Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an interesting perspective that is making me - a liberal in a blue state - see one positive aspect of Trump. If he reduces our taxes, the greatest beneficiary will be blue states, which currently subsidize red states.
The time has come for liberals to recognize that the Republican agenda -- which they have little control over anyway -- can work to their advantage. Who gets the least return on the money they send to Washington? The economically successful blue states. Which states most depend on federal spending? The poorer red ones.
What's more, they are right that states like California, Washington and Oregon would be most likely to enable health care coverage. We just need to make sure we enact a lengthy five or ten year qualification period so we don't get red state refugees coming when they get sick.
No more universal health coverage? Not necessarily. Massachusetts has Romneycare, a wildly popular state-run system that served as a model for the Affordable Care Act.
California's state-run insurance exchange is in good shape, notes Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School... Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Washington are in especially good positions to do likewise, Bagley says.
And rather than sending blue state tax dollars to benefit other states, we could keep our money in our own states.
For the richer blue states, a reduced federal tax burden would leave them with the added means to address these challenges. And the nicest part: They can spend the money at home.
This is an interesting perspective that is making me - a liberal in a blue state - see one positive aspect of Trump. If he reduces our taxes, the greatest beneficiary will be blue states, which currently subsidize red states.
The time has come for liberals to recognize that the Republican agenda -- which they have little control over anyway -- can work to their advantage. Who gets the least return on the money they send to Washington? The economically successful blue states. Which states most depend on federal spending? The poorer red ones.
What's more, they are right that states like California, Washington and Oregon would be most likely to enable health care coverage. We just need to make sure we enact a lengthy five or ten year qualification period so we don't get red state refugees coming when they get sick.
No more universal health coverage? Not necessarily. Massachusetts has Romneycare, a wildly popular state-run system that served as a model for the Affordable Care Act.
California's state-run insurance exchange is in good shape, notes Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School... Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Washington are in especially good positions to do likewise, Bagley says.
And rather than sending blue state tax dollars to benefit other states, we could keep our money in our own states.
For the richer blue states, a reduced federal tax burden would leave them with the added means to address these challenges. And the nicest part: They can spend the money at home.
I believe that the courts decided that issue years ago by striking down similar residency requirements for welfare recipients.
State colleges have residency requirements, typically a year, no reason that could not be increased to five years for health coverage. Something must be done to prevent red state refugees from running to blue states when they get sick. Blue states seem to be doing much better economically than red states and they are the most motivated to provide health coverage.
Blue states keeping their tax dollars within their state rather than federal will definitely be a good thing for them. And less Blue state money going to Red states is definitely a positive.
This is an interesting perspective that is making me - a liberal in a blue state - see one positive aspect of Trump. If he reduces our taxes, the greatest beneficiary will be blue states, which currently subsidize red states.
That's totally bogus, but I'm glad you can find a silver lining..
That's totally bogus, but I'm glad you can find a silver lining..
Which part is bogus? Blue states are doing better economically than red states. Tax cuts would benefit wealthy Blue states the most. This will allow Blue states to keep that money within their own respective states rather than sending it to federal.
State colleges have residency requirements, typically a year, no reason that could not be increased to five years for health coverage. Something must be done to prevent red state refugees from running to blue states when they get sick. Blue states seem to be doing much better economically than red states and they are the most motivated to provide health coverage.
Blue states keeping their tax dollars within their state rather than federal will definitely be a good thing for them. And less Blue state money going to Red states is definitely a positive.
I'm sure you're not aware of how racist you sound, but what you're really saying is White states do better economically than Black states & you want to be sure your White taxes, don't go to Black people.
I'm sure you're not aware of how racist you sound, but what you're really saying is White states do better economically than Black states & you want to be sure your White taxes, don't go to Black people.
I thought blacks were liberal? Can't even keep the story straight these days.
I'm sure you're not aware of how racist you sound, but what you're really saying is White states do better economically than Black states & you want to be sure your White taxes, don't go to Black people.
Haha, that's quite a twisted knot there! So blacks don't live in California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.? Hispanics are not a minority? Asians? They all live in Blue states. And take a look at the most innovative states: Massachusetts, California, Washington, New Jersey and Connecticut. The least innovative states are Mississippi, West Virginia and South Dakota are the least innovative states. If Trump wants to reduce our taxes and Blue states can keep their money rather than sending it to benefit Red states, at least we get some positive out of it.
I thought blacks were liberal? Can't even keep the story straight these days.
Yes, but the OP has erroneously made the assertion that states mooch off other states when it is citizens of those states that do the mooching.
Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to receive benefits from various welfare programs and swell the ranks of federal non-filers and zero tax filers.
Mississippi is often attacked by the left for having a large portion of their citizens on welfare programs, but it's only because they have the highest concentration of blacks of any state that this is the case.
Mason3000 is on my very short ignore list for a reason.
CA and NY are #5 and #2 for African American population, respectively.
But back to the actual thread. That argument is a bit too simplistic. It assumes that the benefit of lower taxes will not be outweighed by the economic and social calamity that Trump is planning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.