Op Ed: What Do The Worst-Run States Have In Common? They're Run By Tax-And-Spend Democrats



The new and EXPENSIVE "Conservative" federal programs .... (LOL.... only a total uneducated moron would "bite" into that) ...... that Obama inherited .... were not created by Obama.

They were all created when we had a "conservative" Republican president with a full-up "conservative" Republican congress.

That's why.

And now, with the "Trump tax cuts" we also have....
.... beef up Afghanistan by 4,000 more troops <---- PAID FOR BY BORROWING.
..... "build that wall!" <---- PAID FOR BY BORROWING.

LMAO! .... as I said, to try to relate federal level Republi-'cons' to conservative state Republicans shows only that whoever tries to do so is a total GULLIBLE moron.

LOL! .....and GULLIBLE Republican voter says:
"Because of this, I believe those 'conservatives' at the federal level are going to save our children so much money!"

National debt increase under Jimmy Carter = $280 billion.
National debt increase under Ronald Reagan = $1.8 trillion <---- the nation's "Father of 'Borrow and Spend' Fiscal Policy."

National debt increase under Bill Clinton = $1.6 trillion.
National debt increase under G.W. Bush = $4.9 trillion <--- More "Borrow and Spend" fiscal policy ideas...
... Iraq War (paid for by borrowing),
... MEDICARE Part D program (Republican unfunded gift to BIG PHARMA),
... a new federal DEPARTMENT (Homeland Security), which added 7,000+ new civil service jobs to the federal payroll.

Anyone who thinks that federal Republi-'cons' are "conservative" like at the state level, is a total moron.

Can you share the actual study? I've seen this quoted before. It doesn't seem implausible to me because rural states lean poor and Republican, while more urban states lean rich and Democrat. Additionally, it would make sense that the party that opposes government spending (the constituents, not the politicians) would demand extra money to justify any federal spending. However, I've never seen the actual numbers. I'd like to know what categories this federal spending falls into. For example, there's a big difference between spending on welfare and food stamps, versus spending on a military base. The former is truly a transfer of wealth, whereas the latter is a trade. That difference matters.

The OP source, http://disq.us/url?url=ht...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="investors.com">investors.com, is the same website that claimed Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Hawking himself responded, saying "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Hawking was British, lived in the United Kingdom nearly all of his life, and received his medical care from the NHS. When the original article was shown to be a complete lie, http://disq.us/url?url=ht...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="investors.com">investors.com published an edited version saying only "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK."

Yeah, http://disq.us/url?url=ht...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="investors.com">investors.com is a great place for conservatives to get their "alternative facts."

So, are you saying that the numbers are all made up? Are you saying that Illinois, NJ, and CT aren't actually in dire fiscal straits?

I just want to know how your brain works. What about this article are you refuting, and based on what?

OK, so let's assume you are correct. Let's even assume that the evil Koch brothers made up the numbers.

Who has the *right* data? Is it being hidden somewhere? Every data point that I've seen says that this analysis is correct, regardless of where that data comes from.

Are you willfully ignorant? Do you really believe that either this isn't true, or isn't important?

Please defend yourself more than just by saying "you can't trust the data." This is public information. Provide the right data, or reconsider your life.

I believe the article listed the parameters that were measured to determine if a state is “fiscally sound”. The conclusions were based on that data.

“based on five measures of their financial condition: cash solvency, budget solvency, the ability to meet long-term spending commitments, state spending and taxes as a share of personal income, and unfunded pension liabilities and debt.”

You can say that they overlooked some key data points if you believe that (and that certainly could be true), but it doesn’t equate to “pulling it out of one’s ass”.

It helps if you actually read the article before criticizing. Just sayin’ ........

Medicare is old people. Medicaid is poor people. And Medicaid is Federal money managed by each state. So taking the Medicaid expansion was supposed to help overall health in the country by each state.
But it created a "donut hole". Working people who earn too much for Medicaid and not enough to afford ACA policies. In 2014, this was 300K people in Georgia.
Also many/most rural hospitals have closed because they went bankrupt trying to service poor people. The legislature smart idea was to turn away poor people, but you legally can't do that in public hospitals. So now everyone, rich, middle class and poor don't have health services nearby.
We came thisclose to getting the expansion in the 2018 session, but it being an election year, the GoTP candidates would not commit.

That leaves approximately just 50 Amish people and their horses. People with little understanding, tend to blame "one" reason, cause to this effect. They say, "the problem IS...". Here's a few of the reasons:

1. disparity in wage/education: we have uneducated workers making too much money.
2. mark ups are greedy: corporations are not satisfied with making 30%. They mark their products to make $400%
3. corporations prefer to spend their money setting up plants in China, layoff people in their own nation, close their industries, and bring the products here, where it is manufactured by slaves.
4. the people in charge of taking care of the nation - Presidents and politicians - never took care of The People, but their own interest. Trump is the only one in a few decades that has the pants well hang, and protects "the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris".

The list can go on and on...

Medical care for the poor is a difficult issue. I believe it was better handled by volunteer donations to Charity clinics and Hospitals. Most hospitals have always treated people even if they could not pay. There entire financial model is based on having enough money from paying patients to cover those who do not pay. However, so many of our hospitals have been taken over by Corporations that no reason to continue the process, but have to make a profit (as all corporations do).

There used to be a lot of Church-run and City hospitals, but they have almost all been sold or closed. Shame, the cause was the Federal Government getting involved.


"Time for Donald Trump to close, sell or restructure Kentucky"

"We’re told that, with President Trump as our nation’s CEO, America will now be run more like a business. Well, the first thing our new CEO should do is stop the hemorrhage of cash in money-draining operations.

One of our worst performing states is the very Republican (in 2016, Trump got 62.5% of its votes) state of Kentucky. It’s an embarrassing drag on our nation’s budget and economy. WalletHub identified Kentucky in 2017 as the state most dependent on the federal government, and a 2007 Tax Foundation Study (examining the period 1981-2005) found that Kentucky consistently received more from the federal government than it paid in. The numbers in Kentucky are dire."

https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.usatoday.com/st" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.usatoday.com/...usatoday.com/st...