Republicians going to lower taxes, Trump appointees going to dismantle some federal agencies? The states can make up the slack

[dismal]

Instead of the "get off my lawn" schtick try keeping up with the topic. This is not about me, but about how leftists in blue states can set about building their own version of paradise. What I think doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Never thought I'd get here, but I now think the states seceding is a viable idea. Let California, Washington and Oregon form its own union. Same for the northeast. Let them fund good education and smart citizens, thrive in the modern tech sectors and out of the coal mines, keep their citizens and resources healthy. Let red states gut their governments.

It would take maybe a decade for the red states to come back begging for a return to the old system.

The blue states shouldnt continue to pay more into the federal system than they get out while being told to take care of themselves at the state level. The blue states are positioned to prosper in the new economy. Let the red states go.

It is, in my view, the best way to avoid the red state garbage ruining it for the rest of us.

Why do they need to secede from the union to, say, fund good education? Education is mostly funded at the state and local level now.

To make the economics fair for those states, who pay more to the current federal system than they get out of it. Instead of seeing that money go to missiissippi and alabama, use it for your own.

You know, real states right stuff.

Huh? If a blue state raises taxes and elects to spend the money on education they keep all that money. Since state taxes are deductible on federal returns they even get some additional federal relief. If you're convinced federal taxes go to red states the last thing you should be doing is trying to solve this at the federal level. Unless you just want President Trump to decide what's best for you.

 

[SimpleDon]

All the people in the blue states who are fearful of what Trump will do domestically, why is that? A large portion of the things that will be done, which you disagree with, can be implemented by the states instead. In other words, we have a federal system. When the federal government takes a step back from something, the individual states are then free to pick and choose if they want to pick up the slack.

I've seen hyperbolic rantings on how the US is going to be turned more into an oligarchy, with the rich getting even richer and the poor masses scrounging around the dumpster for food. Yet such histrionics doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Republicans going to lower individual taxes from 39% to 33% and cut back programs for the poor? Then the states that don't like that can raise taxes and fund these programs. In fact, most of the blue states pay more in federal taxes than they get back (a lot of that money goes to the red states), so, overall, this would be a net benefit to those states.

Don't like the labor laws that will potentially be overturned by the new Sec. of Labor? Pass your own laws, then.

Don't like the education reforms the new Sec of Education will implement? Pass your own laws to strengthen public education and funding.

Now, things like the EPA and environmental protection in general, you have a good point. We need such laws to be implemented nationally if the pollution from one state affects another state, or if it affects the globe as a whole. However, most of the stuff we are talking about doesn't relate to that.

If you are worried about the poorer people in the red states getting harmed, ok, but at least they have the option to move to another state. Not every state and every citizenry is going to have the same preferences for safety net level, level of taxation, and government services. A weaker federal government just simply transfers the decision making on these issues to a more local level.

My biggest worries about the Trump presidency are the erosion of liberal democratic institutions, international relations, and crony capitalism. Not necessarily the bulk of the things I see a lot on the left worry about in regards to taxation and income distribution, because the states will then get that power back to decide how they want to handle.

The US is already an oligarchy.

Yes, the states can pick up the slack if they want to if the federal government allows them to.

It is a federal system and the federal government is superior to the states.

The federal government is the only sovereign government that we have. It is the only government that can run a budget deficit to pull us out of a recession. The states have to maintain a balanced budget which means that they can only make a recession worse. Neoliberals believe that the only reason to run a budget deficit is to decrease taxes on the wealthy and to increase the defense budget.

I realize that you are a proud neoliberal and as such support redistributioning as much of the nation's income and wealth to the already wealthy. To continue to increase the income and the wealth inequality.

But this is what has increased the number of the poor, has stagnated real wages and has lowered aggregate demand, investment, growth and employment in the nation. And has dramatically increased the national debt.

The deregulation and the failure to regulate Wall Street and the rest of the financial sector by the previous neoliberal administration was the cause of the financial crisis of 2008 that nearly destroyed the world's economy. A repeat of this is a cause for concern.

These are facts. As a neoliberal you may not be concerned with facts, in point of fact, you pretty much have to ignore them. But that doesn't mean that they or their consequences go away.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'd also point out with "the move to other states" I'd like to point out that this is my country, I swear no allegiance to my state. I have concerns and compassion for people in my country that do not live in my state.

 

[SimpleDon]

Oh goodness... not the local state control shit again. Because the local states which Republicans swept into power thanks to lies about ACA in 2010 won't do shit either.

It reminds me of the local school funding... yet when a local school opens a prop for a funding levy, an anti-tax group pops up like a weed to fight against it. The right-wing is full of shit when it comes to any regulation being local. They don't want regulations period. They want to return to the days of burning rivers, visible smog and soot in the air, low wages.

The right wing anti-reg folks are outnumbered in the blue states. You just need to simply outvote them.

The race to the bottom will negate any regulation by the states of the financial sector. If New York tries to step in and regulate Wall Street, the banks and their jobs can threaten to move.

There is also the question of efficiency. Under your neoliberal system, we will have fifty different sets of regulations instead of just one.

In the course of history it is the state governments that are the anachronisms, not the federal government. The state governments were needed in the 18th century of slow communications and travel. Now they are standing in the way of progress and efficiency.

Go to your MBA professors and tell them that you want to operate your business in the same way that you are proposing to operate government, by increasing the number of middle managers to further separate the top managers from the operation of the business. I don't care who they are, they will laugh at you.

 

[dismal]

Well, I guess you guys are right. The Democrats in blue states are totally fucked beyond all fucktitude.

They should just give up trying to do things like taxing rich people and spending more money on education because it just can't effin be done.

The feds just won't let states tax rich people or spend money on education.

 

[jonatha]

What tax changes can the federal government make that can't be reversed by an individual state? What redistribution policy not done by the federal government can not be implemented by a state?

Any state that presently receives more in Federal largesse that its citizens and business supply in Federal taxes (i.e., most of the red ones) is going to find it difficult.

South Carolina, for instance, was recently getting $7.87 in Federal funds for every $1 in Federal tax its residents paid. Let's assume the overall Federal tax rate in South Carolina is 17% (probably high, but I'm making a math argument). Basic math would then show there isn't enough money in the state to make up the difference if all the Federal money goes away.

 

[SimpleDon]

The purpose of neoliberalism, the reason that it exists, isn't to move the country to the self-regulating market or to provide the freedom to choose of the population, it is to give the rich and the corporations control of the government. To do exactly what thirty five years of neoliberalism has done so far, to increase the incomes and the wealth of the already rich

The corporations would lose much if the economy was turned over to the free market, if such a thing was even possible, which it isn't. The number one thing that they would lose would be profits.

The only explanation of how the free market would self-regulate is so improbable that it could work except by ditching the advantages of the industrial revolution and going back to an agrarian and artisan economy. And even then it is highly unlikely.

The rich and the corporations were willing to deal with the state governments when they didn't have full control of the federal government. But now that they have, at least for two to four years, control of the federal government you can be sure that they will now exercise that control through the federal government. States' rights will go out of the window. .

The one thing that you can be sure of is that they will go slow on their social agenda and will be happy if the Democrats filibuster it in the Senate. The neoliberals don't especially care about the social agenda, it is only a way to gain the votes needed to take control of the government. If they do pass it they will just have to come up with some new things to gain the votes needed to stay in power. Or to go back to what has worked in the past. For example, flag burning, which Trump floated just some weeks ago.

The problem that they will have is that so many of their House Representatives and Senators believe that their party is serious about the social agenda that the neoliberals will lose control of the situation. The same problem is present for the repeal of the ACA. The health care insurance companies are in a business that they weren't in before in any meaningful way, the individual policy business and are fat with tens of billions of dollars of federal subsidies that they aren't to happy about giving up.

 

[SimpleDon]

Well, I guess you guys are right. The Democrats in blue states are totally fucked beyond all fucktitude.

They should just give up trying to do things like taxing rich people and spending more money on education because it just can't effin be done.

The feds just won't let states tax rich people or spend money on education.

The states don't have an option of a progressive income tax. It is highly unlikely that they could pass one, given the neoliberal domination of the media. So the tax increases would have to be in regressive taxes, which is what has happened over the thirty five years of neoliberal economic policies. Taxes on the rich have gone down while taxes on everyone else have gone up. Reagan raised taxes eleven times in eight years, including the largest tax increase in history to date.

The result has been the large increase in income and wealth inequality, which is pretty much the sole goal of the Republican party and the neoliberals. Unfortunately for all of the rest of the people high income inequality is bad for the economy. It creates lower demand, lower productive investment, lower employment, higher poverty and lower growth.

I understand from previous discussions that your views on economics haven't firmed up. That you know what you don't like but are afraid to present what you do believe. I respectfully suggest that you refrain from commenting on economics until you are willing to defend a position.

Axulus has declared himself to be a proud supporter of neoliberalism and of the intentional redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich that it promotes. I have to respect that even though I think that he is wrong, demonstrably wrong. Loren is worthwhile to talk to because he thinks through the questions and isn't immovable.

My position on economics is the product of years of reading and thinking that lasted much longer than it should of because I resisted every step of it, because it went against everything that I had been taught and everything that I believed. Because of this I have a lot of patience for those like Loren, Auxlus and even lumpenproletarist, who engage me, even if sometimes it doesn't seem that I do.

I am slow to respond, I can't physically type anymore on a keyboard and have to use an adpadtive interface that allows me to enter text using just a mouse, Dasher, here. It is somewhat slower than typing on a keyboard, 10 to 15 wpm, which paradoxically results in me offering much more detailed answers that require even more typing, for some reason. Or possibly it is my subconscious desire to control the conversation.

 

[dismal]

Well, I guess you guys are right. The Democrats in blue states are totally fucked beyond all fucktitude.

They should just give up trying to do things like taxing rich people and spending more money on education because it just can't effin be done.

The feds just won't let states tax rich people or spend money on education.

The states don't have an option of a progressive income tax.

And yet many do have one. How am I to reconcile your assertion with easily observable reality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax

 

[Axulus]

What tax changes can the federal government make that can't be reversed by an individual state? What redistribution policy not done by the federal government can not be implemented by a state?

Any state that presently receives more in Federal largesse that its citizens and business supply in Federal taxes (i.e., most of the red ones) is going to find it difficult.

South Carolina, for instance, was recently getting $7.87 in Federal funds for every $1 in Federal tax its residents paid. Let's assume the overall Federal tax rate in South Carolina is 17% (probably high, but I'm making a math argument). Basic math would then show there isn't enough money in the state to make up the difference if all the Federal money goes away.

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves. They don't want the people from California forcing them otherwise.

 

[Elixir]

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves.

Or alternately, they were misinformed and conscientiously misguided by people espousing their interests with no intention of ever doing anything to further those interests.

 

[arkirk]

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves.

Or alternately, they were misinformed and conscientiously misguided by people espousing their interests with no intention of ever doing anything to further those interests.

So, according to Axulus, South Carolina is cool and has made a good choice for itself. The last time I checked South Carolina had quite a coastline for its size...they are not voting for a future. I am okay with that. South Carolina and just sink into the drink, considering how stupid their voting record is,it is a likely possibility.

 

[Axulus]

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves.

Or alternately, they were misinformed and conscientiously misguided by people espousing their interests with no intention of ever doing anything to further those interests.

Nobody ever said democracy was perfect. I'm not judging their choice, just pointing out that this is what a strong majority of the electorate within that state voted for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any state that presently receives more in Federal largesse that its citizens and business supply in Federal taxes (i.e., most of the red ones) is going to find it difficult.

South Carolina, for instance, was recently getting $7.87 in Federal funds for every $1 in Federal tax its residents paid. Let's assume the overall Federal tax rate in South Carolina is 17% (probably high, but I'm making a math argument). Basic math would then show there isn't enough money in the state to make up the difference if all the Federal money goes away.

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits...

Bullshit! Their stance is based on the simple fact that they are grossly ignorant of the budgeting logistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Or alternately, they were misinformed and conscientiously misguided by people espousing their interests with no intention of ever doing anything to further those interests.

Nobody ever said democracy was perfect. I'm not judging their choice, just pointing out that this is what a strong majority of the electorate within that state voted for.

If that was the case, they'd strictly tell their reps to not get any funding for their state.

 

[jonatha]

Any state that presently receives more in Federal largesse that its citizens and business supply in Federal taxes (i.e., most of the red ones) is going to find it difficult.

South Carolina, for instance, was recently getting $7.87 in Federal funds for every $1 in Federal tax its residents paid. Let's assume the overall Federal tax rate in South Carolina is 17% (probably high, but I'm making a math argument). Basic math would then show there isn't enough money in the state to make up the difference if all the Federal money goes away.

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves. They don't want the people from California forcing them otherwise.

South Carolina residents apparently prefer to pay less Federal taxes and receive *more* benefits...

 

[dismal]

L

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves. They don't want the people from California forcing them otherwise.

South Carolina residents apparently prefer to pay less Federal taxes and receive *more* benefits...

That does seem to be the way to go. Fortunately for them people in blue states can't imagine any possible way they could reduce federal taxes and increase state taxes to keep more of their own money instead of Trump getting it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

L

South Carolina residents apparently prefer to pay less Federal taxes and receive *more* benefits...

That does seem to be the way to go. Fortunately for them people in blue states can't imagine any possible way they could reduce federal taxes and increase state taxes to keep more of their own money instead of Trump getting it.

Maybe it's because we are a nation and as a nation, in this together.

 

[dismal]

L

That does seem to be the way to go. Fortunately for them people in blue states can't imagine any possible way they could reduce federal taxes and increase state taxes to keep more of their own money instead of Trump getting it.

Maybe it's because we are a nation and as a nation, in this together.

Yeah it's too bad they didn't set this country up as a union of states with limited and specific enumerated powers of the federal government. Welp, nothing can be done about it now. Let's just say our "hail Trumps" and hope it all works out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any state that presently receives more in Federal largesse that its citizens and business supply in Federal taxes (i.e., most of the red ones) is going to find it difficult.

South Carolina, for instance, was recently getting $7.87 in Federal funds for every $1 in Federal tax its residents paid. Let's assume the overall Federal tax rate in South Carolina is 17% (probably high, but I'm making a math argument). Basic math would then show there isn't enough money in the state to make up the difference if all the Federal money goes away.

But South Carolina went red in this election, in the house, senate, governor, and president by strong majorities. In other words, their residents prefer to pay less federal taxes and receive less benefits, even if it means having less overall government services and not being able to make it up themselves. They don't want the people from California forcing them otherwise.

No. Their residents want to pay less tax and have someone else receive less benefits. They don't think they'll end up with the short end of the stick.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Maybe it's because we are a nation and as a nation, in this together.

Yeah it's too bad they didn't set this country up as a union of states with limited and specific enumerated powers of the federal government. Welp, nothing can be done about it now. Let's just say our "hail Trumps" and hope it all works out.

Perchance you forget we settled this debate over 100 years ago. United we stand, divided we go to shit.