Alabama Guys

[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.

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.

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.

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.