Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

mainejeff wrote:The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

OL FU wrote:

mainejeff wrote:The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

well done

OL FU wrote:

mainejeff wrote:The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

Seriously MJ, did you even read the article you linked? The main point is that employers' premiums are going to go up because the state's trust funds (which are funded through employer premiums) are depleted. Texas borrowed the money to replenish their trust fund and is planning on jacking up premiums on employers to cover it. So they are "taxing their own." So much for business friendly...

OL FU wrote:

mainejeff wrote:The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

Game, Set, Match and a drink for OL FU

Gil Dobie wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

Game, Set, Match and a drink for OL FU

I'll take it.

In Jeff's defense, he is one of the funniest and most entertaining posters I have read over the last five years. But he is funnier (like most humor) when his subject at least hints at the truth. I simply didn't want him to stray to far off the path

Mainejeff might be off concerning the Texas unemployment situation, but the underlying point of red states tending to have the lowest standard of living, the poorest infrastructure, crappy education, etc while being the largest welfare whores is always a fun one. This chart is a little dated but you get the point:




Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back?

New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61

Gil Dobie wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

Game, Set, Match and a drink for OL FU

I was just thinking that when OL FU jumps in and refutes you, you were pretty much in raging tinfoil hat territory.

OL FU wrote:

mainejeff wrote:The business friendly, low corporate tax Lone Star state now owes the Federal Government $1.6 Billion since July when they started borrowing to pay unemployment benefits to state residents.

What happened to the TexCons cries of NO FEDERAL WELFARE! Maybe they should start taxing their own instead of the rest of America shouldering the burden of their State government's poor choices! F*cking hypocrites........

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/ec ... m?hpt=Sbin

I think unemployment is a federally required system of payments to the unemployed paid by the states through premiums paid by employers, far from welfare to the states and exactly what is wrong with our current federal system.
IT can't be welfare from the federal government when federal laws require that the state to spend the money and then the federal government extends the payments to individuals forever.

Pick a better fight

Ah, yes. The concept of unfunded mandates that constantly escapes the donks limited understanding.

CID1990 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Game, Set, Match and a drink for OL FU

I was just thinking that when OL FU jumps in and refutes you, you were pretty much in raging tinfoil hat territory.

Agreed - and more evidence that Jeffy should again be charged with PUI (posting under the influence). Maybe he'll sleep it off and read the article.

kalm wrote:Mainejeff might be off concerning the Texas unemployment situation, but the underlying point of red states tending to have the lowest standard of living, the poorest infrastructure, crappy education, etc while being the largest welfare whores is always a fun one. This chart is a little dated but you get the point:




Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back?

New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61

Sweet! Can you see some places where MORE money should be spent?

I'll give you all one hint.

"It's aboot Respect! It's aboot Democracy!"

kalm wrote:Mainejeff might be off concerning the Texas unemployment situation, but the underlying point of red states tending to have the lowest standard of living, the poorest infrastructure, crappy education, etc while being the largest welfare whores is always a fun one. This chart is a little dated but you get the point:




Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back?

New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61

yes we have had these discussions before. It would be interesting to actually see where the money is spent. Are the expenditures ask for items or thrust upon the states items. I have no clue. But it doesn't change the debate on this topic. The Federal government requires the states to spend money without funding and that shouldn't happen. As far as the expenditures above are concerned I suppose it depends on whether the feds are paying for items that they require or are the states requesting the money. Maybe you know and can enlighten. I would love to find out.

Either way, one of the problems with the entire system is that the feds take too much money and really don't leave enough room for the states to tax as they see fit.

OL FU wrote:
yes we have had these discussions before. It would be interesting to actually see where the money is spent. Are the expenditures ask for items or thrust upon the states items. I have no clue. But it doesn't change the debate on this topic. The Federal government requires the states to spend money without funding and that shouldn't happen. As far as the expenditures above are concerned I suppose it depends on whether the feds are paying for items that they require or are the states requesting the money. Maybe you know and can enlighten. I would love to find out.

Either way, one of the problems with the entire system is that the feds take too much money and really don't leave enough room for the states to tax as they see fit.

It would interesting to see the breakdowns, but I'm just spit balling and haven't looked into it.

And I don't neccessarily disagree with you.

As Z pointed out, donks don't understand the effects of unfunded mandates which is partly correct. But I think this truly goes both ways and the conks fail to understand the effects of de-funded mandates. I'll give you two examples:

1) Bush's War in Iraq

2) In Washington State we have a very active anti-tax lobby that a decade ago successfully got an initiative passed (I-695) that slashed license plate tabs (among the highest in the nation at the time). Many small communities and under populated counties were especially hit hard as they relied more upon this tax revenue from the state to fund services. The following year, the City of Cheney, facing a severe budget crunch, considered closing its Parks and Rec department unless a small property tax could be raised (which would have been less per household than what they saved on the license tab fees)

A friend of mine with children voted no claiming that the city was using scare tactics and the bloated government would somehow come up with the funding anyway.

The tax raise failed, Parks and Rec shut down for 3 years, and each summer my friend had to listen to his kids say thanks for closing down the aquatics center, Dad.

The same story repeated itself in communities across the state where budgets were cut from police and fire services to snow removal and street repair.

That's not to say that government isn't bloated and wasteful or that taxes are always the answer, but I think that case gets way overblown. Everybody likes living in America, it's just that no one seems willing to pay for it.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
yes we have had these discussions before. It would be interesting to actually see where the money is spent. Are the expenditures ask for items or thrust upon the states items. I have no clue. But it doesn't change the debate on this topic. The Federal government requires the states to spend money without funding and that shouldn't happen. As far as the expenditures above are concerned I suppose it depends on whether the feds are paying for items that they require or are the states requesting the money. Maybe you know and can enlighten. I would love to find out.

Either way, one of the problems with the entire system is that the feds take too much money and really don't leave enough room for the states to tax as they see fit.

It would interesting to see the breakdowns, but I'm just spit balling and haven't looked into it.

And I don't neccessarily disagree with you.

As Z pointed out, donks don't understand the effects of unfunded mandates which is partly correct. But I think this truly goes both ways and the conks fail to understand the effects of de-funded mandates. I'll give you two examples:

1) Bush's War in Iraq

2) In Washington State we have a very active anti-tax lobby that a decade ago successfully got an initiative passed (I-695) that slashed license plate tabs (among the highest in the nation at the time). Many small communities and under populated counties were especially hit hard as they relied more upon this tax revenue from the state to fund services. The following year, the City of Cheney, facing a severe budget crunch, considered closing its Parks and Rec department unless a small property tax could be raised (which would have been less per household than what they saved on the license tab fees)

A friend of mine with children voted no claiming that the city was using scare tactics and the bloated government would somehow come up with the funding anyway.

The tax raise failed, Parks and Rec shut down for 3 years, and each summer my friend had to listen to his kids say thanks for closing down the aquatics center, Dad.

The same story repeated itself in communities across the state where budgets were cut from police and fire services to snow removal and street repair.

That's not to say that government isn't bloated and wasteful or that taxes are always the answer, but I think that case gets way overblown. Everybody likes living in America, it's just that no one seems willing to pay for it.

Some valid points. We have to have taxes. I personally would rather pay the majority of them to the local government or state government where we have a "little" more control of how much they are and what they are spent on. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna happnen since the feds take 20 to 25% of GDP in taxes and 30% in spending (and as many an economists will tell you, real taxes are what the government is spending regardless of what you are paying)

But what about the Canadians? Surely I am not the only American that is wise to the Maple Syrup threat of our so called, "freinds" to the north. These Canadians suffer from a serious inferiority complex. That's why they built the The Canadian National Tower! World's largest free-standing structure! Canadians are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil Young! Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray - all day, every day. And when have you ever heard anyone say, "Honey, lets stay in and order Canadian food"?


Quick being so blind!

Thank you John Candy.

Ibanez wrote:But what about the Canadians? Surely I am not the only American that is wise to the Maple Syrup threat of our so called, "freinds" to the north. These Canadians suffer from a serious inferiority complex. That's why they built the The Canadian National Tower! World's largest free-standing structure! Canadians are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil Young! Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray - all day, every day. And when have you ever heard anyone say, "Honey, lets stay in and order Canadian food"?


Quick being so blind!

Thank you John Candy.

I'm glad you make more sense in person

OL FU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:But what about the Canadians? Surely I am not the only American that is wise to the Maple Syrup threat of our so called, "freinds" to the north. These Canadians suffer from a serious inferiority complex. That's why they built the The Canadian National Tower! World's largest free-standing structure! Canadians are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil Young! Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray - all day, every day. And when have you ever heard anyone say, "Honey, lets stay in and order Canadian food"?


Quick being so blind!

Thank you John Candy.

I'm glad you make more sense in person

AMERICA'S TOP THREATS
1. CANADIAN
2. THE QUEERS
3. THE MEXICANS
4. BROWN PEOPLE
5. WHITE PEOPLE THAT WISH THEY WRE BROWN
6. RON WHITE
7. IRANINA PRESIDENT ACHEMENDIMATOTALJACKASS DIRKA
8. THE JONAS BROTHERS
9. PIGEONS- DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THESE FUCKERS
10. ZOMBIES

STICK WITH ME. I MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE.

Ibanez wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I'm glad you make more sense in person

AMERICA'S TOP THREATS
1. CANADIAN
2. THE QUEERS
3. THE MEXICANS
4. BROWN PEOPLE
5. WHITE PEOPLE THAT WISH THEY WRE BROWN
6. RON WHITE
7. IRANINA PRESIDENT ACHEMENDIMATOTALJACKASS DIRKA
8. THE JONAS BROTHERS
9. PIGEONS- DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THESE FUCKERS
10. ZOMBIES

STICK WITH ME. I MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE.

WHAT ABOUT...YANKEES??!?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
AMERICA'S TOP THREATS
1. CANADIAN
2. THE QUEERS
3. THE MEXICANS
4. BROWN PEOPLE
5. WHITE PEOPLE THAT WISH THEY WRE BROWN
6. RON WHITE
7. IRANINA PRESIDENT ACHEMENDIMATOTALJACKASS DIRKA
8. THE JONAS BROTHERS
9. PIGEONS- DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THESE FUCKERS
10. ZOMBIES

STICK WITH ME. I MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE.

WHAT ABOUT...YANKEES??!?

Don't patronize me with your stereotypes.



The list continues, but you clearly aren't a believer.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
WHAT ABOUT...YANKEES??!?

Don't patronize me with your stereotypes.



The list continues, but you clearly aren't a believer.

I was actually just imitating citdog, but don't let that get in the way of your being butt hurt.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Don't patronize me with your stereotypes.



The list continues, but you clearly aren't a believer.

I was actually just imitating citdog, but don't let that get in the way of your being butt hurt.

Yankees are so far down the list, they aren't considered a viable threat. We've got to worry about the Canucks and Wetbacks. We're already wedged inbetween them andmy intel, which comes from a soothsayer, says that they are formulating war plans. And then..THEN the animals have begun recon missions. You see, it begins with the birds. They have the gift of flight and can hide high above and out of sight. That was stage 1. Now, the coyotes are scouting out our major cities like New York. I have no intel to suggest a coordinated, Al Queada attack, but I do not rule this out. Beware and be Aware. The sharks are organized off of Florida. An attack is imminent and you just don't care!