Tea Party

[wideright82]

These people should check out NJ if they want taxes.

[hank scorpio]

thing is, I'm okay with the idea of helping MT keep it's roads in shape... we're all in this together... but it grinds my gears to hear this "stop welfare" language coming from states that are collectively the biggest "welfare queens" in the country. it's annoying as hell

btw... I like that MT has no sales tax... I'm against the damn things... regressive and bad for small businesses...

My big beef is that more people come here as tourists every year than the number of people that live here. Except for small hotel taxes, they are exempt. The burden here falls on property owners and income taxes.

[Wedgebuster]

Takes a lot of bucks to keep those 700 mile long roads up to snuff!

Montana is a physically huge state, and that is a problem as it is nearly all rural. Your energy producing potential is enormous though, it's just that so much of it is locked away under layers of regulations and differing interests.

Nice that there's no sales tax! That sure helps me with my tax load.

Where would you go for big ticket items if there was a sales tax in MT?

Just Curious.

I don't think your Wyoming shoppers would abandon Billings at all over adoption of a sales tax. You might see a ten percent drop off at first, but the shopping experience in Billings is nowhere to be found around here. Big Horn Basin and Sheridan would still spend plenty of green up there.

[OL FU]

thing is, I'm okay with the idea of helping MT keep it's roads in shape... we're all in this together... but it grinds my gears to hear this "stop welfare" language coming from states that are collectively the biggest "welfare queens" in the country. it's annoying as hell

btw... I like that MT has no sales tax... I'm against the damn things... regressive and bad for small businesses...

I can see that point of view, but the question is (and I don't know the answer) is the money going to the Welfare states money the states ask for or is it money mandated by federal programs? Is does make a difference.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

thing is, I'm okay with the idea of helping MT keep it's roads in shape... we're all in this together... but it grinds my gears to hear this "stop welfare" language coming from states that are collectively the biggest "welfare queens" in the country. it's annoying as hell

btw... I like that MT has no sales tax... I'm against the damn things... regressive and bad for small businesses...

I can see that point of view, but the question is (and I don't know the answer) is the money going to the Welfare states money the states ask for or is it money mandated by federal programs? Is does make a difference.

I assure you... the Sens and Reps seek it out. and their residents BEG for it.

[Wedgebuster]

Reason sales taxes are such a tough sale in Mt is because of all their other tax burdens, high property tax, state income tax. The issue has made the ballot several times but Montana voters will not pass any additional taxes, and don't seem to trust the government to lower other taxes if a sales tax is implemented.

Hank is right, sales tax benefits his state more because it is paid by more than just state residents.

I sit here and happily cheer on the anti-sales tax folks in Billings especially with all that great shopping just over an hour away.

Cabela's opens next month!

[OL FU]

I can see that point of view, but the question is (and I don't know the answer) is the money going to the Welfare states money the states ask for or is it money mandated by federal programs? Is does make a difference.

I assure you... the Sens and Reps seek it out. and their residents BEG for it.

That didn't answer the question of course. I am very aware that republican congress people bring home the bacon. Believe me, all to aware. But the question is more like this. Since the figures of money in and money out are usually totals and the vast majority of federal spending is in (1) military and (2) entitlements and (3) interest on the debt incurred to pay for the first two as opposed to roads and bridges and grants to some pig farm in Iowa, are the states individually to blame for those federal programs. I would say no so the question of where the money goes, while important, isn't necessarily the recipient states fault.

Now I don't know for certain that is how the calculation is arrived at but my guess is that is the case.

[hank scorpio]

Where would you go for big ticket items if there was a sales tax in MT?

Just Curious.

I don't think your Wyoming shoppers would abandon Billings at all over adoption of a sales tax. You might see a ten percent drop off at first, but the shopping experience in Billings is nowhere to be found around here. Big Horn Basin and Sheridan would still spend plenty of green up there.

Exactly! That is a red herring that opponents throw out. You most likely would have to go all the way to Cheyenne to find the stores. Same goes for tourism. How many visitors are surprised that we don't have a sales tax? Probably 90%, meaning it had no impact on their choice of vacation destination.

[hank scorpio]

Reason sales taxes are such a tough sale in Mt is because of all their other tax burdens, high property tax, state income tax. The issue has made the ballot several times but Montana voters will not pass any additional taxes, and don't seem to trust the government to lower other taxes if a sales tax is implemented.

Hank is right, sales tax benefits his state more because it is paid by more than just state residents.

I sit here and happily cheer on the anti-sales tax folks in Billings especially with all that great shopping just over an hour away.

Cabela's opens next month!

Bingo!

[Wedgebuster]

The savings that we get on sales tax alone almost never would cover the expense of driving up there, let alone buy lunch, which we generally do.

It's mainly the huge selection of goods, and their instant availability that brings us to town, that and an excuse to get out of town for a day.

What really amazes me is the value you can still receive for just one dollar....at the East Laurel Ballet Co.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I assure you... the Sens and Reps seek it out. and their residents BEG for it.

That didn't answer the question of course. I am very aware that republican congress people bring home the bacon. Believe me, all to aware. But the question is more like this. Since the figures of money in and money out are usually totals and the vast majority of federal spending is in (1) military and (2) entitlements and (3) interest on the debt incurred to pay for the first two as opposed to roads and bridges and grants to some pig farm in Iowa, are the states individually to blame for those federal programs. I would say no so the question of where the money goes, while important, isn't necessarily the recipient states fault.

Now I don't know for certain that is how the calculation is arrived at but my guess is that is the case.

Military spending is a huge part of it of course... and the politics of meting out who gets to keep their bases and who gets defense plants is crazy political... (look at where BRAC closed facilities under a Repub. Congress in the 90's... blue states... blue states... blue states)

however, my point, and to very directly answer your question is this: we all pay in to the federal kitty, each state gets entitlements, largely in proportion to their numbers (this can skew things for an older state like AZ and ND.. but for the most part it's a wash)... however, where the rubber meets the road in terms of federal dollars, and where a real discrepancy can come in in terms of dollars in/dollars out is appropriated spending. Military spending, road and bridge projects, water diversion projects, dept. of the interior spending, etc... has a lot to do with it. it's not a red herring to say that these states are net "takers" from Washington... and frankly I don't have a problem with it... I have a problem with the residents of those states screaming about "big city libruls" and all of "their money" being "wasted" on them... when in point of fact, THEY, and THEIR STATES are the ones being subsidized by those "big city libruls"

[hank scorpio]

The savings that we get on sales tax alone almost never would cover the expense of driving up there, let alone buy lunch, which we generally do.

It's mainly the huge selection of goods, and their instant availability that brings us to town, that and an excuse to get out of town for a day.

What really amazes me is the value you can still receive for just one dollar....at the East Laurel Ballet Co.

They should apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts because it is nice to have culture in one's community.

[Benne]

WTF

[Purple For Life]

Do they even know what they're protesting anymore???

[dbackjon]

no they don't, PFL. Just like under Clinton.


Bunch of brainless morans, mostly

[TwinTownBisonFan]

no they don't, PFL. Just like under Clinton.


Bunch of brainless morans, mostly

lol... morans... the best sign ever.

[dbackjon]

no they don't, PFL. Just like under Clinton.


Bunch of brainless morans, mostly

lol... morans... the best sign ever.

Yup - I have it photobucketed for easy use!

[Ibanez]

I have mixed feelings about these tea parties.

Visit my blog as I will be contributing to it more and more in the future.

http://samuelgadsden.blogspot.com/

[OL FU]

That didn't answer the question of course. I am very aware that republican congress people bring home the bacon. Believe me, all to aware. But the question is more like this. Since the figures of money in and money out are usually totals and the vast majority of federal spending is in (1) military and (2) entitlements and (3) interest on the debt incurred to pay for the first two as opposed to roads and bridges and grants to some pig farm in Iowa, are the states individually to blame for those federal programs. I would say no so the question of where the money goes, while important, isn't necessarily the recipient states fault.

Now I don't know for certain that is how the calculation is arrived at but my guess is that is the case.

Military spending is a huge part of it of course... and the politics of meting out who gets to keep their bases and who gets defense plants is crazy political... (look at where BRAC closed facilities under a Repub. Congress in the 90's... blue states... blue states... blue states)

however, my point, and to very directly answer your question is this: we all pay in to the federal kitty, each state gets entitlements, largely in proportion to their numbers (this can skew things for an older state like AZ and ND.. but for the most part it's a wash)... however, where the rubber meets the road in terms of federal dollars, and where a real discrepancy can come in in terms of dollars in/dollars out is appropriated spending. Military spending, road and bridge projects, water diversion projects, dept. of the interior spending, etc... has a lot to do with it. it's not a red herring to say that these states are net "takers" from Washington... and frankly I don't have a problem with it... I have a problem with the residents of those states screaming about "big city libruls" and all of "their money" being "wasted" on them... when in point of fact, THEY, and THEIR STATES are the ones being subsidized by those "big city libruls"

Well I wasn't really going to make a political statement about it. I have always been curious about the numbers. But since you did I will. It is not being subsidized when that big city liberal passes the law that says I am going to send you this money. Sorry

[ASUMountaineer]

no they don't, PFL. Just like under Clinton.


Bunch of brainless morans, mostly

Yup, that two way street of left and right wackos is beginning to have a traffic jam.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Military spending is a huge part of it of course... and the politics of meting out who gets to keep their bases and who gets defense plants is crazy political... (look at where BRAC closed facilities under a Repub. Congress in the 90's... blue states... blue states... blue states)

however, my point, and to very directly answer your question is this: we all pay in to the federal kitty, each state gets entitlements, largely in proportion to their numbers (this can skew things for an older state like AZ and ND.. but for the most part it's a wash)... however, where the rubber meets the road in terms of federal dollars, and where a real discrepancy can come in in terms of dollars in/dollars out is appropriated spending. Military spending, road and bridge projects, water diversion projects, dept. of the interior spending, etc... has a lot to do with it. it's not a red herring to say that these states are net "takers" from Washington... and frankly I don't have a problem with it... I have a problem with the residents of those states screaming about "big city libruls" and all of "their money" being "wasted" on them... when in point of fact, THEY, and THEIR STATES are the ones being subsidized by those "big city libruls"

Well I wasn't really going to make a political statement about it. I have always been curious about the numbers. But since you did I will. It is not being subsidized when that big city liberal passes the law that says I am going to send you this money. Sorry

you realize that the US Senate represents small states too right? you realize that small state reps. are often the most entrenched incumbents? that those representing rural districts (and urban cores admittedly) are the longest tenured members of the congress... right?

the money is actively sought... an i certainly don't see anyone saying "please... for the good of our country... have it back" (again, not that i expect it to happen... just that it begs the question)

[OL FU]

Well I wasn't really going to make a political statement about it. I have always been curious about the numbers. But since you did I will. It is not being subsidized when that big city liberal passes the law that says I am going to send you this money. Sorry

you realize that the US Senate represents small states too right? you realize that small state reps. are often the most entrenched incumbents? that those representing rural districts (and urban cores admittedly) are the longest tenured members of the congress... right?

the money is actively sought... an i certainly don't see anyone saying "please... for the good of our country... have it back" (again, not that i expect it to happen... just that it begs the question)

I do. My governor. Every day

[TwinTownBisonFan]

you realize that the US Senate represents small states too right? you realize that small state reps. are often the most entrenched incumbents? that those representing rural districts (and urban cores admittedly) are the longest tenured members of the congress... right?

the money is actively sought... an i certainly don't see anyone saying "please... for the good of our country... have it back" (again, not that i expect it to happen... just that it begs the question)

I do. My governor. Every day

heh... fair enough... the home of nullification and John C. Calhoun... not too surprising...

[Ibanez]

I do. My governor. Every day

heh... fair enough... the home of nullification and John C. Calhoun... not too surprising...

JOHN C. CALHOUN WAS A FUCKING PATRIOT AND DON'T YOU EVER BAD MOUTH THE GREATEST STATESMAN THIS NATION HAS EVER SEEN...NEXT TO CHARLIE WILSON!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

heh... fair enough... the home of nullification and John C. Calhoun... not too surprising...

JOHN C. CALHOUN WAS A f**k[*] PATRIOT AND DON'T YOU EVER BAD MOUTH THE GREATEST STATESMAN THIS NATION HAS EVER SEEN...NEXT TO CHARLIE WILSON!

A friendly reminder from the United States of America

the price of nullifiction is a visit from your friendly neighborhood Shermanator...



once more to the sea...