• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Last Thing States, Cities Need Is a Taxpayer Bailout

It was a huge mistake. I know a company that got it and they didn't close 5 minutes early a single day or lay anybody off or anything else. They have been business as usual throughout.

So? Stimulus isn't meant to be means tested.
 
It was a huge mistake. I know a company that got it and they didn't close 5 minutes early a single day or lay anybody off or anything else. They have been business as usual throughout.

Yep, just like many (most?) folks who got $1200 payments. That is the nature of stimulus - toss out “free” money to increase demand.
 
When I think about state and local taxes, I often see them in terms of city blocks: “How any dwellings does it take to pay for that cop and clerk? Is it ten, twenty, a city block?” Or “How many citizens does it take to generate a million dollars?” *
*(Businesses taxes are included in what you buy, BTW).

Remember “Every dollar of tax money that comes into the treasury originated in the private sector.”
Actually, every dollar originated from the US Treasury.
 
Yep, just like many (most?) folks who got $1200 payments. That is the nature of stimulus - toss out “free” money to increase demand.
That's precisely the point, countercyclical spending, especially when the cost of borrowing is extremely low. If you don't you end up with a much deeper recession and slower recovery.
 
The beat way to combat a recession is to inject money into the hands of buyers.

Except the Republicans would rather give the wealthy tax breaks and spin the old "trickle-down" yarn.
 
Perhaps cities and states should prioritize their spending a bit...you know, like every private business HAS to do.

For example, which is more important:

The extra clerk in the local building permit office.

or

The cop on patrol.

I think most people would think the answer is a no brainer. The cop, who enforces law and order is more important. But that's not how the cities and states do it. They keep them BOTH...and then threaten to fire the cop if the feds don't give them money.
Would your advice also apply to the Federal Government? Seems the Federal Government has kept and added programs. The advantage the Feds have is they can print money. States can't. :LOL:
 
So...you want the federal government to increase deficit spending so that States don't have to manage their money.

No.
Seems some States just take the
What have the states done to deal with their emergencies? Have they laid anyone off? Have they reduced spending?

I want to see them do that stuff BEFORE I support Congress giving them taxpayer money.

Yes, some have laid people off.

Unlike the Federal Government 49 out of 50 States have a balanced budget requirement. Why doesn't Trump implement one.

.
 
Would your advice also apply to the Federal Government? Seems the Federal Government has kept and added programs. The advantage the Feds have is they can print money. States can't. :LOL:
I would LOVE it if the Feds controlled their own spending, too.

Hey...maybe the State governments should bail out the feds instead of the other way around. What do you think?
 
Seems some States just take the


Yes, some have laid people off.

Unlike the Federal Government 49 out of 50 States have a balanced budget requirement. Why doesn't Trump implement one.
Forty-nine out of 50 U.S. states have adopted some kind of balanced-budget requirement that forces them to raise taxes or cut spendinhttps://www.accountingtoday.com/articles/all-the-loopholes-u-s-states-have-to-balance-their-budgets#:~:text=Forty%2Dnine%20out%20of%2050,Vermont%20is%20the%20only%20exception.&text=In%20practice%2C%20however%2C%20elected%20officials,around%20them%20over%20the%20years.g if revenues fall short of projections — in theory. Vermont is the only exception.
Trump doesn't have the power to implement a balanced budget requirement. You need to talk to Congress.
 
Trump doesn't have the power to implement a balanced budget requirement. You need to talk to Congress.
Ok. I know . Has Trump proposed it to Congress.. No. Has Trump submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his term. No.

Heck, Lets drop Trump and just talk Federal Government/Congress. You want States to have a balanced budget. Should the Federal Government do the same?
 
The Last Thing States, Cities Need Is a Taxpayer Bailout | RealClearPolitics



Her $3 trillion-plus stimulus plan would have taxpayers write a nearly $1 trillion check to states and cities (on top of $225 billion in federal aid already sent), showering money on what’s already one of the healthiest sectors. (There has already been some 1/4 trillion gifted under the Covid stimulus plan.)

This only gets the democrats votes from groups they already have - teachers and other public unions - but if any stimulus is needed it is in the private sector, not public unions who have been getting regular paychecks whether they are at home or working.

America cannot at the same time cry for schools to open and say no aid to states and cities. States and cities have to balance their budgets by law. Revenue has been lost and costs have increased. How do you propose schools to open?
 
Ok. I know . Has Trump proposed it to Congress.. No. Has Trump submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his term. No.

Heck, Lets drop Trump and just talk Federal Government/Congress. You want States to have a balanced budget. Should the Federal Government do the same?
No.

On the other hand, I've never said I want States to have a balanced budget. But that's what they must have.

What I want is the States to manage their budgets without constantly running to the federal government when they can't/won't manage their budgets.
 
No.

On the other hand, I've never said I want States to have a balanced budget. But that's what they must have.

What I want is the States to manage their budgets without constantly running to the federal government when they can't/won't manage their budgets.

Help me understand why you believe the President and Congress should not manage the federal budget without constantly printing or borrowing money. Seems the feds are not capable of managing the budget.
 
Help me understand why you believe the President and Congress should not manage the federal budget without constantly printing or borrowing money. Seems the feds are not capable of managing the budget.
When did I ever say " the President and Congress should not manage the federal budget without constantly printing or borrowing money. "?

In any case, I don't think the feds are not capable of managing the budget. I think they don't want to.
 
When did I ever say " the President and Congress should not manage the federal budget without constantly printing or borrowing money. "?

In any case, I don't think the feds are not capable of managing the budget. I think they don't want to.
Based on what you have said I figured you didn't care what the feds do.
So are you ok with the feds/Congress not wanting to manage the budget like you want the States to do?
 
Based on what you have said I figured you didn't care what the feds do.
So are you ok with the feds/Congress not wanting to manage the budget like you want the States to do?
No. I wish they would.
 
The federal government has the ability to borrow money to avoid the type of difficulties you are described. They should step in and assist sate and local governments to avoid even greater difficulties which could well trigger a deeper recession or even a depression.
laying off government employees would not trigger a depression. In fact If cities also eliminated laws requiring those employees to be present it would improve the economy
 
Businesses got assistance because their main contribution to society is providing employment to others. Since city and state governments contribute more to society, they should get more reasons for giving them assistance.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
City and state governments in most of the county are so bloated they are parasites on society. Local and state government contributes Less then private business in most cases
 
Technically true, but pieces of printed paper don't necessary represent wealth, and wealth comes from the private sector, not the government.
non-sequitur, I wasn't arguing about an accumulation of assets, I was pointing out WHY govt increases its spending during a recession. That was the context. I don't believe anyone in Congress believed it or any countercyclical policy is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT which always seems to be the main argument against them. Nothing..... doesn't fill holes.

What is going to happen is a re-play of 2011-17, only this time instead of "Crying Boner" making tea in the House, Turtle gets to play villain in the Senate, killing the Beast by starvation, we get a long drawn out recovery, D's get blamed, and finally another, smarter, fascist gets to finish the job.

Personally, I have my money on Tom Cotton.
 
non-sequitur, I wasn't arguing about an accumulation of assets, I was pointing out WHY govt increases its spending during a recession. That was the context.

No, it wasn't.

The exchange went like this:

Remember “Every dollar of tax money that comes into the treasury originated in the private sector.”

Actually, every dollar originated from the US Treasury.

The implication is that government creates wealth -- it doesn't.

The government can only get money three ways:

1. Taxation
2. Borrowing (which the taxpayer must pay off)
3. And by printing (which the taxpayer pays for via devaluation of his currency)

I was pointing out WHY govt increases its spending during a recession.

The federal government increases spending in good times and bad. Recessions have nothing to do with it.

federal budget historical.jpg
 
The implication is that government creates wealth
Uh, no, that exchange involved a debate about the collecting of tax dollars to fund local govt, not the "creation of wealth".

The federal government increases spending in good times and bad. Recessions have nothing to do with it.
Uh, the context remains "bailouts of states, cities", a bailout by the federal govt most definitely is countercyclical spending, spending that otherwise would not occur, ie an "increase".
 
Last edited:
The Last Thing States, Cities Need Is a Taxpayer Bailout | RealClearPolitics



Her $3 trillion-plus stimulus plan would have taxpayers write a nearly $1 trillion check to states and cities (on top of $225 billion in federal aid already sent), showering money on what’s already one of the healthiest sectors. (There has already been some 1/4 trillion gifted under the Covid stimulus plan.)

This only gets the democrats votes from groups they already have - teachers and other public unions - but if any stimulus is needed it is in the private sector, not public unions who have been getting regular paychecks whether they are at home or working.
I couldn't agree more with you. Absolutely the multinational corporations and billionaires should be put first ahead of everyone else. Let the states go bankrupt is mitch's solution. I know as a retired person collecting my social security they need it much, much more than me.
 
laying off government employees would not trigger a depression. In fact If cities also eliminated laws requiring those employees to be present it would improve the economy
Employees are employees . I think Shakespeare said that. And millions of people losing their jobs can well take us down the road to recession or even depression.
 
Trump doesn't have the power to implement a balanced budget requirement. You need to talk to Congress.
of course he does. He can veto every budget that comes to his desk if it is not deficit neutral. But republicans do not and have never cared about deficit spending or HUGE debt. It's why they increase both exponentially and by orders of magnitude more than democrats do.
 
Back
Top Bottom