This can't be a coincidence can it?

Teflon Don said:
www.thecentersquare.com

Report: 5 largest U.S. cities don’t have enough money to pay bills

(The Center Square) – The five largest cities in the United States, all led by Democrats, did not have enough money to pay their bills in 2024, according to a
www.thecentersquare.com www.thecentersquare.com

Five large US cities that don't have enough money to pay their bills are ALL run by democrats. Can't be a coincidence can it?

They sure charge a lot of taxes in those places, so how can this be?

I am sure that our marxist friends on this board will have plenty of excuses. Maybe it is George Bush's fault?
Click to expand...
No, not a coincidence. The Welfare Red States take a ton of money from the wealth generating Blue States.

Blue States Are Bailing Out Red States
 
Teflon Don said:
www.thecentersquare.com

Report: 5 largest U.S. cities don’t have enough money to pay bills

(The Center Square) – The five largest cities in the United States, all led by Democrats, did not have enough money to pay their bills in 2024, according to a
www.thecentersquare.com www.thecentersquare.com

Five large US cities that don't have enough money to pay their bills are ALL run by democrats. Can't be a coincidence can it?

They sure charge a lot of taxes in those places, so how can this be?

I am sure that our marxist friends on this board will have plenty of excuses. Maybe it is George Bush's fault?
Click to expand...
In the case of Phoenix (5th largest), this really isn't true. Phoenix is experiencing massive growth and state funds to the city were reduced due to elimination of some tax revenues at that level that were passed through. Phoenix isn't 'broke' or looking at some insoluble debt problem unlike LA, NYC, Chicago, or Houston.

inbusinessphx.com

Phoenix Considers Multiple Options to Balance Budget, Shortfall Anticipated - Greater Phoenix In Business Magazine

The City of Phoenix is exploring options to deal with a potential budget shortfall, which could include raising sales tax or cutting some services to residents. The City is required to adopt a balanced budget each fiscal year. Under the direction of the Mayor and Phoenix City Council, the City...
inbusinessphx.com inbusinessphx.com

Phoenix's revenue issues are in the millions, not billions like those other cities.

news-usa.today

Phoenix Fiscal Challenges: City Budget News - News Usa Today

The City of Phoenix ended the 2024-25 fiscal year with $11.6 million more than it anticipated but faces “many fiscal challenges and competing priorities” next
news-usa.today news-usa.today

On the other hand, LA, NYC, and Chicago are all experiencing a revenue decline as business and residents flee those cities.
 
QP! said:
No, not a coincidence. The Welfare Red States take a ton of money from the wealth generating Blue States.

Blue States Are Bailing Out Red States
Click to expand...
Not this sophistry again...

For example, from the article cited:

Another major geographic injustice favoring red states is the transfer of military muscle south. Despite Department of Defense investments into key military contractors in many blue states, such as Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, red states, such as Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, have overwhelmingly benefited from military base expansion and relocations because of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process established by Congress.

Since the BRAC Commission first began their reviews in 1988, the proportion of bases located in red-state-dominate regions (i.e., Southeast, Southwest) increased by 6 percentage points compared to a decrease of 7 percentage points in blue-state-dominate regions (i.e., Northeast, Mid-Atlantic)

The negative economic impact of such shifts has cast a shadow over many cities and regions for decades. For example, the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Station resulted in an estimated loss of 35,000 jobs; a +25% increase to regional unemployment; a $1.2B in loss of wage and non-wage income; a $2.1B loss in gross regional product; and a loss of$37M in state tax revenue

One reason for this loss is Blue states are expensive to operate military installations in. California has seen a massive exodus of military bases going on for decades now. For example, the San Francisco Bay area has seen virtually all military basing there close and leave. Many of those facilities remain essentially undeveloped chunks of real estate as the cost of doing redeveloping them is so astronomical and unprofitable that they sit decaying in ruin.

The simplistic view the article takes explains nothing is a canard and little more.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not this sophistry again...

For example, from the article cited:

Another major geographic injustice favoring red states is the transfer of military muscle south. Despite Department of Defense investments into key military contractors in many blue states, such as Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, red states, such as Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, have overwhelmingly benefited from military base expansion and relocations because of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process established by Congress.

Since the BRAC Commission first began their reviews in 1988, the proportion of bases located in red-state-dominate regions (i.e., Southeast, Southwest) increased by 6 percentage points compared to a decrease of 7 percentage points in blue-state-dominate regions (i.e., Northeast, Mid-Atlantic)

The negative economic impact of such shifts has cast a shadow over many cities and regions for decades. For example, the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Station resulted in an estimated loss of 35,000 jobs; a +25% increase to regional unemployment; a $1.2B in loss of wage and non-wage income; a $2.1B loss in gross regional product; and a loss of$37M in state tax revenue

One reason for this loss is Blue states are expensive to operate military installations in. California has seen a massive exodus of military bases going on for decades now. For example, the San Francisco Bay area has seen virtually all military basing there close and leave. Many of those facilities remain essentially undeveloped chunks of real estate as the cost of doing redeveloping them is so astronomical and unprofitable that they sit decaying in ruin.

The simplistic view the article takes explains nothing is a canard and little more.
Click to expand...
What i say is all fact above and what you reply to is meaningless drivel which basically says 'Red States have also benefitted from Military bases moving to them' but in NO WAY refutes that basic debtor status Red States have, as welfare recipients from Blue States.

----------

Factually - Do blue states subsidize red states through federal tax redistribution?​

What Republicans Don’t Want To Say: Blue States Are the Ones Bailing Out Red States​


...Yes—there is substantial empirical evidence that states that vote Democratic (“blue states”) tend to be net contributors to the U.S. federal budget while many Republican-leaning (“red”) states are net recipients.


Below is the data-based explanation.



1. Net fiscal flows: what the data shows​


Studies comparing federal taxes paid by residents/businesses of each state versus federal spending received consistently find a similar pattern:


  • From 2018–2022, blue states provided ~60% of federal tax revenue but received ~53% of federal spending, implying a large net transfer to other states.
  • Red states provided ~40% of tax receipts but received ~47% of spending.
  • Over that period, the redistribution is estimated at over $1 trillion in net transfers from blue to red states.

Looking state-by-state:


  • Large net contributor states often include California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington.
  • Many high-recipient states include West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama.

Recent federal balance snapshots similarly show that about 19 states send more to the federal government than they receive, while the rest receive more than they pay.



2. Why this happens (key drivers)​


The redistribution pattern arises mostly from structural economic factors:


Higher incomes → more taxes


  • Wealthier, high-GDP states (often coastal, urbanized) pay more federal income and corporate taxes.

Federal formulas favor lower-income states


  • Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and income-based benefits allocate more funding to lower-income populations.

Demographics


  • Older populations increase Social Security and Medicare spending.
  • States with military bases or federal facilities receive large spending inflows.

These factors explain why states with lower average incomes or large federal installations tend to be net recipients regardless of politics.



3. Important nuance: “blue subsidizing red” is a simplification​


While the overall pattern is real, several caveats matter:


  • Not all blue states are net donors (e.g., New Mexico is heavily federally funded).
  • Some red states are net contributors (e.g., Texas in certain measures, or states with strong energy or corporate sectors).
  • The flows reflect income distribution and program rules, not deliberate transfers between political blocs.

In other words, the “blue subsidizes red” statement is statistically directionally true at the aggregate level, but economics—not party control—drives the mechanism.



4. Bottom line​


  • Data across multiple analyses shows that wealthier states—many of which vote Democratic—tend to pay more to the federal government than they receive, while many poorer states—many Republican-leaning—receive more than they pay.
  • This creates a net interstate redistribution, but it is primarily the result of progressive taxation and federal benefit formulas, not explicit partisan policy design.
 
QP! said:
What i say is all fact above and what you reply to is meaningless drivel which basically says 'Red States have also benefitted from Military bases moving to them' but in NO WAY refutes that basic debtor status Red States have, as welfare recipients from Blue States.

----------

Factually - Do blue states subsidize red states through federal tax redistribution?​

What Republicans Don’t Want To Say: Blue States Are the Ones Bailing Out Red States​


...Yes—there is substantial empirical evidence that states that vote Democratic (“blue states”) tend to be net contributors to the U.S. federal budget while many Republican-leaning (“red”) states are net recipients.


Below is the data-based explanation.



1. Net fiscal flows: what the data shows​


Studies comparing federal taxes paid by residents/businesses of each state versus federal spending received consistently find a similar pattern:


  • From 2018–2022, blue states provided ~60% of federal tax revenue but received ~53% of federal spending, implying a large net transfer to other states.
  • Red states provided ~40% of tax receipts but received ~47% of spending.
  • Over that period, the redistribution is estimated at over $1 trillion in net transfers from blue to red states.

Looking state-by-state:


  • Large net contributor states often include California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington.
  • Many high-recipient states include West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama.

Recent federal balance snapshots similarly show that about 19 states send more to the federal government than they receive, while the rest receive more than they pay.



2. Why this happens (key drivers)​


The redistribution pattern arises mostly from structural economic factors:


Higher incomes → more taxes


  • Wealthier, high-GDP states (often coastal, urbanized) pay more federal income and corporate taxes.

Federal formulas favor lower-income states


  • Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and income-based benefits allocate more funding to lower-income populations.

Demographics


  • Older populations increase Social Security and Medicare spending.
  • States with military bases or federal facilities receive large spending inflows.

These factors explain why states with lower average incomes or large federal installations tend to be net recipients regardless of politics.



3. Important nuance: “blue subsidizing red” is a simplification​


While the overall pattern is real, several caveats matter:


  • Not all blue states are net donors (e.g., New Mexico is heavily federally funded).
  • Some red states are net contributors (e.g., Texas in certain measures, or states with strong energy or corporate sectors).
  • The flows reflect income distribution and program rules, not deliberate transfers between political blocs.

In other words, the “blue subsidizes red” statement is statistically directionally true at the aggregate level, but economics—not party control—drives the mechanism.



4. Bottom line​


  • Data across multiple analyses shows that wealthier states—many of which vote Democratic—tend to pay more to the federal government than they receive, while many poorer states—many Republican-leaning—receive more than they pay.
  • This creates a net interstate redistribution, but it is primarily the result of progressive taxation and federal benefit formulas, not explicit partisan policy design.
Click to expand...
Still bullshit.

There's about a 7% discrepancy between blue and red states in favor of the later. That doesn't equate to major programs being a sole cause.

You mention New Mexico. Like many Western states, New Mexico is just short of 50% federal land. The federal government is on of the state's largest employers.

percentage-of-federal-lands-in-each-state-l.jpg


So, of course, many Western states are heavily federally funded. The feds own most of the land.
 
archives said:
Proof of what? That gated communities are largely located in the South and SouthWest? That they are predominantly white?
Click to expand...
that they are white isn't in question, but that they are MAGA which was your contention. Although this post seems to be backing off of that assertion. I humbly accept your concession.

Remember it is blue states that are bleeding residents and the racist south that is gaining them. Just sayin'
 
Teflon Don said:
www.thecentersquare.com

Report: 5 largest U.S. cities don’t have enough money to pay bills

(The Center Square) – The five largest cities in the United States, all led by Democrats, did not have enough money to pay their bills in 2024, according to a
www.thecentersquare.com www.thecentersquare.com

Five large US cities that don't have enough money to pay their bills are ALL run by democrats. Can't be a coincidence can it?

They sure charge a lot of taxes in those places, so how can this be?

I am sure that our marxist friends on this board will have plenty of excuses. Maybe it is George Bush's fault?
Click to expand...
Planned obsolescence and plausible deniability work 7 days a week deflecting how actual evolving doesn't exceed adapting to the moment here since conception of one's sole time alive now.
 
Teflon Don said:
that they are white isn't in question, but that they are MAGA which was your contention. Although this post seems to be backing off of that assertion. I humbly accept your concession.

Remember it is blue states that are bleeding residents and the racist south that is gaining them. Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Well let’s look at it deductively; majority of gated communities are in the South, the majority of Southern States are Red, majority of gated villages are not predominantly located in urban areas, gated communities are largely white segregated by choice and over concerned with security, gated communities communities as the Villages in Florida are ruby “white power” Red, ergo, seems relatively safe to assume that the majority of gated communities are MAGA

And with the Boomers, a large percentage of those leaving are snowbirds, and the others, those that couldn’t make it here
 
archives said:
First off, what great city in America isn’t run by Democrats, and that is not coincidence

Second, the “Center Square,” which is a libertarian source, is basing its narrative on the results put out by “Truth in Accounting,” another libertarian entity. I am not attacking the sources, rather, pointing out that due to their orientation their conclusions are based upon balanced budgets, which would put most all political units at risk. Their review of the States does the same, especially with those Southern States so dependent on Federal dollars.

Third, the methodology employed, “it assesses the amount of money city governments need to pay their bills, dividing this number by the estimated number of city taxpayers. The difference is the taxpayer burden, or what every taxpayer owes in order to pay off the city’s debt,” which is confusing considering municipalities, especially major cities, generate income in additional avenues outside of taxpayers responsibilities

Hate to break it to all you gated community MAGA’s but NYC isn’t going anywhere, and you should be glad it isn’t, without it, and similar cities, America would resemble Albania
Click to expand...
LOL, you should hear Chives defend his endless gloom and doom economic prophecies. Libtards truly excel at one thing: excuse making, and that steaming pile above is exhibit A.

Scroll his post history, if he hasn't hidden it like most of his kind, and I'm guessing you'll find a perfect little drone parroting the same discredited 'experts' who swore Trump's policies guaranteed recession, probably depression. Tariffs would send inflation to the moon, GDP would tank or flatline, and the world would shun us for China. Zero for five, yet zero shame.

Why no embarrassment? Because in his superior libtard mind, he's still right about everything, lol. They can't accept being ass backward wrong even when buried under mountains of data. Prove me wrong: name one thing Chives ever got right. Good luck. Libtards never admits error. Facts smack them in the face, they just blink, pretend they vanished, and keep chanting the same lies year after year, decade after decade. It's almost performance art.

Take taxes as the classic illustration. Libtards crave endless spending on handouts and entitlements, so they scream that the rich are greedy and must pay their "fair share.' Hand that cash to noble souls like Chives in Congress, and voila, the oppressed get uplifted. Sounds dreamy to what I call low resolution thinkers. Raise taxes on the productive, redistribute to the downtrodden. Simple, right? How many times have we heard this fairy tale from compassionate Democrats? Too many to count.

Reality check, requiring only slightly sharper thinking: history shows every major tax cut has increased revenue. Why? Explosive growth creates more businesses paying taxes and fattens existing ones, so treasury checks swell. Every single time. Yet Democrats still pretend cuts 'cost' us money and must be 'paid for,' ignoring the proven dynamic scoring that makes them idiots. Too many Republicans swallow the same nonsense, probably figuring voters are too stupid to notice the pattern. Revenue dips short term after a cut? Yes. Then it surges. Always.

Raise taxes instead? Morons expect a windfall, but slower growth and stagnation deliver less revenue despite higher rates. Higher taxes also breed more cheating; lower rates shrink the incentive to hide income. Pesky human nature libtards eternally ignore. Maybe a tiny first year bump, then revenues flatten or drop as the damage compounds. New programs underfund, overruns pile up, shortfalls grow, every single time. Solution? Raise taxes again because greedy businesses still aren't paying their 'fair share.' Rinse, repeat.

The evidence is glaring, yet their script never changes. Decades of repeating the same lies with media cover worked, until the information boom. Truth seekers now find facts despite efforts to bury them. Democrats owned the narrative monopoly, now legacy media is collapsing under the weight of its own verifiable bullshit and naked agenda. Free markets win. Always.

Bottom line: Chives is full of shit, as always. Add in his obvious contempt for the America the rest of us love, and it's clear he's swallowing the wrong talking points from the usual suspects. Pathetic. Oh, San Francisco is comparable to the size of Fort Worth, TX. Gas $2.50 vs 4.59 Electricity rate per KW is .15 cents vs. .38 cents. I'll let you guess which one is which. We can discuss why so many cities are run by libtards next if you'd like.
 
Tobytone said:
LOL, you should hear Chives defend his endless gloom and doom economic prophecies. Libtards truly excel at one thing: excuse making, and that steaming pile above is exhibit A.

Scroll his post history, if he hasn't hidden it like most of his kind, and I'm guessing you'll find a perfect little drone parroting the same discredited 'experts' who swore Trump's policies guaranteed recession, probably depression. Tariffs would send inflation to the moon, GDP would tank or flatline, and the world would shun us for China. Zero for five, yet zero shame.

Why no embarrassment? Because in his superior libtard mind, he's still right about everything, lol. They can't accept being ass backward wrong even when buried under mountains of data. Prove me wrong: name one thing Chives ever got right. Good luck. Libtards never admits error. Facts smack them in the face, they just blink, pretend they vanished, and keep chanting the same lies year after year, decade after decade. It's almost performance art.

Take taxes as the classic illustration. Libtards crave endless spending on handouts and entitlements, so they scream that the rich are greedy and must pay their "fair share.' Hand that cash to noble souls like Chives in Congress, and voila, the oppressed get uplifted. Sounds dreamy to what I call low resolution thinkers. Raise taxes on the productive, redistribute to the downtrodden. Simple, right? How many times have we heard this fairy tale from compassionate Democrats? Too many to count.

Reality check, requiring only slightly sharper thinking: history shows every major tax cut has increased revenue. Why? Explosive growth creates more businesses paying taxes and fattens existing ones, so treasury checks swell. Every single time. Yet Democrats still pretend cuts 'cost' us money and must be 'paid for,' ignoring the proven dynamic scoring that makes them idiots. Too many Republicans swallow the same nonsense, probably figuring voters are too stupid to notice the pattern. Revenue dips short term after a cut? Yes. Then it surges. Always.

Raise taxes instead? Morons expect a windfall, but slower growth and stagnation deliver less revenue despite higher rates. Higher taxes also breed more cheating; lower rates shrink the incentive to hide income. Pesky human nature libtards eternally ignore. Maybe a tiny first year bump, then revenues flatten or drop as the damage compounds. New programs underfund, overruns pile up, shortfalls grow, every single time. Solution? Raise taxes again because greedy businesses still aren't paying their 'fair share.' Rinse, repeat.

The evidence is glaring, yet their script never changes. Decades of repeating the same lies with media cover worked, until the information boom. Truth seekers now find facts despite efforts to bury them. Democrats owned the narrative monopoly, now legacy media is collapsing under the weight of its own verifiable bullshit and naked agenda. Free markets win. Always.

Bottom line: Chives is full of shit, as always. Add in his obvious contempt for the America the rest of us love, and it's clear he's swallowing the wrong talking points from the usual suspects. Pathetic. Oh, San Francisco is comparable to the size of Fort Worth, TX. Gas $2.50 vs 4.59 Electricity rate per KW is .15 cents vs. .38 cents. I'll let you guess which one is which. We can discuss why so many cities are run by libtards next if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Whatever
 
archives said:
Well let’s look at it deductively; majority of gated communities are in the South, the majority of Southern States are Red, majority of gated villages are not predominantly located in urban areas, gated communities are largely white segregated by choice and over concerned with security, gated communities communities as the Villages in Florida are ruby “white power” Red, ergo, seems relatively safe to assume that the majority of gated communities are MAGA

And with the Boomers, a large percentage of those leaving are snowbirds, and the others, those that couldn’t make it here
Click to expand...
Lots of assumptions and zero facts. Where is your proof that majority of gated communities are in the South? There is an apartment complex that is near where I live that is "gated" are you saying everyone that lives in those apartments are rich MAGA?

You marxists are so riddled with prejudices and false assumptions it is hard to contemplate. Sometimes I wonder if you are really are this stupid or are just trolling for impact?

I honestly hope it is the latter.
 
Teflon Don said:
Lots of assumptions and zero facts. Where is your proof that majority of gated communities are in the South? There is an apartment complex that is near where I live that is "gated" are you saying everyone that lives in those apartments are rich MAGA?

You marxists are so riddled with prejudices and false assumptions it is hard to contemplate. Sometimes I wonder if you are really are this stupid or are just trolling for impact?

I honestly hope it is
Click to expand...
www.cnbc.com

Why Americans love gated communities

American gated communities offer security and privacy and prestige, but what many homebuyers are increasingly attracted to are their amenities.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

“Gated communities are not distributed evenly across the spatial landscape. They are especially common in the American Sunbelt, which includes States as Florida, California, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas.
 
archives said:
www.cnbc.com

Why Americans love gated communities

American gated communities offer security and privacy and prestige, but what many homebuyers are increasingly attracted to are their amenities.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

“Gated communities are not distributed evenly across the spatial landscape. They are especially common in the American Sunbelt, which includes States as Florida, California, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas.
Click to expand...
You found one place?

ROFLMAO
 
Crepitus said:
All large US cities are run by Democrats.

How do you not know that?
Click to expand...
Is that so? What about Miami? Is that not a large city?
Aw crap, they snuck a Democrat in there, too.
She doesn't look that bad though. I remember the days when Democrats were decent in FL.
Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top