Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Americas: for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?
10/31/03

Posted on 10/31/2003 10:26:19 AM PST by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 last
To: pabianice
"Item: teacher disciplined for telling Mexican kids in her US class to stop disrupting the class (she's a "racist" for so doing). The other kids in the class continue to get no education and the Liberals think that's just fine -- for other kids. The LIberals opt out of the system by sending THIER kids to private schools."

My son is upset because his favorite teacher was fired for saying taking drugs is like playing Russian Roulette. Zero tolerance for talk of guns, and this is in Texas.

101 posted on 10/31/2003 5:10:53 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Are you joking? I guess they have removed history from the curriculum. How can you teach history without discussing guns.
102 posted on 10/31/2003 5:14:12 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Two Americas: for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?

Until you pay your debts for all the money the red states syphon out of the Federal government from them. Don't hold your breath, the red states have never gotten out of debt since 1787 aren't likely to ever start.

103 posted on 10/31/2003 5:16:39 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I hate to tell you but most blue counties pay more in taxes than the get back. The zip codes 10021, 10022, and 10028 spend more in income taxes than many red states.
104 posted on 10/31/2003 5:21:48 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
I'm not joking, I wish I were. I've been wondering if there isn't some way to mount a protest. It seems terribly unfair and crazy. If my son likes her, she has to be a great teacher I can't stand to see this on two levels, I hate it for her sake, and I hate to see this totalitarian, Agenda 21, stuff going on in my town.

The cops take their police dogs through class, the kids sit at their desks and the cops walk the dog down the rows of desks sniffing. I don't want my son getting use to this as normal.
105 posted on 10/31/2003 5:25:42 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
No! Wisconsin is needed in the Red area. Wow! That was a small Gore win there! How many were illegal aliens from Canada?
106 posted on 10/31/2003 5:27:39 PM PST by Paulus Invictus (Go Red States!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Government overhead costs run about 50 percent. So if you give the government $1, getting back anything over 50 cents is a bargain.

Getting anything over 50 cents would be a miracle. In addition to overhead, there is mismanagement and waste on a grand scale so the money that filters down is really a residual amount.

107 posted on 10/31/2003 5:28:19 PM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
The notion that we control this country by voting is illusion.

If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

OK, I stole it, but I don't remember who from.

108 posted on 10/31/2003 5:38:06 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Item: A conservative estimate puts as much as 35% of the American economy underground. Taxpayers are fed-up with having 50% or more of of their hard-earned pay taxed by the feds, the state, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. So people do the natural thing: opt out of the system by going cash-only, off the books.

______________________________________

Item: The cash pot froggies are slowly being boiled by more & more 'reporting regs' on ALL large cash transactions.
-- Be prepared to account for a source of the cash when you buy or sell cars and other big ticket items in the near future.
109 posted on 10/31/2003 5:39:51 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The solution is simple. The Union must be dissolved. Let the fifty states go their own way. Then there's no longer a federal monopoly on being American, and there will be fifty governments competing for law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
110 posted on 10/31/2003 5:42:16 PM PST by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
One of the goals of public policy is to stabilize food prices. As a result the government became a purchaser of grain and other commodities. the grain was stored in silos and this cost taxpayer dollars. With some frequency the grain rotted in the silos. Someone came up with a way to save expenditures on silos and protect the environment - governemnt incentives to allow farm land to lay fallow in sequential bumper years.

No one put a gun to New Jersey residents and forced them to develop their land. If farm subsidies are so great, convert your land back into farms. While you are at it, why not donate some more land for huge Federal Parks.
111 posted on 10/31/2003 6:29:11 PM PST by reed_inthe_wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
ALREADY HAPPENS. When I bought my wife a car we had to fill out forms telling where the cash came from. Don't remember the exact details.
112 posted on 10/31/2003 7:22:48 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
In point of fact the divide is not really red states versus blue states as those states in the red column have substantial blue voters and likewise those states in the blue column have substantial red voters. If this devolves to civil war then the net result will be far more chaotic then anyone imagines as there will not be clearlines drawn. Think of just about every state as a Civil War border state.

I'm looking for the opportunity to settle a few scores with some of those left-handed southpaw ba$tards myself....

But y'know what? In a lot of locations, I'd bet local politics will be tha cause of more acrimony than supposed national major issues.

-archy-/- -archy-/-

113 posted on 10/31/2003 8:48:24 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; AK2KX; archy; backhoe; Badray; Jack Black; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; cgk; ...
CW II AND FSP Porcupines ping/s!

Sorry for any overlap from both lists....

-archy-/-

114 posted on 10/31/2003 8:55:02 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Just an off the cuff ( and probably off the wall ) comment? I have long wished we could split America in two-- one nation of "Just let me aloners" and the other of "I want the government to be my Mom & Daddy..."

Unfortunately, the latter require the money and labor of the former, so it would never stand for long.

The Free State Project now directing its attentions to New Hampshire hoping to accomplish just that; and they've been both welcomed by the state's Republican governor and excorciated by the Democrats with visions of finding themselves in the fourth place of the Granite State's listed political parties. With 5000 pledged members now assembled, they've got a fourth of the numbers they require for their relocation to that enclave to begin, and have spun off a similar *Free West Project* effort in the American West with the intention of doing something similar west of the Rockies- possibly in multiple states.

And if they set the example, and voters in other states look on longingly, and the Republicans and Democrats elsewhere have the choice of either adopting similar platform planks, or seeing their dwindling numbers of voter members attracted elsewhere, the nannystate mam have to take on additional employment as a cleaning lady.

-archy-/-

115 posted on 10/31/2003 9:04:02 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
In point of fact the divide is not really red states versus blue states as those states in the red column have substantial blue voters and likewise those states in the blue column have substantial red voters. If this devolves to civil war then the net result will be far more chaotic then anyone imagines as there will not be clearlines drawn. Think of just about every state as a Civil War border state.

There are of course considerable differences in communications and transportation than in the days of the American *Civil War.* But note that when similar divisions between Finland's pro and anti-Communist factions moved from debate into gunfire in 1918, the result was both exceedingly bloody and intense; but over in something like 4 months.

In many locations in the US, I don't think it'd take anywhere near that long. And the survivors could then be gainfully employed cleaning up the messy aftermath.


116 posted on 10/31/2003 9:12:02 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: archy
But Finland was Finns.

We do not share the same longstanding steppes bond....we are fragmented much more so along every imaginable avenue.

I do like the Finn example in theory though.

I see many fronts here.
117 posted on 10/31/2003 9:52:03 PM PST by wardaddy (...and Yes, I'll be your huckleberry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Read Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" and you will know exactly what we are talking about.

I was using "Who is John Galt" for quite a while in my tagline, but it seemed to upset a few people for some reason, so I changed it.
118 posted on 10/31/2003 10:30:32 PM PST by Ogmios (Since when is 66 senate votes for judicial confirmations constitutional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Item: "Blue" America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example. "Blue" America has degenerated into a coven of grasping, mentally diminished, selfish, thuggish special interest groups who have become increasingly violent in fighting over what is left of the Big City Democratic machines that have run things for the past 150 years. The "blue" islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI -- blighted areas of malignant, imploding selfishness that are trying to spread across the entire national body. And the "red" nation has to keep paying for it.

I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case. The defacto separation of "red" and "blue" has already occurred, and is fat too profound to be fixed by any social "bussing." At what point does the whole scheme collapse? And how is this going to be expressed and dealt with in the coming 2004 elections?

FR is going to get a lot more interesting if a Dem wins the oval in '04, which is entirely possible. If they win, it will be terrible, but at least we'll have somenoe to blame it on.

119 posted on 10/31/2003 11:52:55 PM PST by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The first thing we've got to do is stop bailing out the liberal spendthrifts like NY and CA.

Truth is, NY has always paid more than it receives in Federal money. It's those lazy lay-abouts in the rest of the country that should pick up the pace and get to work. You just can't get much done when you talk slow, move slow, etc.

120 posted on 11/01/2003 12:03:50 AM PST by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dead; Mr. Mojo
During the 1980 Presidential election, the Republicans were uniformly "Blue" and the Democrats were "Red" on the electoral maps used by the broadcast networks. They all looked like the map shown below for Ronald Reagan's 1980 elctoral blowout, which was described by network anchors as a "Republican sea of blue"...


1980 Electoral Vote

Then during the 1984 election the various broadcast networks used different map colors from one another for the Republicans and Democrats, "Blue" or "Red" depending on the network. Below is a quote from the Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro about the night of the election and the network electoral map colors.

"One after another, states were going for Reagan. One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans. On another network the color motif was a blanket of red...and still we hadn't heard from the West Coast. It was ridiculous. We couldn't just sit there like corpses watching the Democratic ticket being slaughtered on television."

Source: Ferraro, Geraldine. My Story. New York: Bantam, 1985. pp 297-299

This mixed "Blue" and "Red" color scheme continued in the 1988 Bush(41)/Dukakis contest, with variations in network maps. However, by 1992, the Bush(41)/Clinton/Perot election all of the three of the broadcast networks and CNN had standardized on the "Republican Red" and "Democrat Blue" electoral map color scheme. Previous thread statements that "Blue" was for the incumbent party are incorrect, it was just a matter of network preference which gradually shifted during the years 1980 to 1992. After the introduction of color television in the United States, the need for backwards compatiability with older black&white televisions made the map colors less relevant as long as they could be discerned on the least-common-denominator, B&W TV. As of the 1972 Presidential elections the market share of color televisions had increased enough so that from the 1972 to 1980 Presidential elections, the Republicans were typically denoted by "Blue" and Democrats by "Red" on the network electoral maps. Then the color shift occured.


dvwjr

121 posted on 11/01/2003 1:56:27 AM PST by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Yeah but the problem is self correcting.

The dollar will continue to fall until it is no longer the reserve currency, and we have joined the third world.


BUMP

122 posted on 11/01/2003 2:33:46 AM PST by tm22721 (May the UN rest in peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

For 50 years it was the other way around. CA's economy and infrastructure was built on federal government spending. It is not really the fault of the federal government that CA doesn't manufacture much of anything anymore. The governement has needs and puts out competitive bids for goods and services in an unbiased manner.

The things that the government needs consist of durable goods like trucks, planes, steel, and such. CA has taxed and regulated themselves into a position where they are uncompetitive in almost every area of durable goods manufacturing. Energy intensive industries such as wafer manufacturing are increasing manufactured overseas or in the heartland because CA halted power plant construction.

When it comes to social spending CA recieves a lions share of the funds. However this produces nothing of lasting value and only increases the demand for more social spending. The demand for fruits and nuts is an internal economy of CA and I see no reason why the producing states should be forced to pay for it.

123 posted on 11/01/2003 2:56:50 AM PST by SSN558 (Be on the lookout for Black White-Supremacists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
I was suprised when we became red in 2000. I was also suprised when not much was said about it.
It is not based on a incumbent President as you have shown. It is based on the desires of the media and whoever controls them.
Conservatives have always been "blue" but I suspect that has changed and we will see red next year as well.
124 posted on 11/01/2003 6:53:42 AM PST by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
"The problem: It's too far gone for correction by conventional elections and politics. The notion that we control this country by voting is illusion."

You're absolutely 100% correct.

That's been reality for a very long time.
The odds of changing (any single portion of) this mess range from 0 to none at this stage of the game.

Truth is, there're not nearly enough who'd actually commit to making the kinds of sacrifice(s) it'd take to change the situation one iota.
The bloodsuckers know that very well too, so it can only get worse & it will as sure as God made little green apples.

...way too many who're way too comfortably numb, I'm afraid.

125 posted on 11/01/2003 7:38:02 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
Great map.

Too bad conservatives couldn't register all those trees to vote, eh?

If the success rate just equalled the 'Rats *best* efforts, let's face it.
There're a lot more trees.

...than there are the dead.

126 posted on 11/01/2003 7:45:39 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: archy
"Item: 'Blue' America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example. 'Blue' America has degenerated into a coven of grasping, mentally diminished, selfish, thuggish special interest groups who have become increasingly violent in fighting over what is left of the Big City Democratic machines that have run things for the past 150 years."

Remember that.
Because all the while as the hordes of barbarians have been growing at a geometric rate, the other side & in inverse numbers have been successfully pacified either through a myriad of public education sponsored indoctrination, by *legal* means, or a myriad of other forms of brainwashing & the end result isn't hard to guess the outcome when the days comes these two forces inevidably meet.
As the time approaches we see people right now who'er simply unable to fight back [read: deprogrammed to "violence"], too afraid (for a variety of reasons), too damned lazy (& fat), or all of the above.
Can see that much right now almost anywhere one chooses to look.

"The 'blue' islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI..."

Or the makings of an army for some not-so-distant time in our future?
Think that'd be out of the question for the kind of cowards who're leading us now? :o)

"-- blighted areas of malignant, imploding selfishness that are trying to spread across the entire national body. And the 'red' nation has to keep paying for it."

Or else.

"I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case. The defacto separation of 'red' and 'blue' has already occurred, and is fat too profound to be fixed by any social 'bussing.' At what point does the whole scheme collapse?"

Now there's an excellent candidate for the $64 question, eh?

"And how is this going to be expressed and dealt with in the coming 2004 elections?"

HA!!
Why of course, as it always has been expressed & dealt with before. Of course.

God bless ya arch.
You're the only person I know who has suggested a peaceful & orderly solution for combating this mess.
I only hope my fear(s) aren't realized & that you'll -- somehow -- be made to pay, for, "Let no good deed go unpunished."

You may not be "the" last effort made to do so, arch.

...but you'll surely be amoung the last.

127 posted on 11/01/2003 8:24:42 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710795/posts?page=2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960047/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638655/posts
128 posted on 11/01/2003 8:30:07 AM PST by Reagan Renaissance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
This is what happens when nearly 50% of the population pay no federal income taxes - it will only get worse. Thank God I live in Texas, even though Austin is insanely liberal.
129 posted on 11/01/2003 9:45:02 AM PST by austingirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy
Several people seem to think if the Union dissolves, Texas will go it alone - I think we're up to it!
130 posted on 11/01/2003 9:57:41 AM PST by austingirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: archy
please add me to CW2 list. thanks.
131 posted on 11/01/2003 10:23:31 AM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe ("Kill him," he said with the river.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
please add me to CW2 list. thanks

You've been added.

-archy-/-

132 posted on 11/01/2003 10:32:49 AM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
No one put a gun to New Jersey residents and forced them to develop their land. If farm subsidies are so great, convert your land back into farms. While you are at it, why not donate some more land for huge Federal Parks.

My point isn't that the farm subsidies are so great. My point is that they are being paid for by money from other regions of the country. It is redistribution. Second, we don't have lots of otherwise worthless dry wilderness area worth making large Federal Parks out of but most of our parks (with the exception of Gateway, which we share with NYC) are state parks paid for with state dollars.

133 posted on 11/01/2003 10:55:04 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Sure, it isn't perfect. But the point is that it isn't as if the blue states are sucking money and the red states are providing it. A lot of blue states are sucking money and a lot of red states are benefitting.
134 posted on 11/01/2003 10:56:35 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
And, my point is that farm subsidies benefit you to some degree since you are a buyer in the food market. I made the point to back up my comment that the tax payment and return ratios quoted by others must be fraught with assumptions. Consequently, I asked for the source of the information and instead received your bombastic retort.

Regarding federal parks, (another one of your tangents)the land is hardly worthless. The government made a massive land grab in the Western States just after the frontier was seeing population growth, the land was coming under modern property rights, and land values were still nominal.

State parks (your tangent) are created because the majority of the State's citizens agree that they want the park. congratulations and enjoy your State's parks - but who cares.

Regarding wealth transfer. Is their any more obnoxious form of wealth transfer than when the ownership of significant areas of a State's land is transferred to the federal government. Careful, if you answer no you might be a leftwing commie.
135 posted on 11/01/2003 11:51:51 AM PST by reed_inthe_wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
On the right track, but too general, because in a given blue county or state there is a concentration of "givers" that pay for the majority "takers".

Los Angeles County is a good example. The drive for Valley Secession was an effort to cut loose the huge areas of underclass dependents, so that working Valley residents would not be footing the bill for people 60 miles away.

Take a look at any gerrymandered demo voting district, it captures plenty of "poor" area and just enough taxpayers to hold control.

The real battle is inn the cities: the good vs bad part of town. The bad part of LA has been growing for 40 years.
136 posted on 11/01/2003 12:06:19 PM PST by moodyskeptic (weekend warrior in the culture war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Your article is so true. I would say, though, that if you look not just at the state "red/blue map" but also at the county level, what you'd see is red/blue is really an urban/rural issue.

Rural americans have gone about their lives for the last 50 years assuming they live in a representative republic and their freedom is guaranteed. They've only begun, in the last decade, to notice how much the federal and state government has been incrementally infringing on that freedom. Rural people have failed to be active in the legislative process (farm subsidies are lobbied for by farming conglomerates headed by urban people). A consequence of that is urban conservationists have been pushing programs down to the state and local level that seriously infringe on individuals rights, and show an great lack of understanding of what rural areas really are like.

The failed social programs were all aimed at urban voters, who tend to believe taking care of things is someone elses (governments) responsibility. Rural people are more independent, and believe they should solve their own problems.

In my view, the battleground today is in the suburbs BECAUSE it's where the urban and rural meet. Will the urban people come to understand freedom and independence by living with rural people? Or will they bring their urban ways into rural communities, pass urban regulations, and destroy the rural way of live? At the state and federal level, most legislators are urban people these days, and it shows in their priorities. They need to be lobbied by both sides on those rural vs urban issues, but the rural people have only recently seen that need.

I see this battle going on in communities across Pennsylvania, with urban people moving in and demanding the community change to suit their urban sensibilities. In some areas they win, in other areas they are laughed out of town.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out in a couple more decades. It appears that the young, even the urban young, have developed some awareness of the freedom that's being lost; how they choose to address it (through political activism or through complete disregard for the law) may play a big role in the future.
137 posted on 11/01/2003 12:16:22 PM PST by Kay Ludlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
Consequently, I asked for the source of the information and instead received your bombastic retort.

If you haven't noticed, I posted sources. As for benefitting from farm subsidies, the question is whether the benefits that New Jersey gains equal the amount that New Jersey loses. You assume it does. I assume it doesn't. Unless one of us is willing to do the research to prove it one way or the other, we are at an impasse.

Regarding wealth transfer. Is their any more obnoxious form of wealth transfer than when the ownership of significant areas of a State's land is transferred to the federal government. Careful, if you answer no you might be a leftwing commie.

While I'm quite sick of everyone on Free Republic declaring "If you don't agree with me, you are probably a leftwing commie.", I agree that the Federal government should not have grabbed much of the land it has grabbed from the Federal states. My point seems not all that dissimilar to yours -- which is that the Federal government should step back and let states deal more with their own affairs.

138 posted on 11/01/2003 1:11:02 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
"Federal states" = "Western states"

Because the Federal government has grabbed so much of the land in some of those states, that typo isn't, alas, as inaccurate as it should be.

139 posted on 11/01/2003 1:13:01 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Concentrate
As I said before, I would not bail out a billionaire who got into financial trouble just because he pays more in taxes than someone else. I don't think it's a good idea to bail out States that waste money, particularly when they are the richest States in the nation.
140 posted on 11/01/2003 1:45:10 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: dead
NY is one of the richest states. It SHOULD pay more in taxes than the rests, and it should not expect the poorer ones to bail it out when it screws up.
141 posted on 11/01/2003 1:46:37 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
In thinking about this some more I have decided that the entire "states pay taxes" thread is absurd. State's don't pay taxes, individual citizens do. Income producers are over taxed by the Feds. This is true whether you live in Texas, New York or Oregon. The fact that the state you live in happens to get a lot of Federal money back in NO WAY changes or lessens the impact of the high taxes you paid. Sure special intrests in every state have found a way to tap into the flow of money out of your wallet (assuming you work) into FedGov. This is the main issue. Commies, and Dems, and Rinos who tend to dominate in the Blue States approve of this giant redistributionist scheme and continuing high taxes on productive wage earners. Republicans (some of them at least), Conservatives and Libertarians do not approve of this, regardless of which state they live in and whether their state has more or less graft flowing into it.

In summary, Reagan was right. Let's cut taxes. Let's cut taxes some more. Let's keep on cutting. Eventually the services, boondoggles, subsidies, welfare payments, section 8 grants and all the rest will have to stop.

142 posted on 11/01/2003 2:05:44 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: austingirl
Several people seem to think if the Union dissolves, Texas will go it alone - I think we're up to it!

Texans may well be the ones to set the example, having done so before.

But wouldn't it be interesting if, in the wake of a Soviet Union style breakup of the USA, the Texians would combine with a breaklaway of the Mexican provinces of Nuevo Leon, Coahuila or Chihuahua. Or all three of them....

Now that would be a mighty interesting country to do business with....

-archy-/-

143 posted on 11/01/2003 6:28:45 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson