rehmwa 2 #26 April 14, 2011 so it doesn't matter then what the cause is.....we need to cut everything.....no matter how well intentioned, or which side thinks it up....and let the private sector address that stuff significantly simplifying what we allow the fed to be involved in is the only way to do it. Cut entire programs wholesale. Get out of charity. Get out of education. Slash the military. etc etc etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #27 April 14, 2011 Quote Quote So, we get what the media tells them to vote for You ain't seen nothing yet. Count yourself lucky that you do not have a publicly funded media organization who has come up with a computerized tool where people enter their opinions on various social issues and then have the tool tell you who you should be voting for. Our publicly funded media organization has done just this. 9 out of 10 times, this media tool tells you to vote for preferred candidate the publicly funded media organization supports and it does not matter how many times people complain that this tool is faulty and inaccurate, this publicly funded media organization continues to peddle their tool because they believe there are enough stupid people in this world to buy into their propaganda. I have never been more pissed at the Tories in my life, but the Mothercorp's computer still tells me to vote Conservative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #28 April 14, 2011 QuoteI have never been more pissed at the Tories in my life, but the Mothercorp's computer still tells me to vote Conservative. The Mothercorps software is pissing off more than just Conservatives. It is telling NDP supporters that they are actually Greenies and telling Greenies that they are Liberals. About the only people who like the Mothercorps software are the Liberals because 9 out of 10 times it tells people to vote for the Liberals. Funny thing, the software seems to think the Liberals are Centrists when in reality it is hard to tell a difference between the Liberals and the NDP in this election since both parties are out in the left field bleachers peddling their socialism. These promises of socialist nirvana are to be expected from the NDP, but Ignatieff has taken the Liberals so far to the left that it is clear they are out to muscle the NDP off the scene. Nope the Mothercorps software is extremely flawed, yet that does not stop them from pushing it on their lemmings. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 April 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHard to tell, since it's not clear what you're saying here. NC is 35th in spending per capita, or in the differential? Rankings are fed expenditure per capita. and the rankings for tax revenues per capita? 36th. Yes, NC was 36th in both revenue and spending. California, otoh, was 9th on the tax burden, but with the same spending. At a deficit of 450$/person (30M is rounding down), that a 13.5B deficit. And if the numbers are still accurate, with the 37M people, that 16B figure would cover most of the state's deficit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 April 14, 2011 >so it doesn't matter then what the cause is.....we need to cut everything.....no matter > how well intentioned, or which side thinks it up....and let the private sector address >that stuff That could indeed work - but no politician will go for it, as this thread sadly demonstrates. (I have a feeling if there were more people in government like you it might, but that's not likely, either.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #31 April 14, 2011 QuoteLindsey Graham was all for spending cuts - until one of those spending cuts came from his district. A mere $50,000 of federal funding was cut from the budget that was intended to go towards improvements in the Port of Charleston. He is now pitching a fit, threatening to "tie the Senate in knots" until he gets more money. ... All that whining for a measly $50K??? WTF, dude! You could get that from any number of people in the state who would consider that packet change! How about helping your own instead of whining for somebody else to do it for you? I'd take the $50K from YOUR salary if I could. Edited to add: From the Washington Post: - "Graham said. “We’re talking about a $40,000 need in Charleston" - "...the overall price-tag for the six- or seven-year project will be $350 million, which would be split between the federal government and South Carolina.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #32 April 15, 2011 So NC is indeed a TAKER state, like most of the red states. Thanks for the numbers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #33 April 15, 2011 Lindsey Graham is from South Carolina."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #34 April 15, 2011 Quote So NC is indeed a TAKER state, like most of the red states. Thanks for the numbers. While NC is a taker state, it's ranked number 27 on the list. I would call that below average if my math is correct. Even the state ranked 50 still took federal money. Don't hate because YOUR state reps can't lobby for crap....Seriously, if they took federal funds, they are a taker state. I guess in reality it all depends on how much went to honest infrastructure and how much was pocket by politicians and corporations. As far as the port of Charleston is concerned, let the companies that ship through it pay for the upkeep. They have just as much riding on this as anyone else."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #35 April 15, 2011 Quote Quote So NC is indeed a TAKER state, like most of the red states. Thanks for the numbers. While NC is a taker state, it's ranked number 27 on the list. I would call that below average if my math is correct. Even the state ranked 50 still took federal money. Don't hate because YOUR state reps can't lobby for crap....Seriously, if they took federal funds, they are a taker state. I guess in reality it all depends on how much went to honest infrastructure and how much was pocket by politicians and corporations. As far as the port of Charleston is concerned, let the companies that ship through it pay for the upkeep. They have just as much riding on this as anyone else. Apparently you can't tell the difference between positive and negative numbers. Regardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse), both NC and SC are TAKER states, along with most of the "red" states. Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #36 April 15, 2011 QuoteLindsey Graham is from South Carolina. Tell that to mnealtx, he introduced that red-herring (post #19, this thread).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 April 15, 2011 QuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. I may just crunch the numbers to take the SS/Medicare numbers out and see how the map changes...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 April 15, 2011 For those who didn't look at it, the link provided by mnealtx has some interesting stuff. California went from nearly neutral on taxes/spending to being a heavy contributer (probably the heaviest based on volume). I think Connecticut was the one with the worst ratio. And some of this isn't surprising. Incomes in these two states are higher than average (in certain parts of Conn, much much higher). But many of the services provided by the Feds are the same for every citizen. Many many military bases were shut down in CA at the close of the Cold War. San Francisco Bay is essentially undefended now, should some brave Viking/Chinese fleet want to make a go of it. I think that accounts for a significant amount of the drop in spending in state. There's also no doubt that Bush crapped all over CA for his entire tenure. It would be interesting to see the change between 2000 and 2008 to see if it shows up. 94-04 is more about the bases, I think. And on that, the state probably benefited from the tough love. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #39 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #41 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. It appears that YOU were the one with the reading problem. I wrote "Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican." I didn't write that all moocher states voted Republican. Hence your comment was irrelevant and missed the point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. It appears that YOU were the one with the reading problem. I wrote "Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican." I didn't write that all moocher states voted Republican. Hence your comment was irrelevant and missed the point. No, it didn't - it actually shows MY point which is that what way a state votes in a Presidential election has exactly JACK SHIT to do with it. It comes down to population and wages, which has been posted before. States that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,603 #43 April 15, 2011 QuoteStates that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting.If you're talking about the sort of accounting that determines if a state gets more than it gives, or vice versa, why, then, should we subsidize the rural states? We're not protecting family farms; virtually all of the agricultural subsidies go more to the giant factory farms. And subsidizing so that food is so cheap that 30% of our population is overweight is probably not the best way to spend our tax dollars. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteStates that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting.If you're talking about the sort of accounting that determines if a state gets more than it gives, or vice versa, why, then, should we subsidize the rural states? We're not protecting family farms; virtually all of the agricultural subsidies go more to the giant factory farms. And subsidizing so that food is so cheap that 30% of our population is overweight is probably not the best way to spend our tax dollars. Wendy P. Hi Wendy - I don't disagree on the point of the ag subsidies, but I don't know if that's included in the accounting - maybe it's part of the 'grants to state/local governments'? As for the 'cheap food' part, I don't think it's so much subsidising cheap food but sheer laziness on the part of the consumer as a whole. We buy sugar laden crap instead of fruits/veggies, nutrition-free white bread instead of home-made, healthier whole-grain bread, etc etc.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #45 April 15, 2011 >We buy sugar laden crap instead of fruits/veggies, nutrition-free white bread instead of >home-made, healthier whole-grain bread, etc etc. True. Perhaps finding another use for all that high fructose corn syrup is a better option than using it as a cheap subsidized sweetner for everything (or worse yet, paying farmers not to grow corn.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 April 15, 2011 Quote>We buy sugar laden crap instead of fruits/veggies, nutrition-free white bread instead of >home-made, healthier whole-grain bread, etc etc. True. Perhaps finding another use for all that high fructose corn syrup is a better option than using it as a cheap subsidized sweetner for everything (or worse yet, paying farmers not to grow corn.) I don't disagree with that, either...although I'm unconvinced that making HFCS in the first place is the best use of the crop.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #47 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. It appears that YOU were the one with the reading problem. I wrote "Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican." I didn't write that all moocher states voted Republican. Hence your comment was irrelevant and missed the point. No, it didn't - it actually shows MY point which is that what way a state votes in a Presidential election has exactly JACK SHIT to do with it. It comes down to population and wages, which has been posted before. States that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting. Translation - you can't actually dispute that the data YOU supplied show that red states are more likely to be moochers than blue states, so you proceed to weasel in the usual way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of ranking (a red herring introduced for no reason other than to confuse) Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. QuoteFunny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. It appears that YOU were the one with the reading problem. I wrote "Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican." I didn't write that all moocher states voted Republican. Hence your comment was irrelevant and missed the point. No, it didn't - it actually shows MY point which is that what way a state votes in a Presidential election has exactly JACK SHIT to do with it. It comes down to population and wages, which has been posted before. States that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting. Translation - you can't actually dispute that the data YOU supplied show that red states are more likely to be moochers than blue states, so you proceed to weasel in the usual way. Translation - I don't have any proof that voting trends have anything to do with it, so I'll keep throwing out my lame soundbite in an attempt to appear pertinent. Keep trying, perfesser - who knows, you might actually convince someone if you keep repeating it long enough.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)