PDA

View Full Version : Bailing out the states?



KC
12-05-2012, 02:28 PM
As America's debt becomes more and more unsustainable, we cannot forget another real issue that faces our nation. Many states are heavily in debt, and most states cannot default. Should we bail out the states?

I would propose that we refrain from bailing out the states, but the federal government could help out in another significant way-- by effectively ending taxes on state employees. I think that any tax revenue generated from taxing a state employee should be given back to the state where the employee works. This way the federal government can give states a chunk of money they can use for spending cuts, without redistributing wealth between states.

What do you think? What would you suggest?

Cigar
12-05-2012, 02:33 PM
That's why is stupid to dump everything to the States.

Think about it; one disaster can wipe out a States budget for several years.

KC
12-05-2012, 02:36 PM
That's why is stupid to dump everything to the States.

Think about it; one disaster can wipe out a States budget for several years.

So you think the federal government should take on more of the states' responsibilities?

Cigar
12-05-2012, 02:41 PM
So you think the federal government should take on more of the states' responsibilities?

No that's not what I'm saying.

corrocamino
12-05-2012, 02:41 PM
I'll just mention something small-scale. Years ago the small town I lived in got Federal money to build a municipal swimming pool. I don't have anything against swimming pools, or giving kids a place to have fun, get some exercise, and stay (more or less) out of trouble; however, I wondered at the time what sense there was in the principle. If the town couldn't afford a swimming pool on its own (from municipal taxes, donations from wealthy residents, public fund drive), why should it have one at all? It's not as if swimming pools are necessary to a decent quality of life; furthermore, there were plenty of swimming holes in the local streams, and there's always the inflatable backyard splash pool, affordable for almost any family. That kind of redistribution of wealth is not, to my mind, in the same category as a humane safety net for the general populace. Nobody dies, or suffers psychic damage, because he has no swimming pool.

I might mention as well (since it all comes back to mind now) that I lost a lot of faith in "public service" people soon after that: A little girl drowned under the eyes of a "lifeguard" in that very pool. A patrol cop shot and killed his partner when they were trying to subdue an unarmed teen drunk driver. And a school bus driver ran over and killed one of her first-grade charges. All in one year. Man!

KC
12-05-2012, 02:44 PM
No that's not what I'm saying.

Oh, so then are you arguing for the status quo, where the two layers of government co fund different projects?

KC
12-05-2012, 02:46 PM
I'll just mention something small-scale. Years ago the small town I lived in got Federal money to build a municipal swimming pool. I don't have anything against swimming pools, or giving kids a place to have fun, get some exercise, and stay (more or less) out of trouble; however, I wondered at the time what sense there was in the principle. If the town couldn't afford a swimming pool on its own (from municipal taxes, donations from wealthy residents, public fund drive), why should it have one at all? It's not as if swimming pools are necessary to a decent quality of life; furthermore, there were plenty of swimming holes in the local streams, and there's always the inflatable backyard splash pool, affordable for almost any family. That kind of redistribution of wealth is not, to my mind, in the same category as a humane safety net for the general populace. Nobody dies, or suffers psychic damage, because he has no swimming pool.

I might mention as well (since it all comes back to mind now) that I lost a lot of faith in "public service" people soon after that: A little girl drowned under the eyes of a "lifeguard" in that very pool. A patrol cop shot and killed his partner when they were trying to subdue an unarmed teen drunk driver. And a school bus driver ran over and killed one of her first-grade charges. All in one year. Man!

Yeah, I'm not sure what the justification of the federal government picking up the tab for a swimming pool is. In my home town we had a privately owned pool. It had water slides and everything. There was a small charge for admission but that place was packed enough in the summertime to make a profit.

Peter1469
12-05-2012, 02:51 PM
If we bail out states that knowingly spent way more than they had, what is to stop those states from spending more money that they don't have?

No. Don't bail them out. Let them repudiate their debt and then live within their means.

KC
12-05-2012, 02:53 PM
If we bail out states that knowingly spent way more than they had, what is to stop those states from spending more money that they don't have?

No. Don't bail them out.

Agreed. But what do you think of the idea I brought up in the OP, where the Fed sends tax revenues it collected from state employees back to the states where they originated?

Peter1469
12-05-2012, 02:57 PM
That seems to be some sort of stop gap. These states need to learn to live within their means. Their citizens should demand it.

nic34
12-05-2012, 02:57 PM
That's why is stupid to dump everything to the States.

Think about it; one disaster can wipe out a States budget for several years.

The thinking behind FEMA. It's beginnings came about with the Congressional Act of 1803.

KC
12-05-2012, 03:04 PM
That seems to be some sort of stop gap. These states need to learn to live within their means. Their citizens should demand it.

I disagree. The states aren't going to be able to make all their pension promises, so the Fed at the very least should keep whatever money is spent in a state in that state. If the states were smart, they'd take whatever money comes along this way and put towards pensions.

GrassrootsConservative
12-05-2012, 03:14 PM
My (Conservative) state of Nebraska is doing fine. I think we need to let super in-debt states like California reap what they have sown.

KC
12-05-2012, 03:23 PM
My (Conservative) state of Nebraska is doing fine. I think we need to let super in-debt states like California reap what they have sown.

Normally I'd agree with you but if we're ever going to ever solve the federal deficit problems people will be making more, not less demands of state government. Nebraska won't be exempt from this. It's main industry is agriculutre, which currently gets huge (and unsustainable) subsidies from the Fed.

GrassrootsConservative
12-05-2012, 03:36 PM
Normally I'd agree with you but if we're ever going to ever solve the federal deficit problems people will be making more, not less demands of state government. Nebraska won't be exempt from this. It's main industry is agriculutre, which currently gets huge (and unsustainable) subsidies from the Fed.

We wouldn't have to if people weren't paying such high taxes due to the Democrats in DC spending so much money. If people had more money to spend on corn and other products, then we wouldn't need subsidies.

KC
12-05-2012, 03:38 PM
We wouldn't have to if people weren't paying such high taxes due to the Democrats in DC spending so much money. If people had more money to spend on corn and other products, then we wouldn't need subsidies.

Agreed. Let the people excercise control over their wealth. Let them vote with their dollar and decide what products will be successful and which ones won't. Taxation is necessary for some things, but not at these levels.

nic34
12-05-2012, 03:42 PM
Neb. is another red state depending on the blue ones. Taxpayers are subsidizing foods that make us fatter. The benefits flow primarily to large commodity producers of corn and soy, which are as profitable as ever.

It's time to rewrite the farm bill.

GrassrootsConservative
12-05-2012, 03:46 PM
Neb. is another red state depending on the blue ones. Taxpayers are subsidizing foods that make us fatter. The benefits flow primarily to large commodity producers of corn and soy, which are as profitable as ever.

It's time to rewrite the farm bill.

Corn does not make you fatter. Are you serious?
Do not talk about the government subsidizing people who ACTUALLY WORK like farmers and industry jobs when Obama is giving handouts to do-nothing "green" companies like Solyndra.

That is beyond hypocritical. If you don't like bailouts and subsidies, that's fine, but please don't make this a "red" or "blue" issue, because I'll provide you with way more examples of Obama doing this than you can for any Republican president ever. Wanna try me?

corrocamino
12-05-2012, 03:50 PM
Subsidies are welfare, plain and simple. If everyone in America were a millionaire, the demand for corn would not increase.

GrassrootsConservative
12-05-2012, 03:54 PM
Subsidies are welfare, plain and simple. If everyone in America were a millionaire, the demand for corn would not increase.

That's a lie. More people would buy corn if they had money, also (since you're obviously quite a bit to the left) the use of ethanol would increase if more people could afford it.

corrocamino
12-05-2012, 04:08 PM
That's a lie. More people would buy corn if they had money, also (since you're obviously quite a bit to the left) the use of ethanol would increase if more people could afford it.

I have plenty of money to buy all the corn I want, and I get enough of it, in various forms, at a rather modest level. I also try (as far as it's possible) to avoid high-fructose corn syrup. People on welfare eat a lot of Fritos and such, I think -- much more than wealthy people do, in total for sure, and per capita probably. By the way, I don't lie; I might be wrong about something, but I will look beyond you for ultimate authority, thanks.

Peter1469
12-05-2012, 04:30 PM
I disagree. The states aren't going to be able to make all their pension promises, so the Fed at the very least should keep whatever money is spent in a state in that state. If the states were smart, they'd take whatever money comes along this way and put towards pensions.

When a business fails- if it has pension commitments they are taken over by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation. http://www.pbgc.gov/ Talk to the airline pilots about the program.

That is how the feds should handle the states that failed to plan and over spent.

roadmaster
12-05-2012, 04:41 PM
Our state adopted the lottery only to be more in debt. All the time we hear this was going to help the state. I am not stupid, the more they get the more they spend.

KC
12-05-2012, 05:23 PM
Corn does not make you fatter. Are you serious?


Most of corn's uses, if you eat them in excess, do lead to weight problems. Eating foods rich in high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, and cornmeal in excess will certainly lead to weight gain or other health problems.

KC
12-05-2012, 05:25 PM
Neb. is another red state depending on the blue ones. Taxpayers are subsidizing foods that make us fatter. The benefits flow primarily to large commodity producers of corn and soy, which are as profitable as ever.

It's time to rewrite the farm bill.

More like scrap the whole thing. We don't need a farm bill.

Peter1469
12-05-2012, 05:29 PM
Most of corn's uses, if you eat them in excess, do lead to weight problems. Eating foods rich in high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, and cornmeal in excess will certainly lead to weight gain or other health problems.

Correct. Now even people in Iowa probably don't eat enough corn to get fat on that alone; but as Kath says, look at where it is added in almost every processed food..., fat epidemic.

RollingWave
12-05-2012, 09:28 PM
On a theoretic level for a country as big and diverse and developed as the US, I agree that the Fed should just set a very small tax rate primarily for defense spending and leave everything else to the state level, but given that we're already in the current situation, that seems very unlikely to pull off without first crashing and burning the current system.

(note that I do not agree that this would be ideal for all countries, nor do I think it is possible in the US given that this would require the executive AND legisaltive branch to neuter most of their current power)

Mainecoons
12-06-2012, 07:56 AM
More like scrap the whole thing. We don't need a farm bill.

Exactly. For the most part, we no longer need the USDA. The agricultural sector is almost entirely made up of large corporate farms now. They don't need subsidies or useless government "research." We need food inspection, that can be done better by getting rid of most of the useless USDA bureaucrats in D.C. and beefing up inspection forces in the field.

USDA is a classic example of how much government could be cut and actually end up doing what is actually needed, better.

KC
12-06-2012, 08:07 AM
When a business fails- if it has pension commitments they are taken over by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation. http://www.pbgc.gov/ Talk to the airline pilots about the program.

That is how the feds should handle the states that failed to plan and over spent.

Isn't that more or less a bailout?

corrocamino
12-06-2012, 08:11 AM
When I bailed out, my golden parachute didn't open! I think I need a federally funded crisis center. :sad:

nic34
12-06-2012, 08:17 AM
We need food inspection, that can be done better by getting rid of most of the useless USDA bureaucrats in D.C. and beefing up inspection forces in the field.

:laugh:

Mainecoons
12-06-2012, 08:59 AM
And that's NO BULL. :rofl:

corrocamino
12-06-2012, 09:12 AM
We need food inspection, that can be done better by getting rid of most of the useless USDA bureaucrats in D.C. and beefing up inspection forces in the field.

I get the idea that Washington is better with "pork" than "beef".

corrocamino
12-06-2012, 09:35 AM
Among my continual involuntary free associations I notice that "Bailing out the States" can be sung to the tune of "Bringing in the Sheaves". (Whistle while you work! :grin:)

Peter1469
12-06-2012, 04:48 PM
Isn't that more or less a bailout?

Sure, except to the people whose retirements are now in the federal program. You'd be lucky to get 30 cents on the dollar, and it is so far underwater it will likely go bust anyway.

I don't want the federal government bailing out states that caused their own mess by decades of overspending. Aid to states that are only victims of a bad economy is negotiable.