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.
Your red states tend to be greater recipients of federal govt. welfare. In other words, much like that business the Mittster features in one of his commercials, you didn't actually "build that on your own."
The comparison is between New Jersey and Arkansas.
Let's take a look at welfare, shall we?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Oh, my! New Jersey quite eclipses Arkansas, doesn't it?
The comparison is between New Jersey and Arkansas.
Let's take a look at welfare, shall we?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Oh, my! New Jersey quite eclipses Arkansas, doesn't it?
Hmmm.....
I define "welfare" as subsidies and spending on everyone when a state receives more in subsidies and spending than it pays in with regards to the federal government.
Considering the fact that roughly half of all americans are conservatives, I'd say your offer isn't very generous. I suggest you guys take the left coast (excluding that part of california that mexico doesn't occupy) and the north east. I also insist you guys take chicago and detroit. I want no part of either.
My offer was for the tea party, not conservatives. I made that clear in post #263.
True .. because the red states tend to pay more than their fair share to the Government for the priveledge ..
No. They don't. Not even close. Try looking at facts instead of just pulling things out of your donkey. Seriously, where do you people come up with this nonsense?
No, you get back more than you pay in with regards to the federal government. You can investigate this quite easily if you doubt it.
Get back more doesn't mean get more in welfare.
For instance, the federal government has an interest in the interstate highway system. Because interstate commerce is dependent on those highways. The investment to build and maintain those highways is higher in a state like Wyoming than in a state like Delaware. Why? Because Wyoming is bigger, and the number of miles of highway construction and maintenance are higher. Hence, more federal dollars will be spent in Wyoming for those interstate highways. Which benefits Delaware, because the people in Delaware need the goods that are off-loaded in California and shipped over those highways to Delaware.
This "get back more" b.s. is b.s. because it's something people have latched onto, without really understanding what goes into federal spending, and how other states benefit from the spending in a different state. Federal prisons, highways, military bases are all expenditures which benefit the nation, and are also expenditures that are more likely to be made in rural states for a variety of reasons.
I define "welfare" as subsidies and spending on everyone when a state receives more in subsidies and spending than it pays in with regards to the federal government.
So, you change the definitions to support your argument.
And you do so without really thinking it through? Because, wouldn't it be lovely to have Leavenworth Prison in New Jersey? Wouldn't it be grand to store the missiles that are currently in Missouri and Nebraska in Pennsylvania? The NIMBY crowd is part of the reason why some states end up getting these goodies. Not everyone thinks they are goodies. But they are paid for by the federal government. Because it's in the nation's interest. Which means that some of those subsidies and spending in red state Oklahoma benefit you and me and the billions of people who don't live in Oklahoma.
No. They don't. Not even close. Try looking at facts instead of just pulling things out of your donkey. Seriously, where do you people come up with this nonsense?
Which states were the ones crawling to the Fed for a bailout?
So, you change the definitions to support your argument.
And you do so without really thinking it through? Because, wouldn't it be lovely to have Leavenworth Prison in New Jersey? Wouldn't it be grand to store the missiles that are currently in Missouri and Nebraska in Pennsylvania? The NIMBY crowd is part of the reason why some states end up getting these goodies. Not everyone thinks they are goodies. But they are paid for by the federal government. Because it's in the nation's interest. Which means that some of those subsidies and spending in red state Oklahoma benefit you and me and the billions of people who don't live in Oklahoma.
Exactly .. The Gov pays for what interests them the most when it comes to national security.
National Security you say? .. sure .. Nuclear Arms, Oil, and Food usually can be found at the top of the list.
Hey, I know what .. let's move all of those nukes and oil refineries to California so they can stop whining about all of the money they think they derserve.
So, you change the definitions to support your argument.
And you do so without really thinking it through? Because, wouldn't it be lovely to have Leavenworth Prison in New Jersey? Wouldn't it be grand to store the missiles that are currently in Missouri and Nebraska in Pennsylvania? The NIMBY crowd is part of the reason why some states end up getting these goodies. Not everyone thinks they are goodies. But they are paid for by the federal government. Because it's in the nation's interest. Which means that some of those subsidies and spending in red state Oklahoma benefit you and me and the billions of people who don't live in Oklahoma.
No, "welare" doesn't just apply to those sub-human poor people, it applies to everyone accepting largesse from the government. That includes farmers, corporations, small businesses...
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.