This nonsense need to be nipped in the bud before it gets stated

To the topic, no, of course the federal government should never bail out whole states.

What I can't wait to see is some of these mistakenly "snug in a rug" overpaid, underworked, overpensioned public employees yammering on about endless lockdowns and f yous to the private sector watching the other shoe drop when they get to feel the pain as their corrupt system defaults and their tax base erodes underneath their public union house of cards. Seems there wasn't a need for 1 affirmative action social worker/bureaucrat/ special ed teacher for every 50 population when all was said and done after all. It's coming soon to big blue cities near you! Weeeeee! I hope they rot and burn, the whole corrupt, stealing lot of them.

 

The key is they send in more than they receive.

I have no problem with "paying their fair share" The problem I have is that people are asking questions like why should Kansas pay money to help in Illinois when Illinois has been putting more into the pot and receiving less than Kansas for years.

 

Logic is so foreign to some people that they can't distinguish it from the emotion that it evokes in them.

 

First you drew a conclusion that I was someone who didn't like farmers. That is not true. I appreciate and understand what farmers do. My Uncle ran a family dairy farm worked hard and made little.
What I said was that all people both teachers and farmers deserve the same treatment and was pointing out that the poster was using teachers (I was a teacher) as a scapegoat. Farmers don't deserve less money neither do teachers.
Secondly you used all caps in places for emphasis which I took for shouting or anger not logic.

 

Default would be the shortest path toward rational limited government in all these corrupt failed states.

 

The ultimate responsibility for all spending belongs to the House.

 

The reason being that Kansas tries to live within their budget in spite of having lower state taxes.

 

Its in our state Constitution that we are a pay as you go state. Others should do the same.

 

Well you know damn well that's not true

Not even close, so how is it the left are capable of reading completely misinterpret the meaning of a SINGLE sentence that in this case doesn't remotely even allude to what they think it said, WOW..

 

It doesn't make you immune, it makes you less vulnerable the next time you contract it.. Which brings up the a new development.. New testing is strongly suggested that the large number of people tested that have COVID antibodies already had experienced this virus in November and December.. Scientist are now saying if you had the flu in Dec or Nov of last year that is was most probably COVID..

Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic from November 2019 to January 2020

So stop waiting, get your upgrade

 

No thanks. They're finding that the disease may cause permanent damage to the liver and immune system, as well as
blood clots in the legs. If I was 30, OK. But pushing 60, I would hope for a vaccine instead.

 

Vaccine isn't a cure, you take a flu shot every year?

Good news, bad news and rolling the bones.. Age 60 even if you where in perfect health a 40 to 60% overall that include ALL ages is hardly something to depend on

The longer you wait the older you get Like on step forward and father time push's you back two steps

How effective is the flu vaccine?

 

And he had a gop house his first 2 full years in office. And he’s signed every spending increase put in front of him, instead of vetoing them. This is because republicans don’t give a **** about deficits or debt, unless a democrat is president.

 

No it doesn’t. If he vetoes it, it is dead.

 

I did not approve of the deficit spending in his first two years. However, part of it was getting the military back in shape after being neglected for eight years. That part I did agree with.

I am a republican and do care about deficits. Your generality is not accurate as are most generalities.

 

Only someone who has no idea how bills become laws in the United States would say that.

 

Read Madison. ASAP

 

he should have cut the military budget in half. And vetoed every budget proposed to him that was not spending neutral.

All evidence to the contrary of course. None of you have a **** when bush blew a budget surplus he was handed, or when Reagan exploded the deficit or debt, or when trump does it. I y when a democrat is in office.

 

Or I could read the constitution, which outlines how a bill becomes law. I’ll give you a clue, there are 3 entities that must agree to it, with 1 having total control over whether it passes or not.

 

You are clueless. No one with a lick of sense just arbitrarily says we should just cut the budget in half. If you are going to make such a proposal, then you need to be prepared to say just how the military will be structured and what its mission will be.

Like most generalities, this one is wrong and is impossible to start with. You are saying all republicans are the same and you have no such knowledge.

 

No problem. Close every foreign base. Recall every single troop not on US soil. Simple.

Find me a Republican that criticized Reagan’s HUGE spending increases, bush’s or trumps. I’ll wait.

 

And that comes out 50%? It still does not address the structure.

I wasn't much into politics when Reagan was in office.

The only major deficit associated with Bush was the 2009 budget. That budget was signed by the democratic house and the democratic president. I disagreed with the bail outs in the TARP which Bush signed. I also disagreed with and criticized Trumps earlier deficits. You need not to wait any longer.

 

Of course it does. Close them all, and no need for the same amount of personnel.

Looks like I still need to wait. You just tried to pass off bush’s Toya fiscal incompetence on a 2009 budget that was passed because of the worst recession in 80 years. Who’s fault was it that he blew a budget surplus he was handed within 2 years?

 

Blowing that budget was not necessary either by Bush or Obama. The government needs to do like I do. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. We should have cut back on spending.

 

All of that is irrelevant to the fact that the power of the purse resides in the House.

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
The Federalist Papers : No. 58, Madison.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed58.as

Too subtle?