Those Who Prefer Heavy Government Spending

  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 05, 2010 3:26 AM GMT
    So, are you folks beginning to wonder where all that money is going to come from? A few indicators of the future ahead.

    The State of Illinois is still paying off billions in bills that it got from schools and social service providers last year. Arizona recently stopped paying for certain organ transplants for people in its Medicaid program. States are releasing prisoners early, more to cut expenses than to reward good behavior. And in Newark, the city laid off 13 percent of its police officers last week.

    While next year could be even worse, there are bigger, longer-term risks, financial analysts say. Their fear is that even when the economy recovers, the shortfalls will not disappear, because many state and local governments have so much debt — several trillion dollars’ worth, with much of it off the books and largely hidden from view — that it could overwhelm them in the next few years.

    Some of the same people who warned of the looming subprime crisis two years ago are ringing alarm bells again. Their message: Not just small towns or dying Rust Belt cities, but also large states like Illinois and California are increasingly at risk.

    Analysts fear that at some point — no one knows when — investors could balk at lending to the weakest states, setting off a crisis that could spread to the stronger ones, much as the turmoil in Europe has spread from country to country.

    -- Source NYT

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 3:30 AM GMT
    Dear OP, why is the government doing this heavy spending?
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 05, 2010 5:36 AM GMT
    http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

    If Illinois didn't have to pay out roughly $25 billion per year to subsidize Red States, they would be in a far better fiscal position.Illinois pays roughly $10,000 in federal taxes per person. They receive roughly $6,500 in return. That's a $3,500 net loss per capita- times 12 million people, that's $42 billion dollars subsidizing Red States every year or 6-7% of 2007 GDP per capita.

    The costs of healthcare, education, military and food in America are roughly 15-17%, 5%, 7% and 5% respectively.If Illinois did not have to subsidize Red States, they could double their spending on education.They could pay off their entire debt two times over with this money- as their debt per capita is $1800.

    What do conservatives have to say about this? Two things of note is that conservatives claim they hate unfair taxes and that personal integrity, honor and self-reliance are valuable to them. So how can you accept, on moral grounds, that states like Illinois and California have paid trillions in the last decade or so to subsidize Red States?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 7:00 AM GMT
    xher saidhttp://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

    If Illinois didn't have to pay out roughly $25 billion per year to subsidize Red States, they would be in a far better fiscal position.Illinois pays roughly $10,000 in federal taxes per person. They receive roughly $6,500 in return. That's a $3,500 net loss per capita- times 12 million people, that's $42 billion dollars subsidizing Red States every year or 6-7% of 2007 GDP per capita.

    The costs of healthcare, education, military and food in America are roughly 15-17%, 5%, 7% and 5% respectively.If Illinois did not have to subsidize Red States, they could double their spending on education.They could pay off their entire debt two times over with this money- as their debt per capita is $1800.

    What do conservatives have to say about this? Two things of note is that conservatives claim they hate unfair taxes and that personal integrity, honor and self-reliance are valuable to them. So how can you accept, on moral grounds, that states like Illinois and California have paid trillions in the last decade or so to subsidize Red States?


    Yes. I'd like an answer to that.

    And, of course, they will need to raise taxes and stop outsourcing projects that could be done cheaper by government workers.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 05, 2010 2:18 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidSo, are you folks beginning to wonder where all that money is going to come from? A few indicators of the future ahead.

    The State of Illinois is still paying off billions in bills that it got from schools and social service providers last year. Arizona recently stopped paying for certain organ transplants for people in its Medicaid program. States are releasing prisoners early, more to cut expenses than to reward good behavior. And in Newark, the city laid off 13 percent of its police officers last week.

    While next year could be even worse, there are bigger, longer-term risks, financial analysts say. Their fear is that even when the economy recovers, the shortfalls will not disappear, because many state and local governments have so much debt — several trillion dollars’ worth, with much of it off the books and largely hidden from view — that it could overwhelm them in the next few years.

    Some of the same people who warned of the looming subprime crisis two years ago are ringing alarm bells again. Their message: Not just small towns or dying Rust Belt cities, but also large states like Illinois and California are increasingly at risk.

    Analysts fear that at some point — no one knows when — investors could balk at lending to the weakest states, setting off a crisis that could spread to the stronger ones, much as the turmoil in Europe has spread from country to country.

    -- Source NYT


    So with AL THAT BEING SAID .......

    You wanna continue to subsidize the top 2% ?
    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 7:43 PM GMT
    And the question raised to every teabagger and or GOP candidate who spouted this "we must shrink government", was .... WHAT are you gonna cut?

    The crickets have chirped for the last year and continue to..


    Don't worry, the dems didnt give answers either.. I just wanted to show the rhetoric by some our esteemed teabaggers/gop parrots to be exactly what it is.. nothing but hot air.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 8:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd the question raised to every teabagger and or GOP candidate who spouted this "we must shrink government", was .... WHAT are you gonna cut?

    The crickets have chirped for the last year and continue to..


    Don't worry, the dems didnt give answers either.. I just wanted to show the rhetoric by some our esteemed teabaggers/gop parrots to be exactly what it is.. nothing but hot air.


    I've said on here many times that we need a 25% across the board cut in Federal spending (including the military, excluding social security and medicare). That would be a fine start.
    And to my knowledge, you have NEVER gotten a disagreement on this board about that.. please correct me If I'm wrong..

    Now remember.. before you answer, that 25% cut includes the salaries and benefits of congress... that IS a government expenditure. Ya cant have it 'selective'.. across the board means ACROSS the board.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 05, 2010 8:48 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd the question raised to every teabagger and or GOP candidate who spouted this "we must shrink government", was .... WHAT are you gonna cut?

    The crickets have chirped for the last year and continue to..


    Don't worry, the dems didnt give answers either.. I just wanted to show the rhetoric by some our esteemed teabaggers/gop parrots to be exactly what it is.. nothing but hot air.


    I've said on here many times that we need a 25% across the board cut in Federal spending (including the military, excluding social security and medicare). That would be a fine start.


    Not needed ......

    If the military had the cut in spending that it deserves

    ............. Now how much do we spend in GDP terms on the military???
    and we stop subsidizing the very wealthy that we've done for at least the last decade
    We'd be back in black in no time
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 9:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    xher saidhttp://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

    If Illinois didn't have to pay out roughly $25 billion per year to subsidize Red States, they would be in a far better fiscal position.


    I agree... The Federal government is taking far too much money and expanding into areas it has no business being in. We need to shrink the size of the Federal government.





    xher said
    The costs of healthcare, education, military and food in America are roughly 15-17%, 5%, 7% and 5% respectively.If Illinois did not have to subsidize Red States, they could double their spending on education.They could pay off their entire debt two times over with this money- as their debt per capita is $1800.


    See above.




    xher saidWhat do conservatives have to say about this? Two things of note is that conservatives claim they hate unfair taxes and that personal integrity, honor and self-reliance are valuable to them. So how can you accept, on moral grounds, that states like Illinois and California have paid trillions in the last decade or so to subsidize Red States?


    See above.

    It MUST stop and it WILL stop, either voluntarily or we will see states going insolvent over the next few years.


    lol, that first response was pwnage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd the question raised to every teabagger and or GOP candidate who spouted this "we must shrink government", was .... WHAT are you gonna cut?

    The crickets have chirped for the last year and continue to..


    Don't worry, the dems didnt give answers either.. I just wanted to show the rhetoric by some our esteemed teabaggers/gop parrots to be exactly what it is.. nothing but hot air.


    I've said on here many times that we need a 25% across the board cut in Federal spending (including the military, excluding social security and medicare). That would be a fine start.


    Then SB needs to run for Congress! icon_lol.gif Because the people you voted for want to use the "deficit" to attack Social Security and Medicare, largely through privatizing them, which will benefit the bankers and further screw the middle class.
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 06, 2010 1:57 AM GMT
    Fair answers Southbeach. But it's debatable whether or not most Red States will completely collapse if Blue State subsidies are frozen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 4:44 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Sure Congress too.

    And, since we're talking about Congress, I would like a Constitutional amendment that prohibits Congress from exempting themselves from any law they pass.

    It's nice that you and I are in agreement for once!
    You mean the 28th amendment? I am in complete agreement..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 7:57 PM GMT
    xher saidFair answers Southbeach. But it's debatable whether or not most Red States will completely collapse if Blue State subsidies are frozen.


    Then let them collapse!
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 06, 2010 9:06 PM GMT
    xher saidhttp://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

    If Illinois didn't have to pay out roughly $25 billion per year to subsidize Red States, they would be in a far better fiscal position.Illinois pays roughly $10,000 in federal taxes per person. They receive roughly $6,500 in return. That's a $3,500 net loss per capita- times 12 million people, that's $42 billion dollars subsidizing Red States every year or 6-7% of 2007 GDP per capita.

    The costs of healthcare, education, military and food in America are roughly 15-17%, 5%, 7% and 5% respectively.If Illinois did not have to subsidize Red States, they could double their spending on education.They could pay off their entire debt two times over with this money- as their debt per capita is $1800.

    What do conservatives have to say about this? Two things of note is that conservatives claim they hate unfair taxes and that personal integrity, honor and self-reliance are valuable to them. So how can you accept, on moral grounds, that states like Illinois and California have paid trillions in the last decade or so to subsidize Red States?


    This should be a fairly easy process be begin. Stop all cross-boarder shipments of food into and out of Illinois. Remove the $6500 per person return of federal dollars. Close the Great Lakes naval base and let Illinois have what's left of the property less federally owned equipment, e.g., warships, etc.

    Get the idea?
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 07, 2010 4:37 AM GMT
    Your response makes zero sense. Illinois is not "receiving" $6,000 per capita, they are being robbed of $3,000-4,000 per capita per year, to subsidize Red States.

    Illinois is also one of America's top agricultural producers, they are in the top three out of all states by calorie output. I don't even know what you're trying to imply with the military bases, because most bases are concentrated in Red States and counties because it's cheap and the areas they're in need the federal subsidy due to mismanagement, cronyism and corruption.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 4:45 AM GMT
    It is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 4:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.


    If forcing the Federal government to operate within the confines of the Constitution means "demolishing" it then yeah, I guess you are correct.


    Ridiculous, as usual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 5:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.


    If forcing the Federal government to operate within the confines of the Constitution means "demolishing" it then yeah, I guess you are correct.


    Ridiculous, as usual.


    Yeah, imagine our Federal government operating within the confines of the Constitution. Truly a radical idea!
    That cuts both ways SB.. the repubs will face that one hard as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 8:11 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.


    No one said to eliminate (which I assume you are implying with "demolish") the federal government as much as make sure it stops spending more money than it has coming in.

  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 07, 2010 10:24 PM GMT
    That could be solved by pulling all Red State/county subsidies. The bases and federal offices could be relocated to the producer states, so the money is circulated back into their economies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 10:41 PM GMT
    xher saidThat could be solved by pulling all Red State/county subsidies. The bases and federal offices could be relocated to the producer states, so the money is circulated back into their economies.


    And if the red counties and townships within the blue states pulled subsidies then there wouldn't be anything for the blue states either!
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 08, 2010 3:38 AM GMT
    Most of the richer areas are more liberal than their neighbors. Case in point- Northern Virginia.

    The only reason why many of those conservative areas are "rich" is because they tax dodge, engage in cronyism, and live off of producer states. Or they sell oil. Pull the plug and they're done.

    The most recent election in Virginia was an extremely close one statewide. Democrat Jim Webb defeated incumbent Senator George Allen by the slim margin of 49.6% to 49.2%[1]. However, that margin ballooned to 58.1% to 40.7% in favor of the Democratic challenger in the counties and cities of Northern Virginia, whereas Webb ran behind Allen, 46.1% to 52.7%, in the much of the remainder of the Commonwealth. Webb carried Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Loudoun County, as well as the more urban areas of Arlington, Alexandria, and Falls Church. Allen's sole wins in Northern Virginia were cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, winning the latter two only by the razor-thin margins of 298 votes and 47 votes, respectively.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

    1 Loudoun County, Virginia $110,643 277,433 58%
    2 Fairfax County, Virginia $106,785 1,005,980 60%
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 7:09 PM GMT
    xher saidMost of the richer areas are more liberal than their neighbors. Case in point- Northern Virginia.

    The only reason why many of those conservative areas are "rich" is because they tax dodge, engage in cronyism, and live off of producer states. Or they sell oil. Pull the plug and they're done.

    The most recent election in Virginia was an extremely close one statewide. Democrat Jim Webb defeated incumbent Senator George Allen by the slim margin of 49.6% to 49.2%[1]. However, that margin ballooned to 58.1% to 40.7% in favor of the Democratic challenger in the counties and cities of Northern Virginia, whereas Webb ran behind Allen, 46.1% to 52.7%, in the much of the remainder of the Commonwealth. Webb carried Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Loudoun County, as well as the more urban areas of Arlington, Alexandria, and Falls Church. Allen's sole wins in Northern Virginia were cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, winning the latter two only by the razor-thin margins of 298 votes and 47 votes, respectively.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

    1 Loudoun County, Virginia $110,643 277,433 58%
    2 Fairfax County, Virginia $106,785 1,005,980 60%


    I was referring to counties and townships overall in the united states, not the areas where people have become rich FROM bigger government with big salaries. Also, it's likely that Loudoun county only ranks technically the highest per capita vs other counties is because there are fewer poorer areas being included. For example, it's likely that the only reason fairfield county in connecticut is not #1 is because it includes two large cities that are one of the poorest in the US, so that brings down the overall "rating". Of course, some times the overall county will go republican or democrat because of what is included in the county. Some times you have to break it down to townships to have an accurate idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.


    No one said to eliminate (which I assume you are implying with "demolish") the federal government as much as make sure it stops spending more money than it has coming in.





    So, you Repubs want the government to stop "spending more money than it has coming in" now?
    That's a change.
    Or should I say - a MAJOR FLIP-FLOP.
    You guys have been saying "deficits don't matter" for the past thirty years.
    And have been running up massive yearly budget deficits year after year after year whenever a Republican president has been in office.
    It's nice that you've decided to embrace the IDEA of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (finally) - but your RECORD is one of massive deficit spending and growing the National Debt.

    So, can the hypocritical crap about the Repubs being more fiscally responsible.
    It's a total BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 8:23 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.


    No one said to eliminate (which I assume you are implying with "demolish") the federal government as much as make sure it stops spending more money than it has coming in.





    So, you Repubs want the government to stop "spending more money than it has coming in" now?
    That's a change.
    Or should I say - a MAJOR FLIP-FLOP.
    You guys have been saying "deficits don't matter" for the past thirty years.
    And have been running up massive yearly budget deficits year after year after year whenever a Republican president has been in office.
    It's nice that you've decided to embrace the IDEA of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (finally) - but your RECORD is one of massive deficit spending and growing the National Debt.

    So, can the hypocritical crap about the Repubs being more fiscally responsible.
    It's a total BS.


    The fact that both democrats and republicans engage in redistributive, fiscally irresponsible policies is not the issue (because we all know they both do it) -- it's that your entire line of thinking cannot be separated from the fact that you fundamentally embrace a system which requires high subsidization from taxpayers. You WANT constant government EXPANSION (not elimination or dis-involvement) which then requires more money that has to be gotten from somewhere.

    You look at a deficit and think: "it's because people aren't being taxed enough to pay for the shortfall".

    I look at it and say: "Many of the programs that require funding shouldn't exist to begin with, let alone expanded upon. And since the taxpayer money is disproportionately and unfairly benefiting the people who aren't paying, they should be able to keep that hard earned money. If the programs can't be supported with enough money then cut them out to fit the current budget and let private enterprise do the rest".

    The problem is that you can't simultaneously let people keep more of their money and yet keep the SAME amount of revenue coming into stupid programs that live to maintain. So of course the deficit will grow, because the money isn't coming in for all the bull-crap you're wanting to continue.

    It doesn't matter if democrats and republicans both engage in what you're taking issue to -- it is that your entire mentality is incompatible with the idea of not spending more than what is coming in.

    So blame the fiscally irresponsible republicans all you want, but it only makes you look worse because that type of behavior is what is inherent in the philosophy that you inseparably embrace by your political positions.

    It would be identical to a situation where you supported a candidate who believes, as a core principle, in deforestation and then criticizing the opponent who supposedly opposes deforestation for engaging in exactly that. It merely makes your supposed adversary look more aligned to the views that you unavoidably cherish.