OK conservatives. Crank up the spin machine!

[FromTexas]

the blue states leaving would hurt the red states more than the blue. The money the blue states would keep would be more than sufficient enough to be able to import their needs.

without the blue states consuming the products from the red states, plus with less government funding, they would begin to dry up. Sure, exporting the food would be ok. But with less local consumption, along with the decreased federal funding, prices would rise to a level that would make it difficult to compete on the world market.

Wrong. There would just be a new one for one. It would just change which federal dollars went where and who was paying greater than one and who was paying less than the one for one. You are sorely confused on what happens in those other states, as well. Texas is a massive economy in all areas of business (especially computers, oil, natural gas, technology, medicine). All those cars you drive? Made in the red states for the most part. Agriculutral technology? Red states. Did you know agriculture is one of the U.S.'s premier exports. We dominate agricultural technology worldwide.

Most the military bases? We get national defense, too, it looks like.

 

[SmallTown]

If you have ten people... 7 live in one territory and 3 live in another. They all pay $10 in taxes. To run the same programs in each territory, more of the tax money will be returned to the territory with 3 people. There is a basic cost for providing the service and a small increase above that for each person served. It is cheaper per person to serve 1,000 than to serve 100.

This is simple government 101. We aren't talking rocket science here.

Exactly. Not rocket science. The issue isn't about comparing funding from one state to another. It is about 1 state not being able to spend within it's means, and it just so happens that going by the voting records of the last several elections, these same states with their hands sticking out are the ones who are generally against federally funded programs to individuals. OF COURSE they are against federally funded programs for individuals, because it make take away money from them and they may have to be more efficient.

 

[SmallTown]

Wrong. There would just be a new one for one. It would just change which federal dollars went where and who was paying greater than one and who was paying less than the one for one. You are sorely confused on what happens in those other states, as well. Texas is a massive economy in all areas of business (especially computers, oil, natural gas, technology, medicine). All those cars you drive? Made in the red states for the most part. Agriculutral technology? Red states. Did you know agriculture is one of the U.S.'s premier exports. We dominate agricultural technology worldwide.

Most the military bases? We get national defense, too, it looks like.

Doesn't matter. We've already showed (and everyone here agrees) that the red states are taking in more money then they are giving. You take away the blue states's fundung AND their buying power, the reds are screwed. What good is the agriculture and cars if you lose all of that local buying power? There wouldn't be nearly enough demand to keep their industries at their current level. They would survive. Major cut backs in work force putting people out of business and out of work, but it would eventually stabalize. The worst part is if these newly unemployed try to "cross" the border and litter our city streets with more beggers.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Hm. So the government giving money to individuals is unconstitutional, but the government giving money to states is essential?

No. Giving money to the states is also unconstitutional. There is a very narrow set of things the feds are really allowed to do under the Constitution.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." --James Madison

The problem is we and the states allow the feds to usurp the rights and powers reserved to the states and to us.

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents regarding states rights and the usurpation of powers and rights by the feds was completely rampant during the presidency of FDR and has just gotten worse year after year.

 

[2ndAmendment]

the blue states leaving would hurt the red states more than the blue. The money the blue states would keep would be more than sufficient enough to be able to import their needs.

without the blue states consuming the products from the red states, plus with less government funding, they would begin to dry up. Sure, exporting the food would be ok. But with less local consumption, along with the decreased federal funding, prices would rise to a level that would make it difficult to compete on the world market.

You are kiddng right?

 

[SmallTown]

You are kiddng right?

Nope. Since the phrase for the day seems to be "population density", the consumers of the redstate products as a whole would equal about that of New York state. When you take away that large of a consumer, it would hit hard.

Producing a product is one thing, having people to buy it is another.

 

[FromTexas]

Nope. Since the phrase for the day seems to be "population density", the consumers of the redstate products as a whole would equal about that of New York state. When you take away that large of a consumer, it would hit hard.

Producing a product is one thing, having people to buy it is another.

Really? I think you are slighlty off there, too. Texas is 2nd state for population and Florida is number 4. Ohio 7 and Georgia 10.

North Carolina and Virginia are 11 and 12. In fact, 7 states of 11-20 are Red States. 8 of next 10 (21-30) are Red states.

Please to be learning your facts.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nope. Since the phrase for the day seems to be "population density", the consumers of the redstate products as a whole would equal about that of New York state. When you take away that large of a consumer, it would hit hard.

Producing a product is one thing, having people to buy it is another.

Never mind. This argument is pointless. Have it your way. That is the only way Democrats think about being bipartisan. The other guy must give up. OK. I give. You can be stupid.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Really? I think you are slighlty off there, too. Texas is 2nd state for population and Florida is number 4. Ohio 7 and Georgia 10.

North Carolina and Virginia are 11 and 12. In fact, 7 states of 11-20 are Red States. 8 of next 10 (21-30) are Red states.

Please to be learning your facts.

Facts don't count to him or other Democrats. They just make their stuff up as they go and expect everyone to believe them and get mad when people present real hard facts that prove they don't have a clue.

 

[FromTexas]

Exactly. Not rocket science. The issue isn't about comparing funding from one state to another. It is about 1 state not being able to spend within it's means, and it just so happens that going by the voting records of the last several elections, these same states with their hands sticking out are the ones who are generally against federally funded programs to individuals. OF COURSE they are against federally funded programs for individuals, because it make take away money from them and they may have to be more efficient.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with self-sufficiency. For instance, Alabama has a number of major government installations in a small population. Therefore, they receive a large part of the public dole because federal employees (military and NASA for instance) take up a greater proprotion of the population (among the other issues of population density, etc..). The benefit received from the dollars in those states, national defense and space technology) are not benefits to the state but to the country. Therefore, you can not identify that as a state issue. Those number do count money spent on federal employees, buildings, land, etc... Again, this will have a greater effect on lower population states because large cost items of the federal government are averaged into a state with less population (and thus, dollars).

If it was just about Welfare funding, we could have a different story. The fact is that there is no sort of relation. You just can't take the simple picture and pound it into that thick head of yours.

So, for instance, a lot of agriculture money goes into the red states (along with military). Those benefits can not be partitioned to just those states receiving the money. The Blue States are paying their portion for the NATIONAL benefits being earned from those states.

Now, if you want to go look at welfare spending, we can get another picture.

How about medicaid spending per capita?
http://www.ppinys.org/jtf99/table41.htm
Whoa! Is that NY at number one!?! Rhode Island, Maine, Mass, and Conneticut also in the top 6? Only one red state in the top 6?

How about state and local welfare spending per capita?
http://www.ppinys.org/jtf99/table42.htm
Wow! Look at all those blue states in the top 10 of that list!!!

Hint! Those high in medicaid, state, and local welfare spending will be the highest overall in federal welfare spending across the board since state/local spending on welfare gets most its money from the fed.

But, thanks for playing and remember, getting a clue is not just a right but a privilege.

 

[SmallTown]

Really? I think you are slighlty off there, too. Texas is 2nd state for population and Florida is number 4. Ohio 7 and Georgia 10.

North Carolina and Virginia are 11 and 12. In fact, 7 states of 11-20 are Red States. 8 of next 10 (21-30) are Red states.

Please to be learning your facts.

Wonderful. You just showed that your notion of population is NOT the reason for the difference. Good job!

The simple matter is that these states take more than they give. Can you at least give some explanation of what would happen if suddenly the funding was cut. All I hear are things like "They will be fine". If they would be fine, then why not cut it back now and focus on getting the debt back in order?

 

[SmallTown]

If it was just about Welfare funding, we could have a different story. The fact is that there is no sort of relation. You just can't take the simple picture and pound it into that thick head of yours.


Now, if you want to go look at welfare spending, we can get another picture.

How about medicaid spending per capita?
http://www.ppinys.org/jtf99/table41.htm
Whoa! Is that NY at number one!?! Rhode Island, Maine, Mass, and Conneticut also in the top 6? Only one red state in the top 6?

How about state and local welfare spending per capita?
http://www.ppinys.org/jtf99/table42.htm
Wow! Look at all those blue states in the top 10 of that list!!!

How cute! You first say there is no relation between this argument and welfare spending, then you go right into the welfare argument as another way federal spending is messed up. So which is it, Sherlock?

As far as welfare spending, it is quite obvious by my stance in this thread concerning federal spending that you are preaching to the choir.

 

[SmallTown]

Facts don't count to him or other Democrats. They just make their stuff up as they go and expect everyone to believe them and get mad when people present real hard facts that prove they don't have a clue.

Facts? I'm still waiting for the answer to the question of if the red states' federal funding was reduced to make them more responsible for their own budgets, what would happen? Money has to come from somewhere. Either through bringing it in, or reducing spending.

 

[tlatchaw]

OK guys. This argument is really getting stupid.

Blue states need red states for agriculture and industry and defense.

Red states need blue states for a market for agriculture and industry.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[SmallTown]

OK guys. This argument is really getting stupid.

Blue states need red states for agriculture and industry and defense.

Red states need blue states for a market for agriculture and industry.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Yea
What gets me in this. The map shown is the PERFECT example of liberal spending. The democrats platform has always been about the select few flipping the bill to take care of the country, where as the republicans preach responsibility. You saw it during the debates where Kerry wanted to rollback tax cuts for the rich to help offset our current debt.

Of course someone dropped the typical "democrat" bomb earlier, but we clearly seen from the map that it couldn't have been shaded more perfectly if Ted Kennedy sat down with his crayons and colored it. This is the PERFECT example of liberal tax and spending, and so many of you are for it. sad sad sad.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think I'm not understanding what this argument is about. Can someone sum it up for me?

Is Maynard saying that the red (Republican) states are the biggest consumers of welfare? Is everyone else saying that maybe so, but they provide agriculture for the blue (Democrat) folks?

Help me here.

 

[vraiblonde]

^^ Because if that's the case, it doesn't really explain the county map, does it? What you see with THAT map is little dots of urban areas that carry a whole state because of their large population.

 

[SmallTown]

I think I'm not understanding what this argument is about. Can someone sum it up for me?

Is Maynard saying that the red (Republican) states are the biggest consumers of welfare? Is everyone else saying that maybe so, but they provide agriculture for the blue (Democrat) folks?

Help me here.

No. Please read the thread again.

 

[vraiblonde]

No. Please read the thread again.

Hello? I didn't read it the first time - that's why I'm not getting the argument.

 

[tlatchaw]

Hello? I didn't read it the first time - that's why I'm not getting the argument.

:shrug: Ya gotta respect her honesty :shrug: