It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red States take more than Blue States

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
Did you read the research?...Man if ur argument is that statistics and facts don't matter because they can be manipulated to fit any agenda or mold to any story. Then game over, nothing matters anymore. It's all about how you feel. Living by what your gut feeling tells you to be true is called "Truthiness" and it's hilarious.
edit on 20-7-2017 by GokuVsSuperman0 because: Bleh




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Are you an actual luthier? Is that a business you tried to get up and running in Austin Texas?

I mean I can read between the lines and my comprehension isn't too terrible.

But you also mentioned real estate... were you trying to sell houses and then the market dried up? That's you're problem for not realizing that real estate FLUCTUATES...

I can't read your mind, and with only a few sentences to go on, I don't see how you expect anyone to get your point of view.

If you're too lazy to write a coherent thought or argument then who are you to determine whether an infrastructure has collapsed. Who are you to decide whether pushing you out of local markets was a good idea or bad?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: Snarl
Hmm,63% of the people in Kentucky voted for Trump. How is it not a red state?

That's an easy one to answer. Kentucky isn't a state.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Huh. Nope guess your comprehension is a problem.

Actually I made a small fortune flipping houses in Austin. Now I am a Luthier since I don't have as much to worry about financially.

I was just smart enough to know when to get out, and since going back several times, know I made the right call. The drive from the last property I sold into downtown is an hour an 30 minutes to go down 290. It's about 15 miles.

The rate of return can not come back, because the land verse population has changed. Now the traffic is such an issue tech firms are considering other locations (where I now live thanks to understanding markets)
edit on 20-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

See that wasn't so hard was it?

Cool story bro.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

I read the whole article.
Their research is not in that article.
All we get is a brief overview of what they claim.


Here is their disclaimer...

Editorial Disclaimer: Editorial content is not provided or commissioned by financial institutions. Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and have not been approved or otherwise endorsed by any financial institution, including those that are WalletHub advertising partners. Our content is intended for informational purposes only.
edit on 20-7-2017 by Bluntone22 because: Eta



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV
Man I don't know why you're going on about California and Texas. Neither are very dependent on the federal government. Texas is 35th and California is 46th. I'm just talking about research into the states' dependency on the Federal Government and how much money they take from the Federal government compared to their tax contributions.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The problem lies inside the Democrat voting pockets.

That's where the poverty is.

Very simple.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0


Red States receive a higher return on their federal income-tax contributions than Blue States.


That just sounds like winning


But alas, the claim is based on false BS.


The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.” (Other big ticket items that round out the list for state money from the federal government include farm subsidies, retirement programs and infrastructure projects) It’s simply a function of flowing from the states without large defense operations and retired people to the states with them. If a less populated state has a large military base with a legion of personnel conducting operations should we be surprised that there might be an imbalance of funds? No, because it is a government organization that is not producing goods, but is consuming ammo, gas, food, electricity, salaries etc.. Also, most states don’t tax military paychecks, which would somewhat offset the federal expenditure, so overall there is going to be a net draw of funds. But more to the point, national defense is a common good that benefits the whole country, so it can hardly be classified as mooching.


I noticed this post was conveniently ignored by most here.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV



The other has nice affordable housing, great food, clean streets, low crime, and a booming skilled trade and corporate climate.

I know you aren't talking about Texas. Texas is as just as big a dump as California last year in Houston alone the murder rate jumped 23%. Low crime indeed.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
So more rural states make less money than states where our remaining industry is concentrated... say it aint so.

Want to know why, take a look at the industry that have been clobbered over the last 40 years by environmental law suits, or epa regs, and I will wager (I have not looked) that these rural red states took it in the shorts.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Because you made reference to lazy moochers and made this a socio-political thing.

And because some people want to knee jerk and not explain their position.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Yeah Houston sucks... carcinogenic coast.... everyone in Texas knows that.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Numbers can be used to tell any story you want to hear.
These stats are not based off of personal welfare.

Exactly . There are a lot factoring in .
Infrastructure . How much improvement in each State has been performed ? Especially on Interstate Highways , which IS a Federal responsibility and not an entitlement. A lot of work has been going on over the past 10 years on I-75 in Georgia. Did the "Wallet Hub" so called analysts figure that in ? If so ,they need to remove it.

And that was only one example of a multitude of others



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0


Red States receive a higher return on their federal income-tax contributions than Blue States.


That just sounds like winning


But alas, the claim is based on false BS.


The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.” (Other big ticket items that round out the list for state money from the federal government include farm subsidies, retirement programs and infrastructure projects) It’s simply a function of flowing from the states without large defense operations and retired people to the states with them. If a less populated state has a large military base with a legion of personnel conducting operations should we be surprised that there might be an imbalance of funds? No, because it is a government organization that is not producing goods, but is consuming ammo, gas, food, electricity, salaries etc.. Also, most states don’t tax military paychecks, which would somewhat offset the federal expenditure, so overall there is going to be a net draw of funds. But more to the point, national defense is a common good that benefits the whole country, so it can hardly be classified as mooching.


I noticed this post was conveniently ignored by most here.

His post was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at intellectual dishonesty. If you go by what states pay into the federal government and what they get back red states are the biggest deadbeats. Also when did defense become a social program?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

My position as first stated was you made a bad comparison. Those two states were a bad comparison. You referenced anecdotal evidence and I was being cheeky and you didn't get it. So I made a personal reference of my own.

The fact that roads are clean where you saw isn't relevant to anything. Nor is the traffic i sat in.

When a state decides to pass a budget they can't afford and doesn't raise revanu or regroup it's spending to save money they are at faulthe for needing help. Maybe their citizens are too poor to pay the taxes necessary to cover the operating cost but in most cases it's the political death Co services face using the tax word, even though it's the publics outrageous wanting to have every thing free that is the issue.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
Oddly enough, Senator Rand Paul's Kentucky is the most federally dependent state in America.

You, obviously, have not visited 'Looterville, KY' and seen the _problem_ first-hand.

You can call KY a red state if you like, but this place is anything but Conservative.

I have to disagree. I was born and raised in Kentucky and it's the most conservative place I've been outside of Alabama and some parts of Mississippi.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Gothmog's analysts , after reviewing the stats , say that indeed the moon is made of green cheese.
They are my numbers , I can do what I want with em



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
"Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Census Bureau, USAspending.gov, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Governing.com. " I can quote disclaimers as well.
There are also notes everywhere in the article explaining where they got their numbers from. And large Q&A part with scholars, professors and experts in their field. But hey maybe they're all liars. Especially the IRS



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

That isn't exactly how it looks. Plenty of rural states don't take the same as others.

Some governors and local governments can't get people to raise taxes for anything. Even if their cops are basically janitors with guns, their bridges are falling down, and lead is in the water.

Even conservatives want everything free now a days.
edit on 20-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join