Speaker wants to rip PPACA out by the roots

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

It is surprising how you think of Michigan first and the United Stares as secondary. Federal money is money for the whole nation.
If your state gets in trouble and gets funds from the Federal Government to help it then we are helping ourself too i.e one of our own. From what I can tell your state needs it perhaps more than California, which has it own share of problems but not really a case in which a major city has lost 50% of its own population, like Detroit. I am not one bit concerned that my federal taxes have helped Michigan or any other state. I am surprised at such an attitude. Moreover, your post sort of demonstrates that States sometimes do not do as good a job as the Federal Government. When you pay Federal taxes you are doing so for the whole nation, not just your state.

I used Michigan as an example, since I live here. Sorry if you don't like that.

Also, Michigan has been a net "donor" state: with tax payers paying our more in Federal tax dollars than are returned to the state by Federal spending or tax credits. Fairly recently we ranked 47th out of 50 states for a 20 year period. What's "right" with that picture?

By the way, historically the top "recipients" are typically Washington DC, Virginia and MD. Go figure.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by whell

If the government budget piling up red ink by the bus load, and increasing its rate of expansion, is not the time to introduce fiscal restraint, then precisely when IS the time to introduce it?

When Republicans are in charge. That is the time to practice fiscal restraint.

Jude Wanniski's "Two Santa Clause Theory is simple. In 1976 Wanniski proposed to the Republican party a plan to reduce taxes while massively increasing spending when Republicans are in power. The lower taxes puts more money into peoples hands and they spend it. That gives a short term boost to the economy and everybody is fat and happy.

Then when Democrats gain control there is no money for them to sustain their progressive programs like the New Deal. Wanniski advised Republicans to scream about spending and the budget deficit when not in power and keep there mouth shut when they are in power.

When Republicans are in power they are Santa when they are out of power the Democrats that come in have to raise taxes, lower funding for programs, generally acting like the anti-Santa as they try to clean up the mess the Republicans left behind. That is the two Santa theory in a nutshell

It started with Reagan who instituted a massive tax cut then he started spending money like a madman tripling the budget deficit before he left office. Did you hear a single Republican screaming about his out of control spending. I didn't.

When Bush II took office one of the first things he did was institute a massive tax cut. Then he started spending like a drunken sailor on leave. First Afghanistan which should have ended when the CIA and the Rangers had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora. The Neo-Cons wanted to invade Iraq so bad that they did not care about capturing the man who claimed responsibility for 9/11. So Bush lied us into the Iraq war.

The wars, hiring mercenaries, hiring private contractors like Halliburton who was on their way to bankruptcy before the wars started, and the massive big pharma giveaway called Medicare part D were all "off the books". Bush spent trillions and trillions of dollars in his eight years in office. Can you name one thing he did to promote the general welfare of the people in this country? I can't think of one.

Did you hear one Republican anywhere screaming about Bush's out of control spending? I didn't.

So in comes Obama to inherit Bush's screw ups. I am sure he was stunned at just how bad things really were. He proceeded to start putting the country back together with almost no help from the Congress. Slowly but surely things are getting better.

Do I hear the Republicans screaming about the budget deficit and spending. Yep, I hear it all day everyday.

[piece-itpete]

beej, I thought Obama was a Muslim Kenyan



That Obama is more hammered I disagree. Although you get the ugly racial stuff on top of the jewloving comments, the hitler comments, etc.

But then I've been discussing politics online for quite some time.

Pete

[beej]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

beej, I thought Obama was a Muslim Kenyan



That Obama is more hammered I disagree. Although you get the ugly racial stuff on top of the jewloving comments, the hitler comments, etc.

But then I've been discussing politics online for quite some time.

Pete

Don't have any empirical evidence to support either position I suppose. But you're correct (at least from my perspective) regarding some of the baser stuff. Too much of that. Disagree with the guy's policies; condemn his approach to things; but a lot of that personal stuff has been off the charts.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way, historically the top "recipients" are typically Washington DC, Virginia and MD. Go figure.

"Top recipients" in raw terms or in terms of what they receive vs. what they pay out?

I'd like to see your source for that.

Never mind. Here it is.

Virginia is 10th, Maryland is 18th and DC isn't really considered since it's a federal district.

Wrong again, Whell.

Do you actually believe the things you write or do you just pull them out of your ass and hope nobody checks?

Oh, and the People's Republic of California? That sink hole of liberalism? Forty-third, a net donor to the federal coffers.

John

[piece-itpete]

Does that include payroll?

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Top recipients" in raw terms or in terms of what they receive vs. what they pay out?

I'd like to see your source for that.

Never mind. Here it is.

Virginia is 10th, Maryland is 18th and DC isn't really considered since it's a federal district.

Wrong again, Whell.

Do you actually believe the things you write or do you just pull them out of your ass and hope nobody checks?

Oh, and the People's Republic of California? That sink hole of liberalism? Forty-third, a net donor to the federal coffers.

John

No, oh smarmy but vapid one. Your chart only shows incoming federal dollars. It doesn't compare taxes collected to federal dollars returned. Please try again.

[merrylander]

I wonder if his is the speaker's neighbour?

[whell]

Here, John. Let me help you, since you were so close.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/fed...tate-1981-2005

[merrylander]

Guess I had a better math teacher, both tables state exactly the same thing.