Are you packed yet?

[BillyVance 35]

Hell, depending on who you talk to, this could go either way.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,107]

Would be interesting! It would certainly be cool to see our federal spending go down and our income go up as the red states fled to Canada and Mexico.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president. maybe they are packed and ready to go. they also said that as Obama's #s grow more of their freinds are pulling their money also. makes you wonder what they know, doesn't it?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Would be interesting! It would certainly be cool to see our federal spending go down and our income go up as the red states fled to Canada and Mexico.

How do you figure?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,107]

>How do you figure?

Over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid. Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415.

http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>How do you figure?

Over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid. Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415.

http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html

I'm betting most of the people leaving wouldn't be from the major cities - I don't think you'd see that much change, to be honest.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president.

unless you plan on retiring and cashing in on your investments in the next 4-8 years, that's a stupid move. for the rest of us that have 1, 2, or 3 decades before retirement, leaving it in is the way to go. most of the time, knee-jerk reactions will help alleviate you of your assets.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president. maybe they are packed and ready to go. they also said that as Obama's #s grow more of their freinds are pulling their money also. makes you wonder what they know, doesn't it?

Stay and join the resistance.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>How do you figure?

Over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid. Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415.

http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html

boy yet another half truth from the left. the disparity is in part because of military spending and retired people which is greater in the south and southwest. people need to read past the first paragragh.

this is in the read a little farther down
-------------------------------------------------------
One common assumption disproved by Lacy’s analysis is that military spending and the concentration of military bases in the South and West are a factor. After separating military spending from non-defense spending, there was no relationship between defense spending per state and the state’s Electoral College vote. In other words, the amount a state receives in military spending does not significantly affect its voting patterns, and vice versa.

In fact, once defense spending was factored out, states that benefit the most from non-defense spending were even more likely to vote Republican. -

The difference also does not seem to be attributable to the number of retirees in a state. While this does influence both voting patterns and the flow of Social Security and Medicaid dollars to a state, it does mean that a state is a net beneficiary of federal dollars. Florida, for example, receives more in federal retirement and disability payments than any other state, yet it pays as much in federal taxes as it receives in total benefits.[6]

-------------------------------------------------------

so we need to read the whole not just the part that makes your point look good

[billvon 3,107]

>I'm betting most of the people leaving wouldn't be from the major cities . . .

Agreed. Major cities tend to be "blue."

[billvon 3,107]

>the disparity is in part because of military spending and retired people
> which is greater in the south and southwest. people need to read past the
>first paragragh.

Actually, the part you posted shows you are incorrect! Both of your assumptions were "disproved by Lacy’s analysis."

>people need to read past the first paragragh.

Irony score 10/10.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

>How do you figure?

Over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid. Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415.

http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html

boy yet another half truth from the left. the disparity is in part because of military spending and retired people which is greater in the south and southwest. people need to read past the first paragragh.

NO, you misinterpreted what you read, see highlighted text below.

Quote

this is in the read a little farther down
-------------------------------------------------------
One common assumption disproved by Lacy’s analysis is that military spending and the concentration of military bases in the South and West are a factor. After separating military spending from non-defense spending, there was no relationship between defense spending per state and the state’s Electoral College vote. In other words, the amount a state receives in military spending does not significantly affect its voting patterns, and vice versa.

In fact, once defense spending was factored out, states that benefit the most from non-defense spending were even more likely to vote Republican. -

The difference also does not seem to be attributable to the number of retirees in a state. While this does influence both voting patterns and the flow of Social Security and Medicaid dollars to a state, it does mean that a state is a net beneficiary of federal dollars. Florida, for example, receives more in federal retirement and disability payments than any other state, yet it pays as much in federal taxes as it receives in total benefits.[6]

-------------------------------------------------------

so we need to read the whole not just the part that makes your point look good

Ummm - I think you PROVED his point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>How do you figure?

Over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid. Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415.

http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html

boy yet another half truth from the left. the disparity is in part because of military spending and retired people which is greater in the south and southwest. people need to read past the first paragragh.

NO, you misinterpreted what you read, see highlighted text below.

Quote

this is in the read a little farther down
-------------------------------------------------------
One common assumption disproved by Lacy’s analysis is that military spending and the concentration of military bases in the South and West are a factor. After separating military spending from non-defense spending, there was no relationship between defense spending per state and the state’s Electoral College vote. In other words, the amount a state receives in military spending does not significantly affect its voting patterns, and vice versa.

In fact, once defense spending was factored out, states that benefit the most from non-defense spending were even more likely to vote Republican. -

The difference also does not seem to be attributable to the number of retirees in a state. While this does influence both voting patterns and the flow of Social Security and Medicaid dollars to a state, it does mean that a state is a net beneficiary of federal dollars. Florida, for example, receives more in federal retirement and disability payments than any other state, yet it pays as much in federal taxes as it receives in total benefits.[6]

-------------------------------------------------------

so we need to read the whole not just the part that makes your point look good

Ummm - I think you PROVED his point.

no federal spending would not go down since you would still have retired people and military spending

[billvon 3,107]

> federal spending would not go down since you would still have retired
> people and military spending.

The article you quoted says the opposite. It says the difference in spending between red and blue states is NOT attributable to the number of retirees in a state.

Again, it behooves you to read an article before using it on line.

[Coreece 190]

Life would be great without the radical republican extremists....especially those chanting "Trader" and "Terrorist"....evolve already.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

> federal spending would not go down since you would still have retired
> people and military spending.

The article you quoted says the opposite. It says the difference in spending between red and blue states is NOT attributable to the number of retirees in a state.

Again, it behooves you to read an article before using it on line.

Not only does Washington take money from the blue states and send it to the red states, but Alaska, home of Governor Palin and having more natural resource than any other state, gets the 2nd biggest return per $ sent to Washington (AK gets $1.83 back for each $1 in federal taxes. Only Mississippi (also a RED STATE) gets a bigger return.

So despite all the rhetoric, the red states really are sponging off the blue states and Palin's Alaska is one of the worst.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Alaska, home of Governor Palin and having more natural resource than any other state

just what good are natural resources if the democrats won't let you get at them?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president.

unless you plan on retiring and cashing in on your investments in the next 4-8 years, that's a stupid move. for the rest of us that have 1, 2, or 3 decades before retirement, leaving it in is the way to go. most of the time, knee-jerk reactions will help alleviate you of your assets.

the good thing for me most of what i have is in cash and will soon start putting it in stocks when the bottom hits. my brother has just invested 20,000 in hard hit companies and hopes 2 or 3 come back wich should give him in about 3 years 100k - 200k. this is a great time to look into investing if you have money. alot of $50 - $100 a share stocks are .3 to $5.00 a share now. just have to figure out which nes will come back.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president. maybe they are packed and ready to go. they also said that as Obama's #s grow more of their freinds are pulling their money also. makes you wonder what they know, doesn't it?

If they'd adopted that strategy when Bill Clinton was elected, they'd have lost their shirts, since the country posted the highest surplus in this quadrant of the galaxy under Clinton. Also, if they'd left everything in the market when Bush-2 was elected, they probably did lose their shirts. So it seems to me they've got their formula back-asswards.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

there was a couple investers on the radio last night that said they pulled all their investments when Obam became the nomonie for them dems because they didn't want to losse everything when he became president. maybe they are packed and ready to go. they also said that as Obama's #s grow more of their freinds are pulling their money also. makes you wonder what they know, doesn't it?

As the market continues to slide, the people claiming to have wisely cashed out right before will be piling out of the woodworks. Of course, should this week be the capitulation point and 12 months from now see us back up 20%, all the fools who cashed out this week won't say a word.

Every trough has a number of successful (or lucky) market timers. And an even larger number of unsuccessful ones.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

> federal spending would not go down since you would still have retired
> people and military spending.

The article you quoted says the opposite. It says the difference in spending between red and blue states is NOT attributable to the number of retirees in a state.

Again, it behooves you to read an article before using it on line.

no it states that the voting is not influenced by retirees not the difference in spending

[billvon 3,107]

>it states that the voting is not influenced by retirees.

Actually, it states that voting patterns ARE influenced by the number of retirees:

". . . does not seem to be attributable to the number of retirees in a state. While this DOES influence voting patterns . . . "

I think I am starting to see where some of your positions come from.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Hell, depending on who you talk to, this could go either way.

I guess it's funny when it's not about Bush? Seen lots of complaints on this board over the last 8 years when some celebrity or someone said that they felt the need to move there, blah blah, etc.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

> federal spending would not go down since you would still have retired
> people and military spending.

The article you quoted says the opposite. It says the difference in spending between red and blue states is NOT attributable to the number of retirees in a state.

Again, it behooves you to read an article before using it on line.

Not only does Washington take money from the blue states and send it to the red states, but Alaska, home of Governor Palin and having more natural resource than any other state, gets the 2nd biggest return per $ sent to Washington (AK gets $1.83 back for each $1 in federal taxes. Only Mississippi (also a RED STATE) gets a bigger return.

So despite all the rhetoric, the red states really are sponging off the blue states and Palin's Alaska is one of the worst.

well then i would say let alaska tap into the natural resorces then we wouldn't have to send money their way.