Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republican governors.


    Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.


    The Republican advantage is not a one-quarter quirk. States led by Republican governors have  fared better since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009.


    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/?mod=WSJBlog" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/?mod=WSJBlog


    Bring on the excuses....the Massachusetts economy is "mature" ..i.e., the fat public sector lives high off the hog, while there are few opportunities for hardworking ambitious private sector workers to thrive...and real estate prices are outrageous....so off to Texas and Florida they go....not a formula for long term success.


     


     


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Are you really this dumb?  Long term trend?  It was one quarter.  How is that even a trend let a lone a long term trend? 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    If all this growth is solely the result of wingnut governors then how do you explain the fact that the worst-of-the-worst performing state is led by wingnut governor ... and an entire wingnut legislature ... and has been consistently wingnut led for decades?


    How is it that MS ... which has been a reliably wingnut state for for soooo long ... is constantly and consistently soooo bad .... the worst performing state in the country? Heck, they're the only state to show a negative growth rate ... and they've 'accomplished' that feat with nothing but wingnuts controlling the entire gov't.


    Bring on the excuses ...


     


    And that doesn't even include all the money these wingnut welfare-queen states take from the federal gov't ... which the richer dem states pay for to support their poorer wingnut neighbors.


    It's prolly pretty easy to have 'economic growth' when you rely on the dem states to pay your way ... easy for everyone except MS apparently ... even though they're one of the biggest moocher states in the country and they still can't do squat.


    Way to go wingnuts ... take all those gov't handouts and call yourself 'successful'.


    HILARIOUS!!!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you really this dumb?  Long term trend?  It was one quarter.  How is that even a trend let a lone a long term trend? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Aren't you a bit overly sensitive on this? Reel it in.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If all this growth is solely the result of wingnut governors then how do you explain the fact that the worst-of-the-worst performing state is led by wingnut governor ... and an entire wingnut legislature ... and has been consistently wingnut led for decades?

     

    How is it that MS ... which has been a reliably wingnut state for for soooo long ... is constantly and consistently soooo bad .... the worst performing state in the country? Heck, they're the only state to show a negative growth rate ... and they've 'accomplished' that feat with nothing but wingnuts controlling the entire gov't.

     

    Bring on the excuses ...

     

     

     

    And that doesn't even include all the money these wingnut welfare-queen states take from the federal gov't ... which the richer dem states pay for to support their poorer wingnut neighbors.

     

    It's prolly pretty easy to have 'economic growth' when you rely on the dem states to pay your way ... easy for everyone except MS apparently ... even though they're one of the biggest moocher states in the country and they still can't do squat.

     

    Way to go wingnuts ... take all those gov't handouts and call yourself 'successful'.

     

    HILARIOUS!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

     I thought government programs were good for the needy, yet here you consistently call them moochers while celebrating the diversity of the multi generational welfare queens of the democrat controlled crumbling inner cities.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If all this growth is solely the result of wingnut governors then how do you explain the fact that the worst-of-the-worst performing state is led by wingnut governor ... and an entire wingnut legislature ... and has been consistently wingnut led for decades?

     

    How is it that MS ... which has been a reliably wingnut state for for soooo long ... is constantly and consistently soooo bad .... the worst performing state in the country? Heck, they're the only state to show a negative growth rate ... and they've 'accomplished' that feat with nothing but wingnuts controlling the entire gov't.

     

    Bring on the excuses ...

     

     

     

    And that doesn't even include all the money these wingnut welfare-queen states take from the federal gov't ... which the richer dem states pay for to support their poorer wingnut neighbors.

     

    It's prolly pretty easy to have 'economic growth' when you rely on the dem states to pay your way ... easy for everyone except MS apparently ... even though they're one of the biggest moocher states in the country and they still can't do squat.

     

    Way to go wingnuts ... take all those gov't handouts and call yourself 'successful'.

     

    HILARIOUS!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

     I thought government programs were good for the needy, yet here you consistently call them moochers while celebrating the diversity of the multi generational welfare queens of the democrat controlled crumbling inner cities.

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh?

    What do wingnut state gov'ts mooching off the federal gov't to balance their budgets have to do with people living in inner cities?

    And how is it that the Dem states can afford their own safety net programs ... and still pay for the wingnut state's programs ... while wingnut states need handouts from the federal gov't?

    And if wingnuts are sooo good at economic growth ... then how do you explain the one true, consistent, state failure is reliably wingnutty MS ... despite being the biggest moocher of federal gov't money in the nation?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Oh christ...another, my side is better than your side thread. Losers!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If all this growth is solely the result of wingnut governors then how do you explain the fact that the worst-of-the-worst performing state is led by wingnut governor ... and an entire wingnut legislature ... and has been consistently wingnut led for decades?

     

    How is it that MS ... which has been a reliably wingnut state for for soooo long ... is constantly and consistently soooo bad .... the worst performing state in the country? Heck, they're the only state to show a negative growth rate ... and they've 'accomplished' that feat with nothing but wingnuts controlling the entire gov't.

     

    Bring on the excuses ...

     

     

     

    And that doesn't even include all the money these wingnut welfare-queen states take from the federal gov't ... which the richer dem states pay for to support their poorer wingnut neighbors.

     

    It's prolly pretty easy to have 'economic growth' when you rely on the dem states to pay your way ... easy for everyone except MS apparently ... even though they're one of the biggest moocher states in the country and they still can't do squat.

     

    Way to go wingnuts ... take all those gov't handouts and call yourself 'successful'.

     

    HILARIOUS!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

     I thought government programs were good for the needy, yet here you consistently call them moochers while celebrating the diversity of the multi generational welfare queens of the democrat controlled crumbling inner cities.

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh?

    What do wingnut state gov'ts mooching off the federal gov't to balance their budgets have to do with people living in inner cities?

    And how is it that the Dem states can afford their own safety net programs ... and still pay for the wingnut state's programs ... while wingnut states need handouts from the federal gov't?

    And if wingnuts are sooo good at economic growth ... then how do you explain the one true, consistent, state failure is reliably wingnutty MS ... despite being the biggest moocher of federal gov't money in the nation?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pathetic retort.

    Focus on one sad state,  Mississippi, along with the usual debunked idiocy about red states being moochers....that all ya got?

    9 out of 10, and this is a long term trend...the liberal Northeastern states are losing population, especially young ambitious private sector entrepeneurs, critical to private sector economic growth ...the blue states are left with Government dependents, specifically public sector layabouts on fat undeserved pensions...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    If all this growth is solely the result of wingnut governors then how do you explain the fact that the worst-of-the-worst performing state is led by wingnut governor ... and an entire wingnut legislature ... and has been consistently wingnut led for decades?


    How is it that MS ... which has been a reliably wingnut state for for soooo long ... is constantly and consistently soooo bad .... the worst performing state in the country? Heck, they're the only state to show a negative growth rate ... and they've 'accomplished' that feat with nothing but wingnuts controlling the entire gov't.


    Bring on the excuses ...

    And that doesn't even include all the money these wingnut welfare-queen states take from the federal gov't ... which the richer dem states pay for to support their poorer wingnut neighbors.


    It's prolly pretty easy to have 'economic growth' when you rely on the dem states to pay your way ... easy for everyone except MS apparently ... even though they're one of the biggest moocher states in the country and they still can't do squat.


    Way to go wingnuts ... take all those gov't handouts and call yourself 'successful'.


    HILARIOUS!!!!


     I thought government programs were good for the needy, yet here you consistently call them moochers while celebrating the diversity of the multi generational welfare queens of the democrat controlled crumbling inner cities.



    Huh?


    What do wingnut state gov'ts mooching off the federal gov't to balance their budgets have to do with people living in inner cities?


    And how is it that the Dem states can afford their own safety net programs ... and still pay for the wingnut state's programs ... while wingnut states need handouts from the federal gov't?


    And if wingnuts are sooo good at economic growth ... then how do you explain the one true, consistent, state failure is reliably wingnutty MS ... despite being the biggest moocher of federal gov't money in the nation?


     


    Pathetic retort.

    Focus on one sad state,  Mississippi, along with the usual debunked idiocy about red states being moochers....that all ya got?


    9 out of 10, and this is a long term trend...the liberal Northeastern states are losing population, especially young ambitious private sector entrepeneurs, critical to private sector economic growth ...the blue states are left with Government dependents, specifically public sector layabouts on fat undeserved pensions...





    Here's the thing ... if you look at the actaul data for all the states, dem and wingnut, they move around year-to-year with some periods dems leading and some periods wingnuts leading. It also shows that those states don't always have a dem or wingnut as gov, the holder of the corner office changes.


    The ONLY state that is a consistent failure is also the ONLY reliably wingnut state - MS ... a state whose entire gov't is led by wingnuts ... and who is the biggest moocher of federal money.


    So the take away is that short, cherry picked timeframes prove nothing ... but a long term trend of failure like in MS emphatically disproves your 'theory'.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Get Outta the Kitchen. Show Get Outta the Kitchen's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Awesome please move there !


    America's 10 worst states to live in


    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101770101


    List of the 10 WORST States to live in by CNN


     


    Quality-of-life laggards


    There are many ideal places around the country to raise a family, get a job and have a great recreational lifestyle. Then there are the states mired in problems that don't get high marks for quality of life in America's Top States for Business. We look at several factors—including crime rate, local attractions, health care and the environment—for the ranking. These 10 states rank last. If you call one of them home, you may disagree. But by the objective measures we conside



    10. Arkansas - Blue


    Arkansas' official nickname is the Natural State. But perhaps a bit more natural food might be in order. The United Health Foundation says more than one third of Arkansas residents are obese. One quarter of all adults are smokers. In all, Arkansans are among the least healthy people in the nation. Fewer than 60 percent of state residents are optimistic, according to Gallup. But Arkansas does live up to its nickname when it comes to the environment.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 95 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Crime rate, health
    Strength: Air quality
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 40
    2014 Top States overall rank: 30


    9. Kentucky - Blue


    Maybe it is fitting in the heart of tobacco country, but more than 28 percent of adults in the Bluegrass State are smokers—the highest figure in the nation. And that contributes to Kentucky's being one of America's unhealthiest states. Air quality is poor here, and not just because of the cigarette smoke. Campbell County, across the river from Cincinnati, has some of the worst ozone pollution in the nation, according to the American Lung Association. On the positive side, the crime rate here is low.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 94 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Health, air quality
    Strength: Low crime rate
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 38
    2014 Top States overall rank: 39



    8. Ohio - Red


    The Buckeye State's industrial heritage has left a mark on its environment, with some of America's dirtiest air and one of the worst records for toxic releases, according to the EPA. Ohio also has relatively high rates of diabetes and obesity. People still like to visit, though. Some 357,000 international travelers made Ohio part of their itinerary in 2012, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 88 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Health, environment
    Strengths: Local attractions, crime rate
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 44
    2014 Top States overall rank: 18


    7. Indiana - Red
    smokestack industries in the northwest corner of the Hoosier State help power Indiana's economic engine, but they are not great for the environment. Air and water pollution in Indiana are among the worst in the country. Fewer than half of Indianans exercise frequently, according to Gallup, leaving the state in the bottom 10 for health. Like the state itself, the crime rate in the Crossroads of America is roughly in the middle of the country.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 85 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Environment, health, local attractions
    Strength: Moderate crime rate
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 39
    2014 Top States overall rank: 19



    6. Michigan - Blue


    Michigan is a large and diverse state that touches four of the five Great Lakes. Detroit is a world away from, say, Marquette. Even so, the Wolverine State as a whole suffers from a myriad of quality-of-life issues. The violent crime rate is relatively high, and not just in the cities. High ozone levels hurt air quality. The legislature recently increased the tourism budget to attract more international visitors. Based on the most recent figures from the Commerce Department, the money is badly needed.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 82 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Air quality, crime rate, local attractions
    Strength: Health insurance coverage
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 43
    2014 Top States overall rank: 26


    5. Alabama - Red


    The Heart of Dixie suffers from a high rate of heart disease, not to mention cancer and diabetes—Sweet Home, indeed. Alabamans are among the least healthy people in America, and the crime rate is high. Toxic chemical releases are a problem, according to the EPA. But the air in Alabama is cleaner than average.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 79 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Health, crime
    Strength: Air quality
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 45
    2014 Top States overall rank: 34


    4. Louisiana - Red


    New Orleans is an amazing place to visit, but we're talking about quality of life. Living in the Pelican State presents plenty of challenges, including one of the highest violent crime rates in the country and one of the worst records for toxic-substance releases. Louisianans suffer from high rates of diabetes and heart disease, and many lack health insurance. On the flip side, New Orleans helps make the state an international tourist destination. The food! The fun! The culture! Imagine that, just outside your door!


    2014 Quality of Life score: 78 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Crime, health, environment
    Strength: Local attractions
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 50
    2014 Top States overall rank: 40


    3. Missouri - Red


    The Show Me State isn't looking so good when it comes to quality of life. The crime rate and pollution are high. Optimism, according to Gallup, is low. There's no shortage of things to do in places like St. Louis and Kansas City, but visitors are not rushing to Missouri to do them.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 73 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Air quality, health, crime
    Strength: Toxic chemical releases have declined
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 47
    2014 Top States overall rank: 23


    2. Oklahoma - Red


    The Sooner State gets its nickname from the 19th-century settlers who raced there to stake their claims. If the Land Rush were happening today, they might not be in as much of a hurry. Oklahoma ranks among the worst states in the nation for crime, health and air quality.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 70 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Health, crime, air quality, local attractions
    Strength: Only 16th worst for toxic chemical releases
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 45
    2014 Top States overall rank: 28


    1. Tennessee - Red


    The violent crime rate in the Volunteer State is the worst in the country, according to the most recent full year of FBI statistics from 2012, although the state says crime declined last year. Tennesseans might want to volunteer to exercise a little more—fewer than half frequently do so. Health is poor, with high rates of diabetes and obesity. Roughly a quarter of adults are smokers. Based on these numbers, when they sing the blues in Memphis, they mean it.


    2014 Quality of Life score: 63 points (out of 300)
    Weaknesses: Crime, health, environment
    Strengths: Music and barbecue
    2013 Quality of Life rank: 49
    2014 Top States overall rank: 14


     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Get Outta the Kitchen. Show Get Outta the Kitchen's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Are 97 of the nation's 100 poorest counties in red states?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/facebook-posts/are-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states/

    For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states. Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states:

    1. Owsley County, Ky.

    2. Jefferson County, Miss.

    3. Wolfe County, Ky.

    4. Brooks County, Texas

    5. McCreary County, Ky.

    6. Hudspeth County, Texas

    7. Hancock County, Tenn.

    8. Jackson County, Ky.

    9. Clay County, Ky.

    10. Holmes County, Miss.

    For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states.

    Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states:

    1. Shannon County, S.D.

    2. Clay County, Ga.

    3. East Carroll Parish, La.

    4. Sioux County, N.D.

    5. Todd County, S.D.

    6. Hudspeth County, Texas

    7. Holmes County, Miss.

    8. Corson County, S.D.

    9. Wolfe County, Ky.

    10. Humphreys County, Miss.

    So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with.

    The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    I don't know if ranking by GDP growth is a good idea - the worse your economy, the more room for growth.  The top 10 countries in GDP growth are South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Paraguay, Macau, Mongolia, Turks & Caicos, Moldova, Laos and Timor-Leste.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...


    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 


    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...


    Facts are facts...


    another commenter:


    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.


    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.


    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.


    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"


     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    Also, there are lower rates of mouse infestations in red states, but that may have to do with the absence of gay wedding cakes.

    More at 11.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    The Fed borrows to keep the lights on ... in the wingnut states.


    With the red states relying so heavily on federal largesse, it's more than disingenuous to complain about the federal deficit while sponging off the federal treasury.


    Growing reliance on federal funding in state budgets is a dangerous trend. It threatens the financial stability of all 50 states, as well as the federal government. As federal debt skyrockets, Congress must look for ways to reduce spending. In the many (red states) states that count on the federal government for over one-third of their general revenue, every congressional spending reduction proposal puts the state at risk of a serious financial shortfall.


     


    Read more: http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend#ixzz3B2l2cZg1" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend#ixzz3B2l2cZg1" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend#ixzz3B2l2cZg1


     


    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012


     


    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%


     


    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend


     


     


     


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...

     

    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 

     

    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...

     

    Facts are facts...

     

    another commenter:

     

    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.

     

    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.

     

    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.

     

    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Why would wingnut states raise taxes when they can mooch off Uncle Sugar and have the rest of the country pay your bills.

    Why show any personal responsibility and raise local taxes to pay for local budgets when you can sponge of the federal taxpayers ... expand your tax base as it were.

    The list of gov't dependent states:

     

    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012


    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%
    11 New Mexico 36.16%
    12 Georgia 35.94%
    13 Texas 35.79%
    14 Maine 35.61%
    15 South Carolina 35.49%
    16 Rhode Island 35.13%
    17 West Virginia 34.52%
    18 Oklahoma 34.40%
    19 Kentucky 34.07%
    20 Ohio 33.83%
    21 North Carolina 33.55%
    22 Iowa 33.53%
    23 New Hampshire 33.33%
    24 Arkansas 33.19%
    25 Oregon 33.06%
    26 Idaho 32.81%
    27 Vermont 32.50%
    28 Nebraska 32.44%
    29 Florida 30.68%
    30 Michigan 30.53%
    31 Indiana 30.36%
    32 Pennsylvania 30.15%
    33 California 30.03%
    34 North Dakota 29.86%
    35 Kansas 29.53%
    36 Illinois 29.46%
    37 Maryland 28.94%
    38 Wisconsin 28.90%
    39 Utah 28.70%
    40 Washington 28.39%
    41 Colorado 28.05%
    42 Massachusetts 26.59%
    43 Minnesota 26.44%
    44 New Jersey 25.35%
    45 Hawaii 23.98%
    46 Connecticut 23.80%
    47 Nevada 23.62%
    48 Alaska 23.22%
    49 Virginia 22.49%
    50 Delaware 22.48%

    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Also, there are lower rates of mouse infestations in red states, but that may have to do with the absence of gay wedding cakes.

    More at 11.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh my...I almost spit out my coffee when I read this...too funny!!!! 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...


     


    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 


     


    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...


     


    Facts are facts...


     


    another commenter:


     


    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.


     


    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.


     


    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.


     


    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"


     


     





    Why would wingnut states raise taxes when they can mooch off Uncle Sugar and have the rest of the country pay your bills.


    Why show any personal responsibility and raise local taxes to pay for local budgets when you can sponge of the federal taxpayers ... expand your tax base as it were.


    The list of gov't dependent states:


     


    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012



    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%
    11 New Mexico 36.16%
    12 Georgia 35.94%
    13 Texas 35.79%
    14 Maine 35.61%
    15 South Carolina 35.49%
    16 Rhode Island 35.13%
    17 West Virginia 34.52%
    18 Oklahoma 34.40%
    19 Kentucky 34.07%
    20 Ohio 33.83%
    21 North Carolina 33.55%
    22 Iowa 33.53%
    23 New Hampshire 33.33%
    24 Arkansas 33.19%
    25 Oregon 33.06%
    26 Idaho 32.81%
    27 Vermont 32.50%
    28 Nebraska 32.44%
    29 Florida 30.68%
    30 Michigan 30.53%
    31 Indiana 30.36%
    32 Pennsylvania 30.15%
    33 California 30.03%
    34 North Dakota 29.86%
    35 Kansas 29.53%
    36 Illinois 29.46%
    37 Maryland 28.94%
    38 Wisconsin 28.90%
    39 Utah 28.70%
    40 Washington 28.39%
    41 Colorado 28.05%
    42 Massachusetts 26.59%
    43 Minnesota 26.44%
    44 New Jersey 25.35%
    45 Hawaii 23.98%
    46 Connecticut 23.80%
    47 Nevada 23.62%
    48 Alaska 23.22%
    49 Virginia 22.49%
    50 Delaware 22.48%


    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend" rel="nofollow">http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/increased-federal-aid-to-states-is-a-long-term-trend


    [/QUOTE]


    Bullcrap,  as usual.

    That is a percentage, not raw dollars. The dollars go mostly to large states like California, New York, Illinois.


    Federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. A state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid.


    Also, amazing you think the economic success of states run by Republican Governors is because of federal dollars.. worshipping at your altar of your Almighty all powerful God of Government , which is the source of all Goodness in your Moonbat mind...  


    The federal Government is your be-all and end-all of what passes for your 'thinking'.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to high-road's comment:



    Hey spanky ... it's a percentage of their GENERAL REVENUE and reflects their dependence of federal money to balance their budgets.


     


     


     


    What the heck does 'raw dollars' have to do with anything.


     


     


     


    As usual ... you start spinning like a top when facts are presented.


     


     


     


    When a state like MS gets half their budget from the Fed ... and still shows a NEGATIVE economic growth ... then it's not the Feds fault ... it's the local wingnut gov'ts fault.


     


     


     


    When wingnut states get 30%-40%-nearly 50% of their GENERAL REVENUE from Uncle Sugar ... then of course they don't have to tax as much ... the rest of the country is picking up the tab.


     


    Why is basic math so hard on you wingnuts?


     


    If I paid a third or half your bills ... don't ya think you might be more 'economically successful'? Do ya think that you wouldn't have to find that money elsewhere so you could save, spend or invest more?





    The State Government is not the state itself and its citizens , it is just the Government...do you have any notion of an entity called the "private sector"? 


    There  is more economic growth in red states because of the private sector, not because of what the state government gets in terms of federal dollars...


    Mississippi is the exception that proves the rule...if the only example of a poor red state economy you can give is Miss., then your argument is a big "Miss", for sure.


    I will grant you Miss, and raise you Rhode Island, the bluest of blue states, and an economic basket case.


    "Rhode Island was once one of America’s most prosperous states, and its rate of higher-education attainment remains better than the national average. But the state’s key industries collapsed long ago, and its political leadership has refused to make adjustments to its high-cost, high-regulation governance system.The result: a state with “the costs of Minnesota and the quality of Mississippi,” as Rob Atkinson, former executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Policy Council, told WPRI-TV. Indeed, Rhode Island is arguably America’s basket case, overlooked only because it is small enough to escape most national scrutiny. Its ruination is a striking corrective to the argument that states can tax, spend, and regulate their way to prosperity."


    The economies of most red states are growing, the blue states are stagnating


     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...


    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 


     


    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...


     


    Facts are facts...


    another commenter:


     


    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.


     


    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.


    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.


     


    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"


    Why would wingnut states raise taxes when they can mooch off Uncle Sugar and have the rest of the country pay your bills.


    Why show any personal responsibility and raise local taxes to pay for local budgets when you can sponge of the federal taxpayers ... expand your tax base as it were.


     


    The list of gov't dependent states:


    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012


     



    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%
    11 New Mexico 36.16%
    12 Georgia 35.94%
    13 Texas 35.79%
    14 Maine 35.61%
    15 South Carolina 35.49%
    16 Rhode Island 35.13%
    17 West Virginia 34.52%
    18 Oklahoma 34.40%
    19 Kentucky 34.07%
    20 Ohio 33.83%
    21 North Carolina 33.55%
    22 Iowa 33.53%
    23 New Hampshire 33.33%
    24 Arkansas 33.19%
    25 Oregon 33.06%
    26 Idaho 32.81%
    27 Vermont 32.50%
    28 Nebraska 32.44%
    29 Florida 30.68%
    30 Michigan 30.53%
    31 Indiana 30.36%
    32 Pennsylvania 30.15%
    33 California 30.03%
    34 North Dakota 29.86%
    35 Kansas 29.53%
    36 Illinois 29.46%
    37 Maryland 28.94%
    38 Wisconsin 28.90%
    39 Utah 28.70%
    40 Washington 28.39%
    41 Colorado 28.05%
    42 Massachusetts 26.59%
    43 Minnesota 26.44%
    44 New Jersey 25.35%
    45 Hawaii 23.98%
    46 Connecticut 23.80%
    47 Nevada 23.62%
    48 Alaska 23.22%
    49 Virginia 22.49%
    50 Delaware 22.48%


     


    Bullcrap,  as usual.

    That is a percentage, not raw dollars. The dollars go mostly to large states like California, New York, Illinois.


    Federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. A state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid.


    Also, amazing you think the economic success of states run by Republican Governors is because of federal dollars.. worshipping at your altar of your Almighty all powerful God of Government , which is the source of all Goodness in your Moonbat mind...  





    Hey spanky ... it's a percentage of their GENERAL REVENUE and reflects their dependence of federal money to balance their budgets.


    What the heck does 'raw dollars' have to do with anything.


    As usual ... you start spinning like a top when facts are presented.


    When a state like MS gets half their budget from the Fed ... and still shows a NEGATIVE economic growth ... then it's not the Feds fault ... it's the local wingnut gov'ts fault.


    When wingnut states get 30%-40%-nearly 50% of their GENERAL REVENUE from Uncle Sugar ... then of course they don't have to tax as much ... the rest of the country is picking up the tab.


    Why is basic math so hard on you wingnuts?


    If I paid a third or half your bills ... don't ya think you might be more 'economically successful'? Do ya think that you wouldn't have to find that money elsewhere so you could save, spend or invest more?





    The State Government is not the state itself and its citizens , it is just the Government...do you have any notion of an entity called the "private sector"? 


    There  is more economic growth in red states because of the private sector, not because of what the state government gets in terms of federal dollars...


    Mississippi is the exception that proves the rule...if the only example of a poor red state economy you can give is Miss., then your argument is a big "Miss", for sure.


    I will grant you Miss, and raise you Rhode Island, the bluest of blue states, and an economic basket case.


    The economies of most red states are growing, the blue states are stagnating


    [/QUOTE]

    I'll see your RI and raise you one WV ... which is the second fastest growing economy in the country.... almost twice that of TX ... and it has a Dem gov.


    And if state gov't has nothing to do with economic growth ... then why are you trying to tie the two together in this thread?


    Q.E.D.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you really this dumb?  Long term trend?  It was one quarter.  How is that even a trend let a lone a long term trend? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Aren't you a bit overly sensitive on this? Reel it in.

    [/QUOTE]

    And speaking of dumb.  Aren't you a bit overly presumptuous on everything?  Reel it in.  Biggest maroon on BDC.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh christ...another, my side is better than your side thread. Losers!

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Because winners spend their time here doing.....

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [] It's fascinating. Whenever an R misbehaves, it's somehow all about "the left"[]

    Just as fascinating as when a D misbehaves, and it's someone all about "the Right" ; )

    [/QUOTE]

     

    .....that?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ;) 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from babytut. Show babytut's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...
     
    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 
    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...
     
    Facts are facts...
    another commenter:



    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.



    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.
     
    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.



    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"



     
    Why would wingnut states raise taxes when they can mooch off Uncle Sugar and have the rest of the country pay your bills.
    Why show any personal responsibility and raise local taxes to pay for local budgets when you can sponge of the federal taxpayers ... expand your tax base as it were.
     
    The list of gov't dependent states:
    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012


    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%
    11 New Mexico 36.16%
    12 Georgia 35.94%
    13 Texas 35.79%
    14 Maine 35.61%
    15 South Carolina 35.49%
    16 Rhode Island 35.13%
    17 West Virginia 34.52%
    18 Oklahoma 34.40%
    19 Kentucky 34.07%
    20 Ohio 33.83%
    21 North Carolina 33.55%
    22 Iowa 33.53%
    23 New Hampshire 33.33%
    24 Arkansas 33.19%
    25 Oregon 33.06%
    26 Idaho 32.81%
    27 Vermont 32.50%
    28 Nebraska 32.44%
    29 Florida 30.68%
    30 Michigan 30.53%
    31 Indiana 30.36%
    32 Pennsylvania 30.15%
    33 California 30.03%
    34 North Dakota 29.86%
    35 Kansas 29.53%
    36 Illinois 29.46%
    37 Maryland 28.94%
    38 Wisconsin 28.90%
    39 Utah 28.70%
    40 Washington 28.39%
    41 Colorado 28.05%
    42 Massachusetts 26.59%
    43 Minnesota 26.44%
    44 New Jersey 25.35%
    45 Hawaii 23.98%
    46 Connecticut 23.80%
    47 Nevada 23.62%
    48 Alaska 23.22%
    49 Virginia 22.49%
    50 Delaware 22.48%



    Bullcrap,  as usual.

    That is a percentage, not raw dollars. The dollars go mostly to large states like California, New York, Illinois.




    Federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. A state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid.




    Also, amazing you think the economic success of states run by Republican Governors is because of federal dollars.. worshipping at your altar of your Almighty all powerful God of Government , which is the source of all Goodness in your Moonbat mind...  


    [/QUOTE]


    Hey spanky ... it's a percentage of their GENERAL REVENUE and reflects their dependence of federal money to balance their budgets.

     

    What the heck does 'raw dollars' have to do with anything.

     

    As usual ... you start spinning like a top when facts are presented rather than one of your echo chamber 'commenters'.

     

    When a state like MS gets half their budget from the Fed ... and still shows a NEGATIVE economic growth ... then it's not the Feds fault ... it's the local wingnut gov'ts fault.

     

    When wingnut states get 30%-40%-nearly 50% of their GENERAL REVENUE from Uncle Sugar ... then of course they don't have to tax as much ... the rest of the country is picking up the tab.

     

    Why is basic math so hard on you wingnuts?

     

    If I paid a third or half your bills ... don't ya think you might be more 'economically successful'? Don't ya think that you wouldn't have to find that money elsewhere ... so you could save, spend or invest more?

     

    Every dollar from the federal gov't that goes towards GENERAL REVENUE is a dollar less that has to be raised thru local taxes.... hence the more a state receives in GENERAL REVENUE from the Fed, the less they have to tax their state residents.

    [/QUOTE]

    hey fruitcup, when are you going to speak like an adult?  spanky?  is your deck missing a few cards or what? 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Long term trend: 9 of 10 fastest growing states controlled by Republican governors

    In response to babytut's comment:



     




    In response to high-road's comment:




    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:




     




    [QUOTE]




     




     




    In response to high-road's comment:




     




    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:





    Yes, there is more 'room for growth' in Southern states which are now growing exponentially. Growth is critical to provide opportunites for those left out of the middle class...again, young ambitious law abiding private sector workers and families are leaving the Northeast in droves...
     
    Slowly decaying "mature" economies in the Northeast sit on their duff, fat and happy,  crony corporations and a huge public sector ....there is less opportunity for those ambitious to better their circumstances, and there is a high cost of living....the already successful public sector bureaucrats think Mass. is just swell... 
    Spin about 'counties', all you want. Or states that are lousy to live in, for already rich hipsters...
     
    Facts are facts...
    another commenter:






    "In states with Republican governors, the average unemployment rate is a full point lower than in states with Democratic governors.






    Republican governors lead seven of the ten states with the lowest unemployment rates, and 12 of the 15 states ranked best for business.
     
    While the Obama administration borrows over $3 billion a day just to keep the lights on, Republican governors have closed $65 billion in budget shortfalls, without raising taxes.






    Is there a liberal or democrat here today who can explain why this is? Or why people are leaving states like CA, NY, IL, MI, and NJ in droves for "red states" where the economic climate is obviously a lot better?"






     
    Why would wingnut states raise taxes when they can mooch off Uncle Sugar and have the rest of the country pay your bills.
    Why show any personal responsibility and raise local taxes to pay for local budgets when you can sponge of the federal taxpayers ... expand your tax base as it were.
     
    The list of gov't dependent states:
    Percentage of all General Revenue coming from Intergovernmental Revenue 2001-2012





    1 Mississippi 46.63%
    2 Louisiana 41.58%
    3 South Dakota 41.12%
    4 Wyoming 40.74%
    5 Tennessee 38.95%
    6 Montana 38.49%
    7 New York 38.43%
    8 Missouri 38.15%
    9 Alabama 37.36%
    10 Arizona 36.97%
    11 New Mexico 36.16%
    12 Georgia 35.94%
    13 Texas 35.79%
    14 Maine 35.61%
    15 South Carolina 35.49%
    16 Rhode Island 35.13%
    17 West Virginia 34.52%
    18 Oklahoma 34.40%
    19 Kentucky 34.07%
    20 Ohio 33.83%
    21 North Carolina 33.55%
    22 Iowa 33.53%
    23 New Hampshire 33.33%
    24 Arkansas 33.19%
    25 Oregon 33.06%
    26 Idaho 32.81%
    27 Vermont 32.50%
    28 Nebraska 32.44%
    29 Florida 30.68%
    30 Michigan 30.53%
    31 Indiana 30.36%
    32 Pennsylvania 30.15%
    33 California 30.03%
    34 North Dakota 29.86%
    35 Kansas 29.53%
    36 Illinois 29.46%
    37 Maryland 28.94%
    38 Wisconsin 28.90%
    39 Utah 28.70%
    40 Washington 28.39%
    41 Colorado 28.05%
    42 Massachusetts 26.59%
    43 Minnesota 26.44%
    44 New Jersey 25.35%
    45 Hawaii 23.98%
    46 Connecticut 23.80%
    47 Nevada 23.62%
    48 Alaska 23.22%
    49 Virginia 22.49%
    50 Delaware 22.48%






    Bullcrap,  as usual.




    That is a percentage, not raw dollars. The dollars go mostly to large states like California, New York, Illinois.










    Federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. A state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid.










    Also, amazing you think the economic success of states run by Republican Governors is because of federal dollars.. worshipping at your altar of your Almighty all powerful God of Government , which is the source of all Goodness in your Moonbat mind...  




     



     


     



    Hey spanky ... it's a percentage of their GENERAL REVENUE and reflects their dependence of federal money to balance their budgets.


     


     


     


    What the heck does 'raw dollars' have to do with anything.


     


     


     


    As usual ... you start spinning like a top when facts are presented rather than one of your echo chamber 'commenters'.


     


     


     


    When a state like MS gets half their budget from the Fed ... and still shows a NEGATIVE economic growth ... then it's not the Feds fault ... it's the local wingnut gov'ts fault.


     


     


     


    When wingnut states get 30%-40%-nearly 50% of their GENERAL REVENUE from Uncle Sugar ... then of course they don't have to tax as much ... the rest of the country is picking up the tab.


     


     


     


    Why is basic math so hard on you wingnuts?


     


     


     


    If I paid a third or half your bills ... don't ya think you might be more 'economically successful'? Don't ya think that you wouldn't have to find that money elsewhere ... so you could save, spend or invest more?


     


     


     


    Every dollar from the federal gov't that goes towards GENERAL REVENUE is a dollar less that has to be raised thru local taxes.... hence the more a state receives in GENERAL REVENUE from the Fed, the less they have to tax their state residents.


     




    hey fruitcup, when are you going to speak like an adult?  spanky?  is your deck missing a few cards or what? 


     


    [/QUOTE]


    Why is it everytime you show up, my posts start getting reported.


     


    If my language is too harsh for your delicate sensibilities ... then maybe you should change the channel, rather than run to the censors.

     

Share