Skip to comments.
Blue states pay the red states.....
Fortune ^
| Nov. 29th issue
| Matt Miller
Posted on 11/18/2004 7:36:39 PM PST by Imnotalib
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
OK, us evil, stupid, redneck, theocratic, gay hating, anti-abortionists need to vote for morons like Kerry because the states that liked him paid more than they get back? HUH? Misleading comment - 'the winner states have only a third the population of the loser states' - just goes to show the pointlessness of this argument. Bush won by 3.5 million votes, and lots of those votes came from blue states.
1
posted on
11/18/2004 7:36:40 PM PST
by
Imnotalib
To: Imnotalib
The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states In other words, the progressive income tax. How can the rich liberals in those states complain about the progressive income tax that takes away their incomes? Isn't paying high taxes a secular sacrament to them?
2
posted on
11/18/2004 7:40:25 PM PST
by
John Thornton
("Appeasers always hope that the crocodile will eat them last." Winston Churchill)
To: Imnotalib
Oh! The heartbreak of PEST!
3
posted on
11/18/2004 7:40:44 PM PST
by
Savage Beast
(PEST-sufferers, North Korea awaits you!)
To: Imnotalib
Kerry won the big cities where the "gimme something for nothing" crowd lives. Bush won the rest of the country.
It's true in both red and blue states.
4
posted on
11/18/2004 7:41:56 PM PST
by
Graybeard58
(Coulter/Ingraham - '08.)
To: Imnotalib
I was gonna say, pull up the red and blue counties in a lot of those blue states, and one will see it just ain't so.
Nearly half the populations of a lot of them voted for Bush as well, no?
5
posted on
11/18/2004 7:42:18 PM PST
by
Apogee
To: Imnotalib
This is GREAT! These blue state folks have just become fiscal Republicans! I say we foster these beliefs, nurture them, until we have a TAX CUT FOR THE RICH! Hah hah! Oh, this is too funny.
6
posted on
11/18/2004 7:43:37 PM PST
by
jim35
(I'll bet Dasshole is Deeply Saddened now!!!)
To: Imnotalib
I thought democraps WANTED to make the rich pay their 'fair share' ... doesn t this show they are ALREADY DOING IT
7
posted on
11/18/2004 7:45:11 PM PST
by
Mr. K
((this space for rent))
To: Imnotalib
"For blue staters, it's one thing to watch red states pick the President and set national policy on everything from Iraq to judges. But to pay them lavishly for the pleasure suggests that blues aren't just losers, they're stupid losers. You can feel blue anger rising. You reds don't like taxes? Okay, stop taking mine! You can have your states' rights tooand we'll start by cutting your allowance!"
Fine. We'll make you blue staters pay for your food.
To: Imnotalib
Arnold Schwarzenegger was stunned to learn upon taking office that for every dollar Californians send to Washington, they get back only 77 centsCalifornia gets BACK 77% of the money they send to Washington and their ENTIRE contribution to the thousands of other agencies and programs is $50 billion? What is he complaining about? Most states don't get anywhere NEAR 77% of their money back!
9
posted on
11/18/2004 7:47:37 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Imnotalib
In Utah, the feds own over 2/3 of the land. The state can get no income from it; from property taxes for example. The same is true for a lot of red states. In a lot of the blue states, more of the land is in the name of private owners, and people pay taxes on income, don't they?
10
posted on
11/18/2004 7:49:33 PM PST
by
Andyman
To: Imnotalib
Why is the map over the past 5 years? Why not over the last 4 years or the last year or the last 10 years?
I suspect the reason might be because if you go back 6 years places like Massholachusetts which was receiving tremendous amounts of federal highway dollars for the Big Dig would be RED instead of BLUE. It might be interesting to see the maps for each year and for the last N years from N = 1 to N = 10 to see if the map was cherry picked from a number of maps that looked materially different.
To: John Thornton
In other words, the progressive income tax. How can the rich liberals in those states complain about the progressive income tax that takes away their incomes? Isn't paying high taxes a secular sacrament to them?
This is what happens when bribes go bad.
12
posted on
11/18/2004 7:50:56 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Imnotalib
Fine.. lets cut Federal taxes and let the blue states raise there state taxes and they can provided there own services
13
posted on
11/18/2004 7:52:33 PM PST
by
tophat9000
(We didn’t rise they sunk look at the blue, water filled, sink holes map (Mike Moore Fatass divots ?)
To: Imnotalib
Okay, What is the point?
People that make less money, should not be able to vote? I think that should be their next message.
14
posted on
11/18/2004 7:53:46 PM PST
by
kara37
To: Imnotalib
Ahem
It is the Blue Big Cities not the Blue States
15
posted on
11/18/2004 7:54:24 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: Imnotalib
The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining"extractive" industries that skew red.OK, let's take a look at my state--Nevada. About 90% of Nevada is owned by the federal government. The feds have their way with the state--they have huge military bases here, they have a huge nuclear test site with numerous facilities spread throughout, they're working on a nuclear dump in my backyard, and any land left over is tended to by the BLM bureaucrats. How much does all this cost? Billions, I'm sure, to maintain all these federal facilities.
If the blue states want these federal dollars back then the whiners need to contact their representatives in DC and ask them to start pulling strings to get a naval air base in their backyard. That nuclear dump is sure to pull in major bucks in jobs and "storage fees".
And you can bet that blowing up a nuke in your very own backyard is good for a few million $$ a shot.
So have at it, you whiny blue putzes. You think that your taxes are going towards keeping red welfare queens in donuts, but you're wrong--all that money goes to satisfying your NIMBYism.
16
posted on
11/18/2004 7:54:51 PM PST
by
randog
(What the....?!)
To: Imnotalib
Hey! It's only fair! Aren't the blue states for income redistribution? From each according to their ability to each according to their need. Isn't that something that the
DEMOCs plagiarized from someone else for their own platform?
17
posted on
11/18/2004 7:55:30 PM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
Who feeds the blue states?
To: Lunkhead_01
Why is the map over the past 5 years? Why not over the last 4 years or the last year or the last 10 years? I suspect with the Republicans in charge, they have been able to get their states more money. Just like the Dems probably did when they were in charge.
19
posted on
11/18/2004 7:56:00 PM PST
by
Dianna
To: Andyman
No. California, Oregon, and Washington, all Blue states have most of their land owned by the Feds. Check out the National Forests or BLM and see.
Having said that, the argument of Blue vs. Red wealth and taxes is useless. Seattle (Blue) is Microsoft and Boeing. Boeing counts as an independent company. Same as Lockheed/Martin. Same as Grumman. Same as Raytheon. Get the picture.
Useless argument.
20
posted on
11/18/2004 7:56:42 PM PST
by
Prost1
(Economics is simple. It is the forumulas that are difficult.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson