Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 30, 2017

New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo charged Republicans Thursday with intentionally crafting their tax bill to target Democratic-leaning states to pay for tax cuts that benefit Republicans. "This tax provision hits the blue states by eliminating the state and local tax deductibility and uses that money to finance the tax cut in the red states," Cuomo said on CNN's "New Day." Cuomo said the move to eliminate the state and local tax deduction "put a dagger in the heart of New York and California," and that the Republicans leading Congress basically said, "Let's pillage the blue to give to the red." "You want to hurt New York? You want to hurt California? They're the economic engines," Cuomo said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"You want to hurt New York? You want to hurt California? They're the economic engines,"

Oh Trump will.

Doesn't matter to him how much this hurts America.

#1 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Not just Trump, it the GOP as well.

Including the mouth breathing base.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

You know the best way to make America great again?

Cripple the two states which are carrying the nation on their backs.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-30 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Boy, all I ever heard was "the rich have to pay their fair share" during Bumblin' Barry's tenure. Now that the Blue Staters are actually doing it, the tears start to fall. Here's a hanky, spanky.

#4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-12-30 04:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Which is exactly what the tax bill was designed to do, hurt the blue states. Oh Despotism, you came to us earlier than expected.

#5 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-12-30 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now that the Blue Staters are actually doing it,

All the information I've seen on this issue indicates that blue states tend to give more and receive less from the federal government than red states. Obviously there are exceptions, but that's what I've read. I don't know where you get off saying this. They've always been doing it.

#6 | Posted by dylanfan at 2017-12-30 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Did you see "all the information" about how these Blue States tax the living crap out of their residents with ridiculous property taxes and state taxes? This is NOT Trump's fault, and these states need to immediately fix this. Too much union influence and corruption. Or does it really take $4 billion dollars to fix one mile of NYC subway track? It sure wouldn't take that much in South Carolina, would it?

#7 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-12-30 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Blue states are not the only ones that have state income taxes.

#8 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-12-30 04:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The trouble with most in red states is that they either don't travel enough or don't profit enough by their travels.

I have seen many things that they have not in Blue states.

The millions of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines, the tech industry and all the other things red states are lacking.

By comparison all they have is agriculture and obesity and arrogance.

#9 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Boy, all I ever heard was "the rich have to pay their fair share" during Bumblin' Barry's tenure.

Two things.

The first has already been pointed out, which is blue states such as NY, NJ and CA already pay their fair share.

Second, I'm betting this change hits more than just "the rich" in those states.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 04:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is NOT Trump's fault, and these states need to immediately fix this.

I say they should get to keep more of their tax dollars and stop floating red states run dishonestly on "Conservative" principles.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Boy, all I ever heard was "the rich have to pay their fair share" during Bumblin' Barry's tenure."

Did you agree with that?
I don't think you did.
So tell us why you favor this tax hike.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Or does it really take $4 billion dollars to fix one mile of NYC subway track? It sure wouldn't take that much in South Carolina, would it?"

There's a subway in South Carolina?

Wait... Are you referring to the Subway fast food restaurant franchise, because they do have those in South Carolina.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Why wouldn't Rs screw blue states? They weren't going to vote for Rs anyway. Fairness doesn't enter into their calculations.

#14 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-12-30 05:15 PM | Reply

Well the Blue states were being subsidized.....

I say they should get to keep more of their tax dollars and stop floating red states run dishonestly on "Conservative" principles.
#11 | POSTED BY JPW

You can't mean the rich people in those Blue states should be able to keep more of their income. Do you?

OR States have a claim to the rich peoples money in their state more than the Federal Government?

So tell us why you favor this tax hike.

Tax hike? Who is paying more? The rich are ... that is who

If states were smart they would use a sales/use tax rather than income.

The first has already been pointed out, which is blue states such as NY, NJ and CA already pay their fair share.

LOL, the states don't pay squat, people like me do, do you think I pay my fair share, cuz Corky certainly doesn't?

#9 | POSTED BY TOR

This is pretty ignorant Tor, perhaps a drive through the heart of Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin would do you good.

RedStates are being inundated by massive legal and illegal immigration and its changing the demographics and the employment rapidly.

Cripple the two states which are carrying the nation on their backs.
#3 | POSTED BY CRAPSHACK

So more taxes is crippling? Since when have Democrats and Liberals ever thought an increase in taxes on rich and middle class was crippling?

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-30 05:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Do tell Andre what state is silicon valley located in?

How about the Newport News Shipbuilding?

What states do immigrants usually move to?

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 05:40 PM | Reply

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers. ...
As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States -- the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut -- are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

www.theatlantic.com

Red States Are Welfare Queens

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

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

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 05:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#17 Trying to get link to work:

www.businessinsider.com!IpqnG

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 05:47 PM | Reply

I'm thinking states like NY and CA should adopt a new motto and start keeping the federal taxes residents are losing in the new tax plan in the state. NY only got 79 cents back on every federal tax dollar they submitted and now it is going to be even less? Screw that:

NY first!

Make CA Great Again!

No taxation without representation!

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Time for another Boston, MA Tea Party!

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 05:58 PM | Reply

--Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts?

Shouldn't the rich pay more? That's the usual progressive narrative. Why shouldn't it pertain to states?

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 06:02 PM | Reply

So apparently:

"Corporations are people too, my friend."

Has become:

"States are people too, my friend."

Um, no. I'm good with rich people in all states paying more, but that's not what the GOP tax bill does.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The blue states should change property taxes to screw golf course owners that have over a billion in assets.

#23 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-30 06:16 PM | Reply

--"States are people too, my friend."

Progressives would prefer states to go away, and let Washington, D.C. run everything.

#notthefoundingfathersconstitution

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 06:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump claims he once defeated SALT and would have been willing to get rid of it if Dems had come to him, so by his own admission, it's a bad deal for Democrats and blue states:

TRUMP: And if I did bipartisan, I would have done something with SALT [the state and local tax deduction]. With that being said, you look back, Ronald Reagan wanted to take deductibility away from states. Ronald Reagan, years ago, and he couldn't do it. Because New York had a very powerful group of people. Which they don't have today. Today, they don't have the same representatives. You know, in those days they had Lew Rudin and me. ... I fought like hell for that. They had a lot of very good guys. Lew Rudin was very effective. He worked hard for New York. And we had some very good senators. ... You know, we had a lot of people who fought very hard against, let's call it SALT. Had they come to me and said, look, we'll do this, this, this, we'll do [inaudible]. I could have done something with SALT. Or made it less severe. But they were very ineffective. They were very, very ineffective. You understand what I mean. Had they come to me for a bipartisan tax bill, I would have gone to Mitch, and I would have gone to the other Republicans, and we could have worked something out bipartisan. And that could've been either a change to SALT or knockout of SALT.

www.nytimes.com

What Trump, and some of his supporters on here, don't seem to get is that there are a lot of Republicans and Trump voters in blue states like NY that will be hurt by SALT too.

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

SALT is a subsidy from the bottom 80 percent to the upper 20th, the favored fifth who get most of its benefits. Should have been repealed completely.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 06:41 PM | Reply

"What Trump, and some of his supporters on here, don't seem to get is that there are a lot of Republicans and Trump voters in blue states like NY that will be hurt by SALT too."

Life in a state where the majority don't share your views can be hard enough.

They don't need such salt rubbed in their wounds.

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 06:42 PM | Reply

#27 I see what you did there. Touche!

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"SALT is a subsidy from the bottom 80 percent to the upper 20th."

So is labor.
Is labor bad, then?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 06:44 PM | Reply

Puns aside they don't need such suffering.

Granted it will be a bit amusing to see Trump supporters suffer and some will vote Democrat for decades to come but neither are worth it.

#30 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 06:44 PM | Reply

The thing that escapes most people is that States like CA and NY have used the SALT deduction as justification for continually raising taxes in those States, figuring that the deduction would ease the pain of the higher taxes for taxpayers who itemize. Without the deduction, however, people in those States are not going to be as willing to raise the State tax rates as they were before.

The elimination of the SALT deduction crushes me personally, but if it will slow down the tax and spend mentality in Excremento because wealthy taxpayers in CA will be hurt by its elimination, I am willing to put up with that pain.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Kamala Harris‏ @KamalaHarris

6.1 million California taxpayers claimed the state and local tax deduction in 2015, with the average deduction around $18,000. Eliminating this deduction would hurt hard-working California families.
2:15 PM - 12 Dec 2017

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:45 PM | Reply

#32

It's going to hurt the CA 1% even worse (indcluding Kamala's husband Doug)...you all should be "happy" about that.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-30 06:48 PM | Reply

Too much union influence and corruption. Or does it really take $4 billion dollars to fix one mile of NYC subway track? It sure wouldn't take that much in South Carolina, would it?

#7 | POSTED BY COOKFISH

You're characterization of union influence is flat out ridiculous.

There are 400 union lobbyists in Washington D.C. as compared to 12,000 corporate lobbyists ... www.drudge.com ... click on the video and go to 27:00 thru 27:20 mark.

Guess whose influence wins out?

Your Amtrak crash example is all about not enough regulation (influenced by corporate lobbyists) to ensure contractors like Sound Transit build a safe rail-line and not cut corners to pocket extra money (corporate profits).

#34 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-30 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Shouldn't the rich pay more? That's the usual progressive narrative. Why shouldn't it pertain to states?"

Because the rich are not states, and this tax only applies to certain states, and not just to the rich?

Let's clear something up: Do you actually think the rich should pay more?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 06:50 PM | Reply

Pinch, Union spending is mostly on the Local and State level and other than the AFL/CIO and other major unions, most of them focus on getting things done at home as opposed to DC. It is exactly the opposite for corporations, who are more national in spending focus.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-30 06:53 PM | Reply

Pinch, Union spending is mostly on the Local and State level and other than the AFL/CIO and other major unions, most of them focus on getting things done at home as opposed to DC. It is exactly the opposite for corporations, who are more national in spending focus.

#36 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Tell that to Cookfish.

My point stands -- Cookfish was making a ridiculous ascertain about union influence and union corruption that supposedly caused the Amtrak crash ... and even attached a $4 billion price tag.

So given the 30 to 1 ratio of corporate lobbyists to union lobbyists on Capitol Hill and the environment that it creates ... who is more likely to cut corners to pocket extra money?

Is it government paid contractors with little regulatory oversight, or some defanged local union whose members are making worker's wages and who have allot to lose if caught? ... I know my answer.

#37 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-30 07:36 PM | Reply

You can't mean the rich people in those Blue states should be able to keep more of their income. Do you?

OR States have a claim to the rich peoples money in their state more than the Federal Government?

Does the SALT deduction only apply to tax payers in blue states?

And stop hiding behind the hypocrisy argument, it makes you look lazy.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

LOL, the states don't pay squat, people like me do, do you think I pay my fair share, cuz Corky certainly doesn't?

I'd have to see your tax returns. Care to post them?

Also, here, have a cookie. It'll help dry those tears.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 07:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Shouldn't the rich pay more? That's the usual progressive narrative. Why shouldn't it pertain to states?

#21 | Posted by nullifidian

If you really need this explained, you're an idiot and an explanation won't help.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Progressives would prefer states to go away, and let Washington, D.C. run everything.

#notthefoundingfathersconstitution

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot

#41 | Posted by jpw

Deep thoughts brought to you since Nov. 8th, 2016 by JPWeak.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 07:47 PM | Reply

Deep thoughts brought to you since Nov. 8th, 2016 by JPWeak.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian

LOL

"Get off my lawn you stupid kids!"
-since day 1 of life Nullifidian

Don't say dumb stuff if you don't want your dumb statements to be pointed out.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 08:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"If states were smart they would use a sales/use tax rather than income."

Aaand Mackris supports regressive taxation once again.

Must be nice to be able to afford all those flat fees, which cost the poor proportionately more than the rich!

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 08:08 PM | Reply

Democrats for SALT! They love the favored fifth.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-30 08:14 PM | Reply

"If states were smart they would use a sales/use tax rather than income."

Aaand Mackris supports regressive taxation once again.

How many red states are run like that but depend on federal money (provided by blue states, of course) to stay afloat?

It's going to be so delicious watching red state voters who love Trump flounder as the funding their lives depend on dries up thanks to their heroes.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Democrats for SALT! They love the favored fifth.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah, because the Repubs are doing this out of some sense of social justice.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So more taxes is crippling? Since when have Democrats and Liberals ever thought an increase in taxes on rich and middle class was crippling?
#15 | POSTED BY CHORT AT 2017-12-30 05:23 PM | REPLY

We're literally paying to keep red states from going under from conservative policies.

Now we're also being asked to carry the burden of the rich. And to top that off we're no longer being allowed to recoup funds for materials, supplies, and expenses. Which add up when you're freelance.

Not that you'd understand, Chort. It must be nice to live off your trust account and be a vapid moron.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-30 11:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Tax hike? Who is paying more? The rich are ... that is who"

What flavor kook-aid are you drinking?

Even during the early years, before over 80% goes to the wealthiest 1%, the deal is for a family of four to borrow $24,000, all to get ~$100/month for 8 years.

Using your best math skills, tell us if you believe that's a good deal, or a bad deal.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-31 09:56 AM | Reply

"Progressives would prefer states to go away, and let Washington, D.C. run everything.

#notthefoundingfathersconstitution"

Especially stupid comment in a thread about the federal government changing laws that will affect states. Nulli is a moron who doesn't even understand the dynamics of the subjects he posts about. Read a book Nulli you dope.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-31 10:10 AM | Reply

--Nulli is a moron who doesn't even understand the dynamics of the subjects he posts about. Read a book Nulli you dope.

Happy New Year to you too, Danni! May you get through 2018 without a heart attack. lol

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-12-31 10:23 AM | Reply

"So more taxes is crippling?"

More taxes which don't stimulate reinvestment, yes. But a higher marginal rate incentivizes greater reinvestment.

Eliminating the deduction of SALT does nothing to stimulate the economy.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-31 10:25 AM | Reply

Maybe the citizens of these over bloated state bureaucracies will vote in representatives who will tackle state spending which in turn can result in eventually lowering the state income taxes.

#53 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-12-31 10:41 AM | Reply

Maybe the citizens of these over bloated state bureaucracies will vote in representatives who will tackle state spending which in turn can result in eventually lowering the state income taxes.

#53 | Posted by MSgt

If you fools turn everything in to red state paradises who'll give money to the red state paradises?

You just really don't get the broader dynamic, do you? All you see is -------- ideology.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-31 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I get the plan. If the GOP can make America as crappy as Russia, we won't have any illegal immigration anymore.

#55 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-31 03:12 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-12-31 11:35 AM | FLAG: Riiiight, as we know those blue states are so good at utilizing the taxpayer's dollars......

#56 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-12-31 07:10 PM | Reply

That doesn't at all address what I said...

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-31 07:41 PM | Reply

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday
Add in State Taxes to your numbers and see who the real takers are.

#58 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-01-01 08:11 AM | Reply

I imagine the states impacted by this will bring suit on the grounds that the federal law amounts to double taxation. Statements such as Trump's may help their case.

#59 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-01-01 08:45 AM | Reply

Riiiight, as we know those blue states are so good at utilizing the taxpayer's dollars......

#56 | POSTED BY MSGT

California is a blue state.

And California went from running budget deficits under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to running budget surpluses under Governor Jerry Brown -- and the state of California has the tenth largest economy in the world.

If one calls them self a conservative, especially on fiscal matters, then one has to give credit where credit is due.

Governor Moonbeam > Governor Terminator = Sane Fiscal Policy

#60 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-01 09:27 AM | Reply

You blue bleeding cry-babies are fun to watch. Let me try to make this clear to you. The only reason that those in California and New York are "being hurt" is that they are no longer getting to write off money that they paid to their states and deprive the US government the ability to tax that income. In other words, the blue states tax their citizens heavily and now those citizens will also have to pay "their fair share" to the federal tax system as well. What is the problem with that. Let me remind you that (if what you have said is true) California and New York are the ones that make the most money...shouldn't they pay more? Isn't that fair? Are you suddenly saying that decreasing the tax burden is good and high taxers are bad? I thought you guys all wanted everything to be "fair" - at least that is what you said for eight years while people like me were being financially raped...now the rapist gets what is coming to him and he says he is being "pillaged".

#61 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"they are no longer getting to write off money that they paid to their states and deprive the US government the ability to tax that income"

Which has only been allowed since, oh, you know...1913.

"In other words, the blue states tax their citizens heavily and now those citizens will also have to pay "their fair share" to the federal tax system as well. "

Blue states, in general, already subsidize red states, in general, a MUCH larger transfer of wealth from blue states to red states. NJ, in particular, gets the least back for its federal dollar.

"Let me remind you that (if what you have said is true) California and New York are the ones that make the most money...shouldn't they pay more? Isn't that fair?"

Not if you're comparing what they're paying to what they're getting.

"for eight years while people like me were being financially raped"

Which state do you live in? A giver or a taker?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-01 11:45 AM | Reply

Danforth,

1. so, the system has been unfair since 1913, it is about time it changed. (If longevity makes things right and fair, I would remind you that from 1776 until 2009 "if you wanted health insurance - you paid for your own health insurance.")

2. You cant interchange the "individual" and the "state". I know that is a difficult concept for a liberal, but they are different. I look at the individual not the state. Therefore, the argument that one state subsidizes another is a total farse. that would be like comparing the oil production of California or New York and saying "look at how much gratitude those states owe the State of Texas and North Dakota"

3. I recall you lecturing me on a progressive tax structure and how you theorize that those that make more money use more resources and therefore should pay more....then you should have no problem with California and New York paying more....they make more.

4. The state I live in is not relevant. I base my observations on the individual. I pay more in taxes now than I ever have - what my state gets or gives does not matter.

#63 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 12:19 PM | Reply

"so, the system has been unfair since 1913"

No, the concept of not paying taxes on taxes paid is quite fair.

"I look at the individual not the state. Therefore, the argument that one state subsidizes another is a total fares"

Nonsense. States are made of individuals, and individuals pay the extra. You're purposely misunderstanding.

"then you should have no problem with California and New York paying more....they make more."

Again, you're missing the point. The salient factor isn't how much they pay--even if it was fair, they'd pay more--but rich folks in Louisiana pay the same federal tax rates as rich folks in New Jersey, but LA gets over $2 back from the feds for every dollar sent, while NJ gets less than a buck. Regardless how much is paid, the ratios remain.

"The state I live in is not relevant."

Of course it does. And the fact you refuse to admit, tells me you're in a taker state.

"I pay more in taxes now than I ever have - what my state gets or gives does not matter."

Not if you're making the claim blue states are getting away with something they shouldn't. Again, there is already a huge transfer of wealth from blue states to red states (in general). Why exacerbate the inequality?

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-01 12:36 PM | Reply

Danforth,

Intentionally misstating the issue is not like you. The complaint from the blue states are that they no longer get to deduct the dollars that they pay in state taxes from federal taxes. They are not paying taxes on the same dollar - they are DEDUCTING money they pay to one government from another government. By doing that, they are cheating the rest of the union out of the benefit of those tax dollars. How is that fair?

You analysis about getting money back again mixes and matches. I PAY both state and federal taxes....I dont get anything back from the feds to compensate me for paying state taxes. My state may get money back, but that does not affect me. If the state and people are the same (as you contend) then the populous of California and New York are far richer than the people of the state of Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi. Again - your complaining is misguided - or do you just want to tax the poor (as long as they live in red states)?

#65 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A citizen,

You could deduct you SALT if you so chose. It wasn't a tax break only to payers in blue states.

In any case your posts are just sour grapes with a propensity for simply ignoring inconvenient information.

In other words, a perfect Trump idiot.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 01:39 PM | Reply

JPW,

I don't recall saying that it was. But most like most liberals I know, you just make up the argument you want to have and chase it. Perfect liberal (I would say idiot....but that would be repetitive).

#67 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 01:47 PM | Reply

the populous of California and New York are far richer than the people of the state of Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi.

Because the people of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, year after year, vote for republican politicians and conservative policies.

It's not difficult to figure out.

If states like California and New York are doing better financially, it's because we have a healthier middle class. And we vote for people who fight for our rights.

Californians and New Yorkers pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. A lot of our tax dollars are taken from us weekly and distributed amongst the state and the country.

At the end of the year, we are provided some of our tax money back in the form of deductions for our expenses. Most of us use that money in our local communities which in turn helps ourselves and our local economy.

This tax is screwing all this up so the extremely wealthy can put more money in off shore bank accounts. Thereby screwing the middle class in California and New York, and ultimately screwing America as a whole.

This is a prime example of class warfare, the poor in red states, upset the middle class in other states is doing better. All the while ignoring the rich puppet masters pulling their strings, forcing them to vote republican, and against their own self interest. So the rich get richer, and the rest of us dwindle.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-01 01:49 PM | Reply

--pillage

The cheaper the politician the gaudier the patter.

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-01 01:50 PM | Reply

The cheaper the politician the gaudier the patter.

Your boy Trump proves that.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-01 01:52 PM | Reply

Clown,

You must be right....the fact that New York and California are doing better has nothing to do with the location of Silicon valley, the New York Stock Exchange, Hollywood and other industries that are naturally creators of wealth. The question is that if "we" elected all of those democrats that taxes "us" heavily, why do you think that those rich people will ship their money off-shore. They have been so happy paying high taxes all this time...that is why they elected those democrats to begin with - right? cant have it both ways.

The people in California and New York have screwed things up long enough. They can pay their fair share. Maybe if I say it differently, it will help you. What if it was said like, "Wot I wants to do is takes yo money and spreads it around..."

My god, you sound like Joe the Plumber.

#71 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 02:03 PM | Reply

So the right cuts pass through taxation because they say its double taxation and that's bad but they cut SALT because they think people should be taxed 2 or even 3 times.

Hypocracy much?

#72 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-01 02:22 PM | Reply

Hatter,

The difference is that I could not deduct the money that was taxed prior to pass through. SALT was a deduction on taxes paid. Keep trying though.

If I have learned anything from the libs...if you say a thing over and over again...it may not become true, but the majority will believe it is true. CNN, MSNBC, and most of the democratic members of congress have proven that over and over again.

#73 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 02:26 PM | Reply

New York and California are doing better has nothing to do with the location of Silicon valley, the New York Stock Exchange, Hollywood and other industries that are naturally creators of wealth.

You're right. The rest of the states are useless leeches with nothing to provide the union. Just barren wastelands of talk hate radio and religious conservative ignorant ideology.

Red states, for so many decades, have been voting against their own best interests. That the only way they can better themselves is by screwing over people from other states.

Meanwhile, the rich are laughing all the way to the bank.

How unfortunate for blue states that an archaic electoral college is determining our fate.

#74 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-01 02:29 PM | Reply

The people in California and New York have screwed things up long enough.

How so? Please provide examples.

They can pay their fair share.

We already do. And then some.

Maybe if I say it differently, it will help you. What if it was said like, "Wot I wants to do is takes yo money and spreads it around..."
My god, you sound like Joe the Plumber.
#71 | POSTED BY A_CITIZEN

Oh, you're a troll. Of course.

Carry on, stupid.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-01 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The "Favored Fifth" in Cali and NY love taxes paid by the bottom 80%, as long as they can deduct them.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-01 02:38 PM | Reply

So Clown says: The rest of the states are useless leeches with nothing to provide the union. Just barren wastelands of talk hate radio and religious conservative ignorant ideology.

Think about that when you turn on the heater / air conditioner. Also when you put gasoline in your car. I recall at one time there was a motto about letting a yankee freeze to death in the dark. Maybe when it gets cold you will re-think what those "barren wastelands" contribute.

How have California and New York screwed over the rest of us....start with your congressional delegation. I have never seen a bigger group of ignorant people. Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Belegosi just to name a few. Remember how good of an idea that health care debacle was for the rest of us and all the lies we were told to get that passed. If not for California and New York there never would have been a Obamanation for eight years, there never would have been a Senator Rodham Cliton, there never would have been a BS health insurance bill.

Sorry, it is very telling that you think that you already pay your fair share "and then some" Doanforth was both clear and right that we have the same federal tax code. the law applies to me the same as it does to you. if we make the same money, our tax bill should be the same. Just because you live in California and they tax you heavily, that is not my fault or problem and I shouldn't pay more than you to the feds because you deduct that expense.

And if you think that the "poor republicans" are the ones voting against their best interests while all of those blue rich guys are laughing all the way to the bank, you are crazy. The real problem is there are too many blue voters (many in a minority voting block) that vote for their best interests and to hell with the rest of us.

#77 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't recall saying that it was. But most like most liberals I know, you just make up the argument you want to have and chase it.

Ok, so when you said:

You blue bleeding cry-babies are fun to watch. Let me try to make this clear to you. The only reason that those in California and New York are "being hurt" is that they are no longer getting to write off money that they paid to their states and deprive the US government the ability to tax that income.

you're just taking pleasure in blue state residents being screwed while accepting some red staters will as collateral damage?

In any case, you're just regurgitating standard talking points on the topic.

Carry on idiot.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 03:15 PM | Reply

our tax bill should be the same. Just because you live in California and they tax you heavily, that is not my fault or problem and I shouldn't pay more than you to the feds because you deduct that expense.

Suck it up you whiny little bitch. The only reason the red states can charge their residents less in state taxes is because their budgets are floated by disproportionate federal dollars. What do you think is going to happen when that gravy train dries up? Your standard of living will go down or your taxes will go up.

BTW you perfectly encompass the entirety of the "Conservative" so called ideology.

Bitter miserable nonsense from greedy, self-absorbed asshats who think they do it all only because they can't think beyond the first degree of a topic.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They are not paying taxes on the same dollar - they are DEDUCTING money they pay to one government from another government. "

Incorrect. They don't get to deduct one payment from another; they get to deduct the amount paid from the taxable income. Someone in the 15% marginal federal rate would only get a break of 15% of what they paid, not the full amount.

"I dont get anything back from the feds to compensate me for paying state taxes."

You get the aforementioned deduction, but that's not what we're discussing; we were talking about the blue state makers and the red state takers, and how if both NJ and LA send a dollar to the feds, the feds send less than a dollar back to NJ, and more than two dollars to Louisiana.

"I shouldn't pay more than you to the feds because you deduct that expense."

Then NJ and LA should get the same back for their tax dollar, yes?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-01 03:21 PM | Reply

The people in California and New York have screwed things up long enough.

Yeah well the country is being run by the mouth breathers as we speak.

We'll see soon enough how badly they screw it up and just how valuable a counter weight CA and NY were.

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 03:21 PM | Reply

I have never seen a bigger group of ignorant people.

Then you need to open your eyes.

I'll take any of them you mention over the red state "cuz Jeebus" crowd any day.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 03:23 PM | Reply

And again JPW, I know it is easier to make the argument you want to have than the one that is before you. I will try it again with parentheses to explain what you obviously dont want to see.

You blue bleeding cry-babies are fun to watch. Let me try to make this clear to you. The only reason that those in California and New York are "being hurt" is that they are no longer getting to write off money that they paid to their states (AS A RESULT OF THAT STATE'S HIGH INCOME TAX) and deprive the US government the ability to tax that income (WHILE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THAT ARE NOT AS HEAVILY TAXED BY THEIR STATE PICK UP THE SLACK BY PAYING MORE MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE SAME INCOME).

I am not using any talking points. The facts are all of the talking points that I need - unlike you and your fellow libbies that need to lie the American people into hatred.

#83 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 03:24 PM | Reply

JPW:

Bitter miserable nonsense from greedy, self-absorbed asshats who think they do it all only because they can't think beyond the first degree of a topic.

And I thought you were pissed at people that vote against "their own self interests". Perhaps you- like many libbies - are really only pissed at those that vote against YOUR interests.

I am sure I know the answer... but you say "The only reason the red states can charge their residents less in state taxes is because their budgets are floated by disproportionate federal dollars." - Libbie talking point or can you back that one up?

#84 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth,

You are correct concerning the deduction. Whether it is dollar for dollar or 15% (admittedly i was not clear in my writing, but we are discussing the same amount) it is true that the people in California and New York pay more in taxes to their state and therefore write off more or DEDUCT more from their taxable income to the federal government. This is different than double taxing the pass-through from a corporation to the owner.

Again you are mixing and matching the difference between states and citizens. I believe that the re-distribution from the federal government is not and should not be equal between the states...that follows a federal interest. The moneys paid should be the same whether the dollar was earned in LA, CA, NY, or NJ. Now it will be. The dollars going back are not a relevant part of the conversation because that is a federal question. It would seem that since Congress is the archetect of that spending and CA and NY have so many congressmen of the low caliber discussed earlier, they should re-route the money. "bring home the pork" so to speak. Or is it possible that because those red states are poorer that the money goes there because of those libbie policies?

And again I ask, why do you want to hurt the poor in those red states by taking money away from them? At least that is what you ask me when i bitch about paying taxes. Do they make more? They should pay more. That is their "fair share". Remember? Progressive tax policy and all?

#85 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AS A RESULT OF THAT STATE'S HIGH INCOME TAX

Ok. You claimed to get this last time I said it, but every tax payer in the country has the ability to utilize that break.

A greater proportion of tax payers in blue states use the break, but well off payers in red state paradises can as well.

www.factcheck.org

There's also the option to deduct property or sales taxes, so it's not so simple as high income tax states.

WHILE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THAT ARE NOT AS HEAVILY TAXED BY THEIR STATE PICK UP THE SLACK BY PAYING MORE MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE SAME INCOME

Long winded way to saying red states subsidize blue states.

That's simply not true. Try again.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 03:59 PM | Reply

And I thought you were pissed at people that vote against "their own self interests". Perhaps you- like many libbies - are really only pissed at those that vote against YOUR interests.

Considering I, like most voters, are middle class or lower, we have overlapping self-interests.

So yes, when they willingly vote against theirs they're voting against mine.

But what actually pisses me off is that they're not even thinking about it on that shallow level. They're just doing what the talking box has convinced them to do without actually thinking about it.

And before you ask, I can tell that they're not thinking because they parrot the same nonsense I can easily find online or on a cable news show practically verbatim.

Libbie talking point or can you back that one up?

www.theatlantic.com

That alone, which should be common knowledge to anyone posting here, points to how stupid a question you asked.

But here, I'll do your homework for you:

www.denverpost.com

www.nytimes.com
(the real reason for the SALT deduction cut; sticking it to Dem states because vindictive --------- is considered good politics these days)

www.pewtrusts.org

Put in your favorite state. Chances are if it's a red state, it's got a higher % of state funding from fed dollars than state taxes.

Which is entirely logical and only a dunce would need it shown to them.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 04:41 PM | Reply

The dollars going back are not a relevant part of the conversation because that is a federal question.

LOL how convenient.

And again I ask, why do you want to hurt the poor in those red states by taking money away from them?

Because the poor in the blue states can be better serviced with their own dollars?

Because red states should stop crowing about how awesome "Conservative" ideology is when it only works with outside infusions of money are present?

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 04:48 PM | Reply

Wow JPW,

So I read the Atlantic, which I can tell is a purely objective piece of the media - no biased words there at all... and they say

Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the "most dependent" category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top -- Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine -- have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a "safety net" intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state's residents who get "food stamps" through the federal government's SNAP program. This chart tells the story.

So the first reason is the "Great Society' spending implemented by that great republican president LBJ. The other reason is the "social safety net" another one of those great republican strategies. But you know what they didn't say? "The only reason the red states can charge their residents less in state taxes is because their budgets are floated by disproportionate federal dollars."

You then say, "Because the poor in the blue states can be better serviced with their own dollars?" You know....I can better be serviced with my own dollars, yet you have no problem taking mine from me. Did you get the benefit of my being forced to buy health insurance? Fact is you selfishly hate the poor in the red states and that is why you want to keep "your money" in your state.

#89 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2018-01-01 05:23 PM | Reply

So I read the Atlantic, which I can tell is a purely objective piece of the media - no biased words there at all...

You can always tell when a righty needs to disregard reality. They whine like a little bitch that it's "biased" against them. LOL

"Conservative" ideology only exists in the absence of thought and real information.

So the first reason is the "Great Society' spending implemented by that great republican president LBJ.

How exactly do you arrive at the Great Society from "contracts, projects and installations"? I read that and take away the message of artificially inflated economies based on federal money streams.

The other reason is the "social safety net" another one of those great republican strategies.

Way to ignore the icky parts yet again.

That statement is significant, hence why you're writing it off, because it shows the abject failure of "Conservative" governing. States under that banner have the highest rates of poverty and welfare program utilization. If their economies were functioning as well as their rhetoric claims the need for assistance would be less, not more, than blue states. That's not what we see in reality.

But you know what they didn't say? "The only reason the red states can charge their residents less in state taxes is because their budgets are floated by disproportionate federal dollars."

No, but they did say It's not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low.

I realize I'm not spoon feeding you as much as you're used to, but please try to think just a little bit here. I promise you won't hurt yourself (too bad, at least).

You know....I can better be serviced with my own dollars, yet you have no problem taking mine from me.

Taxes are part of living in a functional society.

Comparing you being taxed to states using other state's tax dollars to float their budgets is beyond horrible as far as comparisons go.

You just want to whine though. So you'll do whatever necessary to set up your canned laments.

Fact is you selfishly hate the poor in the red states and that is why you want to keep "your money" in your state.

Not at all.

I would rather they drop the faux "independent" shtick and tax their voters appropriately to fund their own programs instead of acting like "Conservative" ideas work while they fund them through tax dollars collected from other people. You can't bash "socialism" out loud while setting up your style of governing to require it to function.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 06:14 PM | Reply

Also, I find it interesting that you zero in on a few lines from one specific link, act as if the perceived "bias" negates said few lines, all the while ignoring the rest and acting as if my point is unsubstantiated and, therefore, is false.

Jesus Christ, man. Do you honestly think you're going to be taken seriously?

#91 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 06:17 PM | Reply

I would rather they drop the faux "independent" shtick and tax their voters appropriately to fund their own programs instead of acting like "Conservative" ideas work while they fund them through tax dollars collected from other people.

Lost in all the angst is the fact that in most of the so called "taker" States a large portion of the Federal spending is on Military bases and Military expenditures in those States. If you remove that from the equation then those States fall back to the mean in terms of dollars spent/received.

That, of course, doesn't support the "Red States are Takers" narrative so will be disregarded by the Left as part of the discussion.

#92 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 06:27 PM | Reply

Case in point: prior to 1994, California was near the top of the "Taker" states due to the fact that it had more military bases than any other State. From 1980 to 1994, 21 bases closed, losing federal expenditures for those bases and 82,000 military and civilian employees on a yearly basis. By 1998, California had become a "donor" State and has remained one ever since.

In the South, the majority of bases remain open because of political pressure and the fact that it is cheapest to maintain those bases there. In most of the "taker" States, the military is a disproportionate % of their GDP, and closing those bases would eviscerate their economies, which would be political suicide for the Senators and Congresspeople in those States.

#93 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 06:38 PM | Reply

That, of course, doesn't support the "Red States are Takers" narrative so will be disregarded by the Left as part of the discussion.

LOL

So you just want to drop inconvenient information to your view then while that it's the other side who's got the honesty problem?

Because all of that cash flow isn't contributing to their economy? Anyways, keep whiggling out of the fact that taker states are the loudest -------- when it comes to supposed independence and fiscal/economic know how.

And it would only drop it part of the way as, as has already been discussed above, a significant portion is also safety net spending.

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 06:41 PM | Reply

the military is a disproportionate % of their GDP, and closing those bases would eviscerate their economies, which would be political suicide for the Senators and Congresspeople in those States.

#93 | Posted by Rightocenter

That's understandable.

Maybe they should stop whining about socialism and how their style of government is economically superior when all it would take to deflate their economy is the removal of the very socialistic federal dollars they get elected by bashing.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 06:44 PM | Reply

So you just want to drop inconvenient information to your view then while that it's the other side who's got the honesty problem?

The only thing "inconvenient" about military spending as part of Federal spending is that it has nothing to do with the safety net that you are complaining that these States don't spend enough on.

As I said earlier, California was a major taker State until those bases were closed but its economy could handle those closures, most of the Southern States could not.

#96 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 06:48 PM | Reply

And it would only drop it part of the way as, as has already been discussed above, a significant portion is also safety net spending.

Basic reading comprehension would have shown that I addressed that when I said "If you remove that from the equation then those States fall back to the mean in terms of dollars spent/received."

#97 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 06:49 PM | Reply

#95

If you think that those Southern States are bashing military spending and the economic engine that those bases represent then you haven't been paying attention.

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 06:51 PM | Reply

The only thing "inconvenient" about military spending as part of Federal spending is that it has nothing to do with the safety net that you are complaining that these States don't spend enough on.

You even admit that that spending represents a disproportionate % of GDP.

So yes, it is convenient to act as if removing that funding would drop their spending back to the mean while ignoring the fact that the other large siphon of federal dollars to those states, safety net funding, wouldn't remain static.

"If you remove that from the equation then those States fall back to the mean in terms of dollars spent/received."

See above.

If you think that those Southern States are bashing military spending and the economic engine that those bases represent then you haven't been paying attention.

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter

If you don't see the disconnect between bashing the federal government as "socialism" while gladly basing your economy on monies from that government then you're not really interested in seeing it.

It's even worse when all we hear from those states is that their ideas are superior and are the best way to run a state or economy. It's garbage that reeks the moment you scratch the surface.

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#99

You're on fire my brother. Keep it continue....

#100 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-01-01 07:26 PM | Reply

You even admit that that spending represents a disproportionate % of GDP.

I'm the one that said it in the first place.

So yes, it is convenient to act as if removing that funding would drop their spending back to the mean while ignoring the fact that the other large siphon of federal dollars to those states, safety net funding, wouldn't remain static.

Those bases have to be somewhere, land and labor are cheap in those States so lumping them into the equation only satisfies your narrative. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare the safety nets without the military spending.

Put those bases back in CA or in NY and watch the numbers flip.

As for the rest of it, none of the States have a monopoly on stupid ideas, you are just focusing on the ones that you can't stand.

Compare these three graphs, if you zero out the States where major military bases are, you will get a truer picture of who gets what in comparison to population per State (Hint, the smaller states with military bases skew the "taker" graph massively):

Federal Spending Per Dollar Paid in Federal Taxes

Military Spending in Relation To States GDP, as %

US Population by State

#101 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 07:50 PM | Reply

You're on fire my brother. Keep it continue....

It's very easy to be on "fire" if you ignore the data.

#102 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 07:51 PM | Reply

Three of the biggest takers in the top 15 are DC, Virginia and Hawaii, mostly because of military or Federal Government spending, not the safety net. How do they figure into your narrative?

#103 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 07:55 PM | Reply

Ummm good, bring back the Philadelphia naval base. I'm sure the residents of Philadelphia wont mind being takers in that circumstance.

IOW military spending IS a jobs program

#104 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-01 08:01 PM | Reply

Thanks for making my point TH, people in CA wouldn't mind getting their major bases back...which would make them near the top of the takers list.

#105 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-01 09:34 PM | Reply

Thanks for making my point TH, people in CA wouldn't mind getting their major bases back...which would make them near the top of the takers list.
#105 | Posted by Rightocenter

umm no it just proves that the red states are the takers, nothing more nothing less.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-01 09:53 PM | Reply

It's very easy to be on "fire" if you ignore the data.

#102 | Posted by Rightocenter

It's really easy to 'pay attention' to the data if you're cherry picking the ---- out of it.

Those bases have to be somewhere,

No, they don't.

land and labor are cheap in those States so lumping them into the equation only satisfies your narrative.

So we should just ignore them because they skew the numbers in an unfavorable direction despite the fact that that funding is a signficant portion of those state's GDPs?

That's probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this site.

If you want to compare apples to apples, compare the safety nets without the military spending.

The Atlantic article does that.

Guess who dominates the top takers in that regard. Yup. Red states.

Also, this is disingenuous because you're acting as if the economy of NY is the same the federal dollar floated economy of the southern states.

Which is the point I've been making but you seem to be hell bent on disregarding-comparing safety net spending in those states gives an artificial result considering it's the additional federal spending that is suppressing safety net spending in those states to begin with.

Either way, those states will sponge significant federal dollars, either via military spending or safety net spending if the economies collapsed due to withdrawal of other federal dollars.

Either way, the picture of shaky or poor economies is painted despite the right's claims of knowing what the f--- they're doing.

As for the rest of it, none of the States have a monopoly on stupid ideas, you are just focusing on the ones that you can't stand.

Certainly.

And I'm focusing on the ones that are being showcased as good ideas for national governance.

Ideas that fail on the state level without cash infusions from other states.

So where does the US get its cash infusion from when the righties enact their terrible policies nationally? No where. We simply cut programs or raise taxes. And we both know taxes aren't going to be raise in any meaningful way.

Three of the biggest takers in the top 15 are DC, Virginia and Hawaii, mostly because of military or Federal Government spending, not the safety net. How do they figure into your narrative?

It doesn't have to fit. I'm not denying they're taking lots in the form of federal spending.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 10:27 PM | Reply

which would make them near the top of the takers list.

#105 | Posted by Rightocenter

The key difference being they wouldn't be railing against federal spending as "socialism" while trying to grab as much federal cash as possible as quietly as possible.

The inconsistency of the red state positions with their gleeful spending of federal dollars isn't a hard concept to grasp. At least not if you're willing to be objective and non-partisan in your thinking.

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-01 10:29 PM | Reply

At least not if you're willing to be objective and non-partisan in your thinking.

I'm looking at the numbers, you are flush with emotion.

#109 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-02 12:04 AM | Reply

I'm looking at the numbers, you are flush with emotion.

You're trying to manipulate the numbers.

I'm pointing out the inherent disconnects present in reality.

That's hardly "flush with emotion".

#110 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-02 12:15 AM | Reply

I am providing you with the numbers, JPW, the conclusions that either of us draw depend on how we look at them.

All I am doing is trying to subtract the military spending from the total Federal spending and then look at how many people are in the State.

Do what you will, if you have a better way of looking at it, let me know.

#111 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-02 12:19 AM | Reply

All I am doing is trying to subtract the military spending from the total Federal spending and then look at how many people are in the State.

Except I'm saying that that's not an appropriate thing to do.

Think about it this way-what if I said that if you remove the abortions performed for reasons of personal convenience there aren't really that many abortions performed.

Would you take that as a good reason to accept the assertion that abortions are a rare event that isn't worth making political hay over?

This isn't conceptually difficult. Is there something that isn't clear about it? Because it's not a subjective thing like different interpretations of the same number set.

#112 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-02 12:36 AM | Reply

"if you zero out the States where major military bases are"

How many states are left after you do that? Seven?
It's your stupid idea, what's the stupid answer?

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-02 12:41 AM | Reply

"That's hardly "flush with emotion".

He accuses anybody who disagrees with him of getting emotional.
It's going to be a very Flapworthy 2018 for ROC.
Flap, flap flap. He's really gotten good at it.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-02 12:50 AM | Reply

"It's very easy to be on "fire" if you ignore the data."
POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

"if you zero out the States where major military bases are"
Also POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

FLAP FLAP FLAP

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-02 01:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort