Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/16/2020 9:48:49 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/21/2012 12:39:06 PM EST
Red states receive, on average, far more from the federal government in expenditures than they pay in taxes. The balance is the opposite in blue states. The secession petitions, therefore, give the opportunity to create what would be, in a fiscal sense, a far more perfect union.

Among those states with large numbers of petitioners asking out: Louisiana (more than 28,000 signatures at midday Tuesday), which gets about $1.45 in federal largess for every $1 it pays in taxes; Alabama (more than 20,000 signatures), which takes $1.71 for every $1 it puts in; South Carolina (26,000), which takes $1.38 for its dollar; and Missouri (22,000), which takes $1.29 for its dollar.

Read more: Link

I don't think it would be good fiscal news and it would hurt both sides.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:45:07 PM EST
they should kick our freeloading red states asses out then
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:46:24 PM EST
Did they take into account on how much each state spends?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:49:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By FrozInAK:
Did they take into account on how much each state spends?


As well as their debt?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:50:41 PM EST
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:51:28 PM EST
Wait, is some libtard now having problems with wealth redistribution?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:53:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


PRECISELY - even though the state may be red, I'm guessing there are urban areas within the state where most of the "federal expenditures" go.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:53:57 PM EST
Gas prices would sky rocket. Oil comes mostly from Red states (like TX, AK, ND, OK). I'm sure that wouldn't pose a problem, right?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:55:55 PM EST
Every time I've seen that mentioned,I like to post the county by county maps of race,voting and food stamp usage.

Yes,there certainly are white Republicans on welfare but...well...yeah,don't really want to have a discussion about some of the details that show a very obvious trend.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 12:58:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 1:33:40 PM EST by paris-dakar]
'Secessionist' is going to be the next Left establishment slur-meme, like 'Birther' and 'Tea Bagger'.

Also, Dana Milbank is a hack.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:00:49 PM EST
Compton and East LA don't have shit on many LARGE areas of many of our finest red states.

Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


PRECISELY - even though the state may be red, I'm guessing there are urban areas within the state where most of the "federal expenditures" go.


Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:01:48 PM EST
Lots of military facilities in RED states also. They always fail to overlook this.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:02:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 1:33:26 PM EST by paris-dakar]
A better plan than secession would be to break up some of the bigger states but no way the Dems go for that.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:02:21 PM EST
Ok.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:02:35 PM EST
Fine. Fuck you blue states. I will take my ball and go home. Hope you have the taxes at your disposal to meet the soon to be at your door displaced leeches on society, cause once we go, they go. Have a fun time with that.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:02:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By zealgroup:
I don't think it would be good fiscal news and it would hurt both sides.


Yeah. All those former slave states of the Soviet Union cry themselves to sleep every night now that they are on their own. Norway really wishes it could reunite with Sweden.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:04:10 PM EST
He must not like eating regularly, or having gasoline.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:04:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By outofbattery:
Every time I've seen that mentioned,I like to post the county by county maps of race,voting and food stamp usage.

Yes,there certainly are white Republicans on welfare but...well...yeah,don't really want to have a discussion about some of the details that show a very obvious trend.


I think the figures he's using include Social Security and Fed Retirement paid to state residents. Neither of which I'd consider 'welfare' as the article implies. So, even if the states succeeded, the Feds would still be paying out (at least retirement pay...Social Security may be debatable if they're no longer citizens of the US...but the smart move would be for them to become residents of a 'remaining' Blue state, then move to the lower cost of living Red State as a temporary 'non-citizen').

AFARR
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:07:21 PM EST
Good! All the more reason the Red states should be kicked out and made to start their own gov. I'm good with that!
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:09:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


PRECISELY - even though the state may be red, I'm guessing there are urban areas within the state where most of the "federal expenditures" go.

Until I see more details on what exactly these expenditures are, I think it's more along the lines of something like this:

Democrat congressman\committee member talking to a republican congressman: If you vote for this bill we'll put in some money for your state to to build this "bridge\expressway, whatever"

This tit for tat thing is how washington works and which is a small part of the reason we're in the mess we're in. ALL congress members are always looking for ways to "bring the money home" and they all have their price.

A big one just happened within the last 4 years, some big bill and they were able to "bribe" the congressman from, I think it was Montana or Wyoming into voting for something he was not going to support. His constituency got wind of it and freaked out, put some pressure on him and he re-reversed his stance. Sorry I don't remember what it was.

Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:10:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:11:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 1:11:28 PM EST by paris-dakar]
Originally Posted By whollyshite:
Good! All the more reason the Red states should be kicked out and made to start their own gov. I'm good with that!


It would be cool if the center of the nation from the Mexican border through the Plains states merged with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They're not crazy about Ontario and the combination would be an energy colossus.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:13:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 1:14:15 PM EST by RUM]
What does Milbank think the FSA members responsible those high numbers will do when the money stops

Can she say refugees

And for the record secession would be BAD
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:15:55 PM EST
Blue states love to starve, huh?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:17:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 1:17:45 PM EST by DigDug]
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By whollyshite:
Good! All the more reason the Red states should be kicked out and made to start their own gov. I'm good with that!


It would be cool if the center of the nation from the Mexican border through the Plains states merged with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They're not crazy about Ontario and the combination would be an energy colossus.


The amount of food exports would also be huge.

Plus one of the top nuclear super powers in the world.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:20:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By whollyshite:
Good! All the more reason the Red states should be kicked out and made to start their own gov. I'm good with that!


It would be cool if the center of the nation from the Mexican border through the Plains states merged with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They're not crazy about Ontario and the combination would be an energy colossus.


The amount of food exports would also be huge.

Plus one of the top nuclear super powers in the world.


It would be the economic and military superpower for the next 200 years, maybe longer.

Probably the largest energy producer in the world by 2X or 3X the next largest.

Of course both coastal regions would slide into the shitter.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:20:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By AFARR:
Originally Posted By outofbattery:
Every time I've seen that mentioned,I like to post the county by county maps of race,voting and food stamp usage.

Yes,there certainly are white Republicans on welfare but...well...yeah,don't really want to have a discussion about some of the details that show a very obvious trend.


I think the figures he's using include Social Security and Fed Retirement paid to state residents. Neither of which I'd consider 'welfare' as the article implies. So, even if the states succeeded, the Feds would still be paying out (at least retirement pay...Social Security may be debatable if they're no longer citizens of the US...but the smart move would be for them to become residents of a 'remaining' Blue state, then move to the lower cost of living Red State as a temporary 'non-citizen').

AFARR


They include all federal spending and taxes and then do the net. No surprise, DC, Maryland and Virginia are usually the biggest leeches.

Defense contractors, and also states where soldiers tend to establish their home residence (FL, TX, etc.) will also show up as bigger beneficiaries of federal money.

Some red states are bigger leeches because people retire there from blue states (CA, IL, NY) and then get social security and medicare for many years while living in FL, NC, SC, AZ, etc. States which produce a lot of retirees fleeing their home state (like NY) should automatically be considered toxic.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:22:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


white trash?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:24:17 PM EST
I'm really skeptical of the claim. Don't the blue states have the three biggest cities, with the highest costs of living? So it makes sense that they pay a lot more in taxes. Also, does the claim factor in legitimate uses of government? I'm sure it costs a lot of money for the government to run Fort Hood, but does that really count as welfare to a red state?!
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:24:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By AnarchyRd:
Originally Posted By zealgroup:
I don't think it would be good fiscal news and it would hurt both sides.


Yeah. All those former slave states of the Soviet Union cry themselves to sleep every night now that they are on their own. Norway really wishes it could reunite with Sweden.


I don't think you understood the article. All red states DID NOT sign the petitions to leave. It was only a few. It would be hard on just a few to be able to be successful on their own. Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:25:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
'Successionist' is going to be the next Left establishment slur-meme, like 'Birther' and 'Tea Bagger'.

Also, Dana Milbank is a hack.

It's all good. I've always thought of them as either Quislings or Tories.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:26:32 PM EST
To be fair, White House officials could refuse the secession petitions of states Obama won, such as New York (which gets only 79 cents on its tax dollar), Michigan (85 cents) and Colorado (79 cents).

What would be left is a Confederacy of Takers, including relatively poor states such as Alaska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi. One of the few would-be Confederacy members that pays more than it receives is Texas, which because of oil money is roughly break-even at 94 cents of benefits for its tax dollar.

Where do they get the figures? Did the GM bailout money count towards Michigan's numbers?

Texas is only not 'on the dole' because of oil, huh? It has nothing to do with Republican state government that exercises fiscal control and a strong economy due to lower taxes?


I'm game. Let's see the northeast survive without oil from TX, AK, ND, and OK, corn from NB and KS, etc (how can they keep their ethanol mandate?!). Oh, and they seem to have overlooked something: Do they think those individuals that are living off the FedGov would stay here once the money stopped? Do they think all the businesses would stay there when they start raising taxes and vilifying them even more than they do now? They might be unpleasantly surprised.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:29:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By RUM:
What does Milbank think the FSA members responsible those high numbers will do when the money stops

Can she say refugees

And for the record secession would be BAD


Bad for who, After the initial pain from the break up States like TX, OK, LA, MS would do just fine since we have oil, deep sea ports and good farm land. Sure it would be rough for maybe a generation, but the RED states would far better off than the BLUE states simply due to the mind set between the two.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:30:14 PM EST
I remember a newspaper article about this some time back. It was in a local paper, and the article discussed Federal money received by Alabama

versus Georgia. Alabama received more than Georgia. The article pointed out that in large part, the money came from discretionary type funds, and

Alabama received more than Georgia because Alabama ASKED for more. Empty out those discretionary accounts and states won't take

as much.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:32:56 PM EST
For those interested in seeing county-by-county where federal expenditures go, broken down by type (Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc.), HERE IS A HANDY INTERACTIVE MAP.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:41:49 PM EST
I`d be for a " bailout" which allowed democrats a "free" move whereever they wanted to move to as long as it wasn`t a red state.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:43:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lawyerman:
For those interested in seeing county-by-county where federal expenditures go, broken down by type (Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc.), HERE IS A HANDY INTERACTIVE MAP.

I wonder if that map takes population into account?

Example:

County A in Alabama has 30000 people with 25% receiving federal money at $7000 per capita.

County C in California has 750000 people with 6% receiving federal money at $7000 per capita.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:44:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By Fullautoguy:
Originally Posted By RUM:
What does Milbank think the FSA members responsible those high numbers will do when the money stops

Can she say refugees

And for the record secession would be BAD


Bad for who, After the initial pain from the break up States like TX, OK, LA, MS would do just fine since we have oil, deep sea ports and good farm land. Sure it would be rough for maybe a generation, but the RED states would far better off than the BLUE states simply due to the mind set between the two.


Bad for the United States, I want to fix things as much as you ,but I'm not anxious for what will come with secession. Remember that line from The patriot, "our children will learn about it with their own eyes"

Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:45:02 PM EST
Originally Posted By brassburn:
Compton and East LA don't have shit on many LARGE areas of many of our finest red states.

Originally Posted By Hornet22:
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


PRECISELY - even though the state may be red, I'm guessing there are urban areas within the state where most of the "federal expenditures" go.




I am kind of curious where you are going with that.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 1:53:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Wait, is some libtard now having problems with wealth redistribution?

nice
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:04:36 PM EST
Blue states consume far more groceries than they produce too.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:18:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By Formergrunt94:

Originally Posted By Lawyerman:
For those interested in seeing county-by-county where federal expenditures go, broken down by type (Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc.), HERE IS A HANDY INTERACTIVE MAP.

I wonder if that map takes population into account?

Example:

County A in Alabama has 30000 people with 25% receiving federal money at $7000 per capita.

County C in California has 750000 people with 6% receiving federal money at $7000 per capita.


It does, but it doesn't give you all the raw data. As you scroll your mouse over the various counties it tells you the wealth transfer dollar amount per capita. It does not say what the total population number is or the % of people that are getting the funds, just the total % of all "income" that the funds represent across the county. So, in Detroit the per capita figure of transfer wealth (tax dollar redistribution) is $9k, but it doesn't say whether this means one person/entity got a million and a whole bunch got zero.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:32:21 PM EST
It has been going around for years. Problem is that areas like NY and CA make money through national sales which are then credited to the state.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:44:44 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:45:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 2:45:49 PM EST by eric496]
double tap
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:53:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2012 2:54:25 PM EST by CarrierGas]
When the blue state public union pensions get bailed out these figures will change dramatically.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:56:44 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 2:56:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By zealgroup:
Originally Posted By AnarchyRd:
Originally Posted By zealgroup:
I don't think it would be good fiscal news and it would hurt both sides.


Yeah. All those former slave states of the Soviet Union cry themselves to sleep every night now that they are on their own. Norway really wishes it could reunite with Sweden.


I don't think you understood the article. All red states DID NOT sign the petitions to leave. It was only a few. It would be hard on just a few to be able to be successful on their own. Just my 2 cents.

You are forgetting one fact. The new Red states will no longer have any welfare programs and therefore all the recipients will be moving to the blue states. And as we would basically control most of the food and oil production you would soon find yourselves paying the higher cost of living and ten bucks a gallon for gas just like Europe you all admire so much.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 3:09:14 PM EST
Cool... so does this mean we're going back to the 19th century battles over internal improvements in the several States?
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 3:11:50 PM EST
Most red States are energy producers. See how that would fly when the pipelines go down to those energy dependent blue States. Here in Utah, most coal fired powerplant produced electricity goes to Kommifornia.and so does gasoline. Maybe New Mexico will keep them supplied.
Link Posted: 11/21/2012 3:14:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By Infantry26:
Why do these red states take more? What demographic do they have high amounts of? ....


Now you done it!


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top