of the blue states to the red states.

And again, I don't agree with that concept of "fairness" and you get back what you put in. I believe that our society, at all levels, should give the poorer more benefit and the richer more burden. That's my idea of fair. Socialism done correctly is fair because it makes up for the unfairness of our capitalist market economy. That's what I believe and I am in line with what I support. That's why I believe it's fair for NJ to pay more and get less back while Mississippi gets back more than they pay in. My socialist concept of fairness, though, is opposite of what those very conservative people in Mississippi believe even though they gladly benefit from this socialism.

Find me where somebody from a welfare red state like Mississippi or Albama has complained that they are not paying enough in state taxes because their state is unfairly getting extra money back from the Federal government and that it is SOCIALISM.

They want to cry socialism to deprive their poorer neighbors of help but they don't mind taking the socialist benefits for themselves.

And then they turn around and make up myths and lies to hide the fact that they're gladly benefiting from socialism, and THAT is what I have been complaining about this whole time - their hypocritical and ignorant attitude which causes them to lie to hide their socialist reality.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hey, I live in JC.

Heights. Grew up on Webster Ave.