Detroit... damn

[SCFinfan]

Back to the main topic of this thread:

Judge blocked Detroit's b'ruptcy filing today.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130719/METRO01/307190099/Ingham-County-judge-rules-Detroit-bankruptcy-withdrawn-Schuette-appeals?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Stupid judge.

[el diablo]

Back to the main topic of this thread:

Judge blocked Detroit's b'ruptcy filing today.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130719/METRO01/307190099/Ingham-County-judge-rules-Detroit-bankruptcy-withdrawn-Schuette-appeals?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Stupid judge.

The end of that article made me agree with you.

[Spider-Dan]

Uh - the combined state and local debt of California is still somewhere btw 848 billion and 1.1 trillion.

Oh, I didn't know we were talking about total debt.  My mistake.

California state debt: 19.21% of state GDP (and falling)
Texas state debt: 19.26% of state GDP (and rising)

Jerry Brown and the legislature should be praised for killing off the deficit. Yes. However they did it thru tax hikes which rely on private earners, who are the true heroes here.

Unlike Team Red, we understand that you can't perpetually slash taxes and reduce the debt.  It doesn't work and never will work.

And yes, I agree: the working people of California (and New York, and Massachusetts, and Michigan) are the true heroes.  Otherwise, who would generate all the federal money to send to Tennessee and Kentucky and South Carolina?

[SCFinfan]

Oh, I didn't know we were talking about total debt.  My mistake.

California state debt: 19.21% of state GDP (and falling)
Texas state debt: 19.26% of state GDP (and rising)

First, the website you're linking to - it's numbers conflict (re: total debt, etc) w/ the sources I've produced, and since my main source is the California public policy center (and b/c I don't know where your website gets its numbers - nor does it say where it gets them from) I would argue that its claims are, at this time, unverified and untrustworthy, considering direct evidence to the contrary as provided by me.

Second, even if we admit to the veracity of the numbers your website provides, I think the comparison you've made could be considered unfair. I will admit, debt-to-GDP ratio is a very good indicator of economic health. But, if you're going to look at that as some sort of proof that California is in better financial health (despite its insane total debt load) than most red states, then, let's take a look:

Per the website you linked to, Alabama's ration is 16.3%, Arkansas's is 10.7%, Florida's is 20.4%, Georgia's is 11.3% (rounding up), Louisiana's is 14.7%, Mississippi's is 14.5% (rounding up), Missouri's is 17.2%, North Carolina's is 11% (rounding up), Oklahoma's is 12% (rounding up), South Carolina's is 20.9%, Tennessee's is 15.7%, Texas' you've already mentioned, Virginia's is 15%, and West Virginia's is 16.2% (rounding up).

So, looking at the debt-to-gdp ratio of all Southern States except Texas, Florida, and (sigh) South Carolina, all of them have a fairly significantly better debt to GDP ratio than does California. Moreover, despite Cali's much greater population than any of the states heretofore mentioned, Cali's debt per citizen is much higher than any of them, except Tx. See for yourself:

State              Pop                  DPC
California       37.88m             10.8k (rounding up)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama        4.8m                 6.2k
Arkansas       2.9m                 4.1k
Florida           19.2m               8.5k
Georgia          9.9m (ru)          5.1k
Louisiana       4.6m (ru)          8.7k 
Mississippi      9.9m (ru)          7.8k
Missouri          6m                   7.6k
North Car.       9.7m                5.3k
Oklahoma        3.8m               5.3k
South Car.       4.7m               7.9k
Texas               25.9m (ru)      10.8k
Tenn.               6.4m                7k
Virginia            8.1m                8.4k
West Va           1.8m               6.4k

Let's compare that to some of the bluer states:

NY: Debt to GDP ratio is 27% and per citizen debt is 17.3k.
HI: ratio is 18%, per cit 9.4k
OR: 17.5%, per cit, 9.5k
WA: 19.5%, per cit, 10.9k
CT: 16.7%, per cit 11.5k
MA: 24.7%, per cit 15.7k

W/ rare exception, bluer states seem to trend in the manner of having higher total debt-to-gdp ratios AND larger per-citizen debt loads.

In conclusion, if you are using debt-to-gdp as your main indicator of economic health, California sticks out like a sore thumb when compared to most southern states. Same is true, generally, for most of the bluer states.

Unlike Team Red, we understand that you can't perpetually slash taxes and reduce the debt.  It doesn't work and never will work.

And yes, I agree: the working people of California (and New York, and Massachusetts, and Michigan) are the true heroes.  Otherwise, who would generate all the federal money to send to Tennessee and Kentucky and South Carolina?

Now - I will admit, "Team Red" sometimes sticks its head in the sand at times when it comes to tax cuts. Tax cuts are ok - if you are willing to slash spending *or* find another way maintain overall tax revenue (closing loopholes, sunsetting certain provisions, indexing for inflation, etc).

That said, "Team Blue" likewise sticks its head in the sand when it comes to expanding gov't and providing services. You simply can't expand gov't/provide services/regulate forever. It is impossible. If you want proof, recall the original main thrust of this thread. Obviously, "Team Blue" failed Detroit despite being the benevolent, responsible overlords you characterize them to be...

Now, next, I would say the chart you provide is somewhat misleading in the sense that it doesn't provide an explanation of what it means by "spending." For example: does this mean social security payments? If so, then obviously, the map is skewed: people may work up north all their lives, but then move southward for their golden years, and therefore bringing the locus of their social security payments - and thus, federal spending - down that way as well. Does this mean military spending? There are, admittedly, many bases in California - but there are also many, many, many in the South: http://militarybases.com/. If military spending is counted - then one could imagine why this map looks the way it does. Does it include federal aid programs? Non-social security Entitlement payments (medicare - would make sense, elderly people retiring down here and all)? Subsidies for people and businesses (we have a lot of farms that attract subsidies here, as compared to, oh, Northern New York, Maine, Vermont...)? I don't know - it could be anything.

In addition - are these transfer payments mandatory (on the spending end - obv taxes are mandatory)? Who decides where they go and on what basis (since Congress cannot spend merely for the general welfare)? Is their purpose to buoy the state? Or is it part of the federal government's cost of doing business?

So, while, yes, the Southern States do tend to receive more than they've been paying in tax dollars, it is not as though the state legislature of SC reaches its hand into the general fund of California (wearing the glove of the federal government) and just shovels money into its own general fund. All the map you've provided really shows is that some states pay more in federal tax than they receive. But it doesn't say how they receive it, or why, who benefits from the payments or how they benefit, and whether or not the label of "leech" as you say, is the appropriate label to place on these states.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ I believe I saw the word "blue" in there somewhere, before all the rambling words blurred together.

I like blue...

[SCFinfan]

http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-bankruptcy-warning-sign-america-222951472.html

Interesting quotes:

When Republican state Sen. Rick Jones called the retiree pension tax "extremely unfair" for people who have "planned their life for their retirement and then suddenly, in the midst of their retirement,... get a new tax," the businessman Snyder had a ready response.

The new tax "is fair to our young people," he said earlier this year. "We were [using] a tax system that was driving young people to leave our state."

[Spider-Dan]

So, looking at the debt-to-gdp ratio of all Southern States except Texas, Florida, and (sigh) South Carolina, all of them have a fairly significantly better debt to GDP ratio than does California. Moreover, despite Cali's much greater population than any of the states heretofore mentioned, Cali's debt per citizen is much higher than any of them, except Tx. See for yourself:

[AL AR FL GA LA MS MO NC OK SC TN VA WV]

With the exception of AR and GA, all of these states are net takers when it comes to federal spending vs. revenue.  So, again I say: maybe if MI had gotten more of those sweet, sweet federal dollars that the red states always complain about, they'd be fine today.

Now, next, I would say the chart you provide is somewhat misleading in the sense that it doesn't provide an explanation of what it means by "spending."

I don't see how it much matters; money is money.  If Republicans decry wasteful federal spending while they lobby for an additional Coast Guard base in OK or Naval base in TN, those are still dollars being spent that could be saved.  If Republicans want to slash the safety net to shreds while fully protecting the Social Security benefits of their baby-boomer voter base, those are still dollars being spent that could be saved.  If Republicans want to reduce minimum wages and eliminate labor laws so that their states' residents are compensated as little as possible, and the federal gov't has to make up that difference in food stamps and other social programs, that is precisely their ideology Working As Intended.

Now, as a card-carrying leftist, I have no problem with spending on the safety net.  But the last thing I want to hear is old people decry the size of the gov't and actively work to undermine SS and Medicare for people my age, as they continue to dutifully receive their checks each month.  The pre-Reagan tax rates were damn sure good enough to fill up SS's coffers for them, but when it's time to return to a sane tax rate so we can provide the same for future generations, suddenly they catch a case of libertarianism?  It's good, old-fashioned pull-the-ladder-up-behind-you tactics.

So, while, yes, the Southern States do tend to receive more than they've been paying in tax dollars, it is not as though the state legislature of SC reaches its hand into the general fund of California (wearing the glove of the federal government) and just shovels money into its own general fund.

No... instead, they decry federal spending and point at failed liberal states (like Michigan) that weren't smart enough to arrange their affairs so as to maximally rely upon the same federal dollars they claim to detest.  See: any Republican politician after a natural disaster hits their constituents.

[bsmooth]

They get what they ask and vote for. You couldn't pay me to live in a large metropolitan democrat stronghold. I guess it's a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome. It's not hard to see whats going on and how people who are Socialist in thought and practice destroys everything they touch over time. If Detroit and cites like it constantly elect the same type of leaders and get exactly what they voted for. It's not rocket science.

The problem is a whole lot more than pensions. Just since 2000 48% of the manufacturing jobs in Detroit have left...many overseas. The loss of tax base due to population decline is one of the biggest issues also.
To say this bankruptcy is only because of pensions and Democrats, is to ignore the policies and events in this country and globally that have effected the economy.
It is a multi-faceted problem that was decades in the making. It will be very painful for all involved to fix.
Forbes has run a series of great article listing all the issues that led the decline of Detroit, and ways it can recover through bankruptcy.

[SCFinfan]

I note you just dropped the whole thing about California's economic health. That's good.

With the exception of AR and GA, all of these states are net takers when it comes to federal spending vs. revenue.  So, again I say: maybe if MI had gotten more of those sweet, sweet federal dollars that the red states always complain about, they'd be fine today.

This is a very misleading statement:

1. The map looks at revenue raised and spending doled out. However, it is equating the two - as if they were taken from the same source; but,
2. Taxes are taken from the people of an area - not from state coffers themselves or directly. It is not as though the state of Michigan or its general fund lost money - their citizens did - as you yourself said elsewhere: 

And yes, I agree: the working people of California (and New York, and Massachusetts, and Michigan) are the true heroes.  Otherwise, who would generate all the federal money to send to Tennessee and Kentucky and South Carolina?

3. Michigan received over a trillion dollars of federal spending btw 1990 and 2009. If even 10% of this went into the general fund, then, they could've paid off their entire state debt (which is 77bn per your site.) Every southern state except VA and FL received much less.

While it is true the amount of money given by the residents of one area is less than the governmental monies spent in that same area, it doesn't mean Michigan would be better off financially if this were not so. Michigan's coffers are not affected by federal revenue collection w/in its borders. If anything - all they've received is benefit from this fiscal transfer - over one trillion dollars of it. Comparatively, the vast majority of southern states have to get by on much less. And are yet still doing better financially than is Michigan... huh.

I don't see how it much matters; money is money.  If Republicans decry wasteful federal spending while they lobby for an additional Coast Guard base in OK or Naval base in TN, those are still dollars being spent that could be saved.  If Republicans want to slash the safety net to shreds while fully protecting the Social Security benefits of their baby-boomer voter base, those are still dollars being spent that could be saved.  If Republicans want to reduce minimum wages and eliminate labor laws so that their states' residents are compensated as little as possible, and the federal gov't has to make up that difference in food stamps and other social programs, that is precisely their ideology Working As Intended.

See above regarding money. That said - I agree w/ you otherwise. They shouldn't decry spending and then seek spending on their own pet projects. This is what everyone does; however, it is hypocritical of them. Both parties have these hypocrisies w/in their platform tho.   

[Spider-Dan]

I note you just dropped the whole thing about California's economic health. That's good.

There's nothing to drop.  Comparing CA's economic health to AR or OK or WV is like comparing the USA's economic health to Finland or Indonesia or Jamaica.  It's silly.

This is a very misleading statement:

1. The map looks at revenue raised and spending doled out. However, it is equating the two - as if they were taken from the same source; but,
2. Taxes are taken from the people of an area - not from state coffers themselves or directly. It is not as though the state of Michigan or its general fund lost money - their citizens did - as you yourself said elsewhere:  3. Michigan received over a trillion dollars of federal spending btw 1990 and 2009. If even 10% of this went into the general fund, then, they could've paid off their entire state debt (which is 77bn per your site.) Every southern state except VA and FL received much less.

1) Federal tax revenue came from the residents and businesses of Michigan.  I believe there is a well-established conservative ideology on what happens when you let people and businesses keep more of their own money.
2) The argument as to whether federal taxes came from the state of Michigan or the inhabitants of the state of Michigan is inconsequential at best.  The residents of the state are the ones affected by the current crisis.
3) To borrow the argument you made in the same paragraph, it is not as though the federal spending went directly into the general fund as some sort of wealth transfer; federal spending is generally either given directly to the people (food stamps, SS, etc.) or given to the states earmarked for specific programs for the people (transportation, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.).

While it is true the amount of money given by the residents of one area is less than the governmental monies spent in that same area, it doesn't mean Michigan would be better off financially if this were not so.

That doesn't exactly square with what conservatives have been claiming since Reagan: lower taxes = increased economic health all around.

[SCFinfan]

There's nothing to drop.  Comparing CA's economic health to AR or OK or WV is like comparing the USA's economic health to Finland or Indonesia or Jamaica.  It's silly.

If you are confident in that statement, would you like to make a bet on which state would file for bankruptcy or request a bailout first? I'll put 100$ on it right now: that CA files for b'ruptcy/requires a bailout prior to any state which was once part of the confederacy. I'll also throw in WV for good measure.

1) Federal tax revenue came from the residents and businesses of Michigan.  I believe there is a well-established conservative ideology on what happens when you let people and businesses keep more of their own money.

I agree - but since when as the federal government ever worked in line w/ conservative fiscal ideology? I would agree that what's going on is not kosher if we're really strict conservatives - but - this isn't a discussion regarding whether or not taxpayer-in-one-state-to-neighboring-state transfers complies w/ conservative ideology. The main question is whether or not the southern states are leeches. They are not; or, at least, the charge has not been proven. More on this in next section...

2) The argument as to whether federal taxes came from the state of Michigan or the inhabitants of the state of Michigan is inconsequential at best.  The residents of the state are the ones affected by the current crisis.

Not inconsequential when the debate centers around whether or not the southern states are leeches. If the taxpayers in one state are:

1. required to pay federal taxes by law; and,
2. have no real say where the money goes (unless the transfer of monies in constituional) after that; and,
3. Subsequently, portions of taxes collected in state 1 go to fed/state projects in state 2.

And that's all, then you haven't really proven your claim here. All you've proven is that the residents of one state unfortunately end up paying for federal or state/federal joint expenditures in another state. I'll admit - that's unfair. But if anything, when you come to that conclusion, all you've done is bolstered the conservative idea that - yes - we should have lower fed taxes so that this kind of wasteful Michigan-residents-to-Louisiana-state/fed-projects wouldn't happen or would happen less often. I would be in favor of that. I think anyone would, generally, to cut down these kinds of transfers. Of course, then, our politicians would have to not be hypocrites and when they cut the rev, they'd need to cut spending - but, they generally don't have the discipline for that.

3) To borrow the argument you made in the same paragraph, it is not as though the federal spending went directly into the general fund as some sort of wealth transfer; federal spending is generally either given directly to the people (food stamps, SS, etc.) or given to the states earmarked for specific programs for the people (transportation, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.).

Correct, but, please - follow your own reasoning. All the money didn't go to Michigan's state coffers. Therefore, they're not leeches. But if they're not - then neither are the southern states...

[Spider-Dan]

If you are confident in that statement, would you like to make a bet on which state would file for bankruptcy or request a bailout first? I'll put 100$ on it right now: that CA files for b'ruptcy/requires a bailout prior to any state which was once part of the confederacy. I'll also throw in WV for good measure.

Moody's credit rating for United States: AA+
Moody's credit rating for Denmark: AAA

Care to apply your bet to which of these two countries defaults on their sovereign debt first?  That's apples to apples, right?

There's a huge difference in scale between CA and OK.

Not inconsequential when the debate centers around whether or not the southern states are leeches. If the taxpayers in one state are:

1. required to pay federal taxes by law; and,
2. have no real say where the money goes (unless the transfer of monies in constituional) after that; and,
3. Subsequently, portions of taxes collected in state 1 go to fed/state projects in state 2.

And that's all, then you haven't really proven your claim here. All you've proven is that the residents of one state unfortunately end up paying for federal or state/federal joint expenditures in another state.

It seems like you're just arguing that the word leeching shouldn't exist.

Do not these southern states get millions upon millions of dollars in highway funds?  Don't they have to specifically request these funds from the federal government?  Do they (and their residents) not receive millions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funding?  Is there some law that prevents them from creating (and internally funding) a state-based healthcare solution that does not depend on the federal teat?  As conservatives, shouldn't they be in favor of state-based solutions anyway?

Whether the red states leech by directly asking for federal handouts, or leech by sitting on their ass and doing nothing while the federal government has to step in and keep their residents from starving, leeching is still leeching.  They are contributing less than they are receiving, and I normally wouldn't have an issue with that, but for the tireless shrieking from the residents of these same states about makers and takers.  So yes, leeching is precisely the correct word.

[SCFinfan]

Moody's credit rating for United States: AA+
Moody's credit rating for Denmark: AAA

Care to apply your bet to which of these two countries defaults on their sovereign debt first?  That's apples to apples, right?

There's a huge difference in scale between CA and OK.

Let's pack them both together. If CA or the US require a bailout or file for bky first, you lose. If Denmark or any of the southern states do, I lose. 200$.

Do not these southern states get millions upon millions of dollars in highway funds?  Don't they have to specifically request these funds from the federal government? 

All states receive more federal funding for highways/transport than they pay in highway tax. We're all "leeches" in that regard.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11918.pdf

Do they (and their residents) not receive millions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funding? 
[/quote]

Yes, but, the question here is why. Like I said, everyone knows of older people moving down south, etc, to escape the chilly weather of the north. If this is the basis for why we've received more in spending than we've provided in taxes, it may just be a commentary on the weather - not on whether or not these states are unfairly benefiting from the US fiscal union.

Is there some law that prevents them from creating (and internally funding) a state-based healthcare solution that does not depend on the federal teat?  As conservatives, shouldn't they be in favor of state-based solutions anyway?

You are forgetting impetus, and the fact that the feds can print money. Why would the states create an system when they know the federal government does it? Further, there is a real risk that states can go bankrupt. The feds can always print more money. You're making an apples and oranges comparison here, and you're very far afield from the original topic of discussion.

Whether the red states leech by directly asking for federal handouts, or leech by sitting on their ass and doing nothing while the federal government has to step in and keep their residents from starving, leeching is still leeching.  They are contributing less than they are receiving, and I normally wouldn't have an issue with that, but for the tireless shrieking from the residents of these same states about makers and takers.  So yes, leeching is precisely the correct word.

I'm sorry, but you simply haven't proven this at all. All you've proven is that the federal government spends more money in certain areas where they collect less tax. Fine. But that proves absolutely nothing about whether a state is leeching, or their people are leeching. All it proves is that the federal government does what it wants with the money it has, and some unfairly benefit.

[Spider-Dan]

Let's pack them both together. If CA or the US require a bailout or file for bky first, you lose. If Denmark or any of the southern states do, I lose. 200$.

Well, first, it's not whether the US requires a "bailout" or "files for bankruptcy"; it's whether the US defaults on its debt.  Just so we understand the parameters.  And I don't make internet bets for money, but I'm happy to make that bet with "personal pride" as the stakes.

That being said, I'll take the (modified) bet, but I don't understand what happens if Congress decides to default on our debt and I "win."  What does that prove... that the southern states are leeches?  That CA is more solvent than the US?  My point was that it's silly to compare the economy of a tiny southern state to CA, just as it's silly to compare the US to Denmark.

All states receive more federal funding for highways/transport than they pay in highway tax. We're all "leeches" in that regard.

...but some of the states more than make up for that (highway funding) deficit by the amount of federal taxes they contribute elsewhere, which is the point.

Why would the states create an system when they know the federal government does it?

Are you asking why a state like Massachusetts would implement a healthcare system that greatly improves the coverage of their residents, when they can just sit back and let the feds pay for Medicaid?

Answer: because they aren't leeches.

Further, there is a real risk that states can go bankrupt.

Well, yes, paying your own way is more expensive and entails risk that isn't there when you depend on federal dollars instead.

I'm sorry, but you simply haven't proven this at all. All you've proven is that the federal government spends more money in certain areas where they collect less tax. Fine. But that proves absolutely nothing about whether a state is leeching, or their people are leeching.

The aforementioned states receive more than they contribute.
The amount they receive is, to a great degree, due to factors which they can control (either via direct funding requests, or indirect inaction which causes the feds to step in).

I'm not sure how that isn't leeching, particularly by the standards that conservatives normally use.  The discussion over who pays what and where it goes is not usually so nuanced when coming from the right.