San Francisco to Trump "F off"

[Gardening Grandma]

[The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Response to the Election of Donald Trump]

"Resolution responding to the election of Donald Trump and reaffirming San
Francisco’s commitment to the values his election threatens.
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2016, American voters elected an erratic, ill-informed  racist and misogynist as President; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That no matter the threats, San Francisco will remain a Sanctuary City."

sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4780694&GUID=4A3B6004-E6E2-4C83-B1B7-ACD7D52AE510


Seattle also
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-will-remain-sanctuary-city-for-immigrants-despite-trump-presidency-mayor-says/

As well as New York, Chicago, Las Angeles, Newark, Providence, Baltimore,& more

time.com/4578847/sanctuary-city-mayors-donald-trump-immigration/

[mollyanna58]

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

[zibazinski]

Excellent news! Always know who your enemies are.

[Gardening Grandma]

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

You DO realize these cities CONTRIBUTE to federal funds. Right?

[djAdvocate]

our local populace is pushing for my home town to become a sanctuary city.

America is pretty clearly on two different tracks.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 19, 2016 12:13:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

You DO realize these cities CONTRIBUTE to federal funds. Right?

California has contributed more than it receives since the 40's.  if the feds "cut us off" we would all throw a giant party with the extra revenues. 

[formerroomate99]

Dec 19, 2016 12:13:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

You DO realize these cities CONTRIBUTE to federal funds. Right?

You do realize that lots of cities counties and states get forced to do things they don't want to do in order to keep the federal funds coming in, and they don't get to stop paying federal taxes if they decide to opt out

[Gardening Grandma]

Dec 19, 2016 12:20:05 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:13:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

You DO realize these cities CONTRIBUTE to federal funds. Right?

You do realize that lots of cities counties and states get forced to do things they don't want to do in order to keep the federal funds coming in, and they don't get to stop paying federal taxes if they decide to opt out

OF course I do. Which makes their stand on principle even more admirable.

[Gardening Grandma]

I am afraid ALL states are going to see Medicaid cuts.  Another reason I voted for Clinton.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

[dondub]

  I am afraid ALL states are going to see Medicaid cuts.

 That's true and will join those states that did not expand Medicaid under the ACA. Thus the existing suffering of those that have no access to healthcare due to no insurance will increase, back towards the days when 47,000 Americans died due to same. I'm sure there are citizens opposed to expanded Medicaid that like to pretend this doesn't have that impact but they are just fooling themselves.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 19, 2016 12:20:05 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:13:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

You DO realize these cities CONTRIBUTE to federal funds. Right?

You do realize that lots of cities counties and states get forced to do things they don't want to do in order to keep the federal funds coming in, and they don't get to stop paying federal taxes if they decide to opt out

i would relish the opportunity to defend our border against dumbfuckistan, which is a mere 200 miles in the Mojave Desert.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 19, 2016 12:55:10 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

the red states are operating under the false assumption that we suck from government teat.  in fact, we are the cow.

[Gardening Grandma]

Dec 19, 2016 13:13:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:55:10 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

the red states are operating under the false assumption that we suck from government teat.  in fact, we are the cow.

The red states seem to operate under a LOT of false assumptions. This is one of. them....

[verrip1]

Don Quixote

[dondub]

Sancho Panza

[Rukh O'Rorke]

willie wonka

[emma1420]

Dec 19, 2016 13:27:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Dec 19, 2016 13:13:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the red states are operating under the false assumption that we suck from government teat.  in fact, we are the cow.

The red states seem to operate under a LOT of false assumptions. This is one of. them....

It always makes me laugh.  The 10 most dependent states on federal government dollars, with the exception of New Mexico are all red states:

1 Mississippi 
2 New Mexico 
3 Alabama 
4 Louisiana 
5 Tennessee 
6 Montana 
7 South Dakota
8 Kentucky 
9 West Virginia 
10 Missouri 


The least dependent are primarily blue states (with the exception of Alaska and Kansas -- and as Kansas is on the verge of bankruptcy it's just a matter of time before they are up their with their neighbor Missouri)?  

40 Alaska 
41 New York 
42 New Hampshire 
43 Minnesota 
44 Nevada 
45 Illinois 
46 California 
47 Kansas 
48 New Jersey 
49 Connecticut 
50 Delaware 


wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

[djAdvocate]

Dec 19, 2016 16:23:59 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Dec 19, 2016 15:54:30 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

It always makes me laugh.  The 10 most dependent states on federal government dollars, with the exception of New Mexico are all red states:

1 Mississippi 
2 New Mexico 
3 Alabama 
4 Louisiana 
5 Tennessee 
6 Montana 
7 South Dakota
8 Kentucky 
9 West Virginia 
10 Missouri 


The least dependent are primarily blue states (with the exception of Alaska and Kansas -- and as Kansas is on the verge of bankruptcy it's just a matter of time before they are up their with their neighbor Missouri)?  

40 Alaska 
41 New York 
42 New Hampshire 
43 Minnesota 
44 Nevada 
45 Illinois 
46 California 
47 Kansas 
48 New Jersey 
49 Connecticut 
50 Delaware 


wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I went to the site that you got these numbers from.   It's interesting,  but I feel like the whole story isn't being told here.   I'd have to spend more time with it to figure out what it's trying to tell me to either prove or disprove the information presented.   One question I had was why is it counting federal contracts received? And federal jobs?    That seems like an odd metric to use for this,  it's misleading at best if you are counting federal salaries in the calculation.   And what do they mean by grants?  

Methodology

In order to identify which states are most and least federally dependent, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states across two key dimensions, namely “State Residents’ Dependency” and “State Government’s Dependency.”



We first identified three relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was given a value between 0 and 100, wherein 100 corresponds with the most dependency and 0 with the least.



We then calculated the overall score for each state using the weighted average across all metrics and ranked the states accordingly.



State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50

Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government (~37.50 Points)

Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.

Share of Federal Jobs (~12.50 Points)


State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50

Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue (~50.00 Points)

Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal revenues in U.S. dollars by state revenues in U.S. dollars then multiplying the result by 100.


The following metrics were included in the report for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.



“Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections”

“Grants” divided by “IRS Collections”

by all means, satisfy yourself.  i have. 

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Dec 19, 2016 12:08:36 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

[The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Response to the Election of Donald Trump]

"Resolution responding to the election of Donald Trump and reaffirming San
Francisco’s commitment to the values his election threatens.
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2016, American voters elected an erratic, ill-informed  racist and misogynist as President; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That no matter the threats, San Francisco will remain a Sanctuary City."

sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4780694&GUID=4A3B6004-E6E2-4C83-B1B7-ACD7D52AE510

I read the entire resolution and was disappointed that it didn't actually tell anyone to F off.

[siralynn]

Dec 19, 2016 18:08:40 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:08:36 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

[The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Response to the Election of Donald Trump]

"Resolution responding to the election of Donald Trump and reaffirming San
Francisco’s commitment to the values his election threatens.
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2016, American voters elected an erratic, ill-informed  racist and misogynist as President; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That no matter the threats, San Francisco will remain a Sanctuary City."

sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4780694&GUID=4A3B6004-E6E2-4C83-B1B7-ACD7D52AE510

I read the entire resolution and was disappointed that it didn't actually tell anyone to F off.

I did love Jerry Brown's "California will launch its own damn satellite" remark last week.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

What is it about our current immigration laws that you detest so much that you cheer for and find it acceptable for cities to not only go against federal law; but openly flaunt doing it?  

[djAdvocate]

Dec 19, 2016 18:32:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

What is it about our current immigration laws that you detest so much that you cheer for and find it acceptable for cities to not only go against federal law; but openly flaunt doing it?  

it depends on the federal law.  ie: in the case of drug laws, open defiance is the best way forward, imo.

[Value Buy]

Dec 19, 2016 12:55:10 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:11:34 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

I truly hope they stand by their convictions and refuse to accept any federal funds for any city needs.

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

Illinois and Chicago as well as the state of California contribute zero dollars to the feds.
It is the citizens and corporations of these districts that are forced to over pay via tax receipts to the Feds, so the feds can send it back to the cities to waste on lawyers protecting illegals who are breaking our laws.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2016 22:34:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:55:10 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

Illinois and Chicago as well as the state of California contribute zero dollars to the feds.
It is the citizens and corporations of these districts that are forced to over pay via tax receipts to the Feds, so the feds can send it back to the cities to waste on lawyers protecting illegals who are breaking our laws.

that is our concern, not yours.  they are our dollars to spend, as we coughed them up.

worry about your own state, please, and let us worry about our own.

TYIA.

[Value Buy]

Dec 21, 2016 22:36:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 21, 2016 22:34:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Illinois and Chicago as well as the state of California contribute zero dollars to the feds.
It is the citizens and corporations of these districts that are forced to over pay via tax receipts to the Feds, so the feds can send it back to the cities to waste on lawyers protecting illegals who are breaking our laws.

that is our concern, not yours.  they are our dollars to spend, as we coughed them up.

worry about your own g-ddamn state, please.  we are doing just fine.

Please quit making wild statements how California sends all this snowflake money to the feds and I will.
The citizens and corporations send the money to them.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 21, 2016 22:39:15 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Dec 21, 2016 22:36:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is our concern, not yours.  they are our dollars to spend, as we coughed them up.

worry about your own g-ddamn state, please.  we are doing just fine.

Please quit making wild statements how California sends all this snowflake money to the feds and I will.

we send 120% of what we get.

The citizens and corporations send the money to them.

that is "we" bro.  that is what "we" means.  when i say "California" or "we", i am talking about CITIZENS OF THIS STATE.

let's not get into this stupid semantics shit, please.  you are one of the few posters left that doesn't play that game with me.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Dec 21, 2016 22:34:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Dec 19, 2016 12:55:10 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Illinois, most especially via the Chicago coffers, contribute much more to federal funding then Illinois receives.

so yes - let us stop that.

Illinois and Chicago as well as the state of California contribute zero dollars to the feds.
It is the citizens and corporations of these districts that are forced to over pay via tax receipts to the Feds, so the feds can send it back to the cities to waste on lawyers protecting illegals who are breaking our laws.

but we don't get all that money back, is the point. We pay in our taxes dollars, and get less in return.

The sound bite that the large inner cities are taking a disproportionate amount of fed money is not accurate - we get back less than what we put in, which means other states are taking more than they put in.

So bringing it back to the EC - these "counties that can control the election" on a popular vote - are also the counties that are doing the major funding.

So - what we are having is the majority of the population, paying in more money to support other states, and with an election system that favors the will of those other states receiving the money.

I'm calling that taxation without *equal* representation. 

Regardless of ideology - this has always been a dangerous political dynamic - historically speaking.

As a chicagoan - who pays a good deal in taxes, and I'm sure, not as much as many others - I'm feeling kind of done with this scenario.

Calling those more rural states the heartland or the bread basket to try to lend them more importance is getting annoying. Calling those in the rural states "real Americans" or the "average Americans" is essentially telling us how unimportant they find us in the city centers, and is insulting and condescending.


And so with the immediate response to some cities not wanting to jump onto the deportation bandwagon being "then don't take federal money" - without realizing that those states are paying in more than they take - and that in the case of Illinois (haven't checked others) - the majority of that tax money from the entire state is paid from the chicago area.

Without regard to ideology - as a chicagoan - and what others from large cities/blue states are dealing with is their presidential vote counting less, their tax dollars taken and dispersed to other states, who then insult them by alluding to them as not as american as other citizen.

Seriously - this needs to be taken seriously. This is not about trump per se, as it is an increased realization on the inequity across states on these issues that the current election has highlighted.

[Gardening Grandma]

Dec 22, 2016 10:22:55 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Dec 21, 2016 22:34:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Illinois and Chicago as well as the state of California contribute zero dollars to the feds.
It is the citizens and corporations of these districts that are forced to over pay via tax receipts to the Feds, so the feds can send it back to the cities to waste on lawyers protecting illegals who are breaking our laws.

but we don't get all that money back, is the point. We pay in our taxes dollars, and get less in return.

The sound bite that the large inner cities are taking a disproportionate amount of fed money is not accurate - we get back less than what we put in, which means other states are taking more than they put in.

So bringing it back to the EC - these "counties that can control the election" on a popular vote - are also the counties that are doing the major funding.

So - what we are having is the majority of the population, paying in more money to support other states, and with an election system that favors the will of those other states receiving the money.

I'm calling that taxation without *equal* representation. 

Regardless of ideology - this has always been a dangerous political dynamic - historically speaking.

As a chicagoan - who pays a good deal in taxes, and I'm sure, not as much as many others - I'm feeling kind of done with this scenario.

Calling those more rural states the heartland or the bread basket to try to lend them more importance is getting annoying. Calling those in the rural states "real Americans" or the "average Americans" is essentially telling us how unimportant they find us in the city centers, and is insulting and condescending.


And so with the immediate response to some cities not wanting to jump onto the deportation bandwagon being "then don't take federal money" - without realizing that those states are paying in more than they take - and that in the case of Illinois (haven't checked others) - the majority of that tax money from the entire state is paid from the chicago area.

Without regard to ideology - as a chicagoan - and what others from large cities/blue states are dealing with is their presidential vote counting less, their tax dollars taken and dispersed to other states, who then insult them by alluding to them as not as american as other citizen.

Seriously - this needs to be taken seriously. This is not about trump per se, as it is an increased realization on the inequity across states on these issues that the current election has highlighted.

"what others from large cities/blue states are dealing with is their presidential vote counting less, their tax dollars taken and dispersed to other states, who then insult them by alluding to them as not as american as other citizen."



And mansplaining to them why it is perfectly ok that their vote doesn't count as much as others

[Rukh O'Rorke]

www.yescalifornia.org/

This is a very important question. It is the responsibility of this campaign to explain what a yes vote will mean for you, your family, your community, our state, our country, and our world. We have designed this website to answer many of these questions and look to you to ask more.



"As the sixth largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point by point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states.”



In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.



Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.



However, this independence referendum is about more than California subsidizing other states of this country. It is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law.



It is about California taking its place in the world, standing as an equal among nations. We believe in two fundamental truths: (1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as a just a U.S. state.



In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the international community with their “Brexit” vote. Our “Calexit” referendum is about California joining the international community. You have a big decision to make.

further - I think this language is important to our conversation here.

This fiction of the blue states being the welfare suckers served some politicians very well for a while - but it has awakened a sleeping giant. California, like illinois, pays in more than they take in fed tax dollars, while also being triumphantly criticized for it's urban poor and other financial shortcomings. Blue states would do well to put that money to use for their own concerns and their own populace instead of sending it to other states.

While the calexit may be extreme, expect more resistance on these taxation issues.