re: States in the worst financial condition....

quote:

---

hahahaha, so what you are saying is the people running the red states are smarter than the people running the blue states?

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn. The people running the blue states sure as Hell are "subsidizing" the red states out of the goodness of their hearts.

---

If being batter at gathering huge chunks of pork is the bar for intelligence than yes, red state politicians are apparently vastly superior to blue state politicians. I don't know that this bar is really indicative of intelligence but it sure seems that conservatives in blue states, both politicians and voters, think it is the best barometer of "smarts".

quote:

---

Hahahahahaha, I hear this shite a lot. I would suggest if the people in blue states don't like it they quit whining about it and do something about it.

---

The problem with this is that it isn't the producers in the blue states whining the loudest, it is the parasites in the red states. Like recalcitrant teenagers and their parents since time out of mind the red states know that the blue states are dumb as a stump, don't understand anything, and would be better off shutting the frick up and letting the teenager do what he wants. Of course that teen is living in their parents home, eating their parents groceries and watching their parents premium cable package. Once that teen gets out on his own through some seriously bad judgement on his part OR his parents getting fed up with his arse biting the hand that is feeding, clothing and housing him, he will, in a short period of time, realize that Mama and Daddy were fricking geniuses and the deal he had at home was much better than living with 3 other dudes in a 2 bedroom apartment, working at Starbucks and eating Ramon noodles 3 meals a day.

quote:

---

Here's a couple of ideas:
1) Drastically lower federal taxes and curtail the fed govt's power and let the states fend for themselves.

or

2) Split the country in two and let us fend for ourselves that way.

That's a couple of ways the poor put upon blue states can really get us.

---

The first idea is doable. That is the beautiful thing about the United States. Market that idea in the right way and to enough people and dammed if it won't happen.

The second idea has been tried and it failed miserably for everyone involved. Like the teen in the story above the south is not capable of making it on its own. You won't be able to sale that idea to enough people in the south when they find out that not only will they be able to have a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn at Christmas and a plaque commemorating the 10 commandments in the lobby of the same building BUT they will have to give up their social security checks, their cushy government contracts and all the other perks of being United States citizens. Chances are pretty good that the solid conservative, rugged individual job producers of the south would tar and feather and run the son of a bitch who dreamed up such a plan out of town on a rail.

quote:

---

And you have to start being honest with yourself that the reason those Red states take those dollars in disproportionate fashion is to deal with the democrat underclass who are a disproportionate share of their population. Your point gets mentioned and refuted in every thread like this.

The shear size of states like California and New York, and the fact that they are financial centers independent of politics allows them to be a donor state to the federal government, in spite of their malignant policies.

---

I assume you are correct about the reason that red states are welfare states and blue states are not. I don't have any way to refute it and it seems logical. The point is though that the "democrat underclass" who is driving the need for more and more federal money in the south are doing business with the rugged, hard working individual job producers in the south. They are buying cars and groceries and paying rent to the "producers". Many of them are also working full time, every day, their entire lives, for those same producers. If it weren't for the subsidy provided to them by the tax payers in blue states they would be forced to insist on higher wages from those "producers" or a lower cost of living. When this happens those same producers are either going to have to raise their prices OR lower their own standard of living.

There is nothing in the world that states that a grocery store in the south has to accept SNAP benefits are whatever the frick they are called. An apartment complex does not have to accept Section 8 vouchers. There is also nothing stopping an employer in the south from paying his employees a living wage and not depending on tax payers in blue states to keep his workforce relatively well fed, housed and clothed. Some employers in the south do this already....many choose not to.

I take your point that it is welfare that drives up the amount of money pouring into blue states. I also know that those $'s have a significant impact on the economy of the red states.

quote:

---

This argument is pretty fricked up because 80% of the funding is in the form of social welfare and other liberal programs.

How much of an economic boost you think is REALLY there to make the point you are making?

---

It is huge my friend....HUGE....

quote:

---

For your point to be valid, you would have to state that the economies of the states you are pointing at are primarily driven by jobs at places like Wal-Mart and convinence stores.....AND that these states have a dramatically higher incidence of these stores compared to "provider states"

---

No, they can also be jobs like construction and manufacturing...and are. There are many, many, many working people in the south who qualify for all sorts of benefits paid for by blue state tax payers. Why don't ya'll address this fact and clean up the mess in your own backyard before trying to dictate policy to the rest of the nation? I will tell you why, because like so many recalcitrant teen-agers you love Mama and Daddies money but you hate Mama and Daddies positions.

What would happen if suddenly there were no social welfare spending in the US? I will tell you what...the people in the south would suffer more than those in the producer blue states. Ya'll all agree that more people in the south live off the largesse of the Federal government....if that teat goes dry those people are not going to disappear...they are going to demand higher wages and better benefits out of necessity OR they are going to start knocking folks in the head and taking the shite they need to survive. I know all of you have a little arsenal of weapons and would love for the latter to happen so you could prove how manly you are by killing a bunch of poor, hungry people....but the resulting civil unrest is not going to occur in a vacuum....many of you will prove unable to protect your shite for an extended period of time and will eventually succumb to the masses demands for your shite. Does that sound like a good way to live? It sure as frick does not to me....

quote:

---

according to the link the top 5 states in the best financial health are all red states and all, every last one of them, a net taker of federal tax dollars instead of a net contributor...the bottom 5, according the link, with the exception of Illinois, is just the opposite. If four of the bottom 5 were not supplementing the annual budgets of the top 5 it is pretty easy to understand that their positions would most likely flip flop....

---

How much of the federal spending is due to location of contractors/military bases / vendors etc and how much of it is social spending?

quote:

---

How much of the federal spending is due to location of contractors/military bases / vendors etc and how much of it is social spending?

---

Natives, public lands, etc.

quote:

---

Ya'll all agree that more people in the south live off the largesse of the Federal government.

---

Why do you think that is?

Besides since when do states pay, isn't it citizens paying?