Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,218,937 times
Reputation: 19952

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Why would I pray for the destruction of an American city?

Why does every argument you make turn out to be a deliberate lie?
Every argument? Faulty logic. If you are going to attack me with an absurd all encompassing statement--could you please back it up? These ad hominem attacks are becoming rather old. Your comments make it appear that you are emotionally vested in Detroit's demise in order that your anti-anything-liberal agenda can be served--hence my comment. Detroit is on the upswing yet you insist it is totally destroyed. Where is the deliberate lie?

 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:32 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,799,117 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
But given how predominantly red these states are, I don't buy the argument of "oh, it's only the liberal minority in our states who are using up all these services..." If that was the case, then you'd expect the blue states to be the net users of the taxes, and they're not.
Inner cities use the most social services ($) in both red and blue states.

The red states though get a bunch of money for military (most bases are in red states), New Mexico is high on the list because of los alamos. Many red states also receive subsidies for farming that benefit all Americans via lower cost food. Also red states are larger requiring more money being spent on roads per person. Just name a few examples.

Comparing total dollars spent from red states to blue states is a political tool for the simple minded.
 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:36 PM
 
2,083 posts, read 1,617,820 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
Yeah, maybe for the tax deductions, assuming that your "proven fact" is even true.

Liberals believe in making the playing field even to provide more opportunities for everyone, so fewer people will actually need any charity.
So Conservatives are donating money to charity to get a fraction of that back in taxes? That's a stretch.

Cons donate more of their income to all types of charities than Liberals. When excluding tithing, Liberals' total donations are slightly higher, but the Cons' percentage of income spent on charity is still higher. And if we're not including tithing in donations, we're also going to disregard donations to universities, museums, galleries, planned parenthood and any other left-wing social justice causes.

In addition, Conservatives volunteer more and donate blood more than Liberals. Cons are just more likely to directly support charitable causes, while Liberals try get someone else with more money than them to foot more of the bill and consider that to be charity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0
 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Alaska
3,146 posts, read 4,083,113 times
Reputation: 5470
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
No, the only thing you proved is that if you think it's happening, you're angry. As in, you're angry about even thinking you might have to do what you claim should be done.





First of all, I reject ALL of your assumptions, because frankly, you have no idea where the wealth comes from that some of the "wealthier" places have.

Let me illustrate:

Lawyers are often quite wealthy in big cities.

Did they produce ANYTHING? No, they consumed and destroyed it, yet they have lots of it. This contradicts your theory that people / places with more money are producers. I doubt you have any clue who the producers are of the wealth that enables those lifestyles - much less have any point about complaining about little or much some people have. "Having money" has almost nothing to do with whether or not one is a benefit to society - as has been so clearly demonstrated above.

Thus, I reject your argument outright, because it has no basis whatsoever in fact, therefore, has no rational foundation and cannot possibly make any valid points.
Obviously, you're not aware that our economy is less about manufacturing (producing) and more oriented toward providing services, which require knowledge, education, or training which attorneys have in abundance. Attorneys, physicians, engineers, and other professions provide services that are necessary and valuable to maintain our society.
 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:40 PM
 
2,083 posts, read 1,617,820 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Comparing total dollars spent from red states to blue states is a political tool for the simple minded.
The headline is all they need though. This garbage has been getting spread around forums and blogs for years and its all based on the assumption that red states are helpless and sucking up Federal funds, but when you examine what "Federal spending" actually entails (and where the 1%ers who pay about 1/3 of income taxes live) this talking point completely falls apart.

Military bases, energy research facilities, national parks and Interstate highways benefit everyone. Pretending that the government spending money in a state is the same thing as hypocritical Republicans in red states holding their hand out for is completely disingenuous.
 
Old 09-19-2014, 12:49 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,454,005 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
But given how predominantly red these states are, I don't buy the argument of "oh, it's only the liberal minority in our states who are using up all these services..." If that was the case, then you'd expect the blue states to be the net users of the taxes, and they're not.
I've never seen that argument made. Sounds like a strawman to me.

No argument needs to be made. The truth works just fine. The red states are the states with more rural populations, less industry, less commercialization, less infrastructure. Therefore, they are less wealthy. It has zero to do with Republicans or Democrats. It's just a fact of life. If you go to the rural counties in a blue state, those counties will be red. If the majority of a state lives in urban areas, the state will be blue. If a majority live in rural areas, the state will be red. This simple fact holds true across all 50 states and is clearly visible in election maps. The election maps for all 50 states show pinpoints of densely populated blue surrounded by lightly populated red. All that matters is if the majority of those people are spread out in those red areas or the majority reside in the blue urban centers.

Just look at red Colorado turning blue. As Denver and other cities saw an influx of people, the state turned blue. Did the state suddenly become wealthy and prosperous due to the wonderful governance of Democrats being elected? No. It turned blue after the population shift. The existing rural counties are still just as red as before. It's just that the population moving to Colorado moved to the cities, and the population balance shifted to the cities so that the blue areas began outvoting the red areas. There's no mystery to it. There are no arguments to be made. It is what it is.
 
Old 09-19-2014, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island
87 posts, read 90,275 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Yeah, they're kind of hypocritical. When it's something THEY want from YOU, then the mantra is, "We all live in a society," or "You use the roads, too!" But when they see that some of their money is going somewhere other than their own pocket (after .gov takes their chunk, of course), all of the sudden it's a huge problem worth whining about online.

Everyone's hypocritical, to an extent, but those on the left side of the spectrum are far worse than anyone else about it. Same goes for double standards. They'll go on for days (or weeks) about a Republican that had an affair, but when a Democrat President of the United States does it, it's none of anyone's business, right?

Hypocrites.
I know, right? I remember when the conservative Republican President Bill Clinton was impeached for getting a b*** j** as President!
 
Old 09-19-2014, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,367 posts, read 6,244,607 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California View Post
Sigh is right, that's a damn silly post. When have YOU ever learned a fact about the real world in your life? Because you certainly have not demonstrated that here.

All through elementary school, high school, college, through my graduate degree and beyond. By interacting w many differing classes, races and religions. By living in poverty and rising above. By reading the most current *academically reviewed* economic and sociology journals.

Personal attacks are only used by those who have no facts to bring to the table.

*yawn*
 
Old 09-19-2014, 03:54 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 826,348 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Inner cities use the most social services ($) in both red and blue states.
Sure. NYC city is 8 million big and almost half of New York State yet New Yorks State is still "net producer" consuming less than it produces and subsidizing poor red states, while North dakota, virtually devoid of big cities is a net consumer. Your theory doesn't hold water, pal. Sorry. Better luck next time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...nding_by_state

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The red states though get a bunch of money for military (most bases are in red states), New Mexico is high on the list because of los alamos. Many red states also receive subsidies for farming that benefit all Americans via lower cost food. Also red states are larger requiring more money being spent on roads per person. Just name a few examples.

Comparing total dollars spent from red states to blue states is a political tool for the simple minded.
No its not. LOL Farm aid and even military bases are all forms of welfare or pork barrel spending as states literally fight to get them. Every governor wants to have military bases as it means tons of federal money that stays in the state in form of taxes and salaries for residents.
When conservatives take blue states money it is because they "deserve it" and it "benefits the entire country". lol

In the meantime ultra conservative states like Mississippi and Alabama stay the poorest in the nation, less educated and totally dependent on help from the blue states while conservative politicians keep on bashing California and other blue states for "crazy welfare programs" and "out of control spending". Yeah, right. There is no bigger case of welfare in America than conservative states being supported by liberal states since the end of the civil war.

Before you start criticizing others, clean your own backyards...

Connsevatives are simply full of sh$t as they preach "individual responsibility" and "fiscal discipline" yet many red states wouldn't survive a day without federal help, paid by liberal states like California which has its own share of problems and could definitely use the money it spends on red states, roughly a 100 billion dollars a year, at home. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...nding_by_state

Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-19-2014 at 04:13 PM..
 
Old 09-19-2014, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,367 posts, read 6,244,607 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
So Conservatives are donating money to charity to get a fraction of that back in taxes? That's a stretch.

Cons donate more of their income to all types of charities than Liberals. When excluding tithing, Liberals' total donations are slightly higher, but the Cons' percentage of income spent on charity is still higher. And if we're not including tithing in donations, we're also going to disregard donations to universities, museums, galleries, planned parenthood and any other left-wing social justice causes.

In addition, Conservatives volunteer more and donate blood more than Liberals. Cons are just more likely to directly support charitable causes, while Liberals try get someone else with more money than them to foot more of the bill and consider that to be charity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0


LOL!! You link to a freaking OPINION columnist!? That is how you define "FACT"?! OY VEY!!
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top