Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even in the poor fiscal shape the CA government is in, CA remains a donor state. We could probably pull out of our financial mess a bit faster if more of our own money stayed within our state.
I dunno about that, look at the FL stats, and we are in a hell of a bind here.
I think that the flyover states are those states that don't have major cities in them. Every state in the continental United States is a flyover state except for California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Texas, Florida, District of Columbia (I know its not a state but its not flyover territory), Pennsylvania, Nevada (b/c of Vegas), Georgia (b/c of Atlanta), Mass. (b/c of Boston), and possibly Colorado (not sure on that though it could be bordering on a flyover state). Every other state doesn't get that much visitation I think but perhaps sometimes people in those other states like not getting so many visitors and attention you know.
I've always thought of the flyover states to be in the area East of Colorado's Front Range, West of the Mississippi River, North of Texas and South of Minneapolis.
I wish the red states would shut up about "socialism" since they are the biggest beneficiaries of it.
This is a rather dumb statement.
People who live in these red states (such as myself) do not necessarily feed off the govt tip. In fact, I earn everything I have. I do not expect the govt to give me a damned thing unless I lose my job and have to file for unemployment. Even then I do not expect them to prop me up. A lot of people living in these states DO NOT require govt help and do not like the subsidizing either.
I seem to hear the phrase "flyover states" mentioned more often in a presidential election year. Just my memory and nothing researched, but seems to be a phrase concocted to denote the areas between California and the northeast as those areas dominate the media (throw in a little Chicago perhaps).
I would say the term gets used to help define a populist viepoint of the people outside the two coasts. The term Heartland might describe this as wel, but many not from the northeast and California feel that national media, especially considering politics, are so oriented to the mindsets and cultures of these two areas that they forget that the majority of the nation lies outside (between) these areas. Would say it originated as a tongue in cheek term to let those that "create" the news know that there are folks in between their coast to coast flights that they ought to consider when the ideas of the nation as a whole should be considered.
LOL. Anyone who considers any part of the beautiful nation of the USA "flyover" is a snobbish coastie. GTFO and get over yourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
