Anyway Ravenman, I totally reject your position that CA is not a donor state. That assumption is as ludicrous as it is misleading. In fact, it’s clearly contrary to all evidence.
He presented evidence via link.
My family has dual citizens in it, so I’m betting I know more about the subject that you. For example, a country’s willingness to accept dual citizenship is based on laws that can change. I have no idea why you think US laws in this area can’t be changed if certain Americans want all the benefits of US citizenship while rejecting all responsibilities. Why would the US sign up to secession under those terms?
I’ve cited evidence from a respected and liberal thinktank, along with an explaination of why your figures may be wrong. You haven’t addressed their analysis, you e just gone into denial.
Why would these liberals be lying to you?
[QUOTE=Morgenstern]
Anyway Ravenman, I totally reject your position that CA is not a donor state. That assumption is as ludicrous as it is misleading. In fact, it’s clearly contrary to all evidence.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t address one of Ravenman’s key questions. Why a super majority of of states would support CA secession. In fact it strengthens Ravenman’s point since it’s yet another example of why the other 49 states are worse off by allowing CA to leave.
So to ask again…
:smack:
Now you are arguing, seemingly, out of obstinace.
For everyone but Morganstern, I’ve found something quite interesting. The Tax Foundation, which is the source of much of the analysis on donor states versus taker states, fiddles with its numbers. And, in fact, makes no attempt to hide it. On each page of its studies, it reports that revenue and spending numbers are adjusted to pretend that there is no budget deficit in any given year. (Because obviously spending will be greater than revenue when deficits are run.)
ETA: For 2005, it appears that the Tax Foundation used actual numbers for spending, but boosted tax revenues by about 15% more than the IRS actually reported, which would obviously make any state look more like a donor.
I only had time to go back and look at a couple years of actual hard data, and this is what I found:
In 2010, California received $333.8 billion in Federal spending (See page 27 of this Census document)
In 2010, California paid $273.5 billion in taxes (See page 20 of this IRS document)
In 2009, California received $345.9 billion in Federal spending Page 27, Census document)
In 2009, California paid $264.8 billion in taxes (Page 20 of the IRS document)
In 2008, California received $299.9 billion in Federal spending (Page 27, from the Census)
In 2008, California paid $318.1 billion in taxes (Page 20, IRS report)
In 2007, California received $260.4 billion in Federal spending (Again, page 27 of this Census document)
In 2007, California paid $313 billion in taxes (Page 19 of this IRS document)
Important note: the Census report was stopped because of budget cuts to the Department of Commerce, so there isn’t a current data set from the gummit on the spending side.
What do we learn from this? California does well in some years, not so in other years. And just from this very limited review, it seems that California was a big beneficiary during the economic downturn. When Californians were hurting, the Federal government stepped up, it seems.
I don’t know about “make you commit crimes”, but the lesson the Confederates got was certainly along the lines of “kill you and your family”.
Calexit is a movement that wants to use violence against US citizens to force them to comply with it’s wishes, but at the same time its supporters condemn other people for wanting to use violence to suppress it if it starts actually breaking laws or attacking American citizens. It’s pretty blatantly, absurdly hypocritical.
Or if you think Calexit is really nonviolent, what will Calexit do if Orange County decides it doesn’t like Calexitfornia, and declares that its residents will no longer pay California taxes or follow California laws, then follows through by not paying Calexitfornia taxes? I think Calexitfornia would do like California, and send in armed police to arrest the lawbreakers using force if they resist. S, which means Calexitfornia is just as terrible and violent as I am.
That’s a gross oversimplification and California receives the 43rd lowest return on the dollars it sends to Washington. Most of it is military spending. Unsurprisingly, it appears the feds spend more than they earn.
If you look at the map here, you can see California is among the “least dependant” states. California is one of 14 states that gets back less than $1 for every dollar it spends in taxes.
Here’s your problem. You’re counting money “borrowed” by the US government and ultimately “repaid” by the taxpayer as spending in CA. As was the case with the stimulus spending bill. California had to repay the loan, so it’s hard to count that as “spending.”
CA is a donor state. That is pretty well settled and well reported by a multitude of authorities.
a) where has anyone from the Calexit movement ever said they are violent?
b) everyplace on Earth reserves the right to use violence to enforce its laws. Doesn’t mean they always feel the need to do so.
c) slippery slope argument. Once secession starts, it will continue until every individual atom is a sovereign nation! Oh nos! Hasn’t been the case historically.
The moon landing conspiracies are closer to the truth than you are. Yes, your statement is that far removed from reality that they would make more sense in a thread about feeding a cat.
From CalExit.
*We advocate for peaceful secession from the United States by use of an independence referendum to establish a mandate, followed by a nationwide campaign to advocate in support of a constitutional exit from the Union. By joining this campaign, signing up as a member, donating, volunteering, or otherwise supporting this important cause, you agree to these nonviolent principles. *
emph. mine, necessary because Pantastic just doesn’t understand what non-violent is.
That map is based on a subjective assessment of how to define “dependence.” I’m not saying that WalletHub (whatever their academic credentials may be) has an incorrect definition of “dependence;” I’m saying that “dependence” can be defined in many ways, as opposed to “donor state,” which is a concept that is more objective. As used in this thread, “donor state” only has two definitions:
- When taxation going from a state to the Federal government exceeds the Federal spending that occurs in the state; and/or
- California, no matter what facts actually show.
Of course, only Morganstern subscribes to the second definition, but I’m trying to be thorough on how the term is used in this thread.
So the question I’m posing is, is California a donor state? The question is not, how dependent is California on Federal spending? It is not, is California a wealthy state? It is not, are other states more dependent on Federal spending? It is not, does California receive no benefit from Federal spending.
The answer to the question of whether California is a donor state is: some years it is, some years it is not. That’s what the data show.
This makes no sense. You have made these claims:
And now you’re repeating the claim with no citation:
Let’s get this straight: you have constantly argued in this thread that California would have a windfall of $16 billion per year if it were independent of the Federal government.
I have provided the data that show that in some recent years, California would indeed have a windfall of roughly $20 billion per year. And in other years, California befitted from roughly $80 billion per year in additional spending due to the Federal government. Those are facts, I’ve cited them. Tell me why the Census Bureau’s and the IRS’s numbers are lies, because you’re asserting that “multitudes of authorities” say otherwise. I put it to you that the Census Bureau and the IRS data are more authoritative than all of the cites that you have never provided.
By the way, most of that article’s analysis is bullshit. For example, “Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.”
Pure horseshit. The driver in Federal spending is entitlements. See my Census cite. Entitlements (listed as retirement benefits and other direct benefits) make up $1.7 trillion in spending in 2010, contracts make up $516 billion. There’s no way that congressional pork moves the needle on donor state status. The Atlantic is pure horseshit on this point, and considering how egregious this error is, I don’t particularly care to fact-check the rest of it.
Except for one year where the state got about $1.45 back for every $1 spent, largely as a result of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill, CA is clearly a donor state. BUT, that bill was borrowed money that CA taxpayers, and those of other states, had to pay back. Taking out a loan is never income, it’s money you will eventually pay back, plus some.
So, give it up, it’s clear. Some states are donors and some are recipients. CA is clearly a donor. Here’s the list, recipients are at the top, donors at the bottom.
1 Mississippi
2 New Mexico
3 Alabama
4 Louisiana
5 Tennessee
6 Montana
7 South Dakota
8 Kentucky
9 West Virginia
10 Missouri
11 Georgia
12 Maine
13 Arizona
14 South Carolina
15 North Dakota
16 Wyoming
17 Idaho
18 Indiana
19 Oregon
20 Oklahoma
21 Vermont
22 Maryland
23 Rhode Island
24 Michigan
25 Ohio
26 North Carolina
27 Arkansas
28 Pennsylvania
29 Texas
30 Florida
31 Iowa
32 Nebraska
33 Utah
34 Wisconsin
35 Colorado
36 Washington
37 Hawaii
38 Massachusetts
39 Virginia
40 Alaska
41 New York
42 New Hampshire
43 Minnesota
44 Nevada
45 Illinois
46 California
47 Kansas
48 New Jersey
49 Connecticut
50 Delaware
Christ, you can’t even source your cite; and you can’t even keep straight the stimulative effect of spending from the balance of spending and taxation. $1.45 per $1 has zero to do with whether a state is a donor or not.
You want me to provide you with cites yet you’re not willing to read a thread to find out how many times your points have been debunked? As you’ve noticed, I’m not playing.
Here’s another citation for you.
Interestingly enough, red states, which tend to advocate for a lesser influence by the federal government, are much more dependent on the federal government than blue states. Blue states combined to form an average ranking of 18.3 (with 1 being most dependent and 50 being least dependent), while red states combined to rank 33.2 overall.
Hint, if you’re really interested, paste the quoted part into Google and you’ll see the site. I’m too lazy to care when the argument is that far from sane.
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – President Donald Trump threatened to cut off federal funding to California in an interview with Bill O’Reilly over the weekend.
Trump called California “out of control” in response to the state’s recent push to make the whole state an immigration sanctuary.
and CA responds.
California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.
and
“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”
Yep. Fuck that hamster fisted combover. Wait until the other states decide to join in in this.
Californians are becoming delusional. Unless you have your money in the form of gold buried in the backyard it’s pretty easy for the Feds to get. You know the very powerful federal government the left used to love? You’ll see why the small government right warned about.
And what’s with the idea among the loons out in California that the law should apply to everyone but them? Arrogance and entitlement are a bad combination.
Isn’t California, right now in the process of asking for some of that sweet federal cheddar to cover the emergency cost of flooding?