- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California kicks ICE out of state offices
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:09 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:09 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
California (and the large liberal states) pay significantly more in taxes than they receive in services
While that is true, it isn't the liberals who are earning and paying the money in taxes.
The so called large liberal States are the places that have the largest income inequalities that drive you liberals so crazy.
You have the successful Republicans making money and poor arse people such as yourself leeching off of them.
This post was edited on 8/4/17 at 12:10 pm
1
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:15 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
California (and the large liberal states) pay significantly more in taxes than they receive in services.
Effectively, liberals subsidize Republican failures.
Actually they dont. Big difference between a state using federal dollars as revenue versus what it's residents paay and recieve.
LINK ]federal spending versus taxes collectereceive.
This post was edited on 8/4/17 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:23 pm to Kino74
BamaAtl's biggest flaw is that he is using presidential voting as a proxy as to whether or not a state is "red" or "blue". Such a method outright ignores thinks like the political makeup of the statehouse, the governorship, and federal senators and representatives.
This article is from 2013, so some stuff is a bit outdated, but the gist still applies.
This article is from 2013, so some stuff is a bit outdated, but the gist still applies.
quote:
The following table shows the percentage of person-years between 1980 and 2013 for which each of the top and bottom welfare states voted Democrat at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels.
quote:
Clearly, the so-called red states are far more likely overall to vote for a Republican presidential candidate than his Democratic counterpart when compared to the supposed blue states. But look at New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire have been evenly split on presidential candidates since 1980. Nevada and Colorado voted for both Bush 43 wins, and Colorado even went Republican during the 1996 Clinton landslide.
At the senatorial level, how can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia "red states" when their voting record is overwhelmingly Democratic over the past three decades? Even South Dakota and New Mexico fail the "red state" test. West Virginia hasn't had a Republican senator since before 1960!
On the other side of the aisle, New Hampshire -- supposedly a blue state -- has only elected a single Democratic senator (the currently serving Jeanne Shaheen) since 1980. Minnesota and Colorado also fail the blue state designation based on who they have put in the Senate over this timeframe.
In the House of Representatives, it is absurd to characterize Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota as red states when they have elected more Democrats than Republicans since 1980. North Dakota and West Virginia's choices for the House of Representatives are dominantly blue.
Similarly, New Hampshire and Delaware have elected predominantly Republicans in the House, and somehow they are blue states? Colorado and Nevada also don't pass the blue state test, and as recently as the 111th Congress, five of Colorado's seven representatives were Republican.
The gubernatorial comparison also strikes a blow to any "red state welfare" claims. There is no significant general difference in the overall red versus blue character of these states' governors. South Dakota hasn't had a Democratic governor in over 35 years, whereas Kentucky has only had one Republican governor since 1971. California's governors have been dominantly Republican for many decades, as have those of Illinois, Minnesota, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:29 pm to Loserman
quote:
While that is true, it isn't the liberals who are earning and paying the money in taxes.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:32 pm to Kino74
quote:
Actually they dont.
You didn't read the charts, did you? Always read the charts.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:33 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
he is using presidential voting as a proxy as to whether or not a state is "red" or "blue".
Would you call California a blue state? What about Illinois? Massachusetts? New York?
Thought so.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:34 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
BamaAtl
Hillary clinton won the voter cohort with the lowest incomes.
Donald Trump won the voter cohort with the highest incomes (albeit by less than what a republican usually does)
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:36 pm to BamaAtl
Why are you so hateful and bigoted towards people in red states?
It is one thing to be a liberal and believe in liberal causes but you are spiteful towards conservatives. Any particular reason why you are such a hateful person?
It is one thing to be a liberal and believe in liberal causes but you are spiteful towards conservatives. Any particular reason why you are such a hateful person?
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:38 pm to BamaAtl
quote:California and Illinois were red states up until the 90s, and even back then they were much wealthier than the US on average.
Would you call California a blue state? What about Illinois? Massachusetts? New York?
Maybe, gasp, a state's wellbeing is determined by exogenous factors.
BTW, california has highest poverty rate when adjusted for cost of living.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:43 pm to narddogg81
quote:
Throw these tards in federal prison
Sieg Heil!
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
California and Illinois were red states up until the 90s
And the South was Democratic until then. But we're in 2017, not the 90s.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:44 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
You didn't read the charts, did you? Always read the charts
You forgot to reconcile with Figure 1.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:46 pm to Pinecone Repair
quote:
Calexit when?
We can only hope.....
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:48 pm to BeeFense5
Shes very stupid. Stupid people surrounded by more intelligebt people, generally are very frustrated and angry
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:49 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
And the South was Democratic until then. But we're in 2017, not the 90s.
And they were broke as shite with a frickton of poor welfare sponges then too. So party is irrelevant.
PLUS, you libs always ignore that a great deal of those federal expenditures are for MILITARY/DEFENSE and red states (especially Southern states) have a LOT of bases and personnel within their borders.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:50 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
We should just give California to Mexico. They're more trouble than they're worth.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:50 pm to BamaAtl
quote:OK, but you are the one arguing that a state's economic wellbeing and paying/receiving ratio is determined by the state's political bent.
And the South was Democratic until then. But we're in 2017, not the 90s.
Do you have evidence that the south in the 70s-90s was less dependent on federal dollars than they are now?
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:53 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Do you have evidence that the south in the 70s-90s was less dependent on federal dollars than they are now?
I haven't seen any state-by-state taxing vs federal spending trends for that time period.
But I'm happy to say that Democrats used to be the freeloaders and now it's Republicans, if you'd like.
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
HailHailtoMichigan!
I am not sure looking back thirty years is the right answer, but examining it from a straight red/blue presidential vote dichotomy is definitely not the way to look at it as well.
It gets a lot more complex when one looks at it by county or zip code. In many of the biggest donor states just in raw dollars - Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, etc. - the people who are the biggest net donors tend to be in purple-ish red collar counties around major metropolitan areas.
Illinois is a great example: deep, deep blue Cook County (Chicago) is about a net even donor/receiver of tax expenditures. Downstate, a mix of deep blue old industrial towns like Champaign, East St. Louis, and Peoria and deep red rural communities, is by far the biggest receiver in the state. The collar counties, which tend to lean purple-red and are by far the largest driver of economic activity and wealth in the state, get royally screwed.
On the flip side, places like Manhattan and San Francisco County are huge net donors. Orange County, which until quite recently was pretty red and is now turning purple-blue, is a massive net donor.
Then, when you dive a little further into some of these states, in places like Mississippi (the Delta), Alabama (Cotton Belt), and the Dakotas (the reservation territories), the largest net receiver areas tend to be deep blue. On the flip side of that, the largest net receiver areas in other states like Kentucky and West Virginia tend to be pretty red, though, to be fair, that's a fairly recent phenomenon for both states.
This post was edited on 8/4/17 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 8/4/17 at 12:59 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
So much for the states' rights crowd not being ugly hypocrites.
Oh I didn't realize that you were a state's rights advocate. So you support states rights to choose if they want to outlaw abortion, or not recognize gay marriage, or if they want to not allow immigrants from certain countries into their state?
Good to know!! Thanks!!
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News