- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Removing state and local tax deduction: A left jab at liberals?
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:07 am to Lsupimp
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:07 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I love how Progs always only tell half the story about the Red State/ Blue State tax redistribution .In other words, yeah - Democrats residing in Mississippi and Louisiana sure do like their welfare, food stamps etc. You are welcome to relocate them to coastal liberal enclaves if you want to reverse the trend. By all means - come get your fellow Democrats. Start with Baton Rouge , Nola and Jackson please.
It's one of the silliest canards in political discussion.
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:07 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Why is it not okay with you guys when our guys suggest it but yet you have no problem when your guys suggests it?
i spoke out against Corporate Barry a lot bro
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:16 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i posted another one which clearly explained the methodology as not including military spending
"as a percentage of state general revenue"
Here are the federal spending numbers, by state, for FY 2010. I didn't spend time looking for a more recent comparison by dollar amount, but I doubt it has changed much. Are you going to pretend the $333B spent in California means they are less dependent on the federal government than Alabama, where only $56.5B was spent, because of "percentage of state general revenue?"
Image is from this article from California's Legislative Analyst's Office
If you actually do think Alabama is more dependent on the federal government than California, then the question has to be this: What would happen, in Alabama, if the federal government stopped funding Medicaid, and, as a result, stopped forcing the state to pay for Medicaid, which is the largest use of federal funds, after defense spending, in this state (Source: Alabama's 2015 CAFR)? Do you think we would keep Medicaid spending at the same level (or at all)? What about other government-mandated programs? If the federal government were to suddenly stop mandating and funding all federal programs administered by the states, do you truly believe Alabama would have a harder go of it than California? Or are you simply claiming Alabama should raise its tax rates simply to make your "dependency chart" look "better" for the state? All I see is a state, in California, that is over-taxing its citizens.
Are you smart enough to realize that most of that "dependency" is merely federal government-mandated programs administered by the states and funded by the federal government?
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 10:57 am
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:19 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It's one of the silliest canards in political discussion.
it's also shockingly racist
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:52 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
income redistribution from blue states to red ones, especially when red states already take more than they give,
Then why did the Blue state dems opposed medicaid caps so hard? You think they would have rejoiced in reducing the subsidy of red states?
Or can you just admit this meme is disingenuous
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News