Sell Puerto Rico to Denmark

[f.a.s.t.]

Since Denmark won't sell Greenland, maybe we could get Denmark and the E.U. to buy Puerto Rico from us. They might be dumb enough to buy it. It would save the U.S. tax payer tens of billions of dollars.

[deadheadskier]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

[Dickc]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

[madhatter]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

well puerto rico isn't a state and you might want to revisit your blue state subsidizes fantasy...

What do you notice? On a per-capita basis -- which is the right way to calculate this -- deep-blue New Jersey is the biggest donor state. But red-blooded Wyoming is the next biggest, and North Dakota makes the list too. There is certainly a preponderance of blue states at that end of the spectrum, but it’s not a clear “Donor states are blue” story. And if we match the 2013 data to the closest election (2012) we find that New Mexico, the biggest net recipient, went for Obama in 2012, as did Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii. What’s driving the net subsidies isn’t anything as simple as political identification.

What does explain it? In general, the net donor states tend to be populous and rich. But that’s a pretty broad generalization. North Dakota and Wyoming aren’t populous and aren’t particularly thought of as rich states -- but in 2013, they were in the middle of a fracking boom that threw off lots of tax revenue for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia, on the other hand, are both rich and populous -- but they’re also sitting next to the seat of the federal government, which means they have a lot of federal pensioners, a lot of government contractors, and a lot of federal office buildings pouring money into their economies.

So let’s break it into two questions: Why do states send a lot of money to the federal government? And why do they take a lot of money out?

The answer to the first question is pretty simple: The U.S. federal income tax is steeply progressive, meaning that it brings in most of its revenue from high earners. If your state has a lot of people with high incomes in it, you will send a lot of taxes to Washington.

Why money comes back to your state is a little more complicated. Pew has helpfully broken down federal transfers into five categories:

Retirement benefits
Non-retirement benefits
Grants (mostly transportation, education, housing and Medicaid)
Government contracts for goods and services
Salaries and wages
Most of the transfers do not come from “red state welfare” like agricultural subsidies. They derive from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, the maintenance of the national highway system, the purchase of goods and services for the federal government, and the operation of federal facilities and lands.

If blue state liberals consider this out of whack, what do they want to change?

Do they want to move toward a flatter, less progressive federal tax code?
Do they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Do they want to return unemployment insurance and similar entitlement programs entirely to the states?
Do they want to hand over the national parks to the states, or privatize them?
Would they like to downsize the federal workforce?
Should we redistribute military bases from red states to blue? (Those relocations might meaningfully alter the state electorate, making it easier for Republicans to get elected. They would also require the purchase, by eminent domain, of a lot of prime blue-state land that has things like beach houses on it.)

There are good arguments against all of these propositions. And arguably we don’t transfer enough in grants to poor states, which lack the fiscal capacity to provide basic services that come relatively easy in rich states.

But on the other hand, one can make an argument, from fairness and federalism, that these transfers are simply too large, too unbalanced; that it’s time to return social services to the states, and turn the federal government back into something like what it was before the New Deal: a referee between the states, a coordinator of inarguably national concerns like national defense, but not the guarantor of a vast and comprehensive social safety net.

Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.

But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.

something about knowing so much that isnt so....

[f.a.s.t.]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

well puerto rico isn't a state and you might want to revisit your blue state subsidizes fantasy...

What do you notice? On a per-capita basis -- which is the right way to calculate this -- deep-blue New Jersey is the biggest donor state. But red-blooded Wyoming is the next biggest, and North Dakota makes the list too. There is certainly a preponderance of blue states at that end of the spectrum, but it’s not a clear “Donor states are blue” story. And if we match the 2013 data to the closest election (2012) we find that New Mexico, the biggest net recipient, went for Obama in 2012, as did Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii. What’s driving the net subsidies isn’t anything as simple as political identification.

What does explain it? In general, the net donor states tend to be populous and rich. But that’s a pretty broad generalization. North Dakota and Wyoming aren’t populous and aren’t particularly thought of as rich states -- but in 2013, they were in the middle of a fracking boom that threw off lots of tax revenue for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia, on the other hand, are both rich and populous -- but they’re also sitting next to the seat of the federal government, which means they have a lot of federal pensioners, a lot of government contractors, and a lot of federal office buildings pouring money into their economies.

So let’s break it into two questions: Why do states send a lot of money to the federal government? And why do they take a lot of money out?

The answer to the first question is pretty simple: The U.S. federal income tax is steeply progressive, meaning that it brings in most of its revenue from high earners. If your state has a lot of people with high incomes in it, you will send a lot of taxes to Washington.

Why money comes back to your state is a little more complicated. Pew has helpfully broken down federal transfers into five categories:

Retirement benefits
Non-retirement benefits
Grants (mostly transportation, education, housing and Medicaid)
Government contracts for goods and services
Salaries and wages
Most of the transfers do not come from “red state welfare” like agricultural subsidies. They derive from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, the maintenance of the national highway system, the purchase of goods and services for the federal government, and the operation of federal facilities and lands.

If blue state liberals consider this out of whack, what do they want to change?

Do they want to move toward a flatter, less progressive federal tax code?
Do they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Do they want to return unemployment insurance and similar entitlement programs entirely to the states?
Do they want to hand over the national parks to the states, or privatize them?
Would they like to downsize the federal workforce?
Should we redistribute military bases from red states to blue? (Those relocations might meaningfully alter the state electorate, making it easier for Republicans to get elected. They would also require the purchase, by eminent domain, of a lot of prime blue-state land that has things like beach houses on it.)

There are good arguments against all of these propositions. And arguably we don’t transfer enough in grants to poor states, which lack the fiscal capacity to provide basic services that come relatively easy in rich states.

But on the other hand, one can make an argument, from fairness and federalism, that these transfers are simply too large, too unbalanced; that it’s time to return social services to the states, and turn the federal government back into something like what it was before the New Deal: a referee between the states, a coordinator of inarguably national concerns like national defense, but not the guarantor of a vast and comprehensive social safety net.

Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.

But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.

something about knowing so much that isnt so....

Hatter wins again. Deadhead skier loses again.

[f.a.s.t.]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control. Extend the wall from the southern border with Mexico all the way north up the California border.

[deadheadskier]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control. Extend the wall from the southern border with Mexico all the way north up the California border.

So to be clear, you no longer want California to be part of the United States because a large percentage of its residents are of Latin American heritage?

Do you feel the same about Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

[f.a.s.t.]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control. Extend the wall from the southern border with Mexico all the way north up the California border.

So to be clear, you no longer want California to be part of the United States because a large percentage of its residents are of Latin American heritage?

Do you feel the same about Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

Wrong again, as always. You think that my proposal is based on race which is 100% false. Race and country of origin has nothing to do with it. I'd be saying the same thing if it were Caucasians from Canada. It's about keeping the USA from becoming a socialist/communist third world hell hole country. As far as the other states, I support President Trump's proposal to send the illegals in those states to sanctuary cities in California and let the tax payers of California pay for them, not me.

You really need to stop trying to guess how I feel and think. What you need to remember is that I am always right and you are always wrong.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control. Extend the wall from the southern border with Mexico all the way north up the California border.

So to be clear, you no longer want California to be part of the United States because a large percentage of its residents are of Latin American heritage?

Do you feel the same about Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

Wrong again, as always. You think that my proposal is based on race which is 100% false. Race and country of origin has nothing to do with it. I'd be saying the same thing if it were Caucasians from Canada. It's about keeping the USA from becoming a socialist/communist third world hell hole country. As far as the other states, I support President Trump's proposal to send the illegals in those states to sanctuary cities in California and let the tax payers of California pay for them, not me.

You really need to stop trying to guess how I feel and think. What you need to remember is that I am always right and you are always wrong.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control.

For what it's worth ... I read it the same as DHS. I assumed 'they' referred to Mexicans since Mexico immediately preceded it.

[Highway Star]

You really need to stop trying to guess how I feel and think. What you need to remember is that I am always right and you are always wrong.

[madhatter]

Or.....We could sell California to the Japanese. We do know they wanted to invade it in 1941.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control. Extend the wall from the southern border with Mexico all the way north up the California border.

So to be clear, you no longer want California to be part of the United States because a large percentage of its residents are of Latin American heritage?

Do you feel the same about Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

Wrong again, as always. You think that my proposal is based on race which is 100% false. Race and country of origin has nothing to do with it. I'd be saying the same thing if it were Caucasians from Canada. It's about keeping the USA from becoming a socialist/communist third world hell hole country. As far as the other states, I support President Trump's proposal to send the illegals in those states to sanctuary cities in California and let the tax payers of California pay for them, not me.

You really need to stop trying to guess how I feel and think. What you need to remember is that I am always right and you are always wrong.

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control.

For what it's worth ... I read it the same as DHS. I assumed 'they' referred to Mexicans since Mexico immediately preceded it.

you guys crack me up....no one gives a crap about "race" as a factor not that mexican is a race...it's the culture shift that is the problem...it's the culture that causes places like mexico ( and virtually every US city) to be the way they are...it's the culture that makes california have the issues with drugs and filth ( sh!tting int he streets) etc...and we don,t want or need that culture and the policies it spawns here ( or anywhere else in the world for that matter) race is not the cause nor is race the problem...it's culture...

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control.

For what it's worth ... I read it the same as DHS. I assumed 'they' referred to Mexicans since Mexico immediately preceded it.

you guys crack me up....no one gives a crap about "race" as a factor not that mexican is a race...it's the culture shift that is the problem...it's the culture that causes places like mexico ( and virtually every US city) to be the way they are...it's the culture that makes california have the issues with drugs and filth ( sh!tting int he streets) etc...and we don,t want or need that culture and the policies it spawns here ( or anywhere else in the world for that matter) race is not the cause nor is race the problem...it's culture...

That's all well and good if that's your opinion, but thinking DHS and I would get all that from fast's statement is a stretch.

[DMC]

This is a f*** stupid thread - even for you teaparty losers...

[madhatter]

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control.

For what it's worth ... I read it the same as DHS. I assumed 'they' referred to Mexicans since Mexico immediately preceded it.

you guys crack me up....no one gives a crap about "race" as a factor not that mexican is a race...it's the culture shift that is the problem...it's the culture that causes places like mexico ( and virtually every US city) to be the way they are...it's the culture that makes california have the issues with drugs and filth ( sh!tting int he streets) etc...and we don,t want or need that culture and the policies it spawns here ( or anywhere else in the world for that matter) race is not the cause nor is race the problem...it's culture...

That's all well and good if that's your opinion, but thinking DHS and I would get all that from fast's statement is a stretch.

no I didn't think you would at all...DHS always jumps to race ( it's his and many leftists "go to", I doubt he even buys it himself but virtually everyone on the left considers it a "haymaker" worth throwing at any time...you concurred with him so I have to ask why "race" was the defining factor you saw in your assessment of fasts post? cuz mexican is not a race and the vast majority of people understand that simply being born of a particular race doesn't cause one to act in ways that are less than desirable....culture certainly does.. and being born into a culture from which you can;t or wont escape will certainly slant if not entirely dictate the end product...

the "race card" is a sad pathetic and IMO baseless and overused...very few people are actually racist...many if not most can see that certain cultures condone behavior not consistent with our laws norms and mores...

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just give California to Mexico, they already have invaded it and taken control.

For what it's worth ... I read it the same as DHS. I assumed 'they' referred to Mexicans since Mexico immediately preceded it.

you guys crack me up....no one gives a crap about "race" as a factor not that mexican is a race...it's the culture shift that is the problem...it's the culture that causes places like mexico ( and virtually every US city) to be the way they are...it's the culture that makes california have the issues with drugs and filth ( sh!tting int he streets) etc...and we don,t want or need that culture and the policies it spawns here ( or anywhere else in the world for that matter) race is not the cause nor is race the problem...it's culture...

That's all well and good if that's your opinion, but thinking DHS and I would get all that from fast's statement is a stretch.

no I didn't think you would at all...DHS always jumps to race ( it's his and many leftists "go to", I doubt he even buys it himself but virtually everyone on the left considers it a "haymaker" worth throwing at any time...you concurred with him so I have to ask why "race" was the defining factor you saw in your assessment of fasts post? cuz mexican is not a race and the vast majority of people understand that simply being born of a particular race doesn't cause one to act in ways that are less than desirable....culture certainly does.. and being born into a culture from which you can;t or wont escape will certainly slant if not entirely dictate the end product...

the "race card" is a sad pathetic and IMO baseless and overused...very few people are actually racist...many if not most can see that certain cultures condone behavior not consistent with our laws norms and mores...

I read fast's comment as "Just give California to Mexico because Mexicans/Hispanics have already invaded and taken control". It's clear to me it's a race/ethnicity driven statement. The poster/speaker has a responsibility to articulate their message if they want to ensure it's received correctly. I don't think the onus is on the listener to untangle it for them ... this is one of my pain points with Trump.

I think "vast majority of people understand that simply being born of a particular race doesn't cause one to act in ways that are less than desirable" is a stretch, especially since Trump makes statements that counter your comment often. The onus should not be on the listener to assume 'well the speaker knows better' and therefore assume good intent.

I don't think fast's statement was racist, but his statement was not articulated in a way to properly portray his point. He's since clarified.

As for racism I can't say for certain how many are or are not, but we are all certainly biased. Are some races more biased towards one race verse another?