Could it have something to do with retirement allocation or military allocation? My friends have used it as a compelling argument against republicans. Any ideas?

http://tinyurl.com/6mx5kwd

Hmmm, maybe because there are more Red states?



But seriously, I would have to see the breakdown of the numbers, like which states get more in food stamps, which states are more productive as opposed to unemployment.
Take Alaska, a pretty tough place to live, so we as tax payers offset their cost of living through grants to the state.

I see where its a talking point, but have yet to see it broken down in raw numbers.
I'm certain its not as it appears.

Welcome to the forum Tgenza...

For example, say that maintaining federal infrastructure like highways and bridges in North Dakota and Illinois have the same price tag, $100 million a year, North Dakota contributes far less taxes (due to less people), to the government than Illinois, but the highway costs are still the same.

There is also the elderly in certain red states, many are on fixed income and rely on Medicaid/medicare, this too would skew the overall numbers.

I'm certain if you were to delve into the data, you would find that this was nothing more than the lefts attempt to a divide, as if we need a bigger one.

Hey Tgenza,

I shredded this up last year on another forum.  What they want to do is paint the picture that red states, i.e. Republicans in general, are hypocritical and actually dependent on federal dollars -- which you will see is totally untrue.

I'll be back later and break it down....

Thanks for the help.  I want to help these progressives see that they are wrong.  I think the best way is show them by using truth against their propaganda.  Thanks.

Quote from: Tgenza on February 26, 2012, 01:21:35 PM
Thanks for the help.  I want to help these progressives see that they are wrong.  I think the best way is show them by using truth against their propaganda.  Thanks.

You must be very young and naive to believe you can ever show a liberal the error of his/her ways. 

Quote from: Shooterman on February 26, 2012, 01:26:52 PM
You must be very young and naive to believe you can ever show a liberal the error of his/her ways. 

LOL Good point.

Quote from: Tgenza on February 26, 2012, 01:21:35 PM
Thanks for the help.  I want to help these progressives see that they are wrong.  I think the best way is show them by using truth against their propaganda.  Thanks.

No prob.  In a nutshell, what they do is say the feds spend X on residents of a state, and they get back Y.  If Y is less, than that state must be a moocher.  Example, if you have a state with a lot of po' folks and illegals who don't pay taxes, then the feds can't wait to spend money on them.  Of course, that money won't come back.  Therefore, conservatives are hypocritical moochers, as liberal logic would say.  They leech off the host, then call the host a moocher. It just doesn't make any sense.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of one reason going back to the Depression, World War 2, and the 60's. During the Depression the South was one of the poorest parts of the country - and hard core Democrat. They tended to favor the South when it came to Federal spending. For example, during WW2, many of the newly built Military bases were built in the South. Both because it had more open areas than the highly industrialized Northeast and Midwest. The land was cheaper. And they had a "subject" population that could always be forced off land the government wanted. Comes the 60's and the Cold War, many of the Liberal Congressman - in the interest of driving the hated military out (and not being targets for a Soviet military strike) forced many of the military bases in the Northeast and Midwest to close. The South being more "patriotic" - and needing the money - was glad to have facilities relocated there. In addition they were happy to have defense spending. Whereas in many "blue" areas of the country they want nothing to do with the military. Think of how many bases are in "red" areas, and how many defense contracts go to facilities in "red areas". Think of how many military personnel retire to a "red" areas - which are not only friendlier, but contain facilities like base commissaries or stores. Think about being able to go down and fill up at the base service station.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 26, 2012, 01:26:52 PM
You must be very young and naive to believe you can ever show a liberal the error of his/her ways. 

Or A Ron Paul Supporter for that matter  J/K

Quote from: Tgenza on February 26, 2012, 12:34:41 PM
Could it have something to do with retirement allocation or military allocation? My friends have used it as a compelling argument against republicans. Any ideas?

http://tinyurl.com/6mx5kwd

I would suggest that you read some of the links you find, on the link YOU provided.

Many different views expressed there.


BUT, If you are looking for the right wing, foil hat version, these are the guys to listen to.

I mean some of the theories I have read on here, could embarrass Michelle Bachmann.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 26, 2012, 03:15:35 PM
I would suggest that you read some of the links you find, on the link YOU provided.

Many different views expressed there.


BUT, If you are looking for the right wing, foil hat version, these are the guys to listen to.

I mean some of the theories I have read on here, could embarrass Michelle Bachmann.

For example? But I'm certain you are just blowing hot air as usual, and its getting pretty old...

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2012, 03:19:45 PM
For example? But I'm certain you are just blowing hot air as usual, and its getting pretty old...

Gee, Solar I don't keep a list of "most hilarious conservative posts",

but next time I come across one I will make a note of it.


Oh wait,

Billy was making an argument, that the benefits to the country, of giving women the vote, was OFFSET by Wilson taking the US into WW I.

I got a good chuckle from that conservatard statement.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 26, 2012, 05:02:40 PM
Gee, Solar I don't keep a list of "most hilarious conservative posts",

but next time I come across one I will make a note of it.


Oh wait,

Billy was making an argument, that the benefits to the country, of giving women the vote, was OFFSET by Wilson taking the US into WW I.

I got a good chuckle from that conservatard statement.

Once again you failed to back up your BS.

pathetic.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 26, 2012, 01:26:52 PM
You must be very young and naive to believe you can ever show a liberal the error of his/her ways. 

You can try with cunning and selected power-tools to engineer a limited affect, but it always wears off. They wander dazed and confused back to their hives, where fellow brain-deads whine them back into shape again.