Welcome to PatsFans.com

No Federal soup for you!

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    Now, if I were the CIC, I'd tell cities, or states, like these that they were free to do this, but they there would be "no soup (federal $$) for you!" in doing so. :D

    [​IMG]




    Oakland resolutions condemn federal immigration raids

    Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007

    (04-25) 18:22 PDT OAKLAND -- Oakland city officials today announced two new resolutions condemning recent federal immigration raids and formalizing the city's intention not to cooperate with the U.S. government effort to deport undocumented residents.

    The resolutions, one by Mayor Ron Dellums and the other by Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, both condemn the recent raids, which included one on Friday at an East Oakland manufacturer.

    Both resolutions are also an effort to update Oakland's 1986 "City of Refuge" ordinance which only applies to refugees fleeing political violence in Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua and South Africa, De La Fuente said. His proposed ordinance would give refuge to any undocumented immigrant regardless of national origin.

    The council president, Dellums, Police Chief Wayne Tucker, City Councilwomen Jean Quan and Jane Brunner, and other city officials appeared at a City Hall news conference to support both resolutions.

    The measure by De La Fuente and co-sponsors Quan and Brunner would direct city departments and staff not to cooperate with any federal immigration investigation, detention, or arrest procedures. They will introduce the measure Thursday to the City Council Rules Committee, De La Fuente said.

    "The City of Refuge declaration is just as relevant today as it was 21 years ago, if not more, as our federal immigration policies are still in need of comprehensive reform," said De La Fuente, a native of Mexico and one of the Bay Area's more prominent immigrant elected officials.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/25/BAGDNPFGV213.DTL
     
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're talking about punishing people for a non-binding resolution? For expressing their views? Maybe next we could deny tax deductions for anyone who protests US policy?
     
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    Both resolutions are also an effort to update Oakland's 1986 "City of Refuge" ordinance which only applies to refugees fleeing political violence in Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua and South Africa, De La Fuente said. His proposed ordinance would give refuge to any undocumented immigrant regardless of national origin.


    ...would direct city departments and staff not to cooperate with any federal immigration investigation, detention, or arrest procedures. They will introduce the measure Thursday to the City Council Rules Committee, De La Fuente said.


    I'm not sure what part of what I typed is hard for you to understand? If they are going to aid and abed criminals, then they shouldn't get a cent of my federal tax money. They can run their state with their citizens money and not mine.
     
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The part where you said the American government should help American citizens - and not the wetback illegals that flood our borders every single day - is the part that is hard for him to understand.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    Well, when it comes to illegal immigration, he's a "bottom line kind of guy" you know. Facts, figures, data, and principles aren't part of that bottom line though.
     
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    First things first, I didn't read the whole article and was under the incorrect impression that they passed a resolution condemning the raids. Obviously (previously to everyone but me, but now even me) that's not the case.

    As far as running the state on state money, how about the citizens of the state stop paying federal income tax then? The federal government's "we take your money and redistribute it to you in the form of state grants" is nothing but a way to get around federalism by forcing the states to go with federal government's agenda. It pissed me off when states had to change to a .08 per se BAC standard for drunk driving, not because it wasn't a good idea, but because the fed was waving a stick, in the form of their own money, at them.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    That's the price you pay for selling your soul to the devil.
     
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'm not even sure what that means.
     
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    It means that if states were self sufficient, they could pretty much tell the fed to STFU more so than they do now. States are not only inefficient, and dependent on federal funds, but more so than they've ever been in our history. So, if you sell your soul to the devil, you are his rightful b!tch.
     
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Are you saying we have this system because states are inefficient, and need the federal government to bail them out? If the federal government reduced citizens' tax burden, and the states increased their taxes by the same amount, they could function just as well as they do now, without having to bend to the federal government.
     
  11. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    Close but not quite. If what you refer to happened things would become much easier on the Blue states; but the Red states...

    well just imagine New Orleans times about a million.

    No joke, even with the Big Dig, MA's been on the bad end of a deficit when it comes to taxes paid vs services issued for over a decade. New Jersey, bless their foul mouths, gets positively screwed. They pay out a ton. They're actually a very wealthy state, and get a fraction of it back in services.

    Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama? Well, lets just say that their votes for the Republicans have been paid back in spades.
     
  12. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It's all about seniority.

    USA Today had a breakdown of Federal outlay via earmarks.
    1. Ted Stevens
    2. Daniel Inyoue
    3. Byrd

    Alaska...Hawaii....West Virginia....nuff said
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    Thank you George Bush! Some fiscal conservative eh? Boy was I fooled. :(

    Federal aid fuels spending by states

    By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

    State and local governments have used big increases in federal aid to help cover higher spending since 2000, a move away from the tradition of using local taxes to pay for local programs.

    .........

    State governments increased their reliance on federal money from 26% of their revenue in 2000 to 31% in 2004, the most recent year available, according to the Census Bureau. States say money from Washington is crucial to their operations and helps offset costly federal requirements in education, health care and other programs.

    .......

    "States are dumping more and more expenses on federal taxpayers," says Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "States love to spend federal money because state voters don't pay for it — or at least think they don't pay for it."

    Adds Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, a group of Republican and Democratic budget experts concerned about deficits, "States that proceed with tax cuts will be squeezed when the federal government reduces spending, as it ultimately will have to do."

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-16-state-spending_x.htm




    Schools, towns enjoy federal generosity

    Posted 2/16/2006 10:51 PM

    President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have opened a pipeline of additional federal money to state and local governments. Federal aid is up 31% since 2000, after adjusting for inflation, to $449 billion this year. That's about the same size as the federal deficit, projected at $423 billion in 2006.

    .......

    Medicaid enrollment rose from 37 million in 2000 to 48 million in 2005, the biggest expansion of an entitlement program since the Great Society programs were created in the 1960s. Medicaid is run by the states. The federal government pays 57% of the cost.

    ........

    Education spending, the second-biggest source of federal aid, has increased dramatically because of President Bush's No Child Left Behind education program, which stresses testing and accountability in public schools. Connecticut has sued the federal government over costs imposed by the law, and other states have complained strongly.

    Deep Springs Elementary School gets its money from the $1.1 billion Read First program that is part of No Child Left Behind. The money touches the lives of 1.5 million students, according to the Education Department.

    "We couldn't do what we're doing without federal money," says Thompson, the principal.


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-16-state-spending-inside_x.htm
     
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    How do you figure? I guess the increases on the Tobin and Pike are because Missouri needs our money right?
     
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well I think just about everyone knows that the road tolls collected in any state have nothing to do with federal taxes. So I guess you're just trying to win over the people who aren't paying much attention. Just to clarify though, MA as a state hasn't gotten nearly an equal return on the money its citizens have paid in federal taxes, even when you factor in federal money paid to help finance the big dig, in years. You might want to follow this link* to have a look at exactly where federal money has been spent on a state by state basis. Its a little old, but it takes time to compile the data. You'll note that the blue states almost always pay more and get less while the red states almost always pay less and get more.

    Notice that MA gets $0.77 for every federal tax dollar, while Missouri gets $1.29 for every dollar paid. So yes they most certainly do need our money, just not our toll money.

    * after reading the abstract, click on Special Report#139 at the bottom.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +919 / 7 / -3

    The question becomes what are those dollars going to pay for? Are they paying for highways? Are they sudsidizing farmers? Are they simply blanket payouts to be used in with the states discretion? They are not soley income taxes btw, as one chart (I only looked at it briefly as I am at work) broke down what percentages the tax revenues come from.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>