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.
Super rich folks and businessmen may value backwood republican votes since it can potentially save them money, but they still don't want to live in your state... which is why red states are welfare states. Donald Trump screams republican, but when was the last time you saw him away from NYC or LA (with the exception of a trip to a golf course)?
I live in a red, non welfare state that continues to grow in population and continues to attract some of the wealthiest people in the country.
True statement! It is true in the way that its probably not really true and just something you said without considering the big picture. Democrats make higher wages than republicans. cram that into you perspective and get back to me.
Yes because wages are always based on political affiliation, it's right there on the application.
Seriously, can some of you get any more stupid? I really doubt it's possible sometimes.
Yes because wages are always based on political affiliation, it's right there on the application.
Seriously, can some of you get any more stupid? I really doubt it's possible sometimes.
Well, you're missing the point a bit, Sir. The higher the wage, the higher the tax. I am only saying that dems are more likely to pay more tax for that reason, so it does not follow to say that republicans are paying for the democratic voters benefits. TheMoreYouKnow, the more you will be able to evaluate these kinds of implicit relationships.
Well, you're missing the point a bit, Sir. The higher the wage, the higher the tax. I am only saying that dems are more likely to pay more tax for that reason, so it does not follow to say that republicans are paying for the democratic voters benefits. TheMoreYouKnow, the more you will be able to evaluate these kinds of implicit relationships.
You've completely missed what I'm saying and I'm not surprised.
I am a high tax paying citizen and more conservative voter today because I'm forced to pay for blue voters in my red state who take advantage of our social programs. The same groups who typically vote heavily blue also always seem to be the same groups that use a much higher percentage of social program money than their percentage of the population.
You've completely missed what I'm saying and I'm not surprised.
I am a high tax paying citizen and more conservative voter today because I'm forced to pay for blue voters in my red state who take advantage of our social programs. The same groups who typically vote heavily blue also always seem to be the same groups that use a much higher percentage of social program money than their percentage of the population.
Unless you tell us what red state you live in, there is no way you can prove your claims. I smell something fishy
You've completely missed what I'm saying and I'm not surprised.
I am a high tax paying citizen and more conservative voter today because I'm forced to pay for blue voters in my red state who take advantage of our social programs. The same groups who typically vote heavily blue also always seem to be the same groups that use a much higher percentage of social program money than their percentage of the population.
right, but what you said was that "red states would do just fine if they didnt have to pay for their blue voters" and I was asserting that the issue is more complex than you may give it credit. Blue voters means ALL blue voters, to me anyway. Yes, I absolutely concede that certain "groups" use more tax money than others, but we were talking past each other. And don't be surprised, I miss things all the time, but help me to not miss the context of your statement.
It wasn't a Republican war until Democrats realized in 2004 that they didn't have any divisive issues to run on, and the failed stimulus cost more than Bush's portion of the Iraq War.
Reagan's tax cuts did nothing. 100,000 individuals signed up to the military during Reagan's presidency. it was the largest peace time build up of military force in our nations' history(still is). our military didnt even gain that jump after 9/11.
By getting people to sign up for the military, Reagan lowered unemployment and began defense spending at home. 130 billion dollars of Defense spending (a year) by the time he left office.
President Bush did not inherent a recession from President Clinton. But even if you want to say he did, at a .3 shrinkage of GDP, it was the smallest recession in our nation's history.
Not really sure how you can say Bush inherited 9/11 either. CIA and FBI both warned him and he didnt take it seriously.
Tax cuts have never kept the economy moving, the Republicans just ordered a study done on that and proved themselves wrong.
no company hires workers or spends money simply because they have it, there has to be a need for it. That is why tax cuts in and of themselves have never stimulated the economy.
Republican war, Who ever called it that. We called it Bush's war,and the Reason it became such was because the 9/11 Commission report came out in 2004.
The majority of the stimulus was a tax cut, so it wasnt money spent, but money never collected. And even so, the only wya you could say the Iraq war cost less than the stimulus is if you only include the cost of the war itself, and not the payments to private secruity, defense contractors, VA payments, and interest.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
You've completely missed what I'm saying and I'm not surprised.
I am a high tax paying citizen and more conservative voter today because I'm forced to pay for blue voters in my red state who take advantage of our social programs. The same groups who typically vote heavily blue also always seem to be the same groups that use a much higher percentage of social program money than their percentage of the population.
mind posting some proof that you are paying for blue voters and not red voters ?
mind posting some proof that you are paying for blue voters and not red voters ?
Doubtful, once you take a hard, quantifiable position, that position can be analyzed.
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.
