Thread: How to Freeze the Debt Ceiling Without Risking Default

Sounds like a plan...

Let's start with cutting off the South. Seems like a win/win, since they're the source of much of our deficit anyway.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Let's start with cutting off the South. Seems like a win/win, since they're the source of much of our deficit anyway.

Wait... what?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Let's start with cutting off the South. Seems like a win/win, since they're the source of much of our deficit anyway.

Racist,,Anti-dentite Northerner

To answer question posed, I have one word:

HYPERINFLATION (better than default)

Or force California to secede,,,let the leftists form a new nation and ship all libs there.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Let's start with cutting off the South. Seems like a win/win, since they're the source of much of our deficit anyway.

I recall from the 2009 pubs of the Census reports on Federal Government Expenditures, per capita, by State not agreeing with your statement. Virgina may top the list but followed by Maryland, Alaska, Kentucky, New Mexico, Hawaii, North Dakota, Wyoming, Connecticut and Massachusetts being the top 10.

Define for us where you get your information or your assumption of "the South." There may be a more recent analysis but I did not find it just yet.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I recall from the 2009 pubs of the Census reports on Federal Government Expenditures, per capita, by State not agreeing with your statement. Virgina may top the list but followed by Maryland, Alaska, Kentucky, New Mexico, Hawaii, North Dakota, Wyoming, Connecticut and Massachusetts being the top 10.

Define for us where you get your information or your assumption of "the South." There may be a more recent analysis but I did not find it just yet.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

It's an analysis of net federal tax revenues vs. expenditures. "Red" states generally consume more federal dollars than they produce. "Blue" states generally produce more federal dollars than they consume. The South is crimson. Thus, removing the South would result in a significant reduction in our debt problem.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

It's an analysis of net federal tax revenues vs. expenditures. "Red" states generally consume more federal dollars than they produce. "Blue" states generally produce more federal dollars than they consume. The South is crimson. Thus, removing the South would result in a significant reduction in our debt problem.

Where is that data or did I miss it in this report?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Where is that data or did I miss it in this report?

I'll have to see if I can track it down again.

Edit: Start here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...te_ripoff.html

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I'll have to see if I can track it down again.

Edit: Start here:

Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff

Im ok with that. Lets cut social program benefits to those in the south. What else?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I'll have to see if I can track it down again.

Edit: Start here:

Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff

Off that map alone your comment still does not make much sense. It seems like we need to cut off the South, most of the East, just about all of the middle states, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Ok, so your plan is just a start then.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Off that map alone your comment still does not make much sense. It seems like we need to cut off the South, most of the East, just about all of the middle states, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Ok, so your plan is just a start then.

And a good one. Exactly what conservatives have been arguing, less govt. Wherever that happens is fine by me. I would be surprised if the facts back this graph though, in that conservative areas recieve more tax dollars than liberal ones. You have to split it by urban and rural though. I know for a fact that I pay more into taxes than I get in benefits. Far more. I suspect thats true for most conservatives. Of course I live in a liberal city, so its quite possible my city recieves more dollars than it puts in.

Perhaps the voting simply doesnt reflect who lives in those states. Maybe conservatives vote more, while their states recieve more tax dollars. Given 2/3 of the budget is medicare and social security, and those programs arent exactly voluntary, not to mention apply to people who move, I could see how this graph basically says nothing at all. Its a meaningless statistic.

Originally Posted by jviehe

And a good one. Exactly what conservatives have been arguing, less govt. Wherever that happens is fine by me. I would be surprised if the facts back this graph though, in that conservative areas recieve more tax dollars than liberal ones. You have to split it by urban and rural though. I know for a fact that I pay more into taxes than I get in benefits. Far more. I suspect thats true for most conservatives. Of course I live in a liberal city, so its quite possible my city recieves more dollars than it puts in.

Perhaps the voting simply doesnt reflect who lives in those states. Maybe conservatives vote more, while their states recieve more tax dollars. Given 2/3 of the budget is medicare and social security, and those programs arent exactly voluntary, not to mention apply to people who move, I could see how this graph basically says nothing at all. Its a meaningless statistic.

Actually, jviehe, it makes perfect sense. Look at where tax dollars are spent. Farm subsidies. Energy subsidies. Defense. Many dollars to rural areas and red states. Retirees. Red states in the South. It's pretty intuitive.

Just tax the god-damned religions that are tax free.