How long will it last?
10-08-2020 | 05:39 AM
#71
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 2
I’m sure this article will be met with gaslit projection of some sort.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/marylan...yz4-story.html
https://www.baltimoresun.com/marylan...yz4-story.html
As we've been told by the cultists, that's not a fair way of doing math. We need to go back to the old way, it was much better. It even allowed for fractions in 3/5th increments.
10-08-2020 | 06:29 AM
#72
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 87
Oh, economic powerhouse states(NY, MA, etc) pay more taxes than than mississippi and kentucky? Wow who would've ever thunk it.
Not at all the point and a bad deflection.
10-08-2020 | 07:04 AM
#73
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 2
How socialist of you!
10-08-2020 | 07:16 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Most states get more than they pay in. That is the big problem. The Federal government exercises too much power in state politics due to the power of the purse. Speed limits, seatbelt laws, drinking age, voting requirements, education, and zoning and planning. Just a small list that the Federal government has bullied its way into that there is no constitutional basis for their involvement.
10-08-2020 | 07:24 AM
#75
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 2
Most states get more than they pay in. That is the big problem. The Federal government exercises too much power in state politics due to the power of the purse. Speed limits, seatbelt laws, drinking age, voting requirements, education, and zoning and planning. Just a small list that the Federal government has bullied its way into that there is no constitutional basis for their involvement.
The irony is that the poor red states are already overrepresented politically due to things like Wyoming getting the same 2 senators as California. We should give them 6 senators and keep CA at 2 in order to fix this problem you've identified. We can call it affirmative action.
10-08-2020 | 07:25 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,729
Likes: 0
10-08-2020 | 07:37 AM
#77
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 87
Lets not kid ourselves that this is about “every day” money that all states receive from the govt.
Its about bailing out states that have made bad policy and spending decisions for years and years in order to keep getting votes. You reap what you sow. Look at California. The governor's proposed budget earlier this year included 250 million for small business loans to “combat climate change”. What?!?! What is that? To help restaurants buy paper straws instead of plastic? That is just the tip of the iceberg.
10-08-2020 | 07:52 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
You went from talking about money to political power. You also just made the smaller states getting more than their fair share into a bad thing (so thanks for that).
The irony is that the poor red states are already overrepresented politically due to things like Wyoming getting the same 2 senators as California. We should give them 6 senators and keep CA at 2 in order to fix this problem you've identified. We can call it affirmative action.
The irony is that the poor red states are already overrepresented politically due to things like Wyoming getting the same 2 senators as California. We should give them 6 senators and keep CA at 2 in order to fix this problem you've identified. We can call it affirmative action.
Money and its control and direction IS political power.
10-08-2020 | 08:32 AM
#79
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 2
Yes, we obviously both know how our government works, more than the average bear at least.
What started this exchange was someone saying that the CARES act distributing funds to states based on population (linked) is unfair. The current talking point is 'blue state bailout'.
Now I'm a NJ refugee and agree with most of what's been said about their self-inflected problems... But you have to be overly plugged into the conservative think-o-sphere to repeat that giving money to states based on population is unfair.
What started this exchange was someone saying that the CARES act distributing funds to states based on population (linked) is unfair. The current talking point is 'blue state bailout'.
Now I'm a NJ refugee and agree with most of what's been said about their self-inflected problems... But you have to be overly plugged into the conservative think-o-sphere to repeat that giving money to states based on population is unfair.
Last edited by Andrew_VT; 10-08-2020 at 08:45 AM.
10-08-2020 | 08:36 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Yes, we obviously both know how our government works, more than the average bear at least.
What started this exchange was someone saying that the CARES act distributing funds to states based on population (linked) is unfair. The current talking point is 'blue state bailout'.
Now I'm a NJ refugee and agree with most of what's been said about their self-inflected problems... But you have to be in a cult to think that giving money to states based on population is grossly unfair.
What started this exchange was someone saying that the CARES act distributing funds to states based on population (linked) is unfair. The current talking point is 'blue state bailout'.
Now I'm a NJ refugee and agree with most of what's been said about their self-inflected problems... But you have to be in a cult to think that giving money to states based on population is grossly unfair.
The original plan for this country back in 1792 was for the Federal government to tax and pay for its responsibilities and for the states and local governments to tax and pay for theirs. We would be FAR better off if we had stuck to that plan.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TonyWilliams
Hiring News
2
10-24-2008 05:55 AM
