Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

That makes no sense whatsoever. Money spent or not spent in Iraq has no bearing on the differential in spending between states. If you want more federal money spent in a blue state and less in a red state, then a guaranteed way to do that would be to move a military base.

You're usually more on the ball than this.

What do you mean it makes no sense? It most certainly does have a bearing.

Alaska gets back 6-1. That means their net payment to Iraq is 0. Minnesota pays more than they get back. That means their net to Iraq is more than zero.

It's not hard.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

What do you mean it makes no sense? It most certainly does have a bearing.

Alaska gets back 6-1. That means their net payment to Iraq is 0. Minnesota pays more than they get back. That means their net to Iraq is more than zero.

It's not hard.

The question was not "which states are paying for Iraq" (which is a moot question, anyway, since we both know that NOBODY is paying for Iraq).

The question was how to balance Federal spending among the states, and you suggested that National Defense was a legitimate spending tool that could be used to help balance the spending. My point is that that only works if each state just happens to need the exact "amount" of national defense facilities that their taxes can pay for. Like it or not, we need more national defense facilities in border/coastal states and states that have huge areas of open land (unless you think they should start running Red Flag exercises over Boston?), regardless of ability to pay - so the premise of balancing military spending based on ability to pay will never work.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

What do you mean it makes no sense? It most certainly does have a bearing.

Alaska gets back 6-1. That means their net payment to Iraq is 0. Minnesota pays more than they get back. That means their net to Iraq is more than zero.

It's not hard.

Yah, it's all those blue state folks that are funding our foreign policy excursions. Stop those imperialistic Minnesotans from continuing their military adventure in Iraq!

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

The question was how to balance Federal spending among the states, and you suggested that National Defense was a legitimate spending tool that could be used to help balance the spending. My point is that that only works if each state just happens to need the exact "amount" of national defense facilities that their taxes can pay for. Like it or not, we need more national defense facilities in border/coastal states and states that have huge areas of open land (unless you think they should start running Red Flag exercises over Boston?), regardless of ability to pay - so the premise of balancing military spending based on ability to pay will never work.

This whole premise is BS. Fact is the higher earning income states pay the federal taxes, while the poorer ones don't (the fed income tax isn't indexed by your cost of living ). So basically rich successful liberals in high earning professional blue states like Mass, NY, CA, IL, MN, etc shell out the bucks with lazy poor uneducated conservatives in states like KY, WVA, AL, AK, AZ, etc don't. That's the bottom line. Places like Texas have huge military bases but they're a donor state (the only donor red state) so that blows this theory to hell. Furthermore, a state like Mass gets its share of research and military dollars, though not through massive bases. The issue is more successful, less welfare dependent people have the burden of paying for the rest of the country.

Scooby is 100% correct. Lets have those states either 1) refuse federal dollars if they're so conservative, or 2) start paying their fair share.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Scooby is 100% correct. Lets have those states either 1) refuse federal dollars if they're so conservative, or 2) start paying their fair share.

Why should we. We get to complain about the government and still get you to send us your money. You may be rich, literate, hard-working, up by your bootstraps liberals, but you guys are suckers.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Yah, it's all those blue state folks that are funding our foreign policy excursions. Stop those imperialistic Minnesotans from continuing their military adventure in Iraq!

No kidding. At least one of our Senators was smart enough to vote against Iraq. Only one though.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

No kidding. At least one of our Senators was smart enough to vote against Iraq. Only one though.

I'll go further. You big spending states like Minnesota that fund these foreign adventures drag off our soldiers that are based in states like Arizona to do the dirty work of your foreign wars. Leave our Arizona soldiers out of your foreign adventury!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I'll go further. You big spending states like Minnesota that fund these foreign adventures drag off our soldiers that are based in states like Arizona to do the dirty work of your foreign wars. Leave our Arizona soldiers out of your foreign adventury!

Sure. But it was a ex-Texas governor who over extended the military. And the to Arizona Senator supported it all the way.

You're not getting off the hook completely.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

This whole premise is BS. Fact is the higher earning income states pay the federal taxes, while the poorer ones don't (the fed income tax isn't indexed by your cost of living ). So basically rich successful liberals in high earning professional blue states like Mass, NY, CA, IL, MN, etc shell out the bucks with lazy poor uneducated conservatives in states like KY, WVA, AL, AK, AZ, etc don't. That's the bottom line. Places like Texas have huge military bases but they're a donor state (the only donor red state) so that blows this theory to hell. Furthermore, a state like Mass gets its share of research and military dollars, though not through massive bases. The issue is more successful, less welfare dependent people have the burden of paying for the rest of the country.

Scooby is 100% correct. Lets have those states either 1) refuse federal dollars if they're so conservative, or 2) start paying their fair share.

Whoa, there. I never claimed that the discrepancy was BECAUSE of differences in military spending. My argument was that you can't just move military spending from state A to state B as a means for trying to even it out, because there are real reasons why many bases need to be in the states they're in based on geography, topography, demographics (lack of people), etc.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Sure. But it was a ex-Texas governor who over extended the military. And the to Arizona Senator supported it all the way.

You're not getting off the hook completely.

I've criticized both those folks a lot over the years and have never been a big fan of going into Iraq, so it's not my dog in the that particular fight.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

You've got to love someone who's never been in the military criticizing the over-extension of the military.

Hey, if Scooby's kind can harp on people who support the war from outside the military, turnabout's fair play.

At least we can all agree that his beloved ex-Illinois Senator is clueless about how to be a Commander in Chief.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

You've got to love someone who's never been in the military criticizing the over-extension of the military.

Hey, if Scooby's kind can harp on people who support the war from outside the military, turnabout's fair play.

At least we can all agree that his beloved ex-Illinois Senator is clueless about how to be a Commander in Chief.

???

What part about me not voting for Obama do you not understand? I do not like Obama. I never have. I do not support him. I do not support his policies. I will never vote for him.

I don't try to misrepresent your views. Try not to misrepresent mine.

As for the military. I come from a military family. I support the military. I tried to join the military and was rejected because of my physical.

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

???

What part about me not voting for Obama do you not understand? I do not like Obama. I never have. I do not support him. I do not support his policies. I will never vote for him.

I don't try to misrepresent your views. Try not to misrepresent mine.

As for the military. I come from a military family. I support the military. I tried to join the military and was rejected because of my physical.

Red Cloud just listens to the voices in his head and does whatever they tell him too. Clearly he's not answering something you wrote, but something the voices told him you wrote. Once you understand that, his posts make a little more sense.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Red Cloud just listens to the voices in his head and does whatever they tell him too. Clearly he's not answering something you wrote, but something the voices told him you wrote. Once you understand that, his posts make a little more sense.

Pop psychologist Rover pays us another visit. The industry may never recover.

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Pop psychologist Rover pays us another visit. The industry may never recover.

With the material you guys give me, its almost a full time job.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I don't try to misrepresent your views. Try not to misrepresent mine.

When you start living up to the first, I'll think about the latter. In the mean time, that's my only response to trolls like you and Rover.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

When you start living up to the first, I'll think about the latter. In the mean time, that's my only response to trolls like you and Rover.

Pot, Kettle, and all that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

With the material you guys give me, its almost a full time job.

Well, glad to hear you're finally employed.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

You've got to love someone who's never been in the military criticizing the over-extension of the military.

Very silly point.

I guess you should stop giving your points of view on most topics...as I assume your not an employed economist (any economic discussion), are not a healthcare worker (no input on the healthcare bill), are not a medical doctor or church minister (no input on abortion), a business consultant (no input on how businesses function), tax consultant (no feedback on where we should set the tax rate) or Congressman (no input on govt spending).

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Very silly point.

I guess you should stop giving your points of view on most topics...as I assume your not an employed economist (any economic discussion), are not a healthcare worker (no input on the healthcare bill), are not a medical doctor or church minister (no input on abortion), a business consultant (no input on how businesses function), tax consultant (no feedback on where we should set the tax rate) or Congressman (no input on govt spending).

Well, by these rules then he's able to give commentary on govt paying people for not working, a subject he's intimately familiar with. (I kid, I kid)