The ACA is another example of Democrats helping Red State Americans

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 59
#31
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, I’m saying that the money a rich person in Mississippi pays would go back to Mississippi to help his fellow Mississippians. And the states would get to decide how to spend all the money they get back from the Feds that was paid to the US Treasury in federal income taxes.
Let me put it a different way. If we aren’t all entitled to benefits based on the same formula, the states are NEVER going to agree to letting the federal government set the tax rates and other policies. What you’re advocating is undoing everything that FDR and LBJ did lol. Which more power to you…but you should probably change your screen name and avatar in that case 
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
lol.
#33
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,829
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
You also create a strong incentive for states to fight over the most productive citizens and offload the most expensive ones to other states. Is that really a position you want to put people in, as a leftist? Texas or New York or wherever doing whatever they can to force their poor people to move?
State sovereignty in economy and decisions does have downsides. However, downsides can be prevented with proper ideology. If a certain state has welfare that helps the poor and expensive people, that is due to the ideology of the state that is unmotivated by economical gains. I doubt that a state would accept people from other states on its welfare in too large amount. After all, the sovereign welfare states dont appreciate too large burden on their economies. It would be bad if they did.

The difference between federation and confederation is that:
Federation doesnt give full sovereignty to the states.
Confederation is by definition voluntary union of sovereign states.

USA is a federation. Not a confederation.

Its obvious that "poor states" or "states with lots of poor people" cannot afford welfare economy without external help. In case of confederation, poor people in those states would mostly depend on mercy. Would it be better? Yes, it would be probably better.

Welfare economies are sometimes a failure due to "people abusing welfare".
Abuse can be mostly prevented by "welfare economy covering the significant part of the cost or supplementing the wage" as opposed to "giving stuff for free on demand".

Leftists often argue for welfare economy, but they dont agree with each other on how it should be managed. It is true that welfare is better managed by states individually if those states are controlled by federal government that makes them all agree to welfare economy.

However, I do think that leftist welfare is possible in confederation too. States individually can be welfare states. They just have to prevent people abusing welfare.
Topic's author
#34
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
the states are NEVER going to agree to letting the federal government set the tax rates and other policies. What you’re advocating is undoing everything that FDR and LBJ did lol. Which more power to you…but you should probably change your screen name and avatar in that case 
It would be difficult to do this for Social Security and Medicare - there’s no doubt that red states get back way more for those two programs than they send.

FDR and LBJ didn’t set out to move money from rich states to poor states. It wanted to move money from rich people to poor people. If some states don’t have many rich people then it’s tough shit. Especially when leaders in red states say they oppose socialism. He can’t oppose socialism and then take money from the blue states.

#35
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
FDR and LBJ didn’t set out to move money from rich states to poor states. It wanted to move money from rich people to poor people. If some states don’t have many rich people then it’s tough shit.
Why? Why should state of residence matter one bit in a federal program? FDR and LBJ would vehemently disagree with you. On the other hand Barry Goldwater would approve 
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
It would help the troubled liberal to consider welfare to conservatives exactly the same concept as federal aid to foreign countries.
Topic's author
#37
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
FDR and LBJ would vehemently disagree with you.
I don’t think so. There’s no evidence they were advocating for rich states to support poor states. But even if they did, things have changed, it’s been decades and it’s perfectly fine to change the system. I would love poor states and rural states to learn how bad off they would be without the blue states.

Let people like Barry Goldwater see how fucked his state would be without socialism.
#38
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,063
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It would help the troubled liberal to consider welfare to conservatives exactly the same concept as federal aid to foreign countries.
They have completely different customs and speak two different languages, so yeah, foreign aid works.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
 I would love poor states and rural states to learn how bad off they would be without the blue states.

So civil war. What a true American.

Topic's author
#40
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Why civil war? Red states are just getting what they want - self reliance. It’s good for building their individual character.
#41
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don’t think so. There’s no evidence they were advocating for rich states to support poor states. But even if they did, things have changed, it’s been decades and it’s perfectly fine to change the system. I would love poor states and rural states to learn how bad off they would be without the blue states.

Let people like Barry Goldwater see how fucked his state would be without socialism.
The people in those states who would get fucked are for the most part dem voters. I don’t understand why you want to hurt your own voters for the crime of living in the wrong state
Topic's author
#42
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
The people in those states who would get fucked are for the most part dem voters
That’s not true. It’s the good ole boys who work with their hands and drive pickup trucks.

Topic's author
#43
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
I don’t understand why you want to hurt your own voters for the crime of living in the wrong state
Well their must not be very many of them because those states have Republicans in elected office.

#44
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s not true. It’s the good ole boys who work with their hands and drive pickup trucks.
Wrong. Welfare users are disproportionately black and hispanic people, especially in the south.  Someone with a blue collar job who can afford a pickup truck usually doesn’t qualify for welfare 

Well their must not be very many of them because those states have Republicans in elected office.
yes they are often outnumbered. That’s why they’re called…minorities. And you want to make poor peoples lives harder because you don’t like the way middle class and wealthy people (who often dislike welfare policies) in their states vote. 
#45
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,829
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well their must not be very many of them because those states have Republicans in elected office.
Are you saying that democrat voters living in red states should be cut off from welfare?
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
The people in those states who would get fucked are for the most part dem voters. I don’t understand why you want to hurt your own voters for the crime of living in the wrong state.
Sounds like a great way to convert all those people living in Democrat cities in Red States... don't interrupt your enemy :)
Topic's author
#47
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
Welfare users are disproportionately black and hispanic people, especially in the south.  Someone with a blue collar job who can afford a pickup truck usually doesn’t qualify for welfare 
Welfare? That’s pennies. This isn’t about welfare, this about all the federal dollars that go to a state for everything from federal pensions to grant money to farm subsidies to disaster relief. Billions and billions of federal dollars. Welfare, like food stamps or section 8 vouchers is a drop in the bucket.

#48
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
I want more federalism so I’m actually good with what he’s saying as long as the states get broad leeway in everything like we were supposed to from the beginning. But what’s he’s saying is so stupid from a liberal perspective that I can’t help but poor at it
#49
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Welfare? That’s pennies. This isn’t about welfare, this about all the federal dollars that go to a state for everything from federal pensions to grant money to farm subsidies to disaster relief. Billions and billions of federal dollars. Welfare, like food stamps or section 8 vouchers is a drop in the bucket.

in 2022, only 16% of spending was on “everything else”, 49% of federal spending was on entitlements, which poor people disproportionately rely on

#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
I want more federalism...
For god's sakes why??? Ignoring that historically, centrally planned governments inevitably collapse under their own incompetence, the current level of federalism isn't even sustainable. Why increase it? Sabotage maybe? Then I approve of course.
Topic's author
#51
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
And you want to make poor peoples lives harder because you don’t like the way middle class and wealthy people (who often dislike welfare policies) in their states vote. 
Again, this goes way beyond welfare money. This is ALL federal dollars going to a state. Basically, we are going to limit “welfare” to farmers and veterans and corporations who are getting money that they didn’t pay into the U.S. Treasury. A state shouldn’t get more money back than they send. 

#52
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
For god's sakes why??? Ignoring that historically, centrally planned governments inevitably collapse under their own incompetence, the current level of federalism isn't even sustainable. Why increase it? Sabotage maybe? Then I approve of course.
I mean more states rights. I’ve seen federalism used as a shorthand for dividing powers between the federal government and the states, right now I think the federal government has way too much power for such a huge and diverse country 
Topic's author
#53
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
in 2022, only 16% of spending was on “everything else”, 49% of federal spending was on entitlements, which poor people disproportionately rely on
Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are funded by SS tax and Medicare tax.

We are talking about INCOME TAXES paid to the Federal government.

#54
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, this goes way beyond welfare money. This is ALL federal dollars going to a state. Basically, we are going to limit “welfare” to farmers and veterans and corporations who are getting money that they didn’t pay into the U.S. Treasury. A state shouldn’t get more money back than they send. 
Right, you aren’t just going after poor people. Veterans shouldn’t get their pensions and seniors shouldn’t get their social security or Medicare based on the state they live in, even though those are federal programs, because of reasons 
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
I have a feeling Roose wants to turn all red states into vassal states. That's probably not going to go down like he thinks with such a well armed freedom loving populace.
Topic's author
#56
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
Right, you aren’t just going after poor people. Veterans shouldn’t get their pensions and seniors shouldn’t get their social security or Medicare based on the state they live in, even though those are federal programs, because of reasons 
Now you’re getting it!

If welfare is bad for poor people then welfare is bad for poor states. All the people in poor states, not just the poor people.

But social security and Medicare have their own tax. Those programs can be made sound by increasing the tax if that’s what the American people want. What would you rather do, pay for your mother’s hip replacement yourself or pay another half percent tax for Medicare?
Topic's author
#57
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I have a feeling Roose wants to turn all red states into vassal states. That's probably not going to go down like he thinks with such a well armed freedom loving populace.
Oh I see

Welfare for middle class white people is good. (Funded by blue states)

Welfare for poor minorities is bad. (also funded mainly by blue states)

The red states will get back every dollar they paid to the US Treasury, but not a penny more. A vassal state gets back nothing.

#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,054
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The red states will get back every dollar they paid to the US Treasury,
Roffle, nobody from any state is getting any of their money back from the treasury at the rate they are devaluing the dollar. The first thing to go is all that money they borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to pay for infinite deficits.
2034 may come in your lifetime.
Topic's author
#59
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,132
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The first thing to go is all that money they borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to pay for infinite deficits.
When the Federal government borrowed from the SS Trust fund they gave T-bills in exchange and paid interest to the trust fund.

It was similar to a person borrowing from their 401K and paying it back over 5 years with interest.

The trust fund is shrinking now because more money is going out than coming in for about the last 4 years. ( that’s why they started the trust fund in the early 80s) So the federal government can no longer get new loans from the trust fund. The trust fund has nothing to lend to anyone.