Why is Texas budget shortfall so minuscule compared to Cali and others?

Quote from aegis:

Perhaps you need to take a remedial English or reading course. He said "Chicano/Latino undergraduate STUDENTS", not studies.
More...

Yep.
"Nicky" truly is the DUMBEST poster on ET. :D
 
Quote from Landis82:

Yep.
"Nicky" truly is the DUMBEST poster on ET. :D
More...

Isn't that what you say about EVERYONE who doesn't agree with your left wing dogma?

Some may be dumb, some even dumber. But we can't all be the dumbest.



Where's Thunderpussy our resident grammar/spelling nazi when you need him?
 
The real question is how many of you would talk to each other this way face to face?


Who would get their ass kicked?

:p :D :cool:
 
Quote from Misthos:



Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Monday, September 27, 2004

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
More...

The red states have less population then the blue states.
The red state with less people pay less taxes to Washington. One Air force base in Kansas will return more tax dollars then a small population of one state will pay.

If you rank by population the Blue states come out on top
 
Quote from Landis82:

The Terminator is a "left-wing wack-job"???
Dude, you are too funny!
:D
More...

Arnold is a shill of the left ...


or at least he was until cold-hard reality has smacked him square in the face


incidently, leftist-wackos have run virtually everything in California for a decade plus
 
Quote from Mercor:

The red states have less population then the blue states.
The red state with less people pay less taxes to Washington. One Air force base in Kansas will return more tax dollars then a small population of one state will pay.

If you rank by population the Blue states come out on top
More...

You're twisting the conclusion of this study.

This comparison has little to do with people - it focuses on just dollars. How many dolars leave the state and go to the federal gov't - and how many are recycled back in the form of spending. What is the net effect for each state? More or less money? Population has nothing to do with it.

Bottom line - the federal gov''t is a parasite on most blue states. The net is that it takes money away. It is a wealth vacuum.

The red states to a large degree, OTOH, are parasites. They pay less than they receive. Net result - they take away more money.

Irrespective of population.

The irony, of course, is that the blue states seem to not mind as much the "redistribution" money for social purposes. Whereas the red states, ironically, term the "redistributive role of the federal gov't as "socialism!" Of course, they are criticizing the very system that props them up. A logial conclusion is that they are dumb parasites.

Read "What's the matter with Kansas" and you'll better understand the red state/blue state history of our country.

Another irony... Studies have shown that the "politically moral" red states have higher rates of divorce as well. Other studies have also shown illiteracy, murder rates, out of wedlock births, etc... are higher in th red states.

The myth that the red states are our "heartland" in a spiritual sense and moral ballast in many ways is just that.... a myth.
 
Quote from Misthos:

You're twisting the conclusion of this study.

This comparison has little to do with people - it focuses on just dollars. How many dolars leave the state and go to the federal gov't - and how many are recycled back in the form of spending. What is the net effect for each state? More or less money? Population has nothing to do with it.

Bottom line - the federal gov''t is a parasite on most blue states. The net is that it takes money away. It is a wealth vacuum.

The red states to a large degree, OTOH, are parasites. They pay less than they receive. Net result - they take away more money.

Irrespective of population.

The irony, of course, is that the blue states seem to not mind as much the "redistribution" money for social purposes. Whereas the red states, ironically, term the "redistributive role of the federal gov't as "socialism!" Of course, they are criticizing the very system that props them up. A logial conclusion is that they are dumb parasites.

Read "What's the matter with Kansas" and you'll better understand the red state/blue state history of our country.

Another irony... Studies have shown that the "politically moral" red states have higher rates of divorce as well. Other studies have also shown illiteracy, murder rates, out of wedlock births, etc... are higher in th red states.

The myth that the red states are our "heartland" in a spiritual sense and moral ballast in many ways is just that.... a myth.
More...

The conclusion is simple and obvious - red states' inhabitants are poorer and less educated than people in blue states. So they'll benefit more from govt wealth redistribution and will have worse social performance due to higher poverty etc.

The thread though is about why Ca is in such trouble, despite a rich, educated population and a governor who is not a spendthrift, whereas poorer, thicker Texas is not. IMO it's partly the Ca political system is badly designed, and voters are not smart enough in sufficient numbers to realise it. And partly the voters are more in favour of spending.

Therefore Ca must go bankrupt, or at least to the brink - it is the only way the system will change.
 
Quote from Cutten:

The conclusion is simple and obvious - red states' inhabitants are poorer and less educated than people in blue states. So they'll benefit more from govt wealth redistribution and will have worse social performance due to higher poverty etc.

The thread though is about why Ca is in such trouble, despite a rich, educated population and a governor who is not a spendthrift, whereas poorer, thicker Texas is not. IMO it's partly the Ca political system is badly designed, and voters are not smart enough in sufficient numbers to realise it. And partly the voters are more in favour of spending.

Therefore Ca must go bankrupt, or at least to the brink - it is the only way the system will change.
More...

I agree, and the purpose of my post was to refute the "conservatism" of red states that was implied by the OP.

Nonetheless, i agree with your points about CA budget mismanagement. But there are other issues. California, as well as other richer states are getting hit hard by this crisis. As a result, their tax revenues are dropping precipitously, hence widening the budget gap. It's not just a question of irresponisble spending - but one of dwindling incomes that support tax revenues as well.

Right or wrong - what Obama is trying to accomplish with stimulus spending is to replicate the red state federal "windfall" across the board - to all states. Again, his biggest "conservative" detractors, ironically, are the ones that have benefitted the most by that current system.

If the US gov't didn't have that role of "redistribution" the southern states would be a whole lot poorer, and the northern/coastal states that much richer. If we abided by true federalism, maintaining a small federal gov't with minimal taxes, the red states would quickly turn fiscally blue. Though I doubt they would drop the jesus mania thing - religion is quite the hobby in warmer climes - worldwide.

I've never seen an eskimo or a Swede go jihad or burn books... I think the lack of oxygen in warmer climates unbalances the mind. But I digress. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top