Alabama Guys

[badrose]

Who's going to be the next US Senator from there?

[CitizenBBN]

I'm trying to get Darrell to run. Sure he's far to sensible, smart and honest to be a politician, but with his kids finally getting out of school he'll need to pick up 2-3 more jobs.

[badrose]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/16/trump-bannon-alabama-senate-showdown-242802

[CitizenBBN]

I called the Bama Sec of State, they say it's too late for Darrell to file in this election, but since they have politicians removed down there every few months or so, I'm hoping to find a window soon.

[MickintheHam]

Who's going to be the next US Senator from there?

There is a significant chance the seat goes blue, particularly if Judge Moore wins the Republican runoff next week. The Democrat is a straight up guy, a former Federal Prosecutor for the Northern District of Alabama. He is the guy who finally put thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry behind bars. Pretty popoular among moderates. A Clinton Democrat.

[MickintheHam]

Judge Moore has won the runoff. Expect a nip and tuck election.

[CitizenBBN]

Not a surprise IMO. Trump needs to understand people don't support him so much as they support draining the establishment swamp. If he becomes part of the problem he wont' have much of that support.

Moore seems to be seen as the non-establishment guy. That's a winning position right now in both parties.

[MickintheHam]

Not a surprise IMO. Trump needs to understand people don't support him so much as they support draining the establishment swamp. If he becomes part of the problem he wont' have much of that support.

Moore seems to be seen as the non-establishment guy. That's a winning position right now in both parties.

It may seem to be a winning position, but I'm not sure. Many Republicans will stay home rather than vote for either candidate. This will give a big edge to Jones. Dems and moderate Republicans who do vote will be solid for Jones. Also this will be a December election. I suspect voter turnout, especially Republicans will be low.

[CitizenBBN]

It may seem to be a winning position, but I'm not sure. Many Republicans will stay home rather than vote for either candidate. This will give a big edge to Jones. Dems and moderate Republicans who do vote will be solid for Jones. Also this will be a December election. I suspect voter turnout, especially Republicans will be low.

The whole reason Trump was behind strange was bc they think Moore will lose the general election and I think they're right. But just like sanders on the left both sides have a very strong anti establishment voting block that makes it hard for that nice middle of the road career guy to win.

[MickintheHam]

The whole reason Trump was behind strange was bc they think Moore will lose the general election and I think they're right. But just like sanders on the left both sides have a very strong anti establishment voting block that makes it hard for that nice middle of the road career guy to win.

You are correct you can't run from the middle, especially in Ala. The problem with Moore is many believe he will be an obstructionist to The Trump Agenda.

[Doc]

Id have a hard time voting for Moore

[MickintheHam]

Id have a hard time voting for Moore

I won't. This will be a net gain for the Dems.

[CitizenBBN]

Gotta not let the Dems take the senate. All the same problem we all had with Trump. There are still at least 2 SCOTUS seats in play. Kennedy is thinking of stepping down, and Ginsburg is just trying to hold out to get a liberal replacement at this point.

The Gorsuch pick looks good. If all we get from Trump and the GOP senate is good SCOTUS picks we're ahead, as much as I'd like to go up there and b-slap them.

[MickintheHam]

Gotta not let the Dems take the senate. All the same problem we all had with Trump. There are still at least 2 SCOTUS seats in play. Kennedy is thinking of stepping down, and Ginsburg is just trying to hold out to get a liberal replacement at this point.

The Gorsuch pick looks good. If all we get from Trump and the GOP senate is good SCOTUS picks we're ahead, as much as I'd like to go up there and b-slap them.

Supreme Court is only issue that will get Republicans to the polls.

[CitizenBBN]

Supreme Court is only issue that will get Republicans to the polls.

Imo it was the biggest factor in Trump winning.

[MickintheHam]

Imo it was the biggest factor in Trump winning.

Jones is all in on advertising. He is carving out the reasoned middle and painting Moore for the extremist that he has always been. I would call this race a dead heat.

[Doc]

Uh - oh (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/09/roy-moore-decries-baseless-attack-as-report-sexual-contact-with-14-year-old-rocks-senate-race.html)

I'm going to call BS on this one... and before I'm accused of partisan politics, I said exactly the same concerning this (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/08/kevin-spacey-sexually-abused-my-son-former-boston-news-anchor-alleges.html) about Kevin Spacey

Concerning Moore, who I'm not a fan of, its just too convenient that these allegations come out now. The democrats have shown that they have no issue lying in order to win. Harry Reid was especially proud when he did it to Mitt Romney and the party didn't object. Its a tactic that has worked in the past so why not use it again?

Concerning Spacey (and I wrote this in the comments to Fox), I find it hard to believe that an 18 year old would allow a man to "slip his hands into his pants" in a bar. Do that to me and somebody gets PUNCHED. And how does one slip one hands into somebody pants without allowing it? We are not talking on, we are IN. And he escaped when Spacey went to the bathroom? It makes no sense.

These sexual assault accusations make no sense and they are too easy to claim yet not prove.

[badrose]

Spacey has checked into a rehab and apologized after several have come forward with own versions, but I recall an article from years ago about him and under-aged boys near where he was shooting a movie IIRC. Hope it's not true but there's a lot of smoke.

[CitizenBBN]

My main questioning of the accusation re Moore is that this is a guy who has run more than once for major offices, and has had no shortage of general controversy. There have been multiple times something like this had every chance to blow up.

Doesn't mean I am convinced either way, but this Weinstein thing has led to a near frenzy of such accusations, and while I'm sure that's the tip of the iceberg of what all has happened in this country the last 20+ years to say the least, it doesn't mean each and every one of them is true. It's also statistically true that a number of them are likely false. There are always false claims out there too. it's knowing which are which that is so tough.

[KeithKSR]

I am skeptical, due to the timing.

[MickintheHam]

I am skeptical, due to the timing.

I am skeptical to some degree, but the guy is pretty sleazy. Moore is done. Jones will win.

[CitizenBBN]

I am skeptical to some degree, but the guy is pretty sleazy. Moore is done. Jones will win.

Mick, can the Bam GOP replace Moore if Moore steps aside or even involuntarily? I doubt Moore would quit if he were caught on video, but I wonder if he did or didn't if the GOP could put another candidate on the ballot.

[CitizenBBN]

I also agree he seems pretty sleazy. The timing is why I doubt it, but nothing people do in and of itself surprises me at all.

[MickintheHam]

Mick, can the Bam GOP replace Moore if Moore steps aside or even involuntarily? I doubt Moore would quit if he were caught on video, but I wonder if he did or didn't if the GOP could put another candidate on the ballot.

It would take a write in campaign of unimaginal proportions. This is still the reddest of states. Jones will have to be sensitive to his constituents views in order to be re-elected.

[Doc]

Mick, can the Bam GOP replace Moore if Moore steps aside or even involuntarily? I doubt Moore would quit if he were caught on video, but I wonder if he did or didn't if the GOP could put another candidate on the ballot.

No, its too late to change the ballot, even if he drops out. Shocking coincidence how the timing of that worked out, huh.... That accusations came just after the deadline. Who would have thought

[CitizenBBN]

No, its too late to change the ballot, even if he drops out. Shocking coincidence how the timing of that worked out, huh.... That accusations came just after the deadline. Who would have thought

Glad I was sitting down.

[Doc]

Glad I was sitting down.

Yeah, we won't say anything for 40 years despite him being in the news multiple times...but come out just after the deadline. Thats a shocking coincidence. Almost too coincidental

[PedroDaGr8]

Yeah, we won't say anything for 40 years despite him being in the news multiple times...but come out just after the deadline. Thats a shocking coincidence. Almost too coincidental

For the most part I agree with you, the timing is WAY too suspect. If the Weinstein thing had not happened, then I would fully agree with you but there is a a lot more to this:

Discussion on things in a more broad sense (feel free to skip this section):
Sexual assault victims, especially in that era, were treated like garbage. It was something to be hushed and shunned, you were a dirty and spoilt woman if you were assaulted, you were a shame on the family if it became none, you were asking for it, or you deserved it. Women were asked things like "What did you do to lead him on?", "What were you wearing?"etc. Justice was few and far between, even for aggressive crimes against children. This ignores anything related to the fact that sexual relations between adult men and teenage girls was not viewed nearly as creepy as it is today. Very often, the girls were accused of being complicit or even wanting it/consenting. They were labeled as whores and socially ostracized. Even today, sexual assault victims have a lot of problems in coming forward (both internally and externally) due to the difficulties of the process, the lack of support/belief, etc.. Seeing someone get actual justice for violence against them encourages others that they may seek justice as well.

Before I get to Roy Moore, as for Kevin Spacey, the rumors have been out there for YEARS! I remember when he visited, I believe Oxford, there were LOADS of reports of him acting inappropriately with the more attractive male acting students. This was around a decade ago, I remember reading about these reports when they happened. At that time, mostly online sources covered it and a few sources in the UK covered it but that is about it. Similarly, a year or two ago, I remember reading second hand reports of him at a VIP club in Thailand in the company of what appeared to be many teenage males around the ages of 12-16. While sex was not witnessed, he was seen receiving massages, having the boys sit in his lap, etc. Just as with Weinstein and Louis CK (his proclivity for exposing himself is not new), there has been a long running undercurrent of knowledge just below the surface for a long time now.

The difference is that societies views on this kind of behavior has changed markedly; recognizing it for the exploitation of power that it is and the lifelong effects that it can have on its victims. It has gone from being something which is bad (but happens) to something which is more an offense. An offense, not only when it happens to people you know, but to society as a whole and one with long standing consequences. I have seen the results of it in my field, seen what friend who are women go through when getting their PhDs under certain PIs. It is disgusting and for some of them, it wrecked their entire lives. Some dropped out due to having nowhere else to turn, leaving science all together. Others persevered but were made miserable, showing many PTSD symptoms from the behavior. I can think of one PI at a very notable research institution who is very famous for her vaccine work dealing with a certain kind of drug (which is a big problem right now). The direct stories I heard from the women members of his lab group were appalling. He would talk about sex trips to Asia to meet prostitutes; kep in mind many of the women he targeted were Asian and he would direct his discussion almost at them. He would lift up the girls lab coats "to see what they are wearing underneath", pull on their hair, comment on how they were looking (like "that outfit looks sexy" or "you should dress better"), etc. He would berate them about their performance in the lab and give them a general hard time if they resisted his behavior. One tried to complain to some of the higher ups at the research institute and was just told there wasn't enough evidence. I had heard a rumor they had already settled one lawsuit about him a decade before but that rumor was unsubstantiated. Keep in mind, most of these girls were in essence trapped in his lab. Changing PIs is a REALLY big deal at most universities. Drop your PI and almost none will pick you up instead and if they do, they are likely almost entirely unfunded and very low quality researches. So their options were to either endure his abuse or give up your life and entire career to this point. I saw how it affected some of the women, they had break downs, showed severe stress, etc. Some did quit, some fought back and were silenced, others endured with the dream of escaping soon.

Discussion on Roy Moore:
Now lets talk about Roy Moore. Moore is a sleazy SOB of the highest order, the kind of person who utilizes religion and politics not for good or to change things for the better but to further the needs/desires/power of Roy Moore. Did he assault her? Absolutely no clue, though I wouldn't put it past him. Her timing certainly stinks of it being a political attack, but even that isn't certain. The reailty is there are a variety of situations that could have happened. It certainly could be that she was emboldened by seeing Weinstein, Spacey, Louis CK and others get their comeuppance. Let's face it, showbiz news is common in the media these days, seeing the powerful in Hollywood get what they deserved could have a profound impact on her. She could have seen someone as big as Weinstein taken down and take comfort in that and have the faith to come forward. On the other hand, it could entirely a political hit with no assault ever happened at all. There is an important wrinkle to this though: even if the timing is political it doesn't mean that he didn't do it. While it would certainly put her testimony more in doubt, it does not make her testimony false. I can foresee a variety of situations all just as plausible (if not more so) than a fake story. Some require her to be complicit saving her revenge for a later date (IMHO an entirely valid behavior, though not entirely likely), others scenarios do not have her complicit but instead a pawn in a bigger game. For example, he might have done it and she said nothing because nobody would listen (or cared). When he did it, others (as was common at the time) told her to keep her mouth shut. As time went on, she learned to live with this assault and suppress it. She saw how his career grow and the power he held. He held/holds a lot of power locally in Alabama and that is something which attracts support and tends to depress dissent. As a judge, who tended to run with little-to-no well organized opposition, she had few obvious examples of strong opponents. His opponents were all likely much weaker than him and their loss was nigh guaranteed. On the flip side, running as a senator his opponents became more obvious and much more powerful than him (though so are many of his supporters). She might have approached an opponent as a "friendly ear" who could listen. They might have giver her the support and capital to go against him, then staged the release to sabotage his campaign. Still means he is a creepy horrible SOB who is unfit to hold the positions he has held, let alone the one he desired to hold, also means her release was political and used to damage him. In my opinion, the latter, or a variant thereof, seems just as likely (if not more so) to have occurred as her gaining the strength to come out on her own. Certainly more so than it being a pure political hit or her serving her revenge cold.


As an aside:
What the hell is up with the creepy supporters justifying his behavior? Saying things like "Mary was a teenager, so it is NBD" or that they had "consensual sex" and things like that?. The age of14 is not consensual in most states, let alone implying an assault is consensual, but even where it is allowed it doesn't make it any less creepy. Damn behavior gives me the chills. I get that they want to support "their guy" but seriously? If THAT is the only defense you can come up with, you are making the entire party look worse, and certainly not helping him. Better to either attack the timing of the release or to say things like "If he did this, then he deserves the punishment he will get, but I believe that his is politically motivated...blah blah blah" At least misdirect, spin, advocate without condoning his possible behavior. If you can't do that, then just shut the hell up.

[MickintheHam]

Well, the Senate race is Tuesday. Every poll indicates a tight race. Two weeks ago Jones pulled to a 10 point margin it is now back to being fairly even. It will all come down to voter turnout. Moore has a solid base that will turn out for him. Jones’ base is not as loyal. He has put together a coalition of traditional democrats and moderate Republicans. The vote hinges on how many conservative Republicans will turn out to vote for Jones.

I know in my own precinct which is suburban republican, I expect Jones to carry the vote. It’s been a very long time since any Democrat won the precinct. Moore will need heavy votes in the rural areas of South Alabama. I don’t believe it will be enough. There is also the question of how many republicans will go to the polls to vote for Jones who find they just can’t do it. It will be an election worth following.

[KeithKSR]

Well, the Senate race is Tuesday. Every poll indicates a tight race. Two weeks ago Jones pulled to a 10 point margin it is now back to being fairly even. It will all come down to voter turnout. Moore has a solid base that will turn out for him. Jones’ base is not as loyal. He has put together a coalition of traditional democrats and moderate Republicans. The vote hinges on how many conservative Republicans will turn out to vote for Jones.

I know in my own precinct which is suburban republican, I expect Jones to carry the vote. It’s been a very long time since any Democrat won the precinct. Moore will need heavy votes in the rural areas of South Alabama. I don’t believe it will be enough. There is also the question of how many republicans will go to the polls to vote for Jones who find they just can’t do it. It will be an election worth following.

Looks like a recipe for low voter turnout.

[CitizenBBN]

Looks like a recipe for low voter turnout.

A race between a guy who is ideologically unsound to most voters in the state against a guy who is morally unsound to most voters in the state.

Sounds like just another election brought to you by our democratic and pretty pitiful system. lol

[MickintheHam]

Polls release on Monday show Jones back with a lead. Of course the reliability of those is not what it once was. I do know most Republican operatives in the state have been silent as to who they will support. It may mean they will vote for Moore and not be public about it or they will write in another person as Sen. Shelby did. Even the Trump supporters in the state want nothing to do with Moore.

[MickintheHam]

Heavy voter turnout in my precinct this am. Good indication Jones carries the vote

[blueboss]

So, basically it comes down to 49%-48% win for Jones... what's the overall mood in AL about the outcome?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I know that I'm really the only one on the left side of middle that participates in these discussions, but I'm glad to see Roy Moore lose just because he's just such an awful human being and there are good people in Alabama who deserve better representation. Not an embarrasment to the state.

Doug Jones will have virtually little or no impact on the national scene. He'll be a quiet person that will most likely work for Alabamans(or is it Alabamians?, heard both all this election cycle).

As someone who identifies with Democrats and putting on my "party over country" hat, a Moore victory would be WAY more beneficial to 2018 and beyond. I prefer to look at this as a victory of decency and I tip my hat to the people in Alabama for making the right choice.

[MickintheHam]

I know that I'm really the only one on the left side of middle that participates in these discussions, but I'm glad to see Roy Moore lose just because he's just such an awful human being and there are good people in Alabama who deserve better representation. Not an embarrasment to the state.

Doug Jones will have virtually little or no impact on the national scene. He'll be a quiet person that will most likely work for Alabamans(or is it Alabamians?, heard both all this election cycle).

As someone who identifies with Democrats and putting on my "party over country" hat, a Moore victory would be WAY more beneficial to 2018 and beyond. I prefer to look at this as a victory of decency and I tip my hat to the people in Alabama for making the right choice.

I have to agree with you on most points except for the fact that Jones will have an impact on Congress. He will be a moderate voice and lead both parties to the middle. He is a very popular former Federal prosecutor, trying the cases of the bombers of the 16th St Baptist Church and of Eric Robert Rudolf, the abortion clinic bomber. He will have to be solidly in the middle in order to be re-elected. I could be wrong, but as a Federal Prosecutor, he won't be overwhelmed by lightweights such as Shumer and Pelosi. He will be much more than a wallflower or lapdog such as many in the Senate. Being an elected Southern Democrat in a Post Clinton Democrat world he will have many people listening to what he is saying. But, make no mistake, there is no way the people were going to elect a clown like Moore. The only thing he had going for him was a belief that he would support Trump.

[MickintheHam]

So, basically it comes down to 49%-48% win for Jones... what's the overall mood in AL about the outcome?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Many are relieved that we didn't send a clown to Washington, not that he wouldn't"t fit in, he would. There are very few that didn't see this outcome as a real possibility.

[blueboss]

Many are relieved that we didn't send a clown to Washington, not that he wouldn't"t fit in, he would. There are very few that didn't see this outcome as a real possibility.

Probably dodged a bullet, with all of Moore's baggage it would have been even more of a circus ( if that's possible) with investigation after investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MickintheHam]

Probably dodged a bullet, with all of Moore's baggage it would have been even more of a circus ( if that's possible) with investigation after investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t believe the underage scandals were much of a factor at all. Moore has been an embarrassment forever, having been removed from public office twice for failure to do his job. He wanted to write his own laws as Chief Justice. Talk about legislating from the bench, he was a champion.

[suncat05]

From afar, it truly looks to me like the choices were "slim, and none.
This is happening everywhere, no matter where in the U.S. that you are. Candidates are getting worse and worse, and many times the deliniation between the two candidates is almost nil.
The career politicians have ruined the process. And that is just another reason, one of many, as to why we need strident term limits imposed on these people. The career politicians have become a cancer, and there appears to be no cure in sight for this garbage. So this is what we're stuck with.
IMHO, neither one of these bozos deserves to hold a seat as a county dog catcher, much less as a U.S. Senator.

[MickintheHam]

From afar, it truly looks to me like the choices were "slim, and none.
This is happening everywhere, no matter where in the U.S. that you are. Candidates are getting worse and worse, and many times the deliniation between the two candidates is almost nil.
The career politicians have ruined the process. And that is just another reason, one of many, as to why we need strident term limits imposed on these people. The career politicians have become a cancer, and there appears to be no cure in sight for this garbage. So this is what we're stuck with.
IMHO, neither one of these bozos deserves to hold a seat as a county dog catcher, much less as a U.S. Senator.

Those are very good observations. No decent person wants the public scrutiny and tricks that come with being a candidate anymore. Working the polls yesterday, i can’t count the number who openly expressed anguish over making a choice. I have never observed that before.

[Doc]

From afar, it truly looks to me like the choices were "slim, and none.
This is happening everywhere, no matter where in the U.S. that you are. Candidates are getting worse and worse, and many times the deliniation between the two candidates is almost nil.
The career politicians have ruined the process. And that is just another reason, one of many, as to why we need strident term limits imposed on these people. The career politicians have become a cancer, and there appears to be no cure in sight for this garbage. So this is what we're stuck with.
IMHO, neither one of these bozos deserves to hold a seat as a county dog catcher, much less as a U.S. Senator.

I'm in NO WAY defending Roy Moore. I stated long before any allegations were made that I'd have a hard time voting for him were I an Alabamian. But its things like this that make decent people not want to run for gov't office. The presumption of guilty based on an accusation. He lost based on the accusations of these women who just happened to come forward after the primary. To me that stinks of politics. There were no accusations prior to this, when the GOP could have replaced him with a more suitable, less tarnished candidate.

And so now we go back to the same old stalemate politics where nothing gets done, and we listen to a bunch of idiots fight and blame each other, complaining about the other side for doing EXACTLY what they were doing for the last 8 years.

[Doc]

Those are very good observations. No decent person wants the public scrutiny and tricks that come with being a candidate anymore. Working the polls yesterday, i can’t count the number who openly expressed anguish over making a choice. I have never observed that before.

It was exactly the same in the Presidential race last year. Two dolts battling to lead the nation.

[suncat05]

Excuse me for being so blunt, but no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

[suncat05]

Excuse me for being so blunt, but no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

And MOST, not all, but MOST of these people in either house of Congress fit that description down to the last letter.

[suncat05]

As a side note, while in the way home for lunch I was listening to the Limbaugh program, and he stated that the Democrats have added these 'accusations' to their arsenal of dirty tricks to muddy up the process just enough to make the electoral process even more nasty.
He also said he believes that 'ol Mitch must certainly be relieved that he is not going to have to deal with Moore now, and that ultimately McConnell will use this as another excuse to not do much of anything in the legislative process.
Pretty much right on the money, IMHO. Almost ALL of these people in Congress are worthless as far as being representatives of the people are concerned. They represent themselves and their special interest groups that out money in their bank accounts.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I have to agree with you on most points except for the fact that Jones will have an impact on Congress. He will be a moderate voice and lead both parties to the middle. He is a very popular former Federal prosecutor, trying the cases of the bombers of the 16th St Baptist Church and of Eric Robert Rudolf, the abortion clinic bomber. He will have to be solidly in the middle in order to be re-elected. I could be wrong, but as a Federal Prosecutor, he won't be overwhelmed by lightweights such as Shumer and Pelosi. He will be much more than a wallflower or lapdog such as many in the Senate. Being an elected Southern Democrat in a Post Clinton Democrat world he will have many people listening to what he is saying. But, make no mistake, there is no way the people were going to elect a clown like Moore. The only thing he had going for him was a belief that he would support Trump.

I hope you are right. To clarify what I meant by being a quiet person on the national scene, I don't expect him to be a national spokesman but someone that will actually work with both parties and serve the people of Alabama. The state needs a different approach after languishing near the bottom, for years, of state rankings in virtually every category, education, health services, poverty, economic opportunity, job growth, employment. I can go on and on.

Having lived in a state for the last 22 years that has its own struggles, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing my state be a net giver of federal dollars and that states that are net takers of federal dollars continue to suffer and see no return on investment. I'm not fundamentally opposed to certain states supporting others, but when it's not working it's time for change. The more that states like Alabama can support itself, it really has a net effect of my taxes increasing because my state must make up that difference via state taxes. I hope that Jones can bring some positive change to the state, as its benefits can be felt beyond.

[MickintheHam]

I hope you are right. To clarify what I meant by being a quiet person on the national scene, I don't expect him to be a national spokesman but someone that will actually work with both parties and serve the people of Alabama. The state needs a different approach after languishing near the bottom, for years, of state rankings in virtually every category, education, health services, poverty, economic opportunity, job growth, employment. I can go on and on.

Having lived in a state for the last 22 years that has its own struggles, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing my state be a net giver of federal dollars and that states that are net takers of federal dollars continue to suffer and see no return on investment. I'm not fundamentally opposed to certain states supporting others, but when it's not working it's time for change. The more that states like Alabama can support itself, it really has a net effect of my taxes increasing because my state must make up that difference via state taxes. I hope that Jones can bring some positive change to the state, as its benefits can be felt beyond.
Excuse me. You need to re-evaluate your condescending statement. Individuals in low tax states (most all i the South) have contributed disproportionately to the Federal tax revenue. Finally, with tax reform the ridiculous deduction for state and local taxes has ended. All individuals regardless of where they live will pay their fair share. To use a phrase you Chicagoans should easily understand, “the chickens have come home to roost”!

[KeithKSR]

I have to agree with you on most points except for the fact that Jones will have an impact on Congress. He will be a moderate voice and lead both parties to the middle. He is a very popular former Federal prosecutor, trying the cases of the bombers of the 16th St Baptist Church and of Eric Robert Rudolf, the abortion clinic bomber. He will have to be solidly in the middle in order to be re-elected. I could be wrong, but as a Federal Prosecutor, he won't be overwhelmed by lightweights such as Shumer and Pelosi. He will be much more than a wallflower or lapdog such as many in the Senate. Being an elected Southern Democrat in a Post Clinton Democrat world he will have many people listening to what he is saying. But, make no mistake, there is no way the people were going to elect a clown like Moore. The only thing he had going for him was a belief that he would support Trump.

I have my doubts that he will break from Pelosi and Schumer, none of the moderate Dems break away and vote the way you would think they will.

[KeithKSR]

Excuse me. You need to re-evaluate your condescending statement. Individuals in low tax states (most all i the South) have contributed disproportionately to the Federal tax revenue. Finally, with tax reform the ridiculous deduction for state and local taxes has ended. All individuals regardless of where they live will pay their fair share. To use a phrase you Chicagoans should easily understand, “the chickens have come home to roost”!

Yep, low tax states have been subsidizing the blue high spending states for way too long.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Excuse me. You need to re-evaluate your condescending statement. Individuals in low tax states (most all i the South) have contributed disproportionately to the Federal tax revenue. Finally, with tax reform the ridiculous deduction for state and local taxes has ended. All individuals regardless of where they live will pay their fair share. To use a phrase you Chicagoans should easily understand, “the chickens have come home to roost”!

You're right, states like Alabama have disproportionately paid Federal Revenues and their state taxes can be low because it's a broken system that allows such states to continue to be subsidized by the federal government and keep those state taxes low with no accountability of return on those federal dollars.

I don't see how that can be assessed as a condescending statement or false.

State tax deductions is a very small way to repay the population dense areas that contribute the most revenue to the federal government. At a minimum, it holds to a double taxation principal.

What about that typical right wing argument that says the rich deserves a majority of the tax breaks because they pay most of the taxes? That rationale doesn't apply to the states that pay the most taxes?

The only chicken that has come home to roost is that a Democrat has won in Alabama.

How much more do you want taken away from states that give more than it takes? Is it going to solve the fact that Alabama ranks at the bottom of nearly every quality of life standing relative to other states? Like I said, I don't care that the state in which I lived in for 22 years subsidizes other states. I think it's the right thing to do. I just want to see a return on investment. I'm not sure what Tuesday's results will be to accomplish that, I have hope, but I know that it least it's not electing a horrible human being in Roy Moore.

It's just ludicrous to say that Alabama pays their fair share relative to other states. Alabama sits at about a $1 in/$3 out. So, if you think by cutting my state and local tax deductions is the chickens coming home to roost, then it seems like you'd be totally fine with cutting government spending for such states as Alabama to at least get down to a $1 in/$2 out. What says? Seems pretty fair. Or, do you want to keep raising MY taxes?

I've left the state of Illinois, though, but I still remain a tax payer as I own property there and have moved to a state that's more of a taker. That's a way for me to get a tax break, not that I really need one anyway. None of us really need one.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Yep, low tax states have been subsidizing the blue high spending states for way too long.

How?

[MickintheHam]

You're right, states like Alabama have disproportionately paid Federal Revenues and their state taxes can be low because it's a broken system that allows such states to continue to be subsidized by the federal government and keep those state taxes low with no accountability of return on those federal dollars.i
O
I don't see how that can be assessed as a condescending statement or false.

State tax deductions is a very small way to repay the population dense areas that contribute the most revenue to the federal government. At a minimum, it holds to a double taxation principal.

What about that typical right wing argument that says the rich deserves a majority of the tax breaks because they pay most of the taxes? That rationale doesn't apply to the states that pay the most taxes?

The only chicken that has come home to roost is that a Democrat has won in Alabama.

How much more do you want taken away from states that give more than it takes? Is it going to solve the fact that Alabama ranks at the bottom of nearly every quality of life standing relative to other states? Like I said, I don't care that the state in which I lived in for 22 years subsidizes other states. I think it's the right thing to do. I just want to see a return on investment. I'm not sure what Tuesday's results will be to accomplish that, I have hope, but I know that it least it's not electing a horrible human being in Roy Moore.

It's just ludicrous to say that Alabama pays their fair share relative to other states. Alabama sits at about a $1 in/$3 out. So, if you think by cutting my state and local tax deductions is the chickens coming home to roost, then it seems like you'd be totally fine with cutting government spending for such states as Alabama to at least get down to a $1 in/$2 out. What says? Seems pretty fair. Or, do you want to keep raising MY taxes?

I've left the state of Illinois, though, but I still remain a tax payer as I own property there and have moved to a state that's more of a taker. That's a way for me to get a tax break, not that I really need one anyway. None of us really need one.

You need to produce your numbers. You may need to reread your post I quoted. Most condescending people don’t have a clue. The people in Illinois, California, and New York have given me nothing.

[KeithKSR]

How?


Take states like Florida, Texas and Tennessee that have no state income taxes, they have nothing to deduct, so get taxed on $100K taxable income at 25%, thus paying $25K in taxes. That $100K in gets New York State taxes, huge city taxes and huge property taxes deducted. This can quickly shrink that $100K to $80K, or less. Federal taxes on the $80K taxable income would be $20K.

Now let's say the Feds return $10K of the tax funds to each state those taxpayers live in. $10k is 40% of the $25K, but is 50% of the $20K.

Why should people in lower tax states pay more of their income to the federal government than people who live in high tax states given equal incomes? That lesser tax paid by people in those high tax states is essentially a subsidy to the high tax states.

[MickintheHam]

We have been subsidizing the high tax states for way too long. Let them stew in their own juices

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Take states like Florida, Texas and Tennessee that have no state income taxes, they have nothing to deduct, so get taxed on $100K taxable income at 25%, thus paying $25K in taxes. That $100K in gets New York State taxes, huge city taxes and huge property taxes deducted. This can quickly shrink that $100K to $80K, or less. Federal taxes on the $80K taxable income would be $20K.

Now let's say the Feds return $10K of the tax funds to each state those taxpayers live in. $10k is 40% of the $25K, but is 50% of the $20K.

Why should people in lower tax states pay more of their income to the federal government than people who live in high tax states given equal incomes? That lesser tax paid by people in those high tax states is essentially a subsidy to the high tax states.

This is such an 11th grade explanation and it was exactly what I was expecting to get. You're missing most of the story, and it's still an argument that Republicans want you to buy.

First and foremost is that you're only looking at one side of the equation. So we'll start with that first. First of all, over 70% of filers don't itemize deductions, so it's not an issue at all. If you aren't itemizing you're not subsidizing. The next flaw in your argument is that you're confusing a credit with a deduction. The only tax benefit from paying state taxes and itemizing those deductions is what your marginal tax rate is. Not 50% as you have suggested. Finally, the tax laws says you can deduct state OR sales tax. The 3 states that you have singled out, Texas, Florida and Tennessee have sales tax of 6%, 6.25% and 9.75%. So, if you spend most of what you can make, you can take a deduction too, even without a state having a state tax rate. In Illinois, each year, I take the greater of my state taxes paid or my sales taxes paid. It's been different year over year. Even if your state has a zero state tax, you have the sales tax. So people in those states have EXACTLY the SAME benefit as states that have high state taxes.

So, for that point alone, if you feel like you're subsidizing high tax states, then that's your fault. Start saving those receipts and take the deduction that is allowed.

Now, let's look at the other side of the equation. Let's talk about what these states, including Alabama gets.

Florida: >$4 of federal dollars received vs taxes paid
Texas: around $1.25
Tennessee: around $1.75
Alabama: around $3.5
Kentucky: around $2.3

Illinois: around $.70
California: around $.90
New York: around $.70

So, what do you get for your "supposed subsidy" of higher tax states? Multiples of federal dollars in return, where the states that actually pay the most get less than $1 in return. How do you think these states make up the difference? I'll tell you, higher state taxes. The people that should be the most angry in this deal are people that don't itemize in these high state tax states. They're the ones getting screwed.

For those folks that think they're subsidizing and don't think they're getting anything from these other states, here's 3 things for you:

1. You're flat out wrong
2. Ask your state government why you're not getting benefits from federal tax dollars
3. Hire an accountant, save those receipts and claim your deduction

If people want to complain, I'd gladly support any plan that requires states to receive no more than what they contribute, but you know what will happen there? States will have to start taxing people, but hey you can take that deduction then. Oh, but you have that option now.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Here's a nice little report from the NY Comptroller that really shows their states breakdown of taxes paid vs federal funds received. (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2017/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2016.pdf)

A quick highlight:

"New York generated 9.4 percent of the federal government’s income-tax receipts, even though it represented 6.1 percent of the U.S. population. It received 5.9 percent of federal spending allocated to the states. According to the report, New York contributed $12,914 per capita in tax revenue to the federal budget — but received $10,844 in per capita federal spending."

So, right there the average NYer is on the hook for a little over $2,000 in taxes that other states can't contribute. You don't think that's a subsidy?

[Catonahottinroof]

If all states had the economic equivalent of NYC your point would be spot on.. its not the case however...

Here's a nice little report from the NY Comptroller that really shows their states breakdown of taxes paid vs federal funds received. (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2017/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2016.pdf)

A quick highlight:

"New York generated 9.4 percent of the federal government’s income-tax receipts, even though it represented 6.1 percent of the U.S. population. It received 5.9 percent of federal spending allocated to the states. According to the report, New York contributed $12,914 per capita in tax revenue to the federal budget — but received $10,844 in per capita federal spending."

So, right there the average NYer is on the hook for a little over $2,000 in taxes that other states can't contribute. You don't think that's a subsidy?

[MickintheHam]

Here's a nice little report from the NY Comptroller that really shows their states breakdown of taxes paid vs federal funds received. (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2017/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2016.pdf)

A quick highlight:

"New York generated 9.4 percent of the federal government’s income-tax receipts, even though it represented 6.1 percent of the U.S. population. It received 5.9 percent of federal spending allocated to the states. According to the report, New York contributed $12,914 per capita in tax revenue to the federal budget — but received $10,844 in per capita federal spending."

So, right there the average NYer is on the hook for a little over $2,000 in taxes that other states can't contribute. You don't think that's a subsidy?
Hardly a subsidy. You are mixing Corporate tax dollars with personal taxes. Take corporate taxes out of the mix and what does it mean to individuals? Corporations taxed at 35% doesn’t mix with individual tax brackets. I have yet to see where any individuals in New York subsidize anyone. New York Corporation have operations throughout the country, but only pay their taxes from their New York base. The report proves nothing relative to the discussion.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You are all still trying to simplify the debate to attempt to discredit facts, and that's probably my fault for providing TOO much data.

So let me remind again with some simpler facts. The whole myth that low tax states subsidize high tax states is totally innacurate for the reason that most people do not itemize deductions to take the perceived benefit of the state tax deduction, which in essence is a double taxation that is relieved somewhat slightly by a reduction of a tax liability at your marginal tax rate. Not a credit.

Most importantly, is that even if you live in a low tax state, you have the ability to elect AND itemize your sales taxes in lieu of state taxes. So, even if the myth is true, it is invalidated by that option. So anyone that is looking to blame high tax states for paying a higher comparative share of federal taxes, you're blame should be squarely on who you see in the mirror. It's YOUR choice.

So, let's just keep the debate there and please tell me how I'm wrong.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

If all states had the economic equivalent of NYC your point would be spot on.. its not the case however...

The argument is relevant for a taker vs giver state. I selected NY because they went through the process that was easily accessible to the data and the detailed explanations.

This topic diverted on a Alabama vs Illinois debate. It wouldn't take much to extrapolate the data and apply similar, but less extreme variances with Illnois vs New York. Let's just assume for a minute, though, that NY is the ONLY state for which this is the case. Should the people of NY either demand more federal funds or expect a return on their investment?

I believe that it is fair for states that are in a position like NY to share or spread the wealth, so I focus more on the latter. States that are recipients, such as Alabama, have a responsibility to show that those subsidies that fund their state and local governments have an effect, so when you continue to see Alabama rank near or at the bottom of basically every single quality of life category, obviously there isn't that positive ROI. Change may be good, that's all that I'm saying.

I've been accused of being condescending, which is a joke. I'm just being realistic. As much as someone might not like be replied to in a perceived condescending manner, I don't like to be presented with a con, so I'm going to state the facts. It's sad to see that people continue to believe the con, when in reality every taxpayer has the option to take a deduction that has a similar effect. They have the choice.

I guess I could really stir the pot and talk about how blue states also subsidize their votes in Presidential elections too, but maybe I'll just leave it at taxes for now and try to gain a consensus on facts first. It's a human nature thing to let perceptions override facts and it's too prevalent in an extremely toxic political environment and used by both parties to galvanize support, but it shouldn't stand in the way of facts and if I can do anything to not let that happen, I will.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Hardly a subsidy. You are mixing Corporate tax dollars with personal taxes. Take corporate taxes out of the mix and what does it mean to individuals? Corporations taxed at 35% doesn’t mix with individual tax brackets. I have yet to see where any individuals in New York subsidize anyone. New York Corporation have operations throughout the country, but only pay their taxes from their New York base. The report proves nothing relative to the discussion.

Let's pick up on the corporate tax subject for a minute. I'm starting to think that you're at least conceding that corporate tax dollars can serve as a subsidy to smaller states, so let's just make an assumption that is the sole provider to the redistribution of federal dollars.

When the rates will be come from 35% to 21%, where do you think that initial sting is going to hurt first? It's going to hit the states that are the greatest disparities of giving vs taking. You think NY is going widen the disparity gap? Ain't happening.

Now, I know the whole theory is predicated around there will be growth to offset the cost of the tax cuts, which by the way never happens, but let's just assume that it does. Who are the immediate beneficiaries of that? Well, it's corporations and the investor class. What's the first thing corporations do with that money? They don't invest in jobs, across the board pay increases or anything else, they usually invest in themselves. Stock buy backs. So, if you're a shareholder you're going to do really well.

I know people want to talk about their 401k's, but those are just paper gains right now. Unless you're cashing out, you're not a winner today. So, all those participants, I'm excluding from the conversation. So now back to Alabama, I wonder how they rank among participation in investments? I'm going to guess pretty low, at least relative to those "high state tax" states. So, the first winners of this tax plan will proportionately benefit those in other states outside of Alabama.

Let's talk about if the growth doesn't happen as predicted. Where will costs be cut? It'll happen across the board, but it's impact will be greater on the disparate states between giving and taking. If every dollar in yields 3 to 4 dollars back to you state, every dollar less paid in will have the same impact of 3 to 4 dollars not returned. The states on the negative end of that disparity will make sure that happens.

So, with a state like Alabama being near last in line for the reward and near the front of the line for the risk, is it all worth it? Add to the fact that the tax benefit those folks will receive in Alabama will be shared across every state that neutralizes any added benefit to Alabama taxpayers.

You might be tempted to throw the SALT deduction back in my face and say that with a capping of those deductions is the real benefit to taxpayers in Alabama, well, not really. By raising the standard deductions, it's going to dramatically reduce the need for people to itemize. That theory of low tax states subsidizing high tax states is completely dependent upon whether people itemize or not. So maybe instead of 70% people taking the standard deduction, we're up to say 90%? I'm certainly a candidate for making that switch(although it's not going to change my tax preparation and the supporters of this bill say it should do, why would I not want to compare which is going to save me money?).

If that number of itemizers approaches a 10% figure of all tax payers, there's so much in this bill that will benefit them, especially the permanency of the tax cuts which the middle and lower class will not enjoy(again disproportianately affecting Alabamans), I would think that the 10% is fully part of the investment class that will be the first in line to be rewarded and the last one to assume the risk.

Is the risk worth the reward?

[Catonahottinroof]

There’s a reason why the states who have the highest taxes back to the fed do so...they have the higher revenue sources to tax. The ecomonic engines per state are not equal, or even static one to another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

[KeithKSR]

This is such an 11th grade explanation and it was exactly what I was expecting to get. You're missing most of the story, and it's still an argument that Republicans want you to buy.

First and foremost is that you're only looking at one side of the equation. So we'll start with that first. First of all, over 70% of filers don't itemize deductions, so it's not an issue at all. If you aren't itemizing you're not subsidizing. The next flaw in your argument is that you're confusing a credit with a deduction. The only tax benefit from paying state taxes and itemizing those deductions is what your marginal tax rate is. Not 50% as you have suggested. Finally, the tax laws says you can deduct state OR sales tax. The 3 states that you have singled out, Texas, Florida and Tennessee have sales tax of 6%, 6.25% and 9.75%. So, if you spend most of what you can make, you can take a deduction too, even without a state having a state tax rate. In Illinois, each year, I take the greater of my state taxes paid or my sales taxes paid. It's been different year over year. Even if your state has a zero state tax, you have the sales tax. So people in those states have EXACTLY the SAME benefit as states that have high state taxes.

So, for that point alone, if you feel like you're subsidizing high tax states, then that's your fault. Start saving those receipts and take the deduction that is allowed.

Now, let's look at the other side of the equation. Let's talk about what these states, including Alabama gets.

Florida: >$4 of federal dollars received vs taxes paid
Texas: around $1.25
Tennessee: around $1.75
Alabama: around $3.5
Kentucky: around $2.3

Illinois: around $.70
California: around $.90
New York: around $.70

So, what do you get for your "supposed subsidy" of higher tax states? Multiples of federal dollars in return, where the states that actually pay the most get less than $1 in return. How do you think these states make up the difference? I'll tell you, higher state taxes. The people that should be the most angry in this deal are people that don't itemize in these high state tax states. They're the ones getting screwed.

For those folks that think they're subsidizing and don't think they're getting anything from these other states, here's 3 things for you:

1. You're flat out wrong
2. Ask your state government why you're not getting benefits from federal tax dollars
3. Hire an accountant, save those receipts and claim your deduction

If people want to complain, I'd gladly support any plan that requires states to receive no more than what they contribute, but you know what will happen there? States will have to start taxing people, but hey you can take that deduction then. Oh, but you have that option now.

If you were correct their would be no issue of eliminating the state and local tax deductions, but you aren't and this is why those states are opposed to eliminating the ability to deduct the cost of their state and local taxes.

[KeithKSR]

There’s a reason why the states who have the highest taxes back to the fed do so...they have the higher revenue sources to tax. The ecomonic engines per state are not equal, or even static one to another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

The example he gave of New York has a large number of corporate tax payers, which boosts the per capita amount of taxes paid substantially.