[Hoot Gibson]

Kentucky takes more than it gives, there is no "some of it" with us.

The federal government borrows about 40 percent more money that it collects in taxes. Just because a state gets more so-called "federal" money, does not mean that money came from other states. Money is fungible and you could just as easily say that Kentuckians are taking money that came from Beijing. The redistribution of taxes is a poor excuse for the federal government's imposition of unconstitutional mandates upon the states.

More pertinent to this thread, is the fact that the way taxes are collected and redistributed by the federal government does not create a new constitutional power for Washington to require states to sanction gay marriage.

If you and other gay advocates want gay marriage to become the law in all 50 states, then you should mount a campaign for a constitutional amendment.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm not so sure about that, you got a source other than something like "Mother Jones" to back up your assertion? I guarantee you Kentucky would do just fine without federal money. We would see how fast the entitlement express would get throttled back once all the bribes from DC quit rolling in. That act alone would straighten out a lot of the mess. And that alone would get people off their butt and out looking for work.

If there was no money in the nation of Kentucky for welfare payments, deadbeat Kentuckians could walk into one of the surrounding states and join the illegal aliens who are already collecting federal benefits. Imagine how prosperous Kentucky would be without those who are too lazy to work? Of course, somebody would have to pack their belongings and provide transportation across the border. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

The federal government borrows about 40 percent more money that it collects in taxes. Just because a state gets more so-called "federal" money, does not mean that money came from other states. Money is fungible and you could just as easily say that Kentuckians are taking money that came from Beijing. The redistribution of taxes is a poor excuse for the federal government's imposition of unconstitutional mandates upon the states.

More pertinent to this thread, is the fact that the way taxes are collected and redistributed by the federal government does not create a new constitutional power for Washington to require states to sanction gay marriage.

If you and other gay advocates want gay marriage to become the law in all 50 states, then you should mount a campaign for a constitutional amendment.

Exactly, if the states allow federal money to dictate terms the way RV is suggesting, there would no longer be anything to stop Washington liberals from total domination. They already worked out a way to thwart the checks and balances that are supposed to exist among the three federal co-equally powerful branches of government. And, you can thank folks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for helping to make it happen. Reid for gridlocking the US Congress by not fulfilling his sworn duty to take up legislation coming up out of the House. That's why we don't have a federal budget. And, that's why we keep running up against these fiscal cliffs. Pelosi is just a liberal cheer leader who does what she is told.

If you take state sovereignty out of the equation, you've got only one state, the federal state. I admit freedom is under attack but, I'm not quite ready to wave the flag of defeat just yet. Like I said, we have another chance to slow the national slide into a liberal abyss in the coming mid-terms of 2014. Obama used a tweeked version of an old campaign slogan to get elected. Remember the "Time for a Change" slogan? He said Hope and Change. I say it's time for a :flush: and my hand will be on the flush lever. :rockon:

[TheRealVille]

I'm not so sure about that, you got a source other than something like "Mother Jones" to back up your assertion? I guarantee you Kentucky would do just fine without federal money. We would see how fast the entitlement express would get throttled back once all the bribes from DC quit rolling in. That act alone would straighten out a lot of the mess. And that alone would get people off their butt and out looking for work.

Kentucky couldn't do squat without federal money.
[Image: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/...-final.png]



http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...tion-drive

Look it over for yourself. Of course, you knew how to find the same info.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

[TheRealThing]

Kentucky couldn't do squat without federal money. [Image: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/...-final.png]



http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...tion-drive

Look it over for yourself. Of course, you knew how to find the same info.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

Yeah, but I wanted you to do your own work. I don't agree with you at all. All of that money comes with strings attached. And, you can act like you didn't see it all you want but, what Hoot says is totally the truth. At least .43 cents of every dollar the US spends is borrowed money. So, according to your logic. The federal government gives Kentucky money that we have to pay 50% interest on, and tells us how we can spend it and that's a good thing?

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, but I wanted you to do your own work. I don't agree with you at all. All of that money comes with strings attached. And, you can act like you didn't see it all you want but, what Hoot says is totally the truth. At least .43 cents of every dollar the US spends is borrowed money. So, according to your logic. The federal government gives Kentucky money that we have to pay 50% interest on, and tells us how we can spend it and that's a good thing?

No you didn't, or you would know KY couldn't survive by itself.

[Hoot Gibson]

Kentucky couldn't do squat without federal money.
[Image: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/...-final.png]



http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...tion-drive

Look it over for yourself. Of course, you knew how to find the same info.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

The map is a classic example of lying with statistics. Numbers were cherry picked to make certain states with Republican senators appear to be getting for than "their fair share" of benefits, while understating the amount that other states. There is no way that Washington, D.C. residents receive federal benefits of only 30 cents on the dollar. DC is very dependent on the federal government to cover basic services to its residents.

Excluding federal salaries as "benefits" masks the large extent to which states like Virginia, Maryland, and California, as well as DC itself are dependent on federal dollars. The fact is, elderly flee southward to states like Tennessee, Florida, etc. to escape the high taxes of liberal northern states. Their federal benefits follow them.

Including Social Security and Medicare payments in compiling the map, while excluding the salaries of federal employees and contractors presents a very misleading picture of federal dependency.

Most of the wealthiest counties in the country are located within 50 miles of my home. They are among the wealthiest counties because of direct and indirect federal spending.

Yet, Virginia, Maryland, and DC are portrayed as areas where residents pay more federal taxes than they receive in benefits.

Your map is a joke.

[Hoot Gibson]

No you didn't, or you would know KY couldn't survive by itself.

States do not survive because of the federal spending. They survive in spite of excessive federal spending.

[TheRealVille]

The map is a classic example of lying with statistics. Numbers were cherry picked to make certain states with Republican senators appear to be getting for than "their fair share" of benefits, while understating the amount that other states. There is no way that Washington, D.C. residents receive federal benefits of only 30 cents on the dollar. DC is very dependent on the federal government to cover basic services to its residents.

Excluding federal salaries as "benefits" masks the large extent to which states like Virginia, Maryland, and California, as well as DC itself are dependent on federal dollars. The fact is, elderly flee southward to states like Tennessee, Florida, etc. to escape the high taxes of liberal northern states. Their federal benefits follow them.

Including Social Security and Medicare payments in compiling the map, while excluding the salaries of federal employees and contractors presents a very misleading picture of federal dependency.

Most of the wealthiest counties in the country are located within 50 miles of my home. They are among the wealthiest counties because of direct and indirect federal spending.

Yet, Virginia, Maryland, and DC are portrayed as areas where residents pay more federal taxes than they receive in benefits.

Your map is a joke.

Proof?

[Hoot Gibson]

Proof?

I don't need to prove anything. Look at the list of benefits that were included in compiling the map. The salaries and benefits of federal employees and contractors, among many other federal expenditures such as buildings and infrastructure were not included in the statistics. That necessarily skews the numbers by selectively excluding some federal spending, while including other federal spending. As for the relative wealth of the counties in the DC metro areas of Maryland and Virginia, I think that I have posted it before. If not, then it is easy to find it by Googling "wealthiest counties in the U.S." Maryland and Virginia are both heavily dependent on federal spending. It is why the unemployment rate here is among the lowest in the country, while the average salaries are among the highest in the country.

Do you believe that the District of Columbia only receives $0.30 of every dollar in taxes that its residents pay? For that to be true, DC would have to be an extremely well managed city with a very low unemployment rate and an extremely high average per capita income. If you know anything about DC, then you know that the 30 cent number is bogus.

[TheRealVille]

I don't need to prove anything. Look at the list of benefits that were included in compiling the map.The salaries and benefits of federal employees and contractors, among many other federal expenditures such as buildings and infrastructure were not included in the statistics. That necessarily skews the numbers by selectively excluding some federal spending, while including other federal spending. As for the relative wealth of the counties in the DC metro areas of Maryland and Virginia, I think that I have posted it before. If not, then it is easy to find it by Googling "wealthiest counties in the U.S." Maryland and Virginia are both heavily dependent on federal spending. It is why the unemployment rate here is among the lowest in the country, while the average salaries are among the highest in the country.

Do you believe that the District of Columbia only receives $0.30 of every dollar in taxes that its residents pay? For that to be true, DC would have to be an extremely well managed city with a very low unemployment rate and an extremely high average per capita income. If you know anything about DC, then you know that the 30 cent number is bogus.

Benefits and salaries are not the same, and you know this.

[Hoot Gibson]

Benefits and salaries are not the same, and you know this.

The goal of the map is to make it look like states that elect Republicans benefit more from federal spending than those who do not - and that is why federal expenditures on employees, contractors, infrastructure, etc. were not included in the analysis. All one has to do to see how states like Virginia and Maryland benefit disproportionately from federal spending is to drive 50 miles in any direction from I-495 (a/k/a "The Beltway"). This will be the land of plenty as long as Americans continue to pay their taxes and the Chinese do not pull the plug on the economy.

Use your head, RV. Surely you cannot believe that DC is less dependent on federal expenditures than Kentucky and all of the other states. Anybody who has visited DC should be able to figure that out.

[vector]

this is from a source that they will believe

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/20...ral-money/

[Hoot Gibson]

this is from a source that they will believe

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/20...ral-money/

I know that it is not your intent, but you are one funny guy. The article that you posted supports my position. I doubt that you would understand, but maybe RV will want to read it and then explain it to you. (Hint: look at the difference in federal spending in Virginia when other federal spending is included, compared to the number shown on the RV's map.)

Thanks for your input, vector. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

No you didn't, or you would know KY couldn't survive by itself.

Like I said, Kentucky would do just fine without federal money and that's exactly what I meant. If you don't want to admit that Kentucky is told by the feds how to spend it, that's your problem.