jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
Re: Taxes
PNH read this slowly. Your habit of reading and typing don't go hand in hand. Federal money is NOT CUT at the rate it is collected. THE RATE AT WHICH STATED RECEIVE IT GETS CUT. IE right now we're pissing MONEY AWAY in Iraq, 1 trillion to be frank. Therefore, states are GETTING LESS FEDERAL DOLLARS, even though they put in to the pot. Basically, money is going out the door into a general fund, and what they receive back is limited. Therefore, if X programs are funded by these dollars, they are forced to make cutbacks. Essentially, the issue NY is now facing. Understand? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100  :PNH read this slowly. Your habit of reading and typing don't go hand in hand. You ever wonder why so many of your posts end up in the holding queue?
said by jc100 :THE RATE AT WHICH STATED RECEIVE IT GETS CUT. Completely wrong. The federal government literally has more money than God, and continues to receive more money each year than it had in the last year. Spending also always increases every year whether the feds have the money or not. And the federal government always finds new ways to spend money. Each state's slice of the federal pie also always increases every year.
This has been true for the past 230 years.
The same is true of most states and local governments. However, they seem more willing to reflexively raise taxes on everyone when they decide to spend more than what they happen to take in during a particular year.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| PNH,
Sigh. You're wrong but hey let's for the sake of it just pretend you're right. You rarely if ever are, but since this will turn into another round robin, I concede. States haven't had funds cut as the Federal Government re-allocates their money. The Federal Government hasn't squandered money in record numbers either overseas. States haven't had to cut programs due to smaller budgets. It's all made up and a figment of our imaginations. Obviously, inflation and rising prices don't factor into the process either. Ten dollars now isn't the same as twenty years ago. But hey, I'm 100 percent wrong. Make you happy? Probably, since the truth and facts aren't in your vocabulary. Therefore, I'll just write what you want to hear. You wouldn't care to google anyway or read what I researched so I won't bother replying again. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100 :States haven't had to cut programs due to smaller budgets. It's all made up and a figment of our imaginations. Well let's look at Maryland as an example. When the new governor took office in 2007, the state was actually running a $500 million budget surplus. What does our governor decide to do? He submits a budget that contains nearly $2 billion in new spending and the legislature raises taxes bu $1.3 billion.
Was the new spending really needed? Maryland seemed to be getting along just fine without it. If times are so "tough" then why wasn't a more austere budget proposed instead? Perhaps Maryland could have cut its budget, as you claim many other states have had to do, to deal with the alleged "shortfall."
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Smiles and Nods over and over in a patronizing manner.... and of course one isolated state and their mismanagement speaks for the other 49, right? If you bothered to read my post, I believe the federal government should only tax 1-2 percent with it ONLY being allowed on defense, trade, and printing money. The rest of the money SHOULD stay within the state and if they mismanage it, tough luck. No one should bail them out. It's their citizens job to elect responsible people and hold bad officials accountable. I don't justify Maryland's bad actions but on the same breath, its only ONE state out of 49. With that said, look at my chart of WHO RECEIVES the MOST federal dollars. RED STATES (Republican) who claim to be the fiscally conservative, with the south being the MAJORITY. Thereby, they pay the least but receive the most!! My point stands, look at places like California and New York and compare their spending to dollars received. It's no wonder they have cutbacks. They get less than a dollar for every one they stick into the pot. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100 :Smiles and Nods over and over in a patronizing manner.... and of course one isolated state and their mismanagement speaks for the other 49, right? Actually, yes. You can go find for yourself that state spending has increased at a rate opposite freefall in the past 15 years.
said by jc100 : If you bothered to read my post ... I did, it was incorrect.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
March 25th, @06:15AM
| Whether or not state spending has increased is a different matter. The question you FIRST POSED and now are backtracking on is whether or not states are in financial debt. You offered me ONE ISOLATED example. I then proceeded to explain how your stance is wrong. Now as for increased state spending, um YA, it will be more every year. It's called INFLATION. Prices rise and things go up in price. The same services that once cost x amount now cost Y. So 10 dollars five years ago might take 15 dollars now. It doesn't mean the states are being irresonsible, it just means they have two choices. 1) Make cut backs to afford the same service 2) raise taxes. It's called common sense. |
|
