Leftists are not yet a protected class ... yet

Today I opened the paper and found out that Mr. David Aycock has accused me of planning to put left-wingers in concentration camps like the Nazis. I don’t understand how he reached that conclusion.

I said that I thought the people on the right who still treasure freedom, personal responsibility, capitalism, and individualism should band together and use our economic power to fight back against the leftist moochers and looters who want to plunder our earnings and assets.

Of course leftists always spin things to ridiculous conclusions. I guess I should also be labeled a racist since I oppose our leader, General Secretary Obama, even though it is because of his socialist beliefs and not his race.

Just because 52 percent of the electorate is willing to sell their freedom for a government handout does not mean that the 48 percent who voted against the socialist regime of Barack Obama have to go along with it. We can and should fight back. We owe it to our children to fight back.

I simply advocated that we deny the economic benefit of our incomes to the people who support socialism in America. There is no law against that.

You can legally discriminate against someone for being a leftist. They are not a protected class, at least not yet.

So I encourage conservatives to not buy from known Democrats, companies who sponsor the Democrats, or spend money in blue states and blue Georgia counties.

Additionally, consider stop making money for the rest of the year when you hit the new high tax rate thresholds. If you can afford it shut down your business and pull an Atlas Shrug. Lay off your known leftist employees to get under 50 (the Obamacare threshold) if it is feasible. Do anything you can to stress the social safety net and reduce federal tax revenues.

Aycock, your response to my letter was disappointing. Don’t you know that socialism has been tried repeatedly all over the world? It has never succeeded (it has about a 0-40 record). It can never succeed, because it runs counter to human nature.

The talented in society will simply never produce much if they are forced to share most of their income with the moochers of society. The fiscal cliff we are about to go over is all about one group of people being excessively subsidized by another. It is that simple.

The left’s confiscation of the just rewards of hard work from those who earned it is destroying our republic and will eventually lead to civil war.

Yes, that can happen again in America. The producers in this country have just not reached the level of anger and financial discomfort yet. Nobody wants war, but nobody wants to be plundered either.

Bill Gilmer

Fayetteville, Ga.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Leftists

In my business I know of 4 people in the early 60′s who have sold and will collect Social Security. They feared the capital gains increases would wipe out income they made if they stayed put for 3-4 more years ad they had planned. So next year, the government will be paying them instead of collecting income tax from them. That should be good for the deficit and the National debt. What Obama and his people don’t understand is that people’s behavior will change when you change the rules. He seems not to understand this simple concept. Apparently revenue dropped in England after the taxes were dramatically raised on the high earners. It’s fine with me also….since I have the luxury of working less next near to avoid taxes. Unfortunately the younger folks and the poorer folks don’t. So who gains from this? Ask that idiot Obama in the White House.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff posted 2004 stats.. What about closer to today...?

Where did the Stimulus go..

Blue States:
California $4,875.5 $1,084.8
Florida $2,208.8 $491.5
Illinois $1,681.1 $374.0
Massachusetts $813.3 $181.0
Michigan $1,302.4 $289.8
New Jersey $1,088.3 $242.1
New York $2,468.6 $549.2
North Carolina $1,161.9 $258.5
Ohio $1,463.7 $325.7
Pennsylvania $1,558.8 $346.8
Washington $819.9 $182.4
Total: 19.1B + 4.3B = $23.4B

Red States:
Texas $3,250.3 $723.2
Georgia $1,260.8 $280.5
Virginia $983.9 $218.9
Indiana $823.7 $183.3
Arizona $831.9 $185.1
Total: 7.1B + 1.6B = $8.7B

Seems like the Democrat leaning States got the most benefit for the taxpayers dollars.. Sort of blows that whole argument out of the water doesn't?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
So what SL?

Temporary single year citations of return under the stimulus plan which was purposelessly designed to distribute stimulus projects based on population ended up with your list of states which got the most stimulus money based on their population. Duh.

My point is that the blue states subsidize the red states and have over the last 20 years and this is an ongoing trend and has been for decades. You cannot possibly deny that.

Furthermore, I would like to specifically point out that I was referring to the obnoxious letter written by Mr. Gilmer in which he advocated retaliation against Democrats when in fact the Democrats and the Democratic states finance the Republican state's shortfalls and everything else the government does. The difference is that we Democrats know that and I suspect that this is a total surprise to many people who read this because YOUR MEDIA DOESN'T LET YOU HEAR IT.

Excuse me for shouting.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Let's see what the NEW data will suggest..

...Jeff before you go assigning causality to facts not yet in evidence.

Here is a question for you Jeff.. Which States are better off comparatively speaking Blue or Red States

Besides Jeff I didn't know each State paid taxes to other States.. I thought it went to the Federal Government...Who knew?

btw- This IS FROM YOUR MEDIA.. shouted back at cha... "Using average credit score as a measure of household financial health, red states (those voting Republican in 2008) have generally fared better than blue states (those voting Democrat in 2008) under President Obama. Will that be enough to change votes in 2012? That may depend on whether voters in those states see the glass as half full or half empty." Huffington

Oh and from Politifact if you don't look to closely at the 7 YEAR OLD DATA that YOUR MEDIA and YOU are using...

"The graphic’s data uses data from the 2004 election rather than 2008, and the figures on taxes and spending date back to 2005. There are fewer states that would be labeled Republican based on the 2008 election, and there’s a strong likelihood that tax and spending data would have changed as well. Because of this likelihood, we downgrade the accuracy of this generally accurate chart to Mostly True."

That's so what Jeff...

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Welfare states

We indeed have a welfare queen confederacy of Red states. Hypocrites who rail against too much Federal spending but gladly suck up much of those Federal dollars (except of course Obamacare Medicaid dollars which would only help the poor in the Red states.)

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
And again, assumption abounds...

...that one state pays and/or takes more Fed $$ than the other, and because of that non-specific fact it's assumed those dollars are given to 'welfare', when there is no data on WHAT it's being spent on, whether it's legitimate or not. So if GA takes Fed $$ to deepen the port of Savannah, that's the same as 18% of NYC residents on food stamps, right?

The backhanded, ignorant attempt to slight 'Red' states, i.e. those whose electors voted for a conservative candidate, is as stupid as it gets. Post some specifics about specifically what Fed $$ goes to what programs, in what amounts, per capita, etc...and you might have a valid point.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Denial kc

You keep saying electors when what we are really talking about is the popular vote in the election last month.

I don't see why it is up to me to analyze the data and determine why all of the red states except four are being subsidized by the blue states. The fact is that the blue states subsidize the red states. Do you expect me to believe that Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and the rest of the red states are receiving more Federal government transfers from the blue states because the Feds are funding more infrastructure in the red states and food stamps in the blue states? Do you have any idea which states are the largest food stamp states? Want to guess?

Sigh. Sorry to over-react. But I can't see why the irrefutable facts are not overwhelmingly obvious and why they are not relevant. I can't seem to find any common grounds whereby my side and your side can agree that such and such is true and given that common starting point, we can extrapolate something else. Then we could retroactively dissect the divergence. Never agreeing on a baseline obviates that.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Continued assumptions, JeffC...

...and electors or popular vote, the state went the way of 'the color'. Yes, it is clear this information isn't/wasn't analyzed.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
But Jeff if don't analyze the 7 year old data...

...you would find that the guy who created the graphic using 2004 data, Jesse Erlbaum, came up with the graphic after watching a Presidential Debate and watching the West Wing TV show.
If you did the minimum of work you would also have found out that he just did a minimum of work himself to create the graphic without any variables like Farm subsidies or States with a large Military. You would have also found out that the guy is just a software engineer not an economist or statistician.

If you did the work Jeff you would have found that the Chart has NOT been peer reviewed nor used in ANY study of disbursements of Federal funds.

If you had of done a little work Jeff you would have found that the author has not released the raw data nor allowed his methodology to be studied.

If you did the work Jeff you would also have found Jeff that NO ONE other then Progressive Blogospheres and Huffington has run with this. The LSM has not and will not without the data being mined for errors. Even they know when they see bogus info Jeff.

But because this fits your idea of having to subsidize us Red States you are happy enough to use data that fits your ideology even though it was inspired by a TV show, not reviewed and not even sourced as to where he received his data.

This is lame Jeff for you.. I would expect this from Lion of Gort.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
None of that is correct SL

The analysis comes from the Tax Foundation which used data from the Office of Management and Budget:

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State

As you can see, the information was analyzed by Curtis S. Dubay, Economist and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The blue states subsidize the red states. This is not a one year thing either but a trend that has held for decades. There is no ambiguity in the data. There is almost a direct relationship that the more a state votes Republican the higher the rate at which the blue states are subsidizing them.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - here's some data

For you and how one of your fellow progressives handles their tax burden.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/11/30/tax-fair...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Gotta call BS Jeff

Show me what I wrote is NOT correct..

The chart created by a software engineer after watching the West Wing is the data you used.

It was NOT peer reviewed and his chart was NOT analyzed by anyone.

Now you are trying to obfuscate the fact that you guys are using 7 year old data. The report YOU LINKED to is from 2006 using 2004 DATA??????

You are supposed to be better then this Jeff.. The data has to ne mined...filtered.. and then put into context.. NONE OF THAT WAS DONE. No exceptions or filters for MILITARY BASES, Farm subsidies or any other Federally Mandated programs.

Pathetic Jeff.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Well you've baffled me SL

I have no idea who your software engineer Jesse Erlbaum is. I'm also not clear on what chart you are claiming that he made up while watching West Wing. I am not sure what you are claiming was not peer-reviewed.

I clearly linked to data from the Tax Foundation that cites its references to the OMB database. Click on it and see:

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State

Instead of your software guy, the report I cited is clearly noted as the work of Curtis S. Dubay, Economist and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

S. Lindsey wrote:

The data has to be mined...filtered.. and then put into context.. NONE OF THAT WAS DONE.

I sense from the capitalization your dismay that I presented raw irrefutable facts from US government budget documents, (all of which are fully cited here; just click and see). The data does not have to be mined. The data does not have to be filtered. The data does not have to then be put into context. You needn't be alarmed that "NONE OF THAT WAS DONE". People are perfectly capable of reading the Heritage Foundation guys work for the Tax Foundation and evaluating it without your mined and filtered and contexted interpretation.

S. Lindsey wrote:

No exceptions or filters for MILITARY BASES, Farm subsidies or any other Federally Mandated programs.

All of this and yet obviously you still have not read the report.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff play your games...

,,,it what your type does.

The info you used was from the Huffington and the legion of Leftest websites all siting Jesse Erlbaum 2009 creation.

Only after it has been soundly rejected do you now bring a report that still USES 7 YEAR OLD DATA and DOES NOT show the conclusions that you and the rest of your cabal used.

So what's your point?

Do you want to go to War with West Virginia?

Good Luck with that...I worked there you wouldn't last a day.

Jeff please continue to be a neo-political segregationist as far as I an concerned we are not polarized enough.. So go ahead fan the flames of civil war let's see who will come out on top.

This is from Politifact not a Rightwinged organization talking about your info...

"The graphic defines Republican states as those "that have voted Republican in a previous presidential election." Because the data is from 2005, that means states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which is a larger number than voted Republican in 2008.

But the definition of states as Republican or Democratic isn't immutable. Just four years later, in the 2008 election, six states in the right-hand chart and three states in the left-hand chart switched from Republican to Democratic, making both charts more heavily blue.

We should also note that some of the margins of victory were quite narrow. In fact, a dozen or more states can be characterized in most elections as swing states, which might be more appropriately shaded in purple."
"As we noted, the data is for 2005. To the author’s credit, this is disclosed prominently, and because it’s the most recent data of its type available, we can hardly fault the creator of the graphic for using it. Still, since the data has almost certainly shifted in the interim, particularly with the 2009 stimulus and the general increase in deficit spending, those patterns could have shifted as well.

"Because of the high deficit spending we’re seeing at the federal level, it’s likely that every state is currently receiving more in federal spending than its population paid in federal income taxes," the Tax Foundation's Morrison said."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-post...

You can change the source now Jeff but every leftest site out there is using this data including YOU.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Thanks for clearing that up SL

What the graphic you refer to has to do with me is still a mystery since I never referenced it and did not link to it in anyway whatsoever. That is why I was confused when you started denouncing it. Apparently the connection is that some of the same Office of Management and Budget data was used by your tv watching software guy to create his little chart as was used by the Senior Tax analysts for the Heritage Foundation in his report for the Tax Foundation that I cited.

S. Lindsey wrote:

The info you used was from the Huffington and the legion of Leftest websites.

As I have clearly and repeatedly shown with links here, the information is from the United States Office of Management and Budget. It is not my private data nor can I stop other people from using and citing it. If Huff used it somewhere and upset you that's really not my problem.

S. Lindsey wrote:

Only after it has been soundly rejected…

Rejected by whom? This is not data that can be rejected or accepted at your whim. Facts are not negotiable. This is not a poll from Dick Morris subject to being Unskewed. In fact, the link that you provided for your graphic says:

PolitiFact wrote:

So the graphic is solidly grounded in reality.

Politifact did express concern for the age of the data:

PolitiFact wrote:

As we noted, the data is for 2005. To the author’s credit, this is disclosed prominently, and because it’s the most recent data of its type available, we can hardly fault the creator of the graphic for using it.

And because of that, they downgraded the accuracy from “generally accurate”:

S. Lindsey wrote:

There are fewer states that would be labeled Republican based on the 2008 election, and there’s a strong likelihood that tax and spending data would have changed as well. Because of this likelihood, we downgrade the accuracy of this generally accurate chart to Mostly True.

That hardly fits your description as having been “soundly rejected”. If you believe that newer data will show a different result, you are welcome to do the work and enlighten us.

S. Lindsey wrote:

You can change the source now Jeff but every leftest site out there is using this data including YOU.

Again, and for the last time, I have not changed the source although you tried to and I objected. The source is the United States Office of Management and Budget. The report is from the Tax Foundation. The author is Curtis S. Dubay, Economist and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Finally, your assertion:

S. Lindsey wrote:

Do you want to go to War with West Virginia?... Jeff please continue to be a neo-political segregationist as far as I an concerned we are not polarized enough.. So go ahead fan the flames of civil war let's see who will come out on top.

is beyond absurd. I’m not advocating war with West Virginia at all. I am not the one advocating that we “legally discriminate against someone for being a leftist”. I am not the one saying, “So I encourage conservatives to not buy from known Democrats, companies who sponsor the Democrats, or spend money in blue states and blue Georgia counties.” I am not the one advising people "Lay off your known leftist employees”.

That would be your side.

I have just stated and cited facts in response to Bill Gilmer’s silly letter to the editor. You might read it. It’s at the top of the page. Then tell us who is the neo-political segregationist you’re referring to.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Hey, it's a 'blue' city!!

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20264712/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama...

It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad, and she appears to be serious that the city is ENTITLED to Federal assistance because they voted for the eventual winner. Didn't they just bailout the largest local employer(s)?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Thank you, SL...

...as you more specifically made my point; the graph and/or arguement was so sadly stated that it really had no point at all, except to deceive the viewer in to believing that 'blue' states basically support 'red' states. I thought we were one country, with freedom and income redistribution for all...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
KC .. Jeff is just playing the game to it's fullest extent...

...this is what Progressive do pit one class against the other anyway they can. They must keep everyone divided.

Now it State against State.. These type of neo-political segregationist must do all they can to keep America from looking at the real culprit... Government.

As long as we are at each other's throats we won't be at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

You want proof?

What would have happened if President Obama had of came on the air and simply told those that called us racist for disagreeing with him to stop and let dissent happen? It would have brought us together started healing old wounds...Instead he drove a nail in the coffin of racial divide and started a war on Wealth.

It is Class Warfare at it's worst...Jeff like DM is just doing their part.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Doesn't matter which state it is

47% of Americans that earn income do not pay Federal income tax and are mooching off of the 53% that do. The majority of the moochers are Democrats and voted for Obama so that they could continue to mooch off of the producers. Those in the red states that are receiving the government subsidies are by far bedwetting libs that voted for dear ruler.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Government subsidies

Oh, you can't be talking about the bedrock of our country - like southern, western, and mid-west farmers. I certainly don't consider them 'whiners', but no wonder Iowa, Ohio and some other states didn 't go the way Rove predicted. Thank you Nate Silver for including all Americans in your correct prediction. Thank heaven for the farmers that produce for our country. And thank heaven for the Joe Kawfi's of our country who are becoming a extinct class. They will be historical artifacts of a bygone era.

rick wallace
rick wallace's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/03/2012
Leftist are not a protected class....yet

How do we identify a Democrat?
Mr. Gilmer’s article, leftist not a protected class…yet, advocates conservatives should “fight back against the moochers and looters” (you know – Democrats!) Mr. Gilmer said “I encourage conservatives to not buy from known Democrats, companies who sponsor the Democrats, or spend money in blue states and blue Georgia counties.” He goes on to request business owners to layoff leftist employees. My question for Mr. Gilmer is; How do you identify a Democrat?
When I’m not reading the Citizen, I like to sit down and read a good book. The book I’m reading right now is the Water is Wide, by Pat Conroy. The story line is a young white teacher in the sixties who tries to make a difference by teaching poor Afro-American kids in the south. I’m at the part where the local redneck, Ted Stone, said he closed his restaurant down because he was forced to serve all people including Afro-Americans. Conroy goes on to say the local white church had a plan to close their doors if Afro-Americans were to visit. I’m glad a lot has changed since the sixties, now I’m not so sure after reading Mr. Gilmer’s article.
Again my question to Mr. Gilmer is; How do we identify a Democrat? It’s hard to look at a white guy and tell whether or not he is a Democrat. I guess down here in the South, the odds are better than 2 to 1 that an old white guy is probably a Republican. So they can probably be spared being shunned and suffer financial hardships. Well that leaves the rest, Afro-American, Hispanics, women and people of color. Afro-Americans overwhelming voted for the president so the odds are pretty good they are mostly Democrats. Over seventy percent of the Hispanic population voted for the president so again if you see a Hispanic the odds are pretty good they are a Democrat. Mr. Gilmer, are you advocating boycotting minority business and lying off minority workers?
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you were only calling on the boycott and work termination of white Democrats. Unfortunately, I have a hard time distinguishing a white Democrat. Do white democrats have a tattoo or a scarlet letter so they can be identified? Really, How can fight against a group of people if we don’t know what they look like? I have pondered this dilemma for a while and this is what I have come up with. Women tend to be more democratic than men, (you have Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock to thank.) So the first people on your list to fire and boycott should be women. Actually, single moms (the moochers?) tend to be more democratic so really single moms should be the first to suffer financial hardship. That still leaves a lot of white guys. I would like to leave you with my identification methods for white guys. If they are wearing a NASCAR hat (even if they have long hair) are probably a Republican. If they are wearing a Jimmy Buffet T-shirt they’re probably a Democrat. There may be a Confederacy exception down here, silly Republicans still wear Lefty Jimmy T-shirts.
Finally, I guess you can just ask your co-worker or business partner, “Are you a Republican or a Democrat?” The problem with that is they might answer with, “Independent”. Of course this would be your first indication of a Democrat. However, Mr. Gilmer, what if they say they’re an American? An American that has proudly served their country always paid their taxes and although Democrats may fine your rhetoric offensive, Democrats believe in diversity and shun the notion of an inclusive society. Quite the contrary, the solution is to reach out to the all people, even the ones you despise. I’m going back to my book now, The Water is Wide, and I highly recommend it.

Rick Wallace
Peachtree City

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Wallace - This

is a very good point and I agree that we shouldn't discriminate based on politics or color.

Let us know how the novel turns out, we down here in the South that lived through the sixties during the civil rights movement sure would like to know.

You know the Civil Rights movement taught us all a lot about civil disobedience when the government forces us to do things that are just was just dead wrong, like depriving us our freedom. Massive peaceful disobedience is a powerful force, don't you think?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

You know the Civil Rights movement taught us all a lot about civil disobedience when the government forces us to do things that are just was just dead wrong, like depriving us our freedom. Massive peaceful disobedience is a powerful force, don't you think?

Your freedom to keep me and my family under the restrictive Jim Crow practices? Segregation? Thanks PTCO for your clarification of freedom and liberty - for you!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - All I can say

Is reading comprehension is a wonderful thing if you have it.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
The red states are on welfare

Mr. Gilmer seems to share the common misperception among the right that the red states are net contributors to the United States finances when, in fact, almost all of the red states are welfare states that are supported by the blue states.

The Confederacy of Takers

In fact, the only states which over the 20 year period from 1990 until 2009 paid net surpluses into the federal treasury were Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Colorado, Wisconsin, Texas, Georgia, Nevada, California, Arkansas, Washington, Rhode Island and New Hampshire with Pennsylvania breaking almost exactly even.

Nebraska, Texas, Georgia and Arkansas were the only red states that have not been welfare states for the last 20 years.

Which red states are the biggest welfare states? You can almost tell by their Presidential votes. The reddest of the red states are the biggest recipients of the blue states welfare transfers. Mississippi was subsidized by the blue states for 254% of it's annual GDP. In other words, out of the 20 year period, the blue states transferred enough money to Mississippi to fund the entire state budget over 2 and a half years. West Virginia was subsidized by 244% of its annual GDP. Montana was subsidized by 184% . Alabama was subsidized by the blue states for 174% of its annual GDP. North Dakota by 154%; Alaska was subsidized by 149%. Kentucky was subsidized by 133%. South Carolina was subsidized by 121%. Louisiana was subsidized by 99%. Wyoming was subsidized by 52%, etc. All but four red states are net welfare states.

To be clear, the red states are almost entirely welfare states. They contribute no net gain to the federal government revenues. They do not pay for any of the interest on the national debt. They do not finance any of the foreign wars nor any activities of the federal government their state. They do not even pay for themselves.

The blue states pay for it. They pay for of the wars, the foreign activities of the government, the foreign aid. The blue states pay for their own welfare and then pick up part of the tab for the welfare of the red states. Then they pay for the rest of the government.

In fact, if the red states were not such welfare basket cases sucking the money paid to the federal government by the blue states and the transfers to the red states could be stopped, the blue states would almost balance the budget.

Where federal taxes are raised and spent

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - So?

What's your point? We are simply moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. It doesn't matter if some states give more or take more. The problem is that we have an all powerful central government deciding where money should go. That leads nowhere but to corruption, as evidenced by our current form of government. The smell is overwhelming most of America Jeff.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Yes PTCO, I know

I can see your points of reference vividly but you are a specialty case outside of my arguments. All I can offer to you is my adeptness in the game.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Jeff - Not so

special but one that sees the game that you play, that's all.

Unfortunately, the entire summation of your work provides no actual wealth increase to mankind, it only consumes.

Nice gig trading around other people's wealth creation, just like deck chairs.

Red states, Blue states.....indeed, it's all someone else's money that's all that counts in "The Game".

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
That's quite an assumption, JeffC...

...that because electors vote one way or another that the whole population of a 'blue' or 'red' state are, or are not, 'welfare' recipients. Also, it appears many of the 'taker' states have large rural areas & populations. Common sense dictates these states most probably have more difficulty developing industry, are more agrarian, and have a much smaller tax base. Coming from Kansas, I can attest to the difficulties of attracting businesses to 'the sticks'. Obviously if there are gov't programs to assist the population, you'd find more need in these states, rather than in the finanical centers of NY & Delaware, the S. Cal/Hollywood cesspool, and the tourism mecca of FL. Somes states have natural advantages over others when it comes to revenue production. I'd think you proud of this 'income redistribution'; isn't that what Obama is working for?

Again, this is just a general opinion with assumptions, not greatly-researched facts like the articles you took your info from.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Very Interesting....

How many of these states are required by their Constitutions to balance their budgets? Which political party has enjoyed the most control of state legislatures over the past twenty years?
Simply stated, this ain't a red or blue problem, but a spending problem.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
JeffC, Federal taxes vs federal spending

All it took in those days for Federal spending to exceed Federal taxes collected was a couple of very aggressive members of a state's congressional delegation. Remember those Earmarks?