The Nation's Financial Condition

[Typical Lax Dad]

Afan's day of reckoning is drawing closer. Olbermann of course is just joking, but a lot of monied folks aren't.

Interesting that you brought this up as the first thing that came to my mind when Biden won was for him to mandate that states get to keep more of their tax revenues. Especially fitting with “taker” states love of states rights and hate of socialism. Time for them to grab their boots by the straps and learn to fend for themselves.

I agree.

[jhu72]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

[a fan]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

Keep telling the R's, they've been playing with fire. What happens if the libs call their bluff, and the States that actually pump out GDP decided to go it alone, and cut Federal taxes in half?

Because I'm telling you, FoxNation is CONVINCED the Federal government is "in the way". They're dumb enough sign up for this.

The only thing between the end of rural America, are Congressional Republicans who know doggone well that without the trillions that the Fed has been borrowing and spreading around to poorer States.....that their base is finished. It's why the Federal government gets waaaay bigger every single time you give them the chance.

As I asked over a decade ago: picture California or New York or Texas as independent countries. How would they fare? They'd do great. Clearly.

Now picture the same for States like Arkansas. Or Mississippi. Or Alaska. Good luck with that.

[jhu72]

Yup.

[Andersen]

I'm curious in the particulars in how limiting the flow of money from Blue States to Red States could come about. Would it be changes to Federal Tax Laws?, Executive Orders? Something else?

[Bart]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

I read the Brookings paper. It was interesting. What nothing said was what is that 30% of the economy that was not blue? Serious question: Is it a majority of farming enterprises that the metropolitan areas would struggle with out?

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

[MDlaxfan76]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

I read the Brookings paper. It was interesting. What nothing said was what is that 30% of the economy that was not blue? Serious question: Is it a majority of farming enterprises that the metropolitan areas would struggle with out?

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Great question.
However, are you assuming that states which no longer could run surpluses despite low tax rates would have to raise taxes, and thus the businesses in those areas would go bust and disappear? Or that they would no longer sell food to the blue states?

I don't think that would generally be the case, though we could see higher prices on products from those red states if they were taxed more locally and if federal subsidies for those products were removed (corn).

We might also see more local production of food, at higher cost, but perhaps at better nutritional value (ala Europe).

If those states did not raise taxes and the federal government did not disproportionally support those states' budgets, you'd see further diminution of services in those regions, education, rural hospitals, roads, etc. The working class in those regions would indeed suffer.

But they'd keep producing food to sell...

[Bart]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

I read the Brookings paper. It was interesting. What nothing said was what is that 30% of the economy that was not blue? Serious question: Is it a majority of farming enterprises that the metropolitan areas would struggle with out?

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Great question.
However, are you assuming that states which no longer could run surpluses despite low tax rates would have to raise taxes, and thus the businesses in those areas would go bust and disappear? Or that they would no longer sell food to the blue states?

I don't think that would generally be the case, though we could see higher prices on products from those red states if they were taxed more locally and if federal subsidies for those products were removed (corn).

We might also see more local production of food, at higher cost, but perhaps at better nutritional value (ala Europe).

If those states did not raise taxes and the federal government did not disproportionally support those states' budgets, you'd see further diminution of services in those regions, education, rural hospitals, roads, etc. The working class in those regions would indeed suffer.

But they'd keep producing food to sell...

Not assuming anything. Trying to understand since this is well out of my knowledge base.

Perhaps it is a simple premise but I don’t see all “GDP” as the same? I can live w/o a new TV but not food. That goes the same with parts of the service sector.

I understand your post though. Thanks.

[MDlaxfan76]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

I read the Brookings paper. It was interesting. What nothing said was what is that 30% of the economy that was not blue? Serious question: Is it a majority of farming enterprises that the metropolitan areas would struggle with out?

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Great question.
However, are you assuming that states which no longer could run surpluses despite low tax rates would have to raise taxes, and thus the businesses in those areas would go bust and disappear? Or that they would no longer sell food to the blue states?

I don't think that would generally be the case, though we could see higher prices on products from those red states if they were taxed more locally and if federal subsidies for those products were removed (corn).

We might also see more local production of food, at higher cost, but perhaps at better nutritional value (ala Europe).

If those states did not raise taxes and the federal government did not disproportionally support those states' budgets, you'd see further diminution of services in those regions, education, rural hospitals, roads, etc. The working class in those regions would indeed suffer.

But they'd keep producing food to sell...

Not assuming anything. Trying to understand since this is well out of my knowledge base.

Perhaps it is a simple premise but I don’t see all “GDP” as the same? I can live w/o a new TV but not food. That goes the same with parts of the service sector.

I understand your post though. Thanks.

sorry, I didn't mean 'assume' with a negative tone.
More like 'premise' as you say.

And I agree, some products and services are more 'essential' than others. Maslow.

The economics of food, and public policy impacting such, are something I happen to have more exposure to than the average bear, though there are certainly specialists who know more. But I need to pay attention to this stuff due to my company's work in the arena.

We have some serious problems with our food policies today that have huge unintended negative consequences.

Big part of that is driven by how we are structured in our federal gov't to distribute resources disproportionally to states with lower populations, especially to benefit the most wealthy players in those states given their influence on those states' political representatives.

[jhu72]

It is the tax code. Federal taxes are reduced to only cover (grossly) the national defense. We will look more like Switzerland. State taxes go up to cover the other expenditures now covered by the feds. The biggest bite going to the tax man goes to the state government. We stop sharing anything at the Federal level outside (grossly) national defense. States are responsible for everything else. You want education in your state, you pay for it. You want research universities in your state, you pay for it. You want agricultural subsidies for corn, you pay for it. You want a wilderness area to draw out of state visitors, you pay for it. You want a river dredged, you pay for it. You want agricultural insurance, you pay for it. NOTHING IS SHARED! NOTHING IS SUBIDISED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. A hurricane blows through your state, no federal assistance. The state pays for it. It is pure capitalism 24/7. No more subsidizing internet access. No more subsidizing infrastructure. Nothing is shared at the federal level but the military. You want it, you pay for it. You can't afford it, you don't get it.

The red states will love this. They don't want to pay taxes - they don't have to! Inside of 20 years they will all look like an unkempt trailer park.

They want to produce food, great. They don't want to produce food, great. There are people all over the world willing to supply what the red states supply,

[CU88]

What about my access to National Parks, Forests and others BLM properties? Timber, Oil, Natural Gas production under whose control?
Who aids the Native American Reservation lands?
Air rights for "Domestic/International" flights? Access to USA Highway System?
Food production is not an issue as we can import same quality for same market price and follow the lead of the Netherlands for more than what we could consume.
LOL, you know once the EPA is gone the Red States will rape their land and wash it all down the Mississippi. I can see heavy manufacturing relocating there and polluting the water & air. How will downwind states fight resulting bad air?

[jhu72]

What about my access to National Parks, Forests and others BLM properties? Timber, Oil, Natural Gas production under whose control?
Who aids the Native American Reservation lands?
Air rights for "Domestic/International" flights? Access to USA Highway System?
Food production is not an issue as we can import same quality for same market price and follow the lead of the Netherlands for more than what we could consume.
LOL, you know once the EPA is gone the Red States will rape their land and wash it all down the Mississippi. I can see heavy manufacturing relocating there and polluting the water & air. How will downwind states fight resulting bad air?

All the National Parks will be turned into Baby Jesus Worlds, until they wash down the Mississippi. The Natives can fend for themselves, they have access to guns and ammunition. Maybe the Dakota's revert to their original owners.

All joking aside, still a Department of the Interior, still Interstate Commerce Laws. Not talking about breaking up the Union, just restructuring US taxes and the way we spend dollars. Closing military bases, opening new ones to more fairly distribute the federal dollars associated with the military. The people paying for them, having more say in how the dollars are spent, where they are spent.

These states will have to decide. Do they want recreational visitors and dollars or do they want coal (that they will be able to sell less and less of, until none)? Let the states deal with their own nuts. If not they will suffer. More responsibility and no one to blame if (when) they fu*k it up.

[a fan]

I'm curious in the particulars in how limiting the flow of money from Blue States to Red States could come about. Would it be changes to Federal Tax Laws?, Executive Orders? Something else?

Budget cuts. It's why we never get them.

The big one is Medicare. It's the largest part of our budget now...and it's shipped to all 50 States. Folks get $3 out for every $1 they put in. Picture what would happen to, say, Florida, if you matched spending to bennies----and cut bennies by 2/3rds

Florida get $47 Billion per year (2014 data) from Medicare. So what would happen to Florida if you matched spending to bennies? That's $31 Billion yanked out of the Florida economy each and every year. Gee, do ya think that would have an effect on the economy in Florida? Well, by comparison, Florida's total State budget is about $90 Billion. So $31 Billion ain't chump change. And that's just Medicare, folks.



Then there's a ton of line item BS earmarks. Everyone recalls McConnell's recent brag during his campaign that he brought $1 Billion to Kentucky with the last big spending bill. Anyone know what the $1 Billion was for? Nope, right?

Slush fund for a myriad of things. But guess what? Every penny of that Billion McConnell bragged about was borrowed, and it keeps the lights on in Kentucky.

It's why I keep saying that if we did as the Tea Party pretended to want, and got a Federal balanced budget Amendment? Lights out in flyover America.

Rural hospitals are already teetering on the brink. If they shut down all that borrowed Federal money? That's it, mate. We'll have hospitals in large cities, and that's it.

So when you hear guys like Grover Norquist talk, no one bothers to ask him what the consequences of his tax cuts are. He doesn't care that payments on interest will exceed our military budget next year. And he doesn't understand or care that rural America is 100% dependent on that Federal spending.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm curious in the particulars in how limiting the flow of money from Blue States to Red States could come about. Would it be changes to Federal Tax Laws?, Executive Orders? Something else?

Budget cuts. It's why we never get them.

The big one is Medicare. It's the largest part of our budget now...and it's shipped to all 50 States. Folks get $3 out for every $1 they put in. Picture what would happen to, say, Florida, if you matched spending to bennies----and cut bennies by 2/3rds

Florida get $47 Billion per year (2014 data) from Medicare. So what would happen to Florida if you matched spending to bennies? That's $31 Billion yanked out of the Florida economy each and every year. Gee, do ya think that would have an effect on the economy in Florida? Well, by comparison, Florida's total State budget is about $90 Billion. So $31 Billion ain't chump change. And that's just Medicare, folks.



Then there's a ton of line item BS earmarks. Everyone recalls McConnell's recent brag during his campaign that he brought $1 Billion to Kentucky with the last big spending bill. Anyone know what the $1 Billion was for? Nope, right?

Slush fund for a myriad of things. But guess what? Every penny of that Billion McConnell bragged about was borrowed, and it keeps the lights on in Kentucky.

It's why I keep saying that if we did as the Tea Party pretended to want, and got a Federal balanced budget Amendment? Lights out in flyover America.

Rural hospitals are already teetering on the brink. If they shut down all that borrowed Federal money? That's it, mate. We'll have hospitals in large cities, and that's it.

So when you hear guys like Grover Norquist talk, no one bothers to ask him what the consequences of his tax cuts are. He doesn't care that payments on interest will exceed our military budget next year. And he doesn't understand or care that rural America is 100% dependent on that Federal spending.

No...its the guys in Brooklyn, Chicago, Philly and Baltimore that are sucking up all the cash.

[a fan]

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Sure. Do you HAVE to get your food from America? Well----there you go.

Did you know, for example, that more than half of the fruit we consume in America is imported? More than half.

Remember----this is the free market that the Republicans have been touting. They don't want to protect America's food supply. They want free, open borders that allow what they think is a free market to operate. And the Dems followed suit starting in the Clinton era, with the passing of NAFTA.

Veggies, by the way, are now at 30% imported. And imports as a percentage of total US consumption for both fruits and vegetables have been climbing for decades.

[a fan]

No...its the guys in Brooklyn, Chicago, Philly and Baltimore that are sucking up all the cash.

Old Salt just gave me grief for being a broken record on this subject. While he's not wrong (sorry), I'm sick of this myth, because it's driving stupid, stupid decisions when it comes to policy makers.

I promise you that folks in rural America thinks that their money flows to cities to help lazy liberal deadbeats. That's what they think.

Of course, if this were true, there wouldn't be any need to pool our resources in the form of Counties, States, and Federal entities. Each City would be self sustaining, and wouldn't have any need for County or State funding for basic services.

Someone needs to stop with this disinformation, because it's killing our country.

Another myth is trickle down. The forum's right wing keeps telling us that TrumpNation hates the coastal elites.

Then someone please tell me why they keep cheering for tax breaks that sends more and more money to these coastal elites? If you're going to hate them, great. Use that hate to pass tax reform that helps the average working man, instead of Jeff Bezos.

Wake up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Sure. Do you HAVE to get your food from America? Well----there you go.

Did you know, for example, that more than half of the fruit we consume in America is imported? More than half.

Remember----this is the free market that the Republicans have been touting. They don't want to protect America's food supply. They want free, open borders that allow what they think is a free market to operate. And the Dems followed suit starting in the Clinton era, with the passing of NAFTA.

Veggies, by the way, are now at 30% imported. And imports as a percentage of total US consumption for both fruits and vegetables have been climbing for decades.

Just so that nobody is left with the impression that Clinton “created NAFTA”....

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/naft ... t-14651970

You are right though.....In those days, the Dems had to out Republican the Republicans...see crime bill.

[a fan]

I have no real understanding of economics and what not but it would seem that there is GDP and then a portion of GDP that individuals can not do with out? Food seems like such a portion does it not?

This analysis seems to indicate that we are heading straight toward PanAm. District South Dakota produces beef? District Iowa produces corn?

Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Sure. Do you HAVE to get your food from America? Well----there you go.

Did you know, for example, that more than half of the fruit we consume in America is imported? More than half.

Remember----this is the free market that the Republicans have been touting. They don't want to protect America's food supply. They want free, open borders that allow what they think is a free market to operate. And the Dems followed suit starting in the Clinton era, with the passing of NAFTA.

Veggies, by the way, are now at 30% imported. And imports as a percentage of total US consumption for both fruits and vegetables have been climbing for decades.

Just so that nobody is left with the impression that Clinton “created NAFTA”....

Didn't mean to imply that he created it. But he did sign it, and support it.

[jhu72]

Implement these tax changes, reduce Federal Taxes and not do something about them at the state level (which many of these states can't) and inside two years you would have 25 red states that would be singing the Internationale. They would be red-er than the old Kremlin. Hell, Petey would be singing it!



These people need socialist policies to survive.

[cradleandshoot]

Strangely enough Newsweek does a similar article.

Keep telling the R's, they've been playing with fire. What happens if the libs call their bluff, and the States that actually pump out GDP decided to go it alone, and cut Federal taxes in half?

Because I'm telling you, FoxNation is CONVINCED the Federal government is "in the way". They're dumb enough sign up for this.

The only thing between the end of rural America, are Congressional Republicans who know doggone well that without the trillions that the Fed has been borrowing and spreading around to poorer States.....that their base is finished. It's why the Federal government gets waaaay bigger every single time you give them the chance.

As I asked over a decade ago: picture California or New York or Texas as independent countries. How would they fare? They'd do great. Clearly.

Now picture the same for States like Arkansas. Or Mississippi. Or Alaska. Good luck with that.

Holy chit a Fan, i have spent many ,many ,many hours dreaming of the day that Upstate NY becomes its own state. I would be more than willing to give you NYC in exchange as a consolation prize. Us upstate folks will even pay the moving expense to ship it out to Colorado. How much room you have in your back yard? There is a drawback... King Andy is a part of the deal, he needs to be your problem now.