ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Continue.
There was a proposal on the floor to give AZ back to Mexico for free as it would save the US money since the state gets more federal dollars than it pays into the Treasury.
There was a proposal on the floor to give AZ back to Mexico for free as it would save the US money since the state gets more federal dollars than it pays into the Treasury.
Source?
Source?
Rover in the previous thread.
Correlation /= causation
This is silly stuff, even by your standards. The same federal tax rates apply all across the country, in case you didn't get the memo. Defense spending is a big piece of the federal pie (I swear I've heard moaning about that around here). And that spending goes to a sizable extent to state with large military bases. When I lived in Minnesota, people talked about these numbers, but Minnesota was not friendly to the military installations that were there, and the military gradually moved them out of the state. I recall the old Duluth Air Force base, and how Duluth made it very difficult for them. You drive out the military, you don't get their spending on bases. It's really pretty straightforward stuff if you try.Absolutely devastating. I'm getting pretty g*d* sick of subsidising those layout lazy arse conservatives with my tax dollars. Why can't you idiots pick yourselves up by your bootstraps and become contributing members of society.
Bob, A for effort but chalking this up to military spending sounds like something pulled word for word out of The Right Wingers Talking Points Handbook.
A better explanation is all the successful places in the country where people actually pay taxes (CA, MA, NY, IL, TX, WA, OR) are subsidizing slovenly conservative voters in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, etc who prefer to lay around and do nothing except complain about the gumbint on their way to cash their check from the feds.
In the United States of Rover, all states are above average, and every single one of them gives more to the Federal government than it needs.Source?
Find a way to throw in another "S" in there, and you'd have the USSR! Maybe the United Servile States of Rover?In the United States of Rover, all states are above average, and every single one of them gives more to the Federal government than it needs.
This is silly stuff, even by your standards. The same federal tax rates apply all across the country, in case you didn't get the memo. Defense spending is a big piece of the federal pie (I swear I've heard moaning about that around here). And that spending goes to a sizable extent to state with large military bases. When I lived in Minnesota, people talked about these numbers, but Minnesota was not friendly to the military installations that were there, and the military gradually moved them out of the state. I recall the old Duluth Air Force base, and how Duluth made it very difficult for them. You drive out the military, you don't get their spending on bases. It's really pretty straightforward stuff if you try.
You're really more interesting when you put at least minimal effort to say something of substance.
No, your defense of layabout lazy conservatism is what's silly. What's the expression that applies here: talking the talk but not walking the walk? In case you didn't get the memo, the federal tax rates are higher for people making more money. Therefore, Bob, the math lesson today is, how would that affect how much a state's citizens are contributing?
Now assuming you're up to speed on that concept (as in if the successful people in Massachusetts are paying into the higher brackets while 99% of Arizona residents are in the 10% bracket, to use two random states in this example), the question remains why is it that the successful, tax contributing states are by and large liberal/Dem (with the notable exception of Texas) while the freeloading states all vote conservative/GOP?
Here's my theory. Conservatives are hypocrites who complain about gubmint interference in their lives while walking down the street to cash their check from the feds. My evidence is the link posted showing the donor states vs the takers. What is your evidence to refute that Bob?
As an aside, Texas has huge military installations (Ft Hood for one) yet seems to be a donor state, which would shoot your theory to hell, now wouldn't it?
No. You are ridiculous and grossly partisan. No more wasting my time when you don't want a reasoned discussion.