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.
" It seems terribly important to flyover states to convince us we need them. I don't think we do."'
They need us MORE then we need them.
What do THEY provide us with that we can't provide for ourselves?
And vice versa. I'm more than happy to take a path that separates us from flyover states by keeping blue state money within blue states, no farm subsidies, no sending more to cover the gaps red states have, etc. and in return, we supply our own needs. What we can't grow locally we can purchase internationally and possibly from flyover country if their prices are low enough to win the bid. If I can buy cherries from South America at Costco, I have no doubt food can be grown locally and purchased internationally as we are already doing now since cherries in December aren't available in flyover states either.
When I read threads like this with such vitriol and stereotyping directed towards all citizens of entire states, I can't help but think we need many more mental health facilities in the US. Irrational isn't an adequate word to describe such hatred and fury. These people probably have mental issues.
When I read threads like this with such vitriol and stereotyping directed towards all citizens of entire states, I can't help but think we need many more mental health facilities in the US. Irrational isn't an adequate word to describe such hatred and fury. These people probably have mental issues.
Because half the country dislikes the other half intensely? Did Republicans think they themselves had mental issues when they opposed President Obama? Blue states are tired of subsidizing red states. Red states receive massive government money and making federal contributions completely equal as a percentage would be a good start. Since red states think blue states are a bunch of "takers" it would seem they would be happy with that; win-win.
Conservatives act like they are these rugged individualists when they are just as dependent on the government as everyone else. Farming is one of the most heavily regulated/subsidized industries in the country and would completely collapse without constant government intervention.
Take it from someone who lives in farm and ranch country... If farmers had their way they'd get the government completely out of their business. The imposition of government on farming is almost always done by Liberals who think they know what's best for everyone else.
Who's they? Farmers? In my area we have enough organic gardens and greenhouses to supply us well and that's not counting all the urban chickens.
In a SHTF situation, or a complete grid outtage, urban scavagers would raid your little gardens in a matter of weeks. Although I suspect they'd leave the tofu for you.
Multiple people have posted about Blue States subsidizing Red States. I am not convinced that is true. The devil is always in the details and in this case I'd love to see what aspects of revenue and expense are actually being counted in the Blue vs Red debate. My guess is that there is some cherry picking on what revenue is counted and what expenses are counted.
More realistically the issue is rural vs urban than it is blue vs red. Urban tends to be Blue and rural, Red. In most cases (not all) whether a State is red or blue reflects the urban vs rural makeup.
I live in a rural dominated Blue State (VT, one of the exceptions to my statement above) but it seems to me that the major urban areas receive massive amounts of money for their roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, ports, subways, and water works while rural area roads crumble. Urban areas receive massive amounts of money paying for all the federal workers concentrated in the cities, and the huge underclass found in most cities live off of tax dollars. I'd guess urban schools are receiving more federal grants per student than rural areas.
In a SHTF situation, or a complete grid outtage, urban scavagers would raid your little gardens in a matter of weeks. Although I suspect they'd leave the tofu for you.
We'll go ahead and live our lives without dreaming of the apocalypse. Blue states have money which can be used to buy what food they can't grow locally. Red states could compete for that business globally if their pricing and product quality meet the standards.
We have wind and water power, amazing weather, rain, salmon; I have no interest in Trumpland and would love to see my tax money benefit only blue areas.
You live in the Seattle area: how about talking ALL of Wash St's red counties away; they we'll see how long you people living there will last IF the red areas cut off food, electricity and so on.
You live in the Seattle area: how about talking ALL of Wash St's red counties away; they we'll see how long you people living there will last IF the red areas cut off food, electricity and so on.
That hydro plant is right here in the Seattle metro and we have plenty of farmland locally as well. We have revenue and can buy what we don't grow. If the red part of the state (with not much population) wants to go their way, I would be completely fine with that, they will need to fund themselves and that is also good.
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.
