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.
I would be very fine with that. Very fine indeed. And if we could determine a calculation where each state gave the exact same percentage and we didn't have blue states funding red states, that would be even better.
Except that no one seems to be able to define a precise mechanism by which red states are "subsidized"; do these figures include the expense of military reservations (which often involve large expanses of land)?; or how about National Parks and Forests (patronized by urbanites)?; or Native reservations? or inland waterways (barge canals)? or Interstate Highways? or .... or.....or
If "the dues ever came down" -- and I sincerely hope they don't -- it would be the large cities, with their short supplies locally available. and their dependency upon rural areas for food, furl and consumer goods, who suffered first, longest, and most. But anyone out here who lives beyond age sixty is likely to recognize that we red-staters have vulnerabilities of our own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
[/b]
Good,no more farm subsidies for flyover states!
We will save millions.
A lot of those subsidies revolve around specific agricultural items for which the American portion of total production isn't that great. (Remember, our geography is so large and so diverse that just about anything we use can theoretically be grown somewhere, but I wouldn't expect us to be self-sufficient in coffee, for example.) And the American "entrepreneurs"? engaged in those sectors cry for "protection" every time market conditions in those markets change -- as they do frequently.
But these "subsidies" aren't used at all by the farm family who supplement a job in town, or in some cases, a Social Security check, by growing a "cash crop" of corn or soybeans on the side, (and just as an aside, I know of farming communities in the Midwest where the prices of "corn and beans" are displayed outside banks, and in bars, on a regular basis.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-09-2016 at 11:15 PM..
What amazed me about Sandy was so many of those people lacked the foresight to even bottle up some water. The same thing can even be said about New Orleans after Katrina.
The actual amazing thing about them both was that nobody could figure out what to do without being told. In today's world, it's not like a "superstorm" or Category V hurricane "snuck up" on people. They just literally were like "this is fine" because the government didn't say "hey, guys, you might want to leave." And then it's like the end of the world and people are beating each other with bricks as if nobody is coming with food and water for 30 days. Like for Sandy, it's not like it took out the entire eastern half of the country and we're in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. People who were like, uh, 15 miles away from shore weren't affected at all. So ...yeah, pretty sure you're not going to die from starvation.
Except that no one seems to be able to define a precise mechanism by which red states are "subsidized"; do these figures include the expense of military reservations (which often involve large expanses of land)?; or how about National Parks and Forests (patronized by urbanites)?; or Native reservations? or inland waterways (barge canals)? or Interstate Highways? or .... or.....or
If "the dues ever came down" -- and I sincerely hope they don't -- it would be the large cities, with their short supplies locally available. and their dependency upon rural areas for food, furl and consumer goods, who suffered first, longest, and most. But anyone out here who lives beyond age sixty is likely to recognize that we red-staters have vulnerabilities of our own.
I think blue states, certainly Washington state, would be absolutely fine. We contribute more than we get back and have...forever it seems. Telling blue states how much they need red states is hardly convincing when they see their tax dollars pouring into red states. Someone earlier in the thread said blue states were filled with people on SSI. That's not even close, apparently the highest concentration of SSI beneficiaries is in Kentucky where parts have almost 20% on disability! For the all the rhetoric, red states benefit far more from government than blue states just as the OP states.
Except that no one seems to be able to define a precise mechanism by which red states are "subsidized
That's because they aren't. Liberals like to produce these fancy charts and graphs that are all from the same source and which they all use to "prove" that blue states subsidize red states. And I always just ask, "that's neat, how does a blue state that is literally bankrupt subsidize anything?"
I think blue states, certainly Washington state, would be absolutely fine. We contribute more than we get back and have...forever it seems. Telling blue states how much they need red states is hardly convincing when they see their tax dollars pouring into red states. Someone earlier in the thread said blue states were filled with people on SSI. That's not even close, apparently the highest concentration of SSI beneficiaries is in Kentucky where parts have almost 20% on disability! For the all the rhetoric, red states benefit far more from government than blue states just as the OP states.
Interesting how Washington state, a blue state with no state income tax, is so prosperous that it is able to not only support itself, but at least one or more other red states. Doesn't that prove that we don't need an income tax?
That's because they aren't. Liberals like to produce these fancy charts and graphs that are all from the same source and which they all use to "prove" that blue states subsidize red states. And I always just ask, "that's neat, how does a blue state that is literally bankrupt subsidize anything?"
Washington State is not bankrupt by a long shot. And if California is the suggestion, they just have to look at their property tax situation. They have Prop 13 which means their property taxes never increase. Great for someone that moved there a long time ago and still pays those tax rates. So they are relying on income taxes instead of property taxes.
California's economy is on fire, but the state's finances are facing the cold reality of a revenue slowdown. And experts blame the state's unusual tax system for the problem.
Interesting how Washington state, a blue state with no state income tax, is so prosperous that it is able to not only support itself, but at least one or more other red states. Doesn't that prove that we don't need an income tax?
Don't ask me, I don't receive any Social Security or Medicare and I don't pay state income taxes. Other states can do as they please, just stay out of mine.
Don't ask me, I don't receive any Social Security or Medicare and I don't pay state income taxes. Other states can do as they please, just stay out of mine.
Exactly. See how we can agree with one another? I agree with you that no income tax works and that Washington state has shown us the way. And you agree with me that each state should be run by its own laws and stay out of other states' business. This forum has brought us together.
P.S. The problem with California isn't, as you put it, that they limited how much taxes they can collect.
Naw, I think Wisconsin retook them as the dairy state, and the milk from their cows suck so Wisconsin I think is selling more milk again across the country.
Brazil actually exports the most poultry and beef across the world I think. The USA I believe is second.
Exactly. See how we can agree with one another? I agree with you that no income tax works and that Washington state has shown us the way. And you agree with me that each state should be run by its own laws and stay out of other states' business. This forum has brought us together.
P.S. The problem with California isn't, as you put it, that they limited how much taxes they can collect.
If together means 3000 miles apart, sure. I don't care what New Jersey does. As for California, yes, they are dependent on income taxes because they have put so much limitation on property taxes. If you read that article they talk about restructuring their tax system but there is no way long term Californians are going to vote to increase their property taxes. Those homes in the Bay Area are worth millions for a shack. They will never vote to pay prevailing property tax rates on that if they bought years ago. California as a state is doing incredibly well, around 5% unemployment, growth, etc.
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.
