• 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 End of the Federal Tax Subsidy for Blue States

Facts are indeed facts, MEDICAID WAS CREATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVT.!! Federal programs are funded by federal taxpayer dollars

Yep.. it was created by the federal government in CONJUNCTION with the states. A state has to agree to Medicaid. AND its funded BOTH by the federal government.. and by the state as well. You need to go do some research and get your facts straight before coming here spouting off like you do.
 
And that's your basic mistake. Federal payments are part of federal programs, not subsidies to states. They would be (and are) paid anywhere. From the link:


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.

Nope.. they are subsidies for the state. They pay for things that OTHERWISE THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR.

For example. Without Medicaid.. the state would have to pay for millions of its citizens to have healthcare. Unless the state decided that they would just go without and let millions of their citizens go without healthcare. But states don't.. they CHOOSE to accept those payments.

Without medicare.. the state would have to cover its old people.. or just let them go without

Without welfare... the same

Without national highways.. the state would have to fund those projects.. or go without the economic benefit of those roads.

now you say:

But but but: They would be paid anywhere...

True. That's irrelevant.

Whats relevant is how much is paid out to the federal government versus paid by the federal government to the states.

States that pay the federal government more money than they get back... are therefore subsidizing those states that get more from the federal government than they pay in.

To simplify it for you..

Lets take social security. I will in all likelihood get social security. (okay.. lets hope). But, its guaranteed now that unless they dramatically increase the maximum I can get from social security, I will have paid millions more into social security than I will every get out. From my personal taxes... to all the money my company pays into social security for each employee.

So.. the amount of money that I have put into social security.. very much subsidizes everyone who ends up getting more out of social security than they put in. You simply cannot argue that I am not subsidizing those that get more than they put in. Despite the fact that I also "get social security".

So to.. a state that gives more to the federal money than they get back.. are subsidizing those states that get more money from the federal government than they give.
 
Lets take social security. I will in all likelihood get social security. (okay.. lets hope). But, its guaranteed now that unless they dramatically increase the maximum I can get from social security, I will have paid millions more into social security than I will every get out. From my personal taxes... to all the money my company pays into social security for each employee.

[h=3]Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you ...[/h]
[url]https://www.politifact.com/.../medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

[/URL]



Feb 1, 2013 - ... spending on the elderly are Social Security and Medicare payments. ... have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive ...
 
That is simply a lie.

Okay.. please explain why its a lie.

I contend that the state would have a choice. If social security ended.. the state would either have to help support those elderly people.. and provide them some type of assistance. OR it would simply have to let their population of homeless elderly explode.. or perhaps start euthanasia programs

the same with Medicaid..

And welfare..

And without the money for interstate highways.. which are of the greatest benefit to the folks in the state they live in.. the state would either have to pay for it.. or do without the economic benefit they provide.

Now.. you explain to me why that's wrong.

Oh.. and then explain to me.. what do you think would happen in a state that did NOT pick up the tab. Do you think that the states populace would be fine with say just letting young children.. previously on Medicaid.. simply not get care... or do you think that people would demand that the state pay for them?

IF you think that the people in the state would allow those young children not get care... then why does your state and the rest of the states.. participate in Medicaid.. when its voluntary?
 
[h=3]Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you ...[/h]
[url]https://www.politifact.com/.../medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

[/URL]



Feb 1, 2013 - ... spending on the elderly are Social Security and Medicare payments. ... have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive ...

Bingo.. your article again.. supports my position:

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937

Like I said.. given that what I contribute.. and what my company contributes.. I will have paid in millions more than I will get out. Basically.. I am subsidizing those folks above.
 
Yep.. it was created by the federal government in CONJUNCTION with the states. A state has to agree to Medicaid. AND its funded BOTH by the federal government.. and by the state as well. You need to go do some research and get your facts straight before coming here spouting off like you do.

So what the states receive from the Federal taxpayers are for Federal Expenses to Medicaid. My facts are straight, you seem to want the citizens of the state to pay for the federal responsibilities within Medicaid
 
Okay.. please explain why its a lie.

I contend that the state would have a choice. If social security ended.. the state would either have to help support those elderly people.. and provide them some type of assistance. OR it would simply have to let their population of homeless elderly explode.. or perhaps start euthanasia programs

the same with Medicaid..

And welfare..

And without the money for interstate highways.. which are of the greatest benefit to the folks in the state they live in.. the state would either have to pay for it.. or do without the economic benefit they provide.

Now.. you explain to me why that's wrong.

Oh.. and then explain to me.. what do you think would happen in a state that did NOT pick up the tab. Do you think that the states populace would be fine with say just letting young children.. previously on Medicaid.. simply not get care... or do you think that people would demand that the state pay for them?

IF you think that the people in the state would allow those young children not get care... then why does your state and the rest of the states.. participate in Medicaid.. when its voluntary?

SS is paid for by FICA taxes paid by the employee and the employer, if SS and Medicare ended the states would have a choice to increase taxes to fund those programs just like the federal govt. is collecting now. you seem very confused on what taxes you pay and their purpose. Further I continue to post the link showing what federal tax dollars go to the states, suggest you research that link and tell us what subsidies the federal govt. gives to the state vs. paying for expenses owed in the state
 
So what the states receive from the Federal taxpayers are for Federal Expenses to Medicaid. My facts are straight, you seem to want the citizens of the state to pay for the federal responsibilities within Medicaid

Um no.. they are not "federal expenses for Medicaid". they are a block grant given to the state to pay for Medicaid for the individuals in their state.
 
SS is paid for by FICA taxes paid by the employee and the employer, if SS and Medicare ended the states would have a choice to increase taxes to fund those programs just like the federal govt. is collecting now.

Yep.. in other words.. the states would have to pick up the tab.. OR they would have to let folks like you go without health insurance. I am not confused at all.. you don't understand what taxes you pay and why.
 
Um no.. they are not "federal expenses for Medicaid". they are a block grant given to the state to pay for Medicaid for the individuals in their state.

And what is a block grant if not a federal expense to the states? Stop the wordsmithing, Medicaid was established by the Federal Govt. thus is a federal program funded with federal dollars. If the federal govt. didn't offer the program then the states would have an opportunity to have their own but to do so would mean the federal govt. would have to lower taxes on the citizens so the citizens could fund that tax
 
Yep.. in other words.. the states would have to pick up the tab.. OR they would have to let folks like you go without health insurance. I am not confused at all.. you don't understand what taxes you pay and why.

Have to?? That is liberal speak for people again refusing to accept personal responsibility issues, I have no problem understanding what taxes I pay and their purpose, you seem to have a problem understanding a federal expense and a subsidy
 
Yep.. in other words.. the states would have to pick up the tab.. OR they would have to let folks like you go without health insurance. I am not confused at all.. you don't understand what taxes you pay and why.

Money going to the states for Medicaid was authorized by federal law and receives funds from the federal govt. to match state funds and yes, states can opt up and would have to pick up the Federal contributions. Obama tried to force states to expand the program and some states refused the expansion due to the fact that federal support had a sunset provision in it leaving the expansion to the states. My point stands it was created by the federal govt. by federal law and thus authorizing federal tax dollars to the states, a big cost of what you and others call subsidizing Red States

Authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Medicaid was signed into law in 1965 alongside Medicare. All states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories have Medicaid programs designed to provide health coverage for low-income people. Although the Federal government establishes certain parameters for all states to follow, each state administers their Medicaid program differently, resulting in variations in Medicaid coverage across the country.
 
Okay.. please explain why its a lie.

I contend that the state would have a choice. If social security ended.. the state would either have to help support those elderly people.. and provide them some type of assistance. OR it would simply have to let their population of homeless elderly explode.. or perhaps start euthanasia programs

the same with Medicaid..

And welfare..

And without the money for interstate highways.. which are of the greatest benefit to the folks in the state they live in.. the state would either have to pay for it.. or do without the economic benefit they provide.

Now.. you explain to me why that's wrong.

Oh.. and then explain to me.. what do you think would happen in a state that did NOT pick up the tab. Do you think that the states populace would be fine with say just letting young children.. previously on Medicaid.. simply not get care... or do you think that people would demand that the state pay for them?

IF you think that the people in the state would allow those young children not get care... then why does your state and the rest of the states.. participate in Medicaid.. when its voluntary?

Lies don't get replies.
 
Bingo.. your article again.. supports my position:



Like I said.. given that what I contribute.. and what my company contributes.. I will have paid in millions more than I will get out. Basically.. I am subsidizing those folks above.

BS. You too will draw more than you paid.
 
And what is a block grant if not a federal expense to the states? Stop the wordsmithing, Medicaid was established by the Federal Govt. thus is a federal program funded with federal dollars.

Umm just that.. a block GRANT.. not an "expense". You are the one wordsmithing..and frankly.. not very well.

Medicaid was established by the federal government and its voluntary for the states. And its funded with both federal and state money.
 
BS. You too will draw more than you paid.

Nope.. not unless the limits are released on social security. I am in the 1%.

So I have roughly been putting in 18,000 or so a year in social security just as an individual for already over 20 years. . My businesses pay way way way beyond that for my employees. And I have decades to go.



.
 
Umm just that.. a block GRANT.. not an "expense". You are the one wordsmithing..and frankly.. not very well.

Medicaid was established by the federal government and its voluntary for the states. And its funded with both federal and state money.

As stated it was established by the Federal Govt. and thus a federal mandated expense, that is reality, live with it
 
As stated it was established by the Federal Govt. and thus a federal mandated expense, that is reality, live with it

Hmm interesting.

So according to you.. Solyndra didn;t get a subsidy. It was simply a federal mandated expense. Got it.
 
Hmm interesting.

So according to you.. Solyndra didn;t get a subsidy. It was simply a federal mandated expense. Got it.

LOL, you really have no clue what a subsidy is, do you??? Yes, Solyndra got a subsidy to lower costs which is quite different than Medicaid which provides a service
 
LOL, you really have no clue what a subsidy is, do you??? Yes, Solyndra got a subsidy to lower costs which is quite different than Medicaid which provides a service

Wait.. you said that it was a federal program.. so thus its a federal expense. That is what happened with solyndra. So its a federally mandated expense.

Medicaid.. doesn;t provide a service.. i.e. healthcare... it provides lower costs for healthcare. I and other providers provide healthcare.

So.. just like solyndra was subsidized for lower costs... so to is a Medicaid patient subsidized for lower.. or basically no cost healthcare.. (which is provided not by the government but by a provider).

another fail on your part. .
 
Wait.. you said that it was a federal program.. so thus its a federal expense. That is what happened with solyndra. So its a federally mandated expense.

Medicaid.. doesn;t provide a service.. i.e. healthcare... it provides lower costs for healthcare. I and other providers provide healthcare.

So.. just like solyndra was subsidized for lower costs... so to is a Medicaid patient subsidized for lower.. or basically no cost healthcare.. (which is provided not by the government but by a provider).

another fail on your part. .

I know this is extremely hard for you and others who don't have a clue as to what taxes you pay or their purpose but Medicare/SS are funded by Payroll taxes, that money has bee loaned to the Federal Gov't and spent on programs other than Medicare and SS and soon will have to be funded to convert those T-Bills into cash. Solyndra was a federal subsidy with federal income tax dollars going to subsidize what proved to be a failed venture proving no benefit to the American people.

The problem you continue to ignore is what a true subsidy is and how the blue states were able to raise perceived benefits without suffering at the ballot box because those perceived costs of those benefits were paid for by an increase in deductions from the federal returns. The cap now on those deductible expenses is shining the light on liberalism and that is driving radicals crazy.

All this discussion about red states being takers totally ignores that people in blue states with higher taxes were paying less Federal taxes than Red state citizens with lower state and local taxes so in essence Blue state taxpayers are seeing lower federal taxes than required because of higher state tax deductions, NO LONGER!!
 
Back
Top Bottom