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.
My understanding isn't the issue here, your ignorance is the issue here.
Unless you can prove that "red" voters in these "red" states are the ones sucking up all that gov. money you have no point. Based on what I see the people in my prosperous and successful red state who always have their hands out are also the same ones who vote Democrat.
Red states do receive federal spending, they tend to have things like federal prisons, or military bases in them, or border mexico, thus need federal spending to secure them.
Random, is lumping all federal spending together and then claiming that because the federal government spends money there, its poor..
If true, this would then show that the Obama stimulus arument that the federal government throwing money all over the place would improve the economy, was a LIE, because either federal spending increases the value, thus these red states which then get federal spending dollars would be "rich", not poor as they proclaim, or it doesnt.
random is now arguing against his own premace of the thread and he doesnt even understand the humor in doing so...
hahaha
See what he's doing is suggesting that things like military spending = welfare spending, thus its "handouts" and results in poverty, which of course is ridiculous.
the whole thought process is seriously flawed, but we knew that from the get go..
Thats because they count federal SPENDING as a benefit, when in reality its the government spending on things like border security, buying oil and such.
You are making the exact same flawed argument that many left wing kooks do here, which is that all federal spending = welfare and handouts.
WRONG..
Red states like Texas receive federal spending dollars because it borders Mexico for example..
no only that, but the '''red''' states like texas, nc, sc miss...all have multiple large active military posts too
when they list ""government spending"" it includes military posts and NATIONAL PARK LANDS
north dakota
iowa
ok
utah
nebraska
indiana
WV
SD
AK
Mississippi
SC
Va
Tenn
Ga
Ky
Mn
Tex
Arkansas
Del
Mich
WISCONSIN
AZ
Maryland
Ohio
VT
Penn
Wyoming
Missouri
alabam
mass
kansas
lousi
hawaii
maine
washington
idaho
CT
Montana
FL
cali
NM
NC
NY
oregon
nv
MH
NJ
RI
with wisconsin onb the better side of the middle
2012:
job creation index 2012
from BEST to WORST by state including DC
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
District of Columbia
Texas
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Iowa
Indiana
Utah
Maryland
Ohio
Missouri
Kansas
Wisconsin
Michigan
Arkansas
Wyoming
Vermont
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Illinois
Georgia
Arizona
Virginia
South Carolina
NATIONAL AVERAGE
Washington
North Carolina
Mississippi
Kentucky
Alabama
Nevada
Montana
Colorado
Alaska
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Florida
West Virginia
Rhode Island
Delaware
California
Oregon
New York
New Mexico
New Jersey
Idaho
Connecticut
Maine State of the States
2013
North Dakota
South Dakota
District of Columbia
Nebraska
Delaware
Minnesota
Texas
Michigan
Iowa
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Arizona
Wyoming
Washington
Utah
Tennessee
Ohio
Massachusetts
Indiana
Georgia
Florida
Oklahoma
Maryland
Illinois
Colorado
South Carolina
Oregon
Nation
Missouri
Louisiana
Idaho
Virginia
Nevada
Kansas
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Montana
California
Mississippi
Alaska
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Maine
Kentucky
Arkansas
Alabama
New York
Connecticut
West Virginia
Vermont
New Mexico
Rhode Island
cali ranked 9th and 8th, and 15th WORST
infact the only 'liberal state' in the top 10 best is Indiana (unless you want to count DC as a state)
Last edited by workingclasshero; 09-18-2014 at 02:09 AM..
Thats because they count federal SPENDING as a benefit, when in reality its the government spending on things like border security, buying oil and such.
You are making the exact same flawed argument that many left wing kooks do here, which is that all federal spending = welfare and handouts.
WRONG..
Red states like Texas receive federal spending dollars because it borders Mexico for example..
Exactly there is good federal spending in other words $164 billion for the VA and another $500 billion for defense. Just because a lot of the $664 billion in gubbermint spending falls on the Red states and the Tea Party supporters who receive that spending shouldnt be held against them. Its just like the farm subsidies in Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Why should Tea Party types getting a federal subsidy be blamed for taking that subsidy...the Dems forced it on them years ago. And then there are food stamps, housing and the other programs..They were all brought on by Dems and now the Tea Party types are forced to accept them. Lets not even go into SS disablities which are rampant in many red states...It was the Dems that set up the system and once again forced it on the Red states. SS and Medicare...again forced on the Tea Party types against their will for 40 years or more...oh the horror.
Stop your silly excuses!. Liberals didn't set up Alabama or Mississippi to be economical and educational drain on the nation, unless you count forced abolishment of slavery...
"The much more likely factor driving the persistent imbalance between federal taxing and spending isn't the relative ability of lawmakers to "bring home the bacon," but is the fact that higher income states bear a larger fraction of the federal tax burden—an imbalance that is sharply amplified by the progressive structure of the federal income tax.
For whatever reason, so-called "blue states" tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
Exactly there is good federal spending in other words $164 billion for the VA and another $500 billion for defense. Just because a lot of the $664 billion in gubbermint spending falls on the Red states and the Tea Party supporters who receive that spending shouldnt be held against them. Its just like the farm subsidies in Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Why should Tea Party types getting a federal subsidy be blamed for taking that subsidy...the Dems forced it on them years ago. And then there are food stamps, housing and the other programs..They were all brought on by Dems and now the Tea Party types are forced to accept them. Lets not even go into SS disablities which are rampant in many red states...It was the Dems that set up the system and once again forced it on the Red states. SS and Medicare...again forced on the Tea Party types against their will for 40 years or more...oh the horror.
Yes, and the affluent blue states are paying for these military bases, national parks and "job creation"
Its not a secret that South has been always very good in securing pork barrel projects for their states.
Yes, and the affluent blue states are paying for these military bases, national parks and "job creation"
Its not a secret that South has been always very good in securing pork barrel projects for their states.
Yes, and the affluent blue states are paying for these military bases, national parks and "job creation"
Its not a secret that South has been always very good in securing pork barrel projects for their states.
"Blue states" aren't paying for it, the 1% who lives in blue states are paying for it. Where are the headquarters of most giant, greedy corporations located? In blue states. Blue states also have by far the highest number of millionaires and billionaires. They live there since cities in blue states are the industrial, corporate and financial centers of the nation.
The top 1% pays 70% of Federal income taxes and those 1%ers are almost twice as likely to be Republican than Democrat, regardless if they live in a blue or red state. Blue states aren't paying for it, but rather its rich Republicans who happen to live in blue states who are carrying that burden.
Conversely, who is most likely to personally benefit from welfare, food stamps, section 8 and medicaid? Overwhelmingly Democrats, regardless if they live in a blue or red state.
"Blue states" aren't paying for it, the 1% who lives in blue states are paying for it. Where are the headquarters of most giant, greedy corporations located? In blue states. Blue states also have by far the highest number of millionaires and billionaires. They live there since cities in blue states are the industrial, corporate and financial centers of the nation.
The top 1% pays 70% of Federal income taxes and those 1%ers are almost twice as likely to be Republican than Democrat, regardless if they live in a blue or red state. Blue states aren't paying for it, but rather its rich Republicans who happen to live in blue states who are carrying that burden.
Conversely, who is most likely to personally benefit from welfare, food stamps, section 8 and medicaid? Overwhelmingly Democrats, regardless if they live in a blue or red state.
Nonsense, your facts don't align with his agenda.
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.
