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.
Nobody said that Utah doesn't have roads where nobody lives only that more densely populated areas require more roads as there are more cars but you definitely don't build schools and other infrastructure where nobody lives. There is no need for it.
You do realize that schools cost far less than roads, to build, right?
Quote:
What do you mean no benefit? The state of Utah does not have to maintains these lands, doesn't have to invest there while federal lands offer employment to thousands of residents of the state.
The federal government didn't create them. It didn't "invest" in creating them, either. Nor does it "maintain" them. Nature does that.
Quote:
And yes, Utah parks attracts millions of tourists that leave their money in the state. Thats a benefit.
So.. Let me get this straight. Your claim is that even though 57% of Utah's natural resources are taken from it and its economy and people cannot benefit from developing them, that a few national parks make all this up and then some, and the microscopic cost of "maintaining" (park facilities) being federally paid somehow is more benefit than loss of the 57% of the state? This is utterly preposterous.
Quote:
Utah doesn't have enough population to settle that land, that's one. Second, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries also constitute productive use of the land.
No, they do not. They are restrictions on the state of Utah to please moneyed special interests at the cost of the people of the state.
Quote:
But the state would also have to maintain it and invest there. Do you think small, population wise, Utah has the money to do it?
Fortunately, we have this thing called "Free enterprise" that attracts capital to develop what's worth developing and we don't have to depend on the idiots in government to waste it all ( like healthcare.gov, for instance).
Quote:
Anyways, federal land in Utah does not affect anything and still doesn't explain while Alabama and Missispii are the largest recipients of federal aid, courtesy of liberal blue states.
No, but you lumped Utah into the same criticism, when EVERYTHING is different. Which means your criticism cannot possibly be reasoned, valid, or evidence based.
That is, a fee for being alive, one that can be escaped only by death.
.
Wrong again. A fee for living here and enjoying the security offered by our nation's armed forces, the ability to live in a nation where the water is clean, the air safe, a ton of stuff billions would die for a chance to enjoy for just one day.
I'd have no issue with folks leaving this nation if they just wish to mooch. Those paying $0 FIT or less are mooching.
The DEEP SOUTH, which the Demorats love to point to and snicker....has a LOT of broken-down, broke, leech-like Demorats as residents.
Only a sign that republican extremist leadership in the south has failed again and again. Other parts of the nation don't have this severe of a problem with both, republican and democratic leadership. It truly demonstrates the incompetence in the south.
For several years a meme has been circulating among Liberals pointing out that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do, with most red states taking in more Federal money than they give back. This of course is misleading, since most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in highly populated cities in blue states. It's also misleading because it's not an examination of what individuals take out of the system, but what the Government spends within various states across the board.
This article from USA Today compiled data showing which states had the highest per capita expenditures for every type of government-provided benefit and blue states top the list and red states made up most of the bottom 10. New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits - USATODAY.com
Top 10 - Most dependent on government aid
1 New York
2 West Virginia
3 Rhode Island
4 Maine
5 Pennsylvania
6 Massachusetts
7 Vermont
8 Kentucky
9 Michigan
10 Connecticut
Bottom 10 - Least dependent on government aid
41 South Dakota
42 Nebraska
43 Wyoming
44 Idaho
45 Georgia
46 Texas
47 Nevada
48 Virginia
49 Colorado
50 Utah
For the most part, the difference between the states in the middle (11-40) isn't a huge margin, but it does illustrate that on a per-capita basis, people who live in blue states are just as likely to depend on the government than those in red states.
Not necessarily; historically, welfare benefits were MUCH lower in a handful of Southern states than they were everywhere else, and were also considerably higher in a handful of (mostly northeastern) states than they were everywhere else.
The handful of Southern states mentioned above had the highest percentages of people dependent on the government, but because benefit levels were so low (relative to the highest-benefit states) in those states, did not have the highest per-capita expenditures on assistance. Put another way, historically, blue states did not have the largest proportion of recipients, but did have the highest per-capiita expenditures because their benefits were much higher than benefits in red states.
Only a sign that republican extremist leadership in the south has failed again and again. Other parts of the nation don't have this severe of a problem with both, republican and democratic leadership. It truly demonstrates the incompetence in the south.
Until recently, the South has been dominated by Democrats as their leaders and still is in many states at the state level. However, I do not think the South's poverty problem is directly tied to whether the leadership is red or blue. I think it has more to do with the lack of industry, which is now, finally, starting to make its way down South. If, in 20 years, the South is still lagging way behind, perhaps the argument could be made the Republicans failed it. However, it is the Republicans that have attracted industry to the South and my hope, as well as those on the right, is that this new industry will help alleviate the South's poverty problem.
Of course, this doesn't negate the fact that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do. It just says that per capita, blue states use the more services, per capita -- but they also pay more, per capita, than red states into the federal government to get those services. The net is still that red states get more services, for what they pay in, than blue states do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
doubtful. the far-left is so attached to that particular meme, they're not about to be persuaded by actual facts
Point made and proven.
Why is such a meme valid anyway? Liberals push for more and more welfare spending, only to then claim that it's the red states who use more? This is insane logic if one stops to actually think about it.
If you don't want red states to use welfare, then stop pushing for more benefits and less restrictions.
Until recently, the South has been dominated by Democrats as their leaders and still is in many states at the state level. However, I do not think the South's poverty problem is directly tied to whether the leadership is red or blue. I think it has more to do with the lack of industry, which is now, finally, starting to make its way down South. If, in 20 years, the South is still lagging way behind, perhaps the argument could be made the Republicans failed it. However, it is the Republicans that have attracted industry to the South and my hope, as well as those on the right, is that this new industry will help alleviate the South's poverty problem.
We're harmed by a largely anti-education rural mindset. Now that tends to be the case in rural areas around the nation, but ours make up a larger % of state pop, thus, they drag down median education levels, and therefore drag down median income for the region.
I like Haslam's 55 initiative, but rural Tn counties will prevent that from happening.
We're harmed by a largely anti-education rural mindset. Now that tends to be the case in rural areas around the nation, but ours make up a larger % of state pop, thus, they drag down median education levels, and therefore drag down median income for the region.
I like Haslam's 55 initiative, but rural Tn counties will prevent that from happening.
Having grown up in rural Georgia, I can see some truth to that statement. However, I cannot say if that's true for all rural areas since I have no experience to base that upon.
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.
