Red States Spent $2 Billion in 2015 to Screw the Poor

Jul 2014
38,922
33,897
Border Fence
#11
Not for anything, but doesn't this go against the rule that red states are taking more from Washington?
That myth was de-bunked long ago.

Actually the claims made by red states is the they have cut overall state taxes. For the most part that is correct. They have cut the tax burdens of higher tax rate individuals and state corporate rates while still accepting federal dollars.

So in fact the amount in taxes they send to WDC is less than the pork they accept.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2007
34,673
6,991
Middle of nowhere Arkansas
#13
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that red states are cutting their noses to spite their faces because they're so hateful toward the poor and I find very odd and extremely stupid.
According to your source....

.....The major effects of the ACA were experienced by states in FY 2015; FY 2016 projections for Medicaid enrollment (4.0 percent) and total spending (6.9 percent) across all states indicate much slower growth on average than in FY 2015. Subsequently, the difference in enrollment and total spending growth rates across expansion and non-expansion states are projected to narrow in FY 2016......

So, is this significant? Is this a statistical anomaly? Is this just a statistical blip? I dunno' and neither do you for that matter. My state chose to expand Medicare and I'm very concerned about it. In this case federal monies isn't "forever monies." My state is required by our constitution to have a balanced budget. I think that a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2007
34,673
6,991
Middle of nowhere Arkansas
#14
You read the article or not?
Yes but that has nothing o do with my post. "Many" if not most of our erstwhile liberals here often complain about federal monies being used by the inhabitants of red states.

So, do you feel red states should use more federal monies or less?
 

Jets

Former Staff
Feb 2011
22,138
11,765
New York
#15
That myth was de-bunked long ago.

Actually the claims made by red states is the they have cut overall state taxes. For the most part that is correct. They have cut the tax burdens of higher tax rate individuals and state corporate rates while still accepting federal dollars.

So in fact the amount in taxes they send to WDC is less than the pork they accept.
I agree that red states do it. I'm pointing out this as an exception.
 
Mar 2012
52,844
34,967
New Hampshire
#17
One gets what one votes for. When owning a firearm is more important than getting health coverage, nothing more needs to be said.

Jmo
That's just it, they do place more value on things like that. We had hired a girl fresh out of college a couple years ago who was bright and the first in her family to graduate college. She quit and moved back home within 6 months because she said New England had no morals. She would rather move back home and be on aid than work in a different place that may not have shared her beliefs. It meant more to her than anything. At some point you cant fight that.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jul 2014
38,922
33,897
Border Fence
#18
Yes but that has nothing o do with my post. "Many" if not most of our erstwhile liberals here often complain about federal monies being used by the inhabitants of red states.

So, do you feel red states should use more federal monies or less?
That complaint comes with the understanding that Red states have attempted to reduce their state tax burdens while knowing that federal monies will pick up the slack. That is disingenuous in that some other state's taxes are going to meet that shortfall.

This is the whole contention of the OP...the Red states would rather sacrifice the health concerns of their poorest constituents to provide tax relief for their most affluent tax brackets.
 
Likes: 1 person

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,053
62,359
So. Md.
#19
That's just it, they do place more value on things like that. We had hired a girl fresh out of college a couple years ago who was bright and the first in her family to graduate college. She quit and moved back home within 6 months because she said New England had no morals. She would rather move back home and be on aid than work in a different place that may not have shared her beliefs. It meant more to her than anything. At some point you cant fight that.
That's just sad and silly.
 
Dec 2007
34,673
6,991
Middle of nowhere Arkansas
#20
That complaint comes with the understanding that Red states have attempted to reduce their state tax burdens while knowing that federal monies will pick up the slack. That is disingenuous in that some other state's taxes are going to meet that shortfall.

This is the whole contention of the OP...the Red states would rather sacrifice the health concerns of their poorest constituents to provide tax relief for their most affluent tax brackets.
Thank you for the explananation tho I am well aware of the argument just as you are aware of the argument that the federal government is taking too much monies from individuals and businesses and redistributing these monies in an effort to increase power and reach of an already too powerful and intrusive federal goverment ultimately benefitting the very wealthy of this nation at the expense of the rest of us.

Yes, this sentence is a run on but I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet.
 

Similar Discussions