Thread: Love this new book! Let the red and blue states have their own countries!

A peek at California. 1981 to 2005

California.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...-20071016-.pdf

And now Texas

Texas.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...-20071016-.pdf

Michigan

Michigan.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...-20071016-.pdf

Federal Taxes paid/received for each State

An interactive link:

Untitled Document

Bizarre argument. Assuming this dated info holds generally, the lefties wonder why a state that benefits from federal spending would generally be against federal spending. Another peek into the liberal mind - how can you be against something if you are getting something out of it? Aren't we (they - them - the great majority of unenlightened masses) just like hungry dogs looking for the next table scrap?

It's called first principles and delayed gratification, you fucktards. The natural argument from this data is that even though they seem to benefit the most, the red states realize the danger of too much federal spending. The lefties would look at reducing spending in these states as cutting off their nose to spite their face. Conservatives just look at it as the right thing to do for a lot of established reasons that don't need to be argued anymore.

Well in this color scheme, Texas is blue which means it puts more in to the system than it gets out. I meant Texas is a red state in the political sense. I see California and Michigan show as blue as does Texas. Lemme go over the other charts posted on this thread.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Bizarre argument. Assuming this dated info holds generally, the lefties wonder why a state that benefits from federal spending would generally be against federal spending. Another peek into the liberal mind - how can you be against something if you are getting something out of it? Aren't we (they - them - the great majority of unenlightened masses) just like hungry dogs looking for the next table scrap?

It's called first principles and delayed gratification, you fucktards. The natural argument from this data is that even though they seem to benefit the most, the red states realize the danger of too much federal spending. The lefties would look at reducing spending in these states as cutting off their nose to spite their face. Conservatives just look at it as the right thing to do for a lot of established reasons that don't need to be argued anymore.

Id like the breakdown of what each state gets in mandatory spending/descretionary/tarp spending. Just because an individual has been fleeced for social security his whole life then moves to Florida, Arizona, or Texas (and the federal dollars follow those masses) doesn't mean that they wouldn't have prefferred saving their own money for retirement. They might want to would live in the red country if their money was still paid to them.

Originally Posted by Wagner

It makes for an interesting sound byte but I don't know how much is really there. A good portion of those states are made up of huge populations of poor minorities who would almost certainly leave the new conservative nation in favor of the liberal nation while the majority of people in those red states probably didn't want the government money to begin with.

If something like this every came to fruition I imagine the liberal nation would be bankrupt in a week and conquered by the conservative in two.

It did happen before, the Liberal North, conquered the conservative South, and imposed it's agenda.

And it only gets worse, those red states are far more dependent on agriculture, and protective tariffs still keep their incomes artificially high. How do you think US sugar growers would do competing head to head with Jamaica and Cuba?
The Red states would be a third world nation, mired in debt, the tough part for the blue states would be protecting all that border from the the massive hordes of illegal aliens seeking employment.

Originally Posted by goober

the tough part for the blue states would be protecting all that border from the the massive hordes of illegal aliens seeking employment.

That one was spit-coffee-on-the-keyboard funny.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Bizarre argument. Assuming this dated info holds generally, the lefties wonder why a state that benefits from federal spending would generally be against federal spending. Another peek into the liberal mind - how can you be against something if you are getting something out of it? Aren't we (they - them - the great majority of unenlightened masses) just like hungry dogs looking for the next table scrap?

It's called first principles and delayed gratification, you fucktards. The natural argument from this data is that even though they seem to benefit the most, the red states realize the danger of too much federal spending. The lefties would look at reducing spending in these states as cutting off their nose to spite their face. Conservatives just look at it as the right thing to do for a lot of established reasons that don't need to be argued anymore.

So hairball, being against higher spending in what way changes that red states receive the most? Isn't this the real proof that government is red controlled and takes care of their voter base of red states?

Also if they wanted to reduce government spending couldn't they reduce the amounts they receive to be more in line with the blue states? You know ... just say no.

Thats the logic I hear used against Warren Buffet ... if you want to pay more, just pay more.

Originally Posted by goober

It did happen before, the Liberal North, conquered the conservative South, and imposed it's agenda.

And it only gets worse, those red states are far more dependent on agriculture, and protective tariffs still keep their incomes artificially high. How do you think US sugar growers would do competing head to head with Jamaica and Cuba?
The Red states would be a third world nation, mired in debt, the tough part for the blue states would be protecting all that border from the the massive hordes of illegal aliens seeking employment.

What orifice did that come from? The liberal North defeated the conservative South? Do you really think the terms liberal and conservative have any relevance to modern politics? Try the oppressive North who's industrial base could not compete with Europe and who's trade policy didn't allow the South to trade tobacco and cotton for European machinery. Well warfare favors the industrial above the agricultural. What else is new?

Its the liberals who would stop handing out voting registrations to illegal aliens once they have their own country with no conservatives to run against. Watch the sudden 180 the libs pull once they realize the Mexicans have out lived their purpose!

Originally Posted by michael h

Isn't this the real proof that government is red controlled and takes care of their voter base of red states?

Yea red controlled like the media, academia, and the first 2 years of the Obama administration?