(09-19-2012 05:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 05:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He was talking about federal support. States taking more money from Washington than giving in. No where near as nefarious as you guys seem to be making it.

So you're saying he's just stupid, and not lying. Gotcha.

No you are stupid AND lie. He was providing information you reichwingers find embarassing. Especially those reichwingers living in confederate states.

(09-19-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 06:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

That's exactly an apples to apples comparison. If blue states "give" more, then that's part of the issue.

No it's not apples to apples because a person making $20k in California qualifies for assistance whereas a person making $20k in Arkansas does not. The fact one qualifies for assistance and the other doesn't, doesn't speak to laziness of the former (because they're doing the same work),

Probably not true.

Quote:The blue states here are "giving" to themselves, so their economies aren't any less self sustaining because of this fact.

That's a funny term given the economic woes of the bluer states.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give

You don't understand economics. If you provide a service for that money, then you are giving back what you receive.

No, the fact there is spending and jobs in an economy that wouldn't otherwise be there has benefits for that state, and is not a zero sum game. If we pull military bases out of these southern states and move them north, it would be devastating for the economy, primarily because jobs wouldn't just immediately spring up to replace them.

Your two faults are that you believe the jobs can readily be moved, and for the same costs, and that a devastated Ark economy doesn't hurt the Federal gov't. They do send in tax revenue too, so the coffers suffer. But those are just faults w/ your analysis, the real fact is you've strayed from your original criticism.

Quote:transferred to Arkansas (not to pick on Arkansas) to build roads, how is the increased productivity measurably helping California exactly?

Nobody ever said that money is just going to infrastructure. So you've recanted on your last argument. Ark is providing a service for their funds, a service that Calif needs to pay for too.

Now, while you're busy comparing relative rates of return, why not look at the fact that every state competes to get more than it puts in, and that includes Calif. And that's exactly why the Fed deficit grows so large.

So now tell me when Ark pays for HSR in Calif, how does that help Ark exactly?

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give-- those are Californians helping out their fellow Californians. And whether it's entitlements or infrastructure, they're living off the productivity of the blue states. Those welfare queens!

Nice try.

(09-19-2012 10:44 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 05:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 05:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He was talking about federal support. States taking more money from Washington than giving in. No where near as nefarious as you guys seem to be making it.

So you're saying he's just stupid, and not lying. Gotcha.

No you are stupid AND lie. He was providing information you reichwingers find embarassing. Especially those reichwingers living in confederate states.

Never mind the facts.

(09-19-2012 11:59 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:44 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 05:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 05:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He was talking about federal support. States taking more money from Washington than giving in. No where near as nefarious as you guys seem to be making it.

So you're saying he's just stupid, and not lying. Gotcha.

No you are stupid AND lie. He was providing information you reichwingers find embarassing. Especially those reichwingers living in confederate states.

Never mind the facts.

You mean the FACT that blue states for the most part give more to the federal government than they get back?

(09-19-2012 10:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  No it's not apples to apples because a person making $20k in California qualifies for assistance whereas a person making $20k in Arkansas does not. The fact one qualifies for assistance and the other doesn't, doesn't speak to laziness of the former (because they're doing the same work),

Probably not true.

Assume that it is. Same work, same salary (of course, in reality the salary is probably higher in California but so is COL). Welfare payments then aren't a reflection of laziness or mooching, but of the compassion of the individual states.

Quote:

Quote:The blue states here are "giving" to themselves, so their economies aren't any less self sustaining because of this fact.

That's a funny term given the economic woes of the bluer states.

Not exactly.

Quote:

Quote:No, the fact there is spending and jobs in an economy that wouldn't otherwise be there has benefits for that state, and is not a zero sum game. If we pull military bases out of these southern states and move them north, it would be devastating for the economy, primarily because jobs wouldn't just immediately spring up to replace them.

Your two faults are that you believe the jobs can readily be moved, and for the same costs, and that a devastated Ark economy doesn't hurt the Federal gov't. They do send in tax revenue too, so the coffers suffer. But those are just faults w/ your analysis, the real fact is you've strayed from your original criticism.

Who cares if there are short term costs? California will volunteer to eat the costs because the long term benefits of a military base to GDP and employment outweigh the costs to move.

The Ark economy would be devastated but the California economy would be boosted by the same amount. In fact, the construction jobs created to build the new base would make it a net positive for the nation.

Quote:

Quote:transferred to Arkansas (not to pick on Arkansas) to build roads, how is the increased productivity measurably helping California exactly?

Nobody ever said that money is just going to infrastructure. So you've recanted on your last argument. Ark is providing a service for their funds, a service that Calif needs to pay for too.

I agree nobody ever said that money is just going to infrastructure. Here, I was responding to your response of my comment on entitlement and infrastructure spending, which is greater than zero.

I didn't recant anything. What you said is the red states are "providing productivity" for the dollars they are receiving. Well, some of those dollars they're receiving are going to entitlements and infrastructure, and I want to know how Arkansas is "providing productivity" through entitlements and infrastructure, to California in exchange for their tax dollars.

Might want to read up on this guy first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Quote:Now, while you're busy comparing relative rates of return, why not look at the fact that every state competes to get more than it puts in, and that includes Calif. And that's exactly why the Fed deficit grows so large.

I agree every state wants more than it puts in. The difference is, the blue states are honest about it, while the red state politicians hypocritically complain about federal spending. Even Saint Ron Paul pulls in millions in earmarks for his Texas district.

Quote:So now tell me when Ark pays for HSR in Calif, how does that help Ark exactly?

It really doesn't help Arkansas.

(09-19-2012 12:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Assume that it is. Same work, same salary (of course, in reality the salary is probably higher in California but so is COL). Welfare payments then aren't a reflection of laziness or mooching, but of the compassion of the individual states.

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. You call welfare payments "compassion", most conservatives call them handouts. If a state (say CA) decides that you can make $20k and receive another $10k in welfare (random number made up on my part), where is the incentive for individuals to work harder to earn $30k in (AR) instead of going to live off of the "compassion" of the state of CA? Over time more and more people (the lazy and moochers) will flock to CA to take advantage of the system. Those in CA that are paying into the system and receiving no welfare will eventually be overwhelmed by those that are receiving welfare. Suddenly CA's self-sufficient economy isn't so self-sufficient.

(09-19-2012 12:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  No it's not apples to apples because a person making $20k in California qualifies for assistance whereas a person making $20k in Arkansas does not. The fact one qualifies for assistance and the other doesn't, doesn't speak to laziness of the former (because they're doing the same work),

Probably not true.

Assume that it is.

Make a dumb assumption to help you actually be right?

Your own words

Quote: (of course, in reality the salary is probably higher in California

QED.

Quote:The Ark economy would be devastated but the California economy would be boosted by the same amount. In fact, the construction jobs created to build the new base would make it a net positive for the nation.

Nope b/c paying for redundant facilities would be a waste. Ever do any real business?

Quote:Might want to read up on this guy first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Yeah, he was wrong. I don't spend much time reading about Priestly's phlogiston theory either, b/c I spend time learning what's right, not ever possible way to be wrong.

Quote:I agree every state wants more than it puts in. The difference is, the blue states are honest about it, while the red state politicians hypocritically complain about federal spending. Even Saint Ron Paul pulls in millions in earmarks for his Texas district.

No, the difference sometimes there is value obtained for that spending, and sometimes there isn't:

Quote:So now tell me when Ark pays for HSR in Calif, how does that help Ark exactly?

It really doesn't help Arkansas.
[/quote]

Correct for once.

Now (since we're dealing w/ Ark), how did PBCDF help Calif?

(09-19-2012 10:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give-- those are Californians helping out their fellow Californians. And whether it's entitlements or infrastructure, they're living off the productivity of the blue states. Those welfare queens!

He isn't spinning ANYTHING you moron. Most confederate states take more from the government than they give.

What part of:

Quote: "RED STATES = more military bases, federally owned land, resources, etc. That is NOT welfare.

Did you not understand, fool?

(09-19-2012 12:31 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give-- those are Californians helping out their fellow Californians. And whether it's entitlements or infrastructure, they're living off the productivity of the blue states. Those welfare queens!

He isn't spinning ANYTHING you moron. Most confederate states take more from the government than they give.

What part of:

Quote: "RED STATES = more military bases, federally owned land, resources, etc. That is NOT welfare.

Did you not understand, fool?

Forgive the dolt. He is very slow.

(09-19-2012 12:31 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give-- those are Californians helping out their fellow Californians. And whether it's entitlements or infrastructure, they're living off the productivity of the blue states. Those welfare queens!

He isn't spinning ANYTHING you moron. Most confederate states take more from the government than they give.

What part of:

Quote: "RED STATES = more military bases, federally owned land, resources, etc. That is NOT welfare.

Did you not understand, fool?

No.

(09-19-2012 12:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 12:31 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 10:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure a lot of that is from state welfare programs, which tend to be more generous in blue states. A lot of people who qualify for assistance in blue states wouldn't in red, and so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison to judge states based on total welfare spending.

And it doesn't refute what I posted about the red states taking more from Washington than they give-- those are Californians helping out their fellow Californians. And whether it's entitlements or infrastructure, they're living off the productivity of the blue states. Those welfare queens!

He isn't spinning ANYTHING you moron. Most confederate states take more from the government than they give.

What part of:

Quote: "RED STATES = more military bases, federally owned land, resources, etc. That is NOT welfare.

Did you not understand, fool?

Forgive the dolt. He is very slow.

Bases are political. To get one is a handout from the government.

(09-19-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Bases are political. To get one is a handout from the government.

Thats a contrived way to look at it. They have to be located somewhere.

(09-19-2012 01:41 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Bases are political. To get one is a handout from the government.

Thats a contrived way to look at it. They have to be located somewhere.

Contrived,lazy and ignorant... Defense is not welfare...period.