Florida rejects Obama's choo-choo train money.

[PeshakJang]

CA is already getting our train.

We can just call it "taking it off your tab" since the red states enjoy sucking up our evil CA socialist tax monies the rest of the time. Don;t worry, it will help our economy, then the red states can have more too. You guys are welcome. ()🙂

I already told you off little child. No more posting in train threads. Shoo.

 

[Steeplerot]

As long as you're paying for it, and not the Fed, then that's super. If the Fed is giving - not loaning - you money, then someone with the Fed should be dropped kicked in the nuts.

Being that CA gives the lions share of the money to the feds other states peanut galleries in here can take a leap off a cliff really with their opinions until they themselves can contribute anywhere near as much. CA may have its problems but it is still the leader of this Union in many aspects. Must burn you guys up knowing what we lose in a simple clerical rounding errors is you guys whole state budgets.
Damn evil socialist liberals having the best economy somehow.

Ever wonder why conservative states are generally backwards shitholes?

Ever thought what you are told on talk radio abut "conservative ideology" day in day out could be complete bullshit?

Nah. You guys are true-believing troopers, reality? Who needs it?

Rush and friends give you that warm safe feeling of being part of the herd standing tall against the evils forces of.....I dunno, prosperous Americans? You guys tell me.

 

[ElFenix]

Of course you could also look at it as CA getting its money back. As one of the wealthiest states, it gets back something like $.80 per dollar it pays to the federal treasury. All that money buys a lot of trains.

a lot of that has to do with companies headquartered, and therefore paying taxes there, on profit that was generated elsewhere.

Originally posted by TheRedUnderURBed
You a drummer in a band? Too bad, you HAVE to drive that awful route and go through all the LA nonsense to get anywhere, taking 3x as long as the train would.

what makes you think someone can bring their drum kit on a train?

 

[PeshakJang]

Being that CA gives the lions share of the money to the feds other states peanut galleries in here can take a leap off a cliff really with their opinions until they themselves can contribute anywhere near as much. CA may have its problems but it is still the leader of this Union in many aspects. Must burn you guys up knowing what we lose in a simple clerical rounding errors is you guys whole state budgets.
Damn evil socialist liberals having the best economy somehow. Ever wonder why conservative states are generally shitholes?

Ironic, since it is due to the evil rich people and evil corporations that reside in those states, which pay the lions share of the taxes.

If you really support redistribution of wealth, the blue states should be paying more, and the red states should be getting more.

If not, you are just advocating that the rich get back more of their money, and the poor and middle class should get less.

Careful, I already proved one raging liberal was really a closet conservative with this argument... you're halfway there. ()🙂

 

[chucky2]

Doesn't really bother me a bit. I'm just coming around to your idealology don't you see??? CA makes so much more than the other states, it should be taxed more? In fact, it makes multiple times what other states makes, it should be taxed at like 70%.

You do agree with that, don't you?

Don't tell me you're another liberal who's going conservative...

Please just confirm that CA should be taxed at 70% (heck, I'm being generous, many here have called greater than that from the 'elite'...and surely since CA is the top earner, it's the 'Elistist' of them all, amirite?), thanks!

Oh, the lulz.....

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

Please just confirm that CA should be taxed at 70%

In other words you cannot argue so you make up some silly number to be bombastic. Fail.

 

[Steeplerot]

If you really support redistribution of wealth, the blue states should be paying more, and the red states should be getting more.

It is ironic, as that is exactly how it works out in reality.

 

[Siddhartha]

If the Red States only accepted the federal funds that is collected from them. That would show the Mr Obama and Washington DC where they could stick it! The US could put the savings towards the deficit.

 

[chucky2]

What are you talking about? You Lib's want the 'elite' in the country, that is, the country's top earners, to be taxed at a super high amount - pick a high number, it ranges from 70% all the way up to 90something%.

I'm simply applying your Lib logic to the taxes due from each state. As you so clearly pointed out, CA is by far the Elitist of the states as far as income, so, using your logic, it should obviously be taxed at the super high rates you Lib's want the 'elite' to pay.

The beauty is that we only need to take the wealth from the 'elite' states and give to the 'common' states, and everything will be roses for Everyone.

It's your logic, how could you possibly argue against it?

😀

Chuck

 

[PeshakJang]

It is ironic, as that is exactly how it works out in reality.

So do you want CA to get back more of the tax money it pays in, or less?

Do you think those backwards shit-hole middle-class families should get more, or less?

Do you think those rich, evil corporations and rich, evil people should get back more, or less?

 

[chucky2]

If the Red States only accepted the federal funds that is collected from them. That would show the Mr Obama and Washington DC where they could stick it! The US could put the savings towards the deficit.

I actually think that would be a really great idea, each state live within its own means (means include loans). If a state cannot live within its own income and loan levels, then it's simply living too richly. If people living there don't like it, they can move to a state that does a better job.

I really don't see a problem with this...keeps everyone as honest as possible...

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

what makes you think someone can bring their drum kit on a train?

It's 5$ on amtrak to bring your music equipment per member. (they let bassists/guitarists bring their amps on for the 5$ usually also -and help carry!)

They have separate cars you have to wait at your stop for them to unload for you.

It's free to bring your bike for example as they provide racks in freight cars on your ride.

I dig taking the train really, a lot of the bored Amtrak employees enjoy helping musicians, I have even jammed many times in the bar area with conductors on duty during trips.

 

[chucky2]

We should build multi-Billion trains that lose hundreds of millions of $$$$$$$$$ each year so musicians can travel cheaper.

I can't imagine why this country is so F'd up........

Chuck

 

[Siddhartha]

What are you talking about? You Lib's want the 'elite' in the country, that is, the country's top earners, to be taxed at a super high amount - pick a high number, it ranges from 70% all the way up to 90something%.

I'm simply applying your Lib logic to the taxes due from each state. As you so clearly pointed out, CA is by far the Elitist of the states as far as income, so, using your logic, it should obviously be taxed at the super high rates you Lib's want the 'elite' to pay.

The beauty is that we only need to take the wealth from the 'elite' states and give to the 'common' states, and everything will be roses for Everyone.

It's your logic, how could you possibly argue against it?

😀

Chuck

What?

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't really bother me a bit. I'm just coming around to your idealology don't you see??? CA makes so much more than the other states, it should be taxed more? In fact, it makes multiple times what other states makes, it should be taxed at like 70%.

You do agree with that, don't you?

Don't tell me you're another liberal who's going conservative...

Please just confirm that CA should be taxed at 70% (heck, I'm being generous, many here have called greater than that from the 'elite'...and surely since CA is the top earner, it's the 'Elistist' of them all, amirite?), thanks!

Oh, the lulz.....

Chuck

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I think you sadly missed the point. The entire purpose of that exercise was to turn conservative ideology on its head. If you're conservative, then each state should keep what it generates (for the most part), right? My point was to MOCK that line of thinking, not to advocate it as a course of action.

It's just important to remind conservative people that most conservative leaning states are federal welfare cases.

 

[Steeplerot]

We should build multi-Billion trains that lose hundreds of millions of $$$$$$$$$ each year so musicians can travel cheaper.

Typical anti-small business conservative nonsense.

 

[chucky2]

What what? I'm using Lib logic here, it's clear:

RedChooChoo here is bragging that CA is the top state as far as income, and hence, should be getting Fed funds so they can build a multi-Billion dollar train to transport his musician friends around.

I'm just saying, using his Lib logic, that CA is an 'elite' earner out of all the states, and therefore, again, using his Lib logic, it obviously makes too much! It needs to be taxed at a very high tax rate, to take the burden off the lessor states. I picked 70%, but, as a Lib, I'm sure he'll correct me and make that % higher - no % is too high to tax an 'elite' when you're talking to a Lib.

What's "what?" about that?

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

What what? I'm using Lib logic here, it's clear:

RedChooChoo here is bragging that CA is the top state as far as income, and hence, should be getting Fed funds so they can build a multi-Billion dollar train to transport his musician friends around.

I'm just saying, using his Lib logic, that CA is an 'elite' earner out of all the states, and therefore, again, using his Lib logic, it obviously makes too much! It needs to be taxed at a very high tax rate, to take the burden off the lessor states. I picked 70%, but, as a Lib, I'm sure he'll correct me and make that % higher - no % is too high to tax an 'elite' when you're talking to a Lib.

What's "what?" about that?

Chuck

There is no logic to this, you sound like a lunatic talking nonsense from some half-assed partisan talk radio rant.

 

[chucky2]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I think you sadly missed the point. The entire purpose of that exercise was to turn conservative ideology on its head. If you're conservative, then each state should keep what it generates (for the most part), right? My point was to MOCK that line of thinking, not to advocate it as a course of action.

It's just important to remind conservative people that most conservative leaning states are federal welfare cases.

I actually have no problem with states getting back what they pay + take out as loan. None at all. If that means the side roads turn into giant craters to keep the local bi-ways going, oh well, raise taxes or cheapen labor rates.

No state should be getting more than it pays in taxes + state loans.

That being said, I'm really not sure what the beef is with me using the Lefty Logic here? It is what you want to see happen, is it not?

Why the angst from you about it being applied? It is what you want, is it not?

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

There is no logic to this, you sound like a lunatic talking nonsense from some half-assed partisan talk radio rant.

Er, it's your logic...you are a Lib, are you not? You can't be a Conservative while advocating a train system that loses hundreds of Millions of dollars a year.

What am I missing?:

Tax 'elite' at very high rates: Check.
'Elite' = highest income earners: Check.
CA is 'Elitist of them all: Check.
CA should be taxed at very high rates: Check.

Where did I go wrong in your logic?

Chuck

 

[PeshakJang]

It's just important to remind conservative people that most conservative leaning states are federal welfare cases.

If every person in every state got back an equal share of the total federal tax revenue collected each year, "blue" states would get back less per capita than "red" states, simple because rich, evil, people and corporations tend to reside in those areas, paying disproportionately higher taxes into the system than their population, reducing that state's per capita return.

Simple as that. The very rich people that don't pay their fair share are the ones skewing the numbers.

If you support raising taxes on the rich, you want "blue" states to get less per capita return, and "red" states to get more.

If you want "blue" states to get more per capita return, then you support lowering taxes on the rich, or raising taxes on the middle/lower class.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually have no problem with states getting back what they pay + take out as loan. None at all. If that means the side roads turn into giant craters to keep the local bi-ways going, oh well, raise taxes or cheapen labor rates.

No state should be getting more than it pays in taxes + state loans.

That being said, I'm really not sure what the beef is with me using the Lefty Logic here? It is what you want to see happen, is it not?

Why the angst from you about it being applied? It is what you want, is it not?

Chuck

What your saying doesn't even make logical sense. Tax California at 70% in what way?

 

[PeshakJang]

Er, it's your logic...you are a Lib, are you not? You can't be a Conservative while advocating a train system that loses hundreds of Millions of dollars a year.

What am I missing?:

Tax 'elite' at very high rates: Check.
'Elite' = highest income earners: Check.
CA is 'Elitist of them all: Check.
CA should be taxed at very high rates: Check.

Where did I go wrong in your logic?

Chuck

Don't apply logic to arguing with him... he'll tell you 1+1 = 3 and fight to the death defending that idea.

 

[Steeplerot]

No state should be getting more than it pays in taxes + state loans.

Too bad the reality is red states suck monies from the blue states. Anyhow, if that is a problem try digging up the founding fathers and bitch to them. I am sure there may be some gold in their teeth left you can pry from their skulls to hawk to Glenn Beck for a buck while you are at it.

 

[IBMer]

That's the problem. Some states do have a problem with government debt, and do not want to be responsible for the debt of states that do not have a problem with it.

But like I said, if a state really believes that the economic benefits outweigh the costs of 100% financing with debt, then there should be no issues with that state borrowing the money itself.

Debt isn't attached to discretionary spending just because its discretionary.