trash
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by trash on Oct 27, 2009 21:20:11 GMT -5
Will any state besides Texas actually opt out?
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 27, 2009 21:39:35 GMT -5
I would expect one of the Carolinas, probably South. Maybe Libertoonianland (New Hampshire)
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Oct 28, 2009 8:31:20 GMT -5
I'd put South Carolina ahead of Texas on the batshit crazeee list, but I don't think even they would opt out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Oct 28, 2009 8:45:20 GMT -5
none.
|
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Oct 28, 2009 13:01:46 GMT -5
Yep, I'll go with none.
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 29, 2009 11:58:52 GMT -5
My guess is there will be a lot of grandstanding, and one or two states will opt out for a while. Texas is a decent guess, but I would put my money on South Dakota or Wyoming. They are small states with a huge dependence on federal money, but with the disconnect they don't know they are dependent on federal money. The disconnect is why they are more likely than Texas, which generally goes the overt money absorption route.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadows090 on Oct 29, 2009 12:33:58 GMT -5
The disconnect is why they are more likely than Texas, which generally goes the overt money absorption route. Texas is one of the few red states that actually contribute more to the federal government than they receive. Florida is another. |
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 29, 2009 13:33:03 GMT -5
I think the disconnect is Texas government has always been about proclaiming their individuality or sovereignty.
I could see Rick Perry opting out and then opting in. Kinda like the stimulus package.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadows090 on Oct 29, 2009 13:45:52 GMT -5
I think the disconnect is Texas government has always been about proclaiming their individuality or sovereignty. As long as the taxes are being taken from a state, they should receive the equal amount without catching any flak. On average, Texas gives more federal tax money than it receives. So I don't see why they shouldn't participate in the stimulus or whatever. As far as the public option, well it depends on the details. I support a public option that states can opt out of, so long as they don't have to contribute to the public option financially. |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Oct 29, 2009 14:16:10 GMT -5
The disconnect is why they are more likely than Texas, which generally goes the overt money absorption route. Texas is one of the few red states that actually contribute more to the federal government than they receive. Florida is another. I don't believe you are including Disaster funds in your numbers. Without them, the pay/get is nearly equal, with them, both states benefit. The other thing worth remembering is that these are low benefit states. They don't take advantage of available federal match moneys because they don't want to provide services to poor people. I can't find my data source. I'm doing this from memory. |
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 29, 2009 14:17:40 GMT -5
As long as the taxes are being taken from a state, they should receive the equal amount without catching any flak. On average, Texas gives more federal tax money than it receives. So I don't see why they shouldn't participate in the stimulus or whatever. As far as the public option, well it depends on the details. I support a public option that states can opt out of, so long as they don't have to contribute to the public option financially. I never said they shouldn't take money. I was referring to Perry grandstanding about NOT taking the money and then asking for more than the original amount. Under the opt out, they wouldn't have to pay in, I believe. |
|
