ADVERTISEMENT

Trump is Right about Democratic Desire to bailout poorly run States.

BigDelHawk

HR Legend
Jan 9, 2004
13,074
4,805
113
The Democrats want the rest of the country to bail out NY, CA and Illinois. This is BS. having lived in Illinois, and now in the QC, I have seen time after time where the Democrats rolled over for the Unions. Then they give early retirement buyouts to higher paid employees and do not fund the retirement fund. It is a short term fix and only kicks the can down the road. They have done it again and again.


Illinois now has nearly three people retired for every current employee. CA and NY have done the same ****ing thing. They are poorly run and they want YOU AND ME to bail them out. NOPE, it is their problem!!
 
New York for one, put in way more money than it gets back.

Over the past four years, New York contributed $116.2 billion more to the federal government than it got back in federal spending. The remaining 42 states received more than they contributed, with Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Alabama and Ohio leading.Apr 30, 2020 (Factoid)
 
If you live in Illinois then you should be FED UP that the state gives far more in federal tax dollars than it receives. Those tax dollars go to red states. Where would those states be without the federal spending?

Now, you are right that Illinois is a historic shit show of budget mismanagement (under D’s and R’s alike by the way), but some of that would be solved if the federal government put as much money into the state as they take out.

Republicans whining about this seems awfully rich to me since most of those deep blue states generate far more federal tax than they receive.
 
The Democrats want the rest of the country to bail out NY, CA and Illinois. This is BS. having lived in Illinois, and now in the QC, I have seen time after time where the Democrats rolled over for the Unions. Then they give early retirement buyouts to higher paid employees and do not fund the retirement fund. It is a short term fix and only kicks the can down the road. They have done it again and again.


Illinois now has nearly three people retired for every current employee. CA and NY have done the same ****ing thing. They are poorly run and they want YOU AND ME to bail them out. NOPE, it is their problem!!
Mr. Echo Chamber, you might want to do some of your own research before posting.

 
If you live in Illinois then you should be FED UP that the state gives far more in federal tax dollars than it receives. Those tax dollars go to red states. Where would those states be without the federal spending?

Now, you are right that Illinois is a historic shit show of budget mismanagement (under D’s and R’s alike by the way), but some of that would be solved if the federal government put as much money into the state as they take out.

Republicans whining about this seems awfully rich to me since most of those deep blue states generate far more federal tax than they receive.

Never heard of a progressive tax system huh?,... welcome to the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slim45
The Democrats want the rest of the country to bail out NY, CA and Illinois. This is BS. having lived in Illinois, and now in the QC, I have seen time after time where the Democrats rolled over for the Unions. Then they give early retirement buyouts to higher paid employees and do not fund the retirement fund. It is a short term fix and only kicks the can down the road. They have done it again and again.


Illinois now has nearly three people retired for every current employee. CA and NY have done the same ****ing thing. They are poorly run and they want YOU AND ME to bail them out. NOPE, it is their problem!!

Remember when you insisted that Biden wouldn’t debate Trump, then chickened out when challenged with a bet on it?
 
New York for one, put in way more money than it gets back.

Over the past four years, New York contributed $116.2 billion more to the federal government than it got back in federal spending. The remaining 42 states received more than they contributed, with Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Alabama and Ohio leading.Apr 30, 2020 (Factoid)
Because it is the Financial Center of the USA and arguably the Western World. Mostly done today with super computers.
 
Never heard of a progressive tax system huh?,... welcome to the real world.
Please tell me what progressive taxes have to do with per capita federal spending by state.

In Alabama the Feds spend $11,743 per person. Comparatively Illinois only gets $8,188. Illinois is ranked 48 on a per capita basis. Yes we have rich people leading to larger taxes going out. But even controlling for that we still have significantly less benefit coming in.

You might want to sit this one out
 
Remember when you insisted that Biden wouldn’t debate Trump, then chickened out when challenged with a bet on it?
Remember when Biden started to fade and lose his train of thought after a 90 minute debate last night (clearly visable). Plus, he cannot take stimulants every day, it would kill him. How is he going to hold up to the demands of the White House. Answer...He isn't.
 
Remember when Biden started to fade and lose his train of thought after a 90 minute debate last night (clearly visable). Plus, he cannot take stimulants every day, it would kill him. How is he going to hold up to the demands of the White House. Answer...He isn't.
I suppose he could take adderall like donald. Would that help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
New York for one, put in way more money than it gets back.

Over the past four years, New York contributed $116.2 billion more to the federal government than it got back in federal spending. The remaining 42 states received more than they contributed, with Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Alabama and Ohio leading.Apr 30, 2020 (Factoid)


You don't address the problem at all. They give more money because their population is higher.

Now, back to the original points, the states did not set aside funds for their pensions for public employees, why should we bail them out of that.

Additionally, their pension rules are unrealistic, and need to be addressed.

That problem was created by the states.

Look at Iowa, they are funding properly.
 
Last edited:
A bailout to help states struggling with pension obligations does not solve the fundamental problems that face pensions. There are no easy solutions but a bailout only kicks the can down the road. It will get really bad when the next stock crash occurs as pensions have shifted to investments tied to equities to chase returns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocketclone
Remember when Biden started to fade and lose his train of thought after a 90 minute debate last night (clearly visable). Plus, he cannot take stimulants every day, it would kill him. How is he going to hold up to the demands of the White House. Answer...He isn't.
I never saw him fade. Yes, he mixes up words now and then, but I thought Trump supporters were cool with that. I couldn't begin to count the number of times they have excused and defended the President for statements that don't make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
Illinois is a tough situation, I'll agree generally that there have been some promises made that had no chance of being kept. I'm not sure what the correct solution is that doesn't punish the workers who haven't done anything wrong. My uncle collected on a firefighter's pension and my aunt collects the police pension and the only two real solutions are to cut their benefits or do something to make these funds more solvent.
 
You don't address the problem at all. They give more money because their population is higher.

Now, back to the original points, the states did not set aside funds for their pensions for public employees, why should we bail them out of that.

Additionally, their pension rules are unrealistic, and need to be addressed.

That problem was created by the states.

Look at Iowa, they are funding properly.

Probably. But seeing how we bail out banks every chance they mismanage their way into free tax dollar money then I don't have a problem bailing out regular folks as well. Why should banks get this and nobody else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
You don't address the problem at all. They give more money because their population is higher.

Now, back to the original points, the states did not set aside funds for their pensions for public employees, why should we bail them out of that.

Additionally, their pension rules are unrealistic, and need to be addressed.

That problem was created by the states.

Look at Iowa, they are funding properly.
I believe they are talking per capita contributions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
Probably. But seeing how we bail out banks every chance they mismanage their way into free tax dollar money then I don't have a problem bailing out regular folks as well. Why should banks get this and nobody else?


First off, I am not for bailing out banks and I am also against Freddie and Fannie. I thought they should have just let the players fail in 2008, the small town locally owned banks were fine.

The states can solve the problems, would take some tough decisions, but they could make it work.
 
I'm surprised you guys bother with the OP's routine anymore. Resist the urge to punch down. He lives in a alternative reality, don't visit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
First off, I am not for bailing out banks and I am also against Freddie and Fannie. I thought they should have just let the players fail in 2008, the small town locally owned banks were fine.

The states can solve the problems, would take some tough decisions, but they could make it work.
That would have led to economic ruin for the country. Small banks were not fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammer93
First off, I am not for bailing out banks and I am also against Freddie and Fannie. I thought they should have just let the players fail in 2008, the small town locally owned banks were fine.

The states can solve the problems, would take some tough decisions, but they could make it work.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't support. The fact is that whenever banks need billions (trillions?) in tax payer money they get it with barely any debate and zero qualifications to get that money. Following that precedent, pension funds should get whatever they want with no questions asked. I don't think that's the best policy, but it's the precedent that's been set. If private corporations get bailouts as needed, then people should get bailouts too. Banks have been bailed out two or three times just in my lifetime.
 
That would have led to economic ruin for the country. Small banks were not fine.


Small banks were perfectly fine. The national banks were the ones doing the high risk lending.

All the new rules and regulations are now actually hurting the small banks.
 
It doesn't matter what you do or don't support. The fact is that whenever banks need billions (trillions?) in tax payer money they get it with barely any debate and zero qualifications to get that money. Following that precedent, pension funds should get whatever they want with no questions asked. I don't think that's the best policy, but it's the precedent that's been set. If private corporations get bailouts as needed, then people should get bailouts too. Banks have been bailed out two or three times just in my lifetime.


The big companies shouldn't have received bailouts. I worked for a company that followed the rules and also put money away for pensions.
 
No - you're still not understanding. They're saying the distribution is not equitable.


Oh I understand. The government is giving the poorer less populated states more money. Redistribution is what they call it. Now you claim it isn't fair.
 
Remember when Biden started to fade and lose his train of thought after a 90 minute debate last night (clearly visable). Plus, he cannot take stimulants every day, it would kill him. How is he going to hold up to the demands of the White House. Answer...He isn't.

Sure he will. Why wouldn't he? He will be mostly a figurehead.
 
It seems like we bail out Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas about ever other year. We are the United States. We help each other. And those blue states contribute a hell of a lot more to the federal government than red states if you want to be chippy.
 
Small banks were perfectly fine. The national banks were the ones doing the high risk lending.

All the new rules and regulations are now actually hurting the small banks.
No. The small banks are part of the whole banking system that was failing. Without propping up the large banks the financial system would have crashed and taken small banks with it.
 
Oh I understand. The government is giving the poorer less populated states more money. Redistribution is what they call it. Now you claim it isn't fair.
It's not redistributing personal wealth. It's large states funding small states. Given your posting on similar topics, how do you justify this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
The big companies shouldn't have received bailouts. I worked for a company that followed the rules and also put money away for pensions.

Nope, they shouldn't have. Well, they shouldn't have without qualifications for changing their business practices and increased regulation at any rate.

But they did, so this is where we are.
 
Please tell me what progressive taxes have to do with per capita federal spending by state.

In Alabama the Feds spend $11,743 per person. Comparatively Illinois only gets $8,188. Illinois is ranked 48 on a per capita basis. Yes we have rich people leading to larger taxes going out. But even controlling for that we still have significantly less benefit coming in.

You might want to sit this one out
Looks like some people didn't have time to read this post and respond to it. Poor management aside, I suspect that the fiscal position of state government and pensions in Illinois could be a lot rosier if they had an extra $3K per resident every year. It's pretty clear who is being propped up, and it's not Democrat-run Illinois.
 
Oh I understand. The government is giving the poorer less populated states more money. Redistribution is what they call it. Now you claim it isn't fair.
What's not fair is making the claim that states run by Democrats are pilloried by the right as being poorly run, while the states with GOP leadership are the ones who are actually far more dependent on the largesse of the federal government and the "redistribution" that they like to rail against.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT