Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:15 PM Aug 2012

With Norquist in mind: save $256,381,931,608 annually, in Federal expenses in excess of taxes by

excising five states from the U.S.: Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. These states all receive far more in Federal expenditures than they contribute to taxes. I say cut the states that are costing us so many tax dollars!


Federal revenues/expenditures by State

States populations 2000 Census

using 2005 data on revenues and expenditures by state...

[font color="white"]...........................[/font] Total of Fed Revenues
[font color="white"]...........................[/font] less Expenditures
Alabama............... ($77,315,231,974)
Mississippi............. ($39,105,495,643)
Georgia................. ($31,879,068,749)
South Carolina....... ($37,444,851,109)
Tennessee............. ($70,637,284,133)
total[font color="white"]....................[/font] ($256,381,931,608)... $256 BILLION PER YEAR!


This has the additional benefit that the many people in these states who say they don't want the Federal government messin' in their affairs.... would get what they want. They're OUT of The COUNTRY! Hurrah for states rights!

Grover Norquist should love this idea. We'd be cutting programs that are net losers to the nation! We would be stopping expenditures that exceed the revenues from these welfare queen states.





10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
4. Or just pass a law which says each state must contribute at least as much
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:33 PM
Aug 2012

to the Federal Government as it receives (with an exclusion for disaster relief).




Actually I have suggested this on this board before and gotten ripped up because everyone thinks it will come out of services for the poor. It is a reasonable point but I think the law could be worded to target pork barrel spending (which is what I was posting about) and secure services for residents.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»With Norquist in mind: sa...