Mnuchin Says No Bailout for States With Badly Managed Budgets.

[Ken Mac]

Gee, the blue states pay in much more than the rather pathetic and incredibly sad red states; the blob is going to run up multiple trillions more in debt if that is the case.

Yo, Corn. Blue states pay more than red states because they make more. I thought that's what you socialists have been screaming about for years. Soak the rich. Make them pay their share. Now you're telling me you want poorer states to support richer states? Hypocrite much?

wrong try again

that's actually fair accurate. Give a rebuttal on why not. or just STFU

Red states are populated by obese losers who don’t make much money and don’t pay much in taxes.

Wow - Look at you sitting on high, judging and sending a proclamation with words like "Obese" and "losers". You must be an elitist liberal. Yet, you don't want to help out those that are less fortunate than thou. This is the true liberal. They really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

I prefer limousine liberal.

lol

Not sure why you are so upset. If you don’t assist blue states—as the OP said was going to happen (reality is usually far different than a blob supporter’s fantasies), the fed loses its cash cow. Those are the facts.

That the largely deserted red states are takers not makers is a fact as well

Again - Red states being takers has nothing to do with them being red. They are red because of economic opportunity is lacking more than other states so they don't have the money to SPEND - which means their politics lean conservative. Red is an effect of opportunity not a cause.

Blue states can go drown and the businesses and people will be fine. They will just have to cut their social budgets of which are HUGE in order to survive. It won't be killing the cash cow, it will be killing their huge expenditures that are made. The state government has nothing to do with natural resources and opportunities. If they wanted to increase business opportunity, they need to change their policies from liberal to conservative and not tax the ever living shit out of them.

It won't hurt the cash cow one bit. It will hurt all of those people the blue states are trying to help. Those on STATE government assistance.

How would Apple's business be hurt by the state GOVERNMENT of California going into a tail spin? It wouldn't.

 

[Ken Mac]

Let's look at this thing from a logical perspective:

Where is one of the best places to live and work in the country?

California

Why?

Four major biomes - Beaches, Mountains, Desert, Valley's all within a two to three hour drive of living pretty much anywhere in the state. Great for Travel, outdoors, sight seeing, etc..

Weather - You don't like the weather? Drive a few hours and you can get to a place with very different weather. The weather is really fabulous.

Resources - Timber, farming, oil, etc...

Do people want to live here? Absolutely

Do Businesses want to base their operation here? - Yes if it is a business that has problems getting human resources such as Technology. Ask Google, Apple, Facebook and many others in Silicon Valley.

Do those businesses pay a lot of money? Yes

Do those people pay a lot of federal taxes for SSI, Medicare, Medicaid? Yes

Is it expensive? - Yes

do you want to live there when you retire? - Not necessarily. If you could sell your $1.4M home you bought for $200K 30 years ago then you could buy a house say....in Phoenix for one third the price and much bigger. Then you could take the rest and travel the world or whatever floats your boat. (Phoenix has grown to be the 5th largest city in the country because of this dynamic). While you live in Phoenix now - you can collect your SS, Medicare, Medicaid benefits which will count against Arizona but make California look good.

Does this have anything to do with politics? Absofuckinglutley not.

How does the state benefit? - They get a boatload of taxes and they can spend lot of it on social programs, pensions, etc.. because they are a rich state. The politics gravitate toward liberalism because of the money. Not the other way around.


Y'all need to get a grip and stop using this as a club - it's completely incorrect.

The average age of a Californian is 51 years old. It is almost 54 years old in Missouri. Why is this? Oh yeah - retirees flee the place. This is one big reason why Missouri looks like a taker and California looks like a giver beside resources and weather. Their population is OLDER!

Every article I've ever read is missing this point. It doesn't explain it all, but it explains a large portion. A very large portion.

Alrighty then, so much for the BS.

California Companies Flee Business-Hostile State In Droves | Investor's Business Daily

As far as technology is concerned if you're going to ask Google, Apple, or Facebook you really don't know technology.

Happens every 30 years in California. They start taking more and more and businesses either drown or flee. You can reference that article all day, but until real estate prices crash - there aren't enough businesses leaving to make a dent in California's bucket.

And what does your second point mean? It is meaningless - You don't reference or point to anything that explains that they aren't technology companies.

They are in the fucking Tech Sector for christ sakes. Go look at IBD some more- you'll see them listed there once per week.

True, they are in the Tech Sector, but they only provide very limited tech to businesses.

Ok. So you're wrong.

 

[Nostra]

So forget it, Blue States.

Mnuchin Says No Bailout for States With Badly Managed Budgets.

Good. Fuck Cuomo.

 

[Ken Mac]

Gee, the blue states pay in much more than the rather pathetic and incredibly sad red states; the blob is going to run up multiple trillions more in debt if that is the case.

If they're so rich, why do they need money?

Gee, the blue states pay in much more than the rather pathetic and incredibly sad red states; the blob is going to run up multiple trillions more in debt if that is the case.

If they're so rich, why do they need money?

They were more affected by the outbreak than the vast wasteland that is flyover country. If you don’t assist the blue states, the first to feel it will be the backwards populations in places lik MS AL KY WV KS NE SD AR MO

No they won't. They won't feel a thing. It won't change the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid benefits one bit.

 

[berg80]

Sanctuary states shouldn't be getting any bailout money.

A study published in the journal Urban Affairs Review in 2017 found that cities with similar characteristics but for their sanctuary policies had “no statistically discernible difference” in their rates of violent crime, rape, or property crime. Using data from the National Immigration Law Center and the FBI, researchers compared crime rates before and after cities passed sanctuary laws, finding that they had no effect on crime.

Another study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, examined the almost 2,500 counties that don’t accept requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants. The study found that counties with sanctuary policies tend to have lower crime rates than those that don’t: about 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people on average. The counties with the smallest populations exhibited even bigger differences in crime rates.

Many police chiefs say there’s good reason behind those results: Sanctuary policies facilitate better crime reporting and cooperation with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Trump is sending armed tactical forces to arrest immigrants in sanctuary cities

It’s yet another attempt to target sanctuary cities.

www.vox.com

 

[Nostra]

Gee, the blue states pay in much more than the rather pathetic and incredibly sad red states; the blob is going to run up multiple trillions more in debt if that is the case.

Yo, Corn. Blue states pay more than red states because they make more. I thought that's what you socialists have been screaming about for years. Soak the rich. Make them pay their share. Now you're telling me you want poorer states to support richer states? Hypocrite much?

wrong try again

that's actually fair accurate. Give a rebuttal on why not. or just STFU

Red states are populated by obese losers who don’t make much money and don’t pay much in taxes.

Link?

 

[Meathead]

Sanctuary states shouldn't be getting any bailout money.

A study published in the journal Urban Affairs Review in 2017 found that cities with similar characteristics but for their sanctuary policies had “no statistically discernible difference” in their rates of violent crime, rape, or property crime. Using data from the National Immigration Law Center and the FBI, researchers compared crime rates before and after cities passed sanctuary laws, finding that they had no effect on crime.

Another study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, examined the almost 2,500 counties that don’t accept requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants. The study found that counties with sanctuary policies tend to have lower crime rates than those that don’t: about 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people on average. The counties with the smallest populations exhibited even bigger differences in crime rates.

Many police chiefs say there’s good reason behind those results: Sanctuary policies facilitate better crime reporting and cooperation with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Trump is sending armed tactical forces to arrest immigrants in sanctuary cities

It’s yet another attempt to target sanctuary cities.

www.vox.com

Seriously, you're going to use some dingbat left-wing sources to back up an absurd argument? Journal of Urban Affairs? Center for American Progress? Vox?

FFS!!!

 

[Ken Mac]

Sanctuary states shouldn't be getting any bailout money.

A study published in the journal Urban Affairs Review in 2017 found that cities with similar characteristics but for their sanctuary policies had “no statistically discernible difference” in their rates of violent crime, rape, or property crime. Using data from the National Immigration Law Center and the FBI, researchers compared crime rates before and after cities passed sanctuary laws, finding that they had no effect on crime.

Another study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, examined the almost 2,500 counties that don’t accept requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants. The study found that counties with sanctuary policies tend to have lower crime rates than those that don’t: about 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people on average. The counties with the smallest populations exhibited even bigger differences in crime rates.

Many police chiefs say there’s good reason behind those results: Sanctuary policies facilitate better crime reporting and cooperation with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Trump is sending armed tactical forces to arrest immigrants in sanctuary cities

It’s yet another attempt to target sanctuary cities.

www.vox.com

Good. Trump's job is to uphold Federal Law. Of course, your article say "Many police chiefs" as the source. I wonder how many "many" is? Is it a majority? Is it a minority? is it 2% Is it 35%?

My guess is about 0.01% of the police chiefs in the nation.

Even if it is 10% the questions become:

What is their source of this information?
Do they have a study to site?

No - this article is just pure crap. Printed for the ignorant masses to absorb. Looks like you're a dupe.

 

[Ken Mac]

Sanctuary states shouldn't be getting any bailout money.

A study published in the journal Urban Affairs Review in 2017 found that cities with similar characteristics but for their sanctuary policies had “no statistically discernible difference” in their rates of violent crime, rape, or property crime. Using data from the National Immigration Law Center and the FBI, researchers compared crime rates before and after cities passed sanctuary laws, finding that they had no effect on crime.

Another study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, examined the almost 2,500 counties that don’t accept requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants. The study found that counties with sanctuary policies tend to have lower crime rates than those that don’t: about 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people on average. The counties with the smallest populations exhibited even bigger differences in crime rates.

Many police chiefs say there’s good reason behind those results: Sanctuary policies facilitate better crime reporting and cooperation with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Trump is sending armed tactical forces to arrest immigrants in sanctuary cities

It’s yet another attempt to target sanctuary cities.

www.vox.com

The first paragraph you quote points to no statistical difference. In my opinion, it isn't that we are looking fo a statistical difference, we are looking for violent criminals here ILLEGALLY to kick out of our country. I know for a FACT removing violent criminals who are illegals will reduce future violent crime in the US. There is no doubt. It is about protecting the public not about statistical differences. That's a logical fallacy.

The second paragraph is another logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. What a bunch of BS in that paragraph.

 

[rightwinger]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

So you consider Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "Free loaders". I thought progressives were all for these types of programs. Wow.

Are social security and medicare really for freeloaders? They are not free to the individual. You do know that you pay for this benefit, yes?

No - they are not freeloaders. I didn't say that. Re-read.

It is confusing but I believe you. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's not confusing to me. It must be confusing to you because you are going through what is called "cognitive dissonance". It's extremely difficult, confusing and makes one uncomfortable. You want to believe that Blue states are all that, but then you can't fit your head around that it is a good thing that other people in other states that are richer are putting more into the pie than those that are poor and more unfortunate. It kills your argument about Blue states - blah, blah, blah..... because you're supposed to be for the poor and unfortunate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not side with that Blue state Red state fallacy - ditch it - abhore it- and all will be right.

To conservatives, Blue States are always there as a cash cow.

But when Blue States are the ones needing assistance, they look the other way

It has nothing to do with being the color BLUE.

It sure as hell does

If not, then how does Mississippi get a cent?

SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID. We've been over this.

They have separate funding outside the federal budget

 

[rightwinger]

How does Trumps administration claim that states are badly managed while they are running a $2 trillion deficit?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Gee, the blue states pay in much more than the rather pathetic and incredibly sad red states; the blob is going to run up multiple trillions more in debt if that is the case.

Debt by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Ken Mac]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

So you consider Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "Free loaders". I thought progressives were all for these types of programs. Wow.

Are social security and medicare really for freeloaders? They are not free to the individual. You do know that you pay for this benefit, yes?

No - they are not freeloaders. I didn't say that. Re-read.

It is confusing but I believe you. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's not confusing to me. It must be confusing to you because you are going through what is called "cognitive dissonance". It's extremely difficult, confusing and makes one uncomfortable. You want to believe that Blue states are all that, but then you can't fit your head around that it is a good thing that other people in other states that are richer are putting more into the pie than those that are poor and more unfortunate. It kills your argument about Blue states - blah, blah, blah..... because you're supposed to be for the poor and unfortunate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not side with that Blue state Red state fallacy - ditch it - abhore it- and all will be right.

To conservatives, Blue States are always there as a cash cow.

But when Blue States are the ones needing assistance, they look the other way

It has nothing to do with being the color BLUE.

It sure as hell does

If not, then how does Mississippi get a cent?

SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID. We've been over this.

They have separate funding outside the federal budget

Who is "They"?

 

[Ken Mac]

How does Trumps administration claim that states are badly managed while they are running a $2 trillion deficit?

Just cause the Federal government has been running a deficit for umpteen years doesn't mean that some states aren't badly managed does it. More logical fallacies.

 

[rightwinger]

How does Trumps administration claim that states are badly managed while they are running a $2 trillion deficit?

Just cause the Federal government has been running a deficit for umpteen years doesn't mean that some states are badly managed does it. More logical fallacies.

Have to laugh at the audacity of Trump criticizing badly managed states when he has made no attempt to be fiscally responsible

 

[Ken Mac]

How does Trumps administration claim that states are badly managed while they are running a $2 trillion deficit?

Just cause the Federal government has been running a deficit for umpteen years doesn't mean that some states are badly managed does it. More logical fallacies.

Have to laugh at the audacity of Trump criticizing badly managed states when he has made no attempt to be fiscally responsible

Who was the last president that had fiscal responsibility?

 

[Bobob]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

So you consider Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "Free loaders". I thought progressives were all for these types of programs. Wow.

Are social security and medicare really for freeloaders? They are not free to the individual. You do know that you pay for this benefit, yes?

No - they are not freeloaders. I didn't say that. Re-read.

It is confusing but I believe you. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's not confusing to me. It must be confusing to you because you are going through what is called "cognitive dissonance". It's extremely difficult, confusing and makes one uncomfortable. You want to believe that Blue states are all that, but then you can't fit your head around that it is a good thing that other people in other states that are richer are putting more into the pie than those that are poor and more unfortunate. It kills your argument about Blue states - blah, blah, blah..... because you're supposed to be for the poor and unfortunate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not side with that Blue state Red state fallacy - ditch it - abhore it- and all will be right.

To conservatives, Blue States are always there as a cash cow.

But when Blue States are the ones needing assistance, they look the other way

They need assistance because they OVERSPEND and OVERCOMMIT just like all progressive governments do.

They don't need assistance because of COVID, they need it because of overspend and overcommitting.

Then how do you explain Trump's government, the virus notwithstanding?

 

[Bobob]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

In fact the title of that graphic shows "Federal Aid" It isn't fucking Federal aid for the most part it is comprised of our social programs fuckwhit.

Social programs are not aid?

In what universe?

Welfare and Medicaid are "Federal Aid" because you do not pay into them
SS & Medicare are NOT "Federal Aid" because you pay into them.

ya

 

[Ken Mac]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

So you consider Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "Free loaders". I thought progressives were all for these types of programs. Wow.

Are social security and medicare really for freeloaders? They are not free to the individual. You do know that you pay for this benefit, yes?

No - they are not freeloaders. I didn't say that. Re-read.

It is confusing but I believe you. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's not confusing to me. It must be confusing to you because you are going through what is called "cognitive dissonance". It's extremely difficult, confusing and makes one uncomfortable. You want to believe that Blue states are all that, but then you can't fit your head around that it is a good thing that other people in other states that are richer are putting more into the pie than those that are poor and more unfortunate. It kills your argument about Blue states - blah, blah, blah..... because you're supposed to be for the poor and unfortunate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not side with that Blue state Red state fallacy - ditch it - abhore it- and all will be right.

To conservatives, Blue States are always there as a cash cow.

But when Blue States are the ones needing assistance, they look the other way

They need assistance because they OVERSPEND and OVERCOMMIT just like all progressive governments do.

They don't need assistance because of COVID, they need it because of overspend and overcommitting.

Then how do you explain Trump's government, the virus notwithstanding?

Explain what exactly about "Trump's government" (That is a term I would never use. The president doesn't own a government)

 

[Bobob]

There should be no additional aid to those states that already receive more federal aid than they pay in taxes.

They are already freeloaders

Start with Kentucky

View attachment 329595

So you consider Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "Free loaders". I thought progressives were all for these types of programs. Wow.

Are social security and medicare really for freeloaders? They are not free to the individual. You do know that you pay for this benefit, yes?

No - they are not freeloaders. I didn't say that. Re-read.

It is confusing but I believe you. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's not confusing to me. It must be confusing to you because you are going through what is called "cognitive dissonance". It's extremely difficult, confusing and makes one uncomfortable. You want to believe that Blue states are all that, but then you can't fit your head around that it is a good thing that other people in other states that are richer are putting more into the pie than those that are poor and more unfortunate. It kills your argument about Blue states - blah, blah, blah..... because you're supposed to be for the poor and unfortunate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not side with that Blue state Red state fallacy - ditch it - abhore it- and all will be right.

To conservatives, Blue States are always there as a cash cow.

But when Blue States are the ones needing assistance, they look the other way

They need assistance because they OVERSPEND and OVERCOMMIT just like all progressive governments do.

They don't need assistance because of COVID, they need it because of overspend and overcommitting.

Then how do you explain Trump's government, the virus notwithstanding?

Explain what exactly about "Trump's government" (That is a term I would never use. The president doesn't own a government)

The Trump administration, who oversees the government, has increased the shit out of the deficit with overspending.
My point is that you talk about "blue state" spending. Share the wealth, pal.