Should the Federal government come to the rescue of a distressed State?

[JSt0rm]

Why do these red states drag us down constantly.

 

[soundforbjt]

Why do these red states drag us down constantly.

Because they're the biggest welfare queens in the country, after the banks and large corps.

 

[Jhhnn]

The federal gov helping states out of self-inflicted budget problems? In general, no.

It's no accident that low tax states are, in general, large recipients of federal funds on a per capita basis, and have been for a very long time. It's not that we're helping them out of a jam, but rather that we've prevented them from sinking into the out-of-their-anti-tax minds ooze for some while...

 

[Zorkorist]

It's also no accident that Government Aid is 97% Government, and 3% Aid.

EDIT: Or, I'm this big clown, with a funny face... and all you are is a poodle with a funny hair cut. Let's entertain ourselves, and redistribute wealth, jail millions, spend as though we sleep in champaign beds, and drive people broke. You gonna pick up and make the Mississippi flood look good?

-John

 

[wuliheron]

Why do these red states drag us down constantly.

You should start a new thread on the topic.

 

[piasabird]

If the Federal Government has to come to the rescue of the state, then Martial Law can be used and the Federal government can replace all State Elected officials and replace them. If a State can not run itself then why bail out the same useless rejects that are running it into the ground. You cant fix stupid.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Nope; only distressed corporations. They have to worry about money. Not people's lives!

 

[spidey07]

If the Federal Government has to come to the rescue of the state, then Martial Law can be used and the Federal government can replace all State Elected officials and replace them. If a State can not run itself then why bail out the same useless rejects that are running it into the ground. You cant fix stupid.

The states and it's citizens paid for those emergency agencies and are entitled to aid if required and they declare it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Well, you won't gain any traction with Righties by asking the question, because Red Staters happily accept whatever assistance they can get while biting the hand providing it. Holding contradictory beliefs is largely what makes 'em who they are.

Having said that, I think that the general welfare clause covers the situation and a lot of others. Righties accept only the parts of the proposition that suit their own purposes, unfortunately.

Yes and lefties are all saints themselves. Riiight. So you expect American citizens that pay federal taxes to not get federal assistance?
Since your type look at things in only two terms, Right/Left, Black/White, Straight/Gay I'll put it a way that you'll understand.
There are Gay Black Leftests hurt by the damage being done across the country. Or do you only care about a State as a whole and not the actual people in it?

That's wht makes people like you who you are. You don't think.

 

[Fern]

Should the Federal government come to the rescue of a distressed State?

I wonder if this whole question is misleading.

Is the federal government coming to the aid of the state, or is it really coming to the aid of US citizens who just happen to live in the state?

I.e., who exactly is getting the money? If it is paid to the state, are they just serving as the conduit for distributing benefits to people?

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes and lefties are all saints themselves. Riiight. So you expect American citizens that pay federal taxes to not get federal assistance?
Since your type look at things in only two terms, Right/Left, Black/White, Straight/Gay I'll put it a way that you'll understand.
There are Gay Black Leftests hurt by the damage being done across the country. Or do you only care about a State as a whole and not the actual people in it?

That's wht makes people like you who you are. You don't think.

Oh, please. I haven't objected to helping states in emergency situations, and I'm not really in favor of rescinding Red State subsidies, either. What I am in favor of is Red State residents getting down off their high horse about "Values", "Soshulism", "Hard Work", "Free markets" and the rest of the conservative drivel they spout even as they're essentially extorting welfare from the people they despise.

Don't talk the talk when you don't walk the walk.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Why do these red states drag us down constantly.

Because social welfare programs are "encouraged" at the federal level, you know, to spread the wealth around.

Remove federal mandates and funding for medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, education, etc. and watch that wealth redistribution go away. You can still pass these programs at the state level and keep the wealth from flowing outside your home state.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yes. The federal government won that right after the cival war . They removed state rights and therefor are responsiable for all failures.

 

[dmcowen674]

Should the Federal government come to the rescue of a distressed State?

No

Clearly there are too many states.

Under such budget extremes it is time to consolidate states.

Distressed states like Ohio, Michigan and Illinois rolled into one new state.

California given back to Mexico, etc

Roll back to like 45 states and re-check budget after that.

 

[tweaker2]

Repub mantra of gutting essential government services running head-on into the real world need for them makes for a lot of comical moments, especially when the repubs try to justify how we don't need the very services they themselves demand when they find a need for it.

Would be pretty interesting to find out just how many repubs who, on the one hand scream for small government yet on the other are on welfare, or drawing unemployment benefits, or are on medicare/medicaid, or relying on Social Security as their primary source of income or rely on some other federal assistance program. I wonder......

It's just so funny how they humiliate themselves like that.

 

[boomerang]

Oh, please. I haven't objected to helping states in emergency situations, and I'm not really in favor of rescinding Red State subsidies, either. What I am in favor of is Red State residents getting down off their high horse about "Values", "Soshulism", "Hard Work", "Free markets" and the rest of the conservative drivel they spout even as they're essentially extorting welfare from the people they despise.

Don't talk the talk when you don't walk the walk.

So as a typical progressive, you feel it important to control what others say, think and feel. Got it. Not surprising at all.

 

[Double Trouble]

I wonder if this whole question is misleading.

Is the federal government coming to the aid of the state, or is it really coming to the aid of US citizens who just happen to live in the state?

I.e., who exactly is getting the money? If it is paid to the state, are they just serving as the conduit for distributing benefits to people?

FFS, it's not a Red state/Blue state issue. Our people are pretty much split 50/50 Dem/Repub. It's just in some states the percentage is fractionally higher one way or the other.

Fern

Tanks for hitting the nail on the head... twice. This idiotic red state blue state stuff is just that: idiotic. Even the most overwhelmingly red or blue states are generally split 55-45 in terms of voting. Regardless, it doesn't matter what political party wins an election in a state, the answer to OP's question has nothing to do with political leanings.

Bottom line, the federal government should come to the aid of citizens in a natural disaster situation where the magnitude is more than the state can handle. That's why we are part of united states. That's also at the specific request of the state, so the federal government is not overstepping it's bounds.

Budget matters are an entire different animal. If people / states put themselves into difficult financial positions, then it's up to them to resolve the problem, not the federal government. Each state has the means to fix it's own financial issues, they just need to make tough choices.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, please. I haven't objected to helping states in emergency situations, and I'm not really in favor of rescinding Red State subsidies, either. What I am in favor of is Red State residents getting down off their high horse about "Values", "Soshulism", "Hard Work", "Free markets" and the rest of the conservative drivel they spout even as they're essentially extorting welfare from the people they despise.

Don't talk the talk when you don't walk the walk.

So what you are really saying is that Blue states pay more taxes and red states benefit from those blue state taxes. The red states are really trying to lower the taxes of those in the blue states and as a result the red states will get less of your money.

And you dislike them why?

 

[Mursilis]

Why do these red states drag us down constantly.

I thought you lefties liked breeding dependence? If you don't want the red states to be a drag on the union, why do you keep encouraging it?

 

[piasabird]

First California allows all the illegals accross the border, and hires them all to do the dirty work, thus benefiting from the labor, then California legalizes marijuana and has medical marijuana,then California wants the Federal government to bail them out while they pay welfare to half of Mexico.

Just say no to Liberal State Welfare.

 

[Mursilis]

Oh, please. I haven't objected to helping states in emergency situations, and I'm not really in favor of rescinding Red State subsidies, either. What I am in favor of is Red State residents getting down off their high horse about "Values", "Soshulism", "Hard Work", "Free markets" and the rest of the conservative drivel they spout even as they're essentially extorting welfare from the people they despise.

Don't talk the talk when you don't walk the walk.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice, and cut off the red states. Time for some tough love instead of bitching about being a classic enabler.

 

[piasabird]

Tough Love.

Giving money to a liberal state is just enabling them to maintain their oversized government.

It is like feeding a terrorist' family while he is blowing up your children!

"Ask not what you can get from your country; Ask what you can do for your country!"

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed people.

 

[Acanthus]

As always, it would depend on the circumstances. In the case of a state with a massive natural disaster in a state of emergency, absolutely.

 

[Jhhnn]

So as a typical progressive, you feel it important to control what others say, think and feel. Got it. Not surprising at all.

Not at all. People being lied to and then lying to themselves is, however, the essence of red state politics and the basis for the conservative repub pitch everywhere.

States, regions and individuals whose general welfare depends heavily on redistribution of income often follow leaders whose basic goals are to deny them the benefit of that and find ways to blame somebody, anybody other than themselves for their declining fortunes. When that happens, they fall back even harder on their well indoctrinated core beliefs, which are the basis of the problem in the first place. Wash, rinse, repeat until we arrive at pride in ignorance and the delusional incoherent rage of the Tea Party.

 

[fskimospy]

Tough Love.

Giving money to a liberal state is just enabling them to maintain their oversized government.

It is like feeding a terrorist' family while he is blowing up your children!

"Ask not what you can get from your country; Ask what you can do for your country!"

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed people.

And yet with that 'oversized' government, liberal states still make so much more money than conservative states that they end up subsidizing them. Maybe those conservative states should sit down and take a couple pointers, huh?