100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Real Welfare States | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election. 
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody can make up numbers. democrats 10-158 (88-12%) Republicans 295-0 (100-100%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Thu 11/15/12 05:30 AM
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody can make up numbers. democrats 10-158 (88-12%) Republicans 295-0 (100-100%) what are those numbers for,, a source helps.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. thats the rub , isnt it if it is the 'state' that will secede,, doesnt the people and the state become synonymous? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. I think in terms of 'debt', numbers matter so if questioning how well the debt could be handled without certain states, I think their input (in numbers) vs their output is a relevant factor whatever their 'population density' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state.
We should just kick them out.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard.
I know you will not counter the stats even if your credibility depended on it. So give it a shot. Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard.
I know you will not counter the stats even if your credibility depended on it. So give it a shot. Prove me wrong.
They are some of the Statistics Mister Twain was talking about! Faultless,with plenty of Information missing! Typical Lying Statistic! A few factors removed,and bang,you can prove anything! Nope,I won't even be going through the work and try find all the Factors and numbers missing from your Impeccable Stats! Suffice it to say,You have been Had! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard.
I know you will not counter the stats even if your credibility depended on it. So give it a shot. Prove me wrong.
They are some of the Statistics Mister Twain was talking about! Faultless,with plenty of Information missing! Typical Lying Statistic! A few factors removed,and bang,you can prove anything! Nope,I won't even be going through the work and try find all the Factors and numbers missing from your Impeccable Stats! Suffice it to say,You have been Had! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the 32 states that receive more than they give in tax dollars to the federal government 21 of those states are Republican. Of the 18 states that give more federal taxes than they receive 17 of them are democratic. Wannabe Secessionists, Go For It, Pretty Please we can finally balance a budget. See the stats here. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/13-1 Me thinks someone doesnt understand population density. Really? it would seem its the republicans who do not after all they spend four years chasing the votes 800,000 rednecks with states with about 4 electoral votes each, then they cry and wonder why the lost the election.
Not to mention these states contribute nothing to the national economy in fact they take more money from the federal government than they contribute as proven above. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you good lord! What a feat of propaganda. Speaking of feed, I bet most of those states are where we get our crops and meat. Its hard to pay for all the roads and stuff when you have limited people in a large land mass due to producing food. Again, me thinks you don't understand population density. On 1 farm you could fit a skyscraper filled with thousands of wallstreeters. Who do you think would be more cost effective in a tax dollar perspective? But then again if the farmer wasn't there what would we eat? Taking in more than you earn isn't the same as welfare. Spin it all you wish its still one person one vote.
There is no spin. You could have a state with 100% employment and 100% of people earn enough to pay taxes but still be negative when it comes to federal spending. That is just because places with large land areas but small populations cant afford to pay for roads etc. That is different from collecting a welfare check. Lets cut all welfare spending and see if those states remain fine. The Red states take more from the fed than they pay in. The blue states pay more than they get from fed. It's that simple and that is the point of the thread.
But that isn't welfare so it matters not if its the point as the title isn't true. It also doesn't state if it is going to the people or the state. There are Lies! There are damned Lies! And there are Statistics! ascribed to Mark Twain.
While many of Mr Twain's comments are immortal this isn't one of them. You see in Mr Twain's day we had allot of muckraking journalists and a naive public, no internet and no real access to information. This is 2012 Mr Conrad. Welcome aboard.
I know you will not counter the stats even if your credibility depended on it. So give it a shot. Prove me wrong.
They are some of the Statistics Mister Twain was talking about! Faultless,with plenty of Information missing! Typical Lying Statistic! A few factors removed,and bang,you can prove anything! Nope,I won't even be going through the work and try find all the Factors and numbers missing from your Impeccable Stats! Suffice it to say,You have been Had!
Why should I prove anything to you? 
|
|
|
|
|
