Defund the South

signalmankenneth said:
0.jpg


The top 10 fattest states in America are:

1.Mississippi (32% of adults are obese)
2. Alabama (30.3%)
3. Tennessee (30.1%)
4. Louisiana (29.8%)
5. West Virginia (29.5%)
6. Arkansas (28.7%)
7. South Carolina (28.4%)
8. Georgia (28.2%)
9. Oklahoma (28.1%)
10. Texas (28.1%)

And by the way the liberal north will be funding the healthcare cost for these lard asses in these southern conservative states too!
Click to expand...

Prosparity does have it's rewards.

Remember that you shouldn't trust anyone that looks hungry.

And that if it's more than a mouth full,,,, it's to big.
 
Rana said:
In defense of Alaska, the money given is for the Native Americans in the Bush communities, mostly, these places don't have running water, sewage or roads, so the money taken is to help develop these rural areas. Although, I will now have to investigate what Anchorage receives from these federal dollars. The government promised the Natives many things when they took their lands...and the beat goes on!
Click to expand...
Hey I'm only asking that the fine folks in Alaska, like those who support Palin, just practice what they preach. Is that to much to ask? If they really want to reduce spending why not walk the talk and start with their own States and live with in their means? I mean if their such bulwarks of fiscal conservatism what's wrong with that they should only receive $1 of federal funding for every $1 of tax revenue they pay? Why should I have to pay for these federal welfare queens with my States tax dollars?

Most of the norther liberal states wouldn't have budget short falls if they didn't have to support the southern conservative federal welfare queens.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
After 8 years of the GOP spending money like drunken Sailors they now are singing the gospel of fiscal prudence and want to slash domestic spending mostly on programs that help the working class and poor. They are now deficit hawks and most of their support is coming from Teabag conservative southern states. Here's what I say. Let's force them to walk the talk and Federally defund the states. That is, they can only recieve tax dollars in federal spending equivalent to what they pay the Federal Government in taxes. It's these southern conservative states which have been on the Federal welfare dole for far to long. It's time they supported themselves and stopped leaching and mooching from the more productive liberal states.

Here are the top 10 Federal Welfare staes and the Federal funding they recieve for each tax dollar they spent in 2005.

Mississippi - $2.02
Alaska - $1.84
Louisianna - $1.78
West Virginia - $1.76
Alabama - $1.66
Kentucky - $1.51
Virginia - $1.51
Arkansas - $1.41
South Carolina - $1.35
Tennessee - $1.27

These Federal spending welfare mooches can now walk the talk and live with in their means and stop being leaches from us more liberal States. So they should have no problem, if they are true conservatives and teabaggers, then they should have no problem capping federal spending in their states to the amount that they pay to the Federal Government in taxes.

By the way here are the top 10 liberal northern states who've been funding these southern conservative federal welfare queens.

New Jersey - $0.61
Connecticut - $0.69
Minnesotta - $0.72
Illionois - $0.75
California - $0.78
New York - $0.79
Colorado - $0.81
Massachusetts - $0.82
Wisconsin - $0.86
Michigan - $0.92

So let's defund the southern welfare states and return those money to the northern liberal states who produced that wealth and allow them to use that to resolve their own state budget crisis. What could possibly be wrong with this idea?
Click to expand...

Dude that's not welfare money, but investments in infrastructure. Everyone's moving out of the crappy north to down here, so we need more roads and stuff.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Dude that's not welfare money, but investments in infrastructure. Everyone's moving out of the crappy north to down here, so we need more roads and stuff.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. America's fastest dying cities all reside in the upper midwest or the northeast.
 
cawacko said:
Damn Yankee said:
Dude that's not welfare money, but investments in infrastructure. Everyone's moving out of the crappy north to down here, so we need more roads and stuff.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. America's fastest dying cities all reside in the upper midwest or the northeast.
Click to expand...
It's more than people moving and cities decaying. It's the practical matter of highways in areas of low-population density costing just as much per mile as highways in areas of high population density, while simultaneously needing more miles to cover those states with low population densities. The result is a much higher per-capita cost of highway expenses in larger states with lower population densities than are found in the N.E. Since the federal government has the Constitutional responsibility for maintaining the interstate highway system, that means figures for federal dollars received compared to federal taxes sent will naturally favor the larger, low population states.

Now if highway and other infrastructure expenses of federal responsibility are factored out, the federal dollars received compared to federal taxes sent tends to equalize, and in some cases even favor the smaller high population states.
 
I expect it is axiomatic that states with fewer people and lower per capita incomes are going to pay the least in federal taxes....that would appear to be true for most of the top ten you list......similarly, those with the most people and higher per capita incomes will be on the lowest ten.....that being said, note that your chart is for all federal spending and not for welfare spending......
 
Good Luck said:
It's more than people moving and cities decaying. It's the practical matter of highways in areas of low-population density costing just as much per mile as highways in areas of high population density, while simultaneously needing more miles to cover those states with low population densities. The result is a much higher per-capita cost of highway expenses in larger states with lower population densities than are found in the N.E. Since the federal government has the Constitutional responsibility for maintaining the interstate highway system, that means figures for federal dollars received compared to federal taxes sent will naturally favor the larger, low population states.

Now if highway and other infrastructure expenses of federal responsibility are factored out, the federal dollars received compared to federal taxes sent tends to equalize, and in some cases even favor the smaller high population states.
Click to expand...

Excuses, excuses. The only person an excuse pleases is your self. Want to reduce Federal spending? Well look to your own house first. Walk the talk first. Ohio receives a $1.05 in Federal spending for every $1 the State pays the Feds in taxes. I'm willing to walk the talk and I'm all for reducing Federal spending to $1 for every $1 we pay in taxes so that we can do our share to reduce Federal spending. Why can't all you conservative Federal welfare queens make the same promise? Is that so hard to do? Just simply say "We promise that our state will only seek $1 in Federal spending for each $1 our State pays in taxes." Is that to much to ask?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I expect it is axiomatic that states with fewer people and lower per capita incomes are going to pay the least in federal taxes....that would appear to be true for most of the top ten you list......similarly, those with the most people and higher per capita incomes will be on the lowest ten.....that being said, note that your chart is for all federal spending and not for welfare spending......
Click to expand...
Well what do you call that federal money they receive that's above and beyond what they paid in taxes? They're spending other peoples money from other States that they didn't earn or produce. Sounds like welfare to me. Why should the great people of Iowa have to pay for Federal pork projects in Arkansas and Alabama? Why can't the people of Arkansas and Alabama just live within their means?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
better late than never...
Click to expand...
True but that's not my point and you know it.

What's pissing me off about the whole issue is the partisan nature. Republicans are beating the drums of fiscal responsibility after 8 years of spending money like drunken sailors but even now they only want to cut spending on public programs that they don't like and are completely unwilling to consider tax hikes to support the spending programs they want. Such as defense spending.

They are unwilling to make the hard and unpopular decision to cut spending or raise taxes on the programs that are popular with their constituency, most notably the biggest grand daddy of all spending programs, military spending, which has risen to grossly absurd levels we simply cannot afford.

Until Republicans get serious about making shared sacrifices and yes that may also have to include progressive tax hikes as well as spending cuts to solve this problem then Republicans are both hypocrites and lack credibility and are not making a good faith effort to solve this problem.

You can't have your cake and eat it too which, to be fair, applies just as much to Dems as Repubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top