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.

 

Tennessee Republican Floats Secession Threat

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hey gang, I have to head out for the night, but I'm hoping you can find just this one simple stat to back your claim. I'll try to check back in a couple days to give you time.

All I need is a list of how many blue stats receive more per capita ag subsidies versus red states.

Not really interested in stats about the population of Suriname, the circumference of the moon, the GDP of Alaska, the suicide rate in Boston, etc., so it would be helpful if we stopped dumping all that into the thread and then doing cartwheels yelling "A HA! I WON!" Once again:

All I need is a list of how many blue stats receive more per capita ag subsidies versus red states.




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

I get what you are trying to argue, but it just isn't true.


Oh well, argument closed then!

If it just isn't true, then I guess it must just not be true!

That's great - I'll have to remember this strategy the next time I can't find any sources to back up my claims. "bu-bu-but ... IT JUST ISN'T TRUE!"

You sure showed me!



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


I already sourced my claim further back. You just argued with me because you don't buy it. Whatever, it's your right. Would you just like me to tell you that you are right so you can feel good about yourself? Considering I live here, I figure I'd know the score. If all the federal funding was going to pay farm subsides I'd be happy to say it, but as the stats showed, most of it isn't going to that. The U.S. could very well survive without Tennessee, but could Tennessee survive without all the funding being given to it? No.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%).

Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million).

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
When a state puts the question of Secession on the table, the question must be asked, if they are doing such as a political threat, or as a viable option against the country. The other question must be asked, as to why this issue is coming up with states that have never been so vocal on such.
In todays society, the state of the country, more and more of the population are starting to wake up and are starting to have unrest and dissatisfied, the voices of the general population are raising up. To make matters worse, is that the politicans are choosing to ignore and keep believing that they can continue to do politics as normal. States like the gulf states, along with several of the border states are looking at the in action of the federal government and the broken promises that are made.
When you combine it with an economic problem, 2 endless wars, along with a very large natural diseaster, that was caused by what would be considered criminal negligence on the part of the federal government, is also adding into the voices of discontent.
Once can only hope that the voice of reason and the will of the citizens of this country will soon be followed as it should, not only in the halls of power, but also at the ballot boxes. That those who would govern will speak for all of the voices of the voters, from those who supported them and those who do not. If they continue on their way of running the government, ignoring the voice of the people and intruding on the most basic rights of all men, ultimately the right to choose, then the question of if states will secceed will not be in question, but the question will be when will they do such. And to paraphrase John Hancock, it will be an act that will bring down on this nation the mark of cain, forcing families to split, setting brother against brother.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada
 


I already sourced my claim further back. You just argued with me because you don't buy it. Whatever, it's your right. Would you just like me to tell you that you are right so you can feel good about yourself? Considering I live here, I figure I'd know the score. If all the federal funding was going to pay farm subsides I'd be happy to say it, but as the stats showed, most of it isn't going to that. The U.S. could very well survive without Tennessee, but could Tennessee survive without all the funding being given to it? No.



It could survive if they got rid of tenncare our very own socialist program which failed miserably.If you want to see what happens when national healthcare starts look at tennessee and tenncare.Its sucking up 7 billion a year and growing.




At the Biloxi, Mississippi, gathering of the National Governors Association in mid-July, Tennessee's Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, told the New York Times he feared the Obama-backed health system overhaul would be the "mother of all unfunded mandates." He was speaking from experience. Bredesen was elected governor in 2002 to fix TennCare--the state's public option, launched in 1994 to replace Medicaid and cover the uninsured. Now, well into his second term as governor, he's still struggling to tame the monster.


www.theweeklystandard.com... 0/016/769nuwys.asp



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 7/24/10 by dragonridr]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I already sourced my claim further back. You just argued with me because you don't buy it.

I don't think you understand. Providing random statistics isn't a source for a claim.

You chose some incidental and disjointed statistics, did a copy/paste and said "voila! numbers!" Your numbers were unrelated to anything being discussed. I said multiple times that viniculture is not a subsidized industry and you breathlessly kept pushing stats to prove that California was a subsidy bloated giant based on holistic accounting that included the California grape harvest. Despite being called on this you kept rolling forward on auto-pilot.

If all the federal funding was going to pay farm subsides I'd be happy to say it, but as the stats showed, most of it isn't going to that.

That's super but since that's not an argument I'm making I really have no clue to whom you're speaking?

For the umpteenth time, I was replying to another posters blanket statement about 26 states. Was that statement true if applied in piecemeal to Tennessee? Maybe, I don't care. It is a critical logical fallacy to assume if something is true for Tennessee it must be true for 25 other states, too. You're the one talking about Tennessee, not me.

The U.S. could very well survive without Tennessee, but could Tennessee survive without all the funding being given to it? No.

I'll just leave with this ... you have one, extremely and painfully broad statistic: federal input versus federal output.

You've maniacally latched onto that to perpetrate a fallacy of false cause.

You've done this without any access at all to a breakdown in sovereign state spending versus citizen benefits spending.

Strategic stockpile maintenance, subsidies to Minneapolis-based agri-business giants with a presence in Kansas, etc. are federal spending initiatives that would - necessarily and by their very nature - not be borne by an independent state.

If you can front some actual statistics of total federal benefits spending by state (i.e. AFDC, UI, Pell grants, Stafford loans, ) versus tax contribution, that could be interesting. What you have, though, is a critically insane sophistry.

* and again, when I say state, I don't mean "TENNESSEE" ... I'm replying to a poster who was talking about the United States, generally; I appreciate you're really gung-ho and hoo-rah about Tennessee but it's just irrelevant to me, sorry



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%).


Errr ... you realize this stat support my position, right? Thanks, I guess?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__
In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%).


Errr ... you realize this stat support my position, right? Thanks, I guess?


Well, since I guess - with this - we're now all agreed, it's time for me to leave and partake of some fine Tennessee whiskey.

Thanks for a rather rambling and off-kilter, but interesting in its oddity, discussion.

Goodnight -



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   


Errr ... you realize this stat support my position, right? Thanks, I guess?



I'm not sure what your position is.

You claim the only reason red states get more fed subsidies is because they are all reliant on Agriculture , and therefore get more Ag subsidies (which, btw, they don't really want)?






[edit on 24-7-2010 by __rich__]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

I'm not sure what your position is.



Reading comprehension is a larger issue than this thread, however, I'll recap the thread to this point:

You: ZOMG! I read on dailykos that red states get $1.08 for every $1.00 they put in to the U.S. government. Like they would totally fail if they were independent! TYPICAL teabaggers! *ZING!*

Me: Red states tend to be ag producers. The U.S. government feeds A3 subsidies to large agribusiness concerns like Cargill, ADM, Tyson, etc. to enforce a price floor and prop commodities markets. If even 10% of a state's federal input were in ag subsidies it would negate the 8-cent surplus.

You: But, like, they totally get cash-money outta that, dude! They'd all like go bust, man! Stupid redneck teabaggers!

Me: A decrease in the profit margins of a Chicago or Minneapolis-based agri-giant would have minimal impact on a state's post-independence financial viability. Because the purpose of subsidy spending is to enforce a price floor for agri-conglomerates, the cessation of federal farm subsidies would have a net-zero impact a state's government and citizens. It would only have an impact on the profit-margins of Blue State-based ADM, Blue State-based Cargill, etc. The only people who would lose are the shareholders of those companies. Independent farmers who lose subsidies would make that up through the concurrent elimination of the price floor.

Ultimately, these facts play themselves out in a varied form on numerous other sovereign state spending platforms as well, such as defense. Your argument is sophistic unless it only actualizes citizen benefits spending as opposed to sovereign state spending.

You: I still duntgetit.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Me: There are plenty of Blue states which are hugely dependent on Agriculture, and receive huge amounts of related subsidies. It has also been shown that most of the red state subsidies are indeed not Ag. related, but instead are social programs.

You: Deflect and obfuscate.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Me: There are plenty of Blue states which are hugely dependent on Agriculture, and receive huge amounts of related subsidies. It has also been shown that most of the red state subsidies are indeed not Ag. related, but instead are social programs.


(1) and - once again - the examples given, to date, have also been input surplus states

(2) and - once again - saying it has been shown and showing it are two different things; breathlessly screaming you provided a citation does not = providing a citation

I understand, and appreciate, you are having a difficult time understanding this. I apologize if I haven't couched it in a way that can be better digested by you, specifically, in a way that is best attuned to your specific educational pedigree and background. I've tried but there's little else I can do, I regret.


[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
You were wrong about Ag. subsidies being more than social programs, and you are wrong about the states in question not wanting them.

So, you now have to resort to more deflection away from the topic at hand.

The original statement stands:

These states who scream for secession are typically the same ones who hold out their hands to beg for Fed subsidies the most.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__


You were wrong about Ag. subsidies being more than social programs, and you are wrong about the states in question not wanting them.

So, you now have to resort to more deflection away from the topic at hand.

The original statement stands:

These states who scream for secession are typically the same ones who hold out their hands to beg for Fed subsidies the most.




There's no deflection. You made an incorrect statement which I corrected. Namely:

These states who scream for secession are typically the same ones who hold out their hands to beg for Fed subsidies the most.

Cargill, ADM and Tyson Foods are not agencies of any state government.

Operating under that base assumption, as you apparently are, is interesting but demonstrably incorrect.

However, I acknowledge that responding to multiple requests for a source citation to support your shaky position by throwing up your hands and yelling "Well - you're wrong! I just know it!" is your absolute right if you choose.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
You could at least point to some true reasons the red states collect more welfare.
Namely, the large number of retirees living off social security in the generally warmer red states, the greater proportion of Gov. employees in red states with large defense industries, and other heavily subsidized industries like mining.

The irony in this is apparent and reminds me of the people screaming about Socialized Medicine, generally the people yelling the loudest against it are on Medicare and aide, themselves.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
You could at least point to some true reasons the red states collect more welfare.


Again, it is your absolute right to consider "red states collect more welfare" a factual equivalency to subsidies paid to Cargill, Archers-Daniels-Midland and Tyson Foods.

I feel reasonably safe to say this is not the image most people have of "states collecting welfare" but it is your sacred right to dream of anything your imagination can conceive - unicorns, fairy princesses and castles in the clouds are all fair game, too.


Originally posted by __rich__
The irony in this is apparent and reminds me of the people screaming about Socialized Medicine, generally the people yelling the loudest against it are on Medicare and aide, themselves.


If, for a lack of facts, you would like to abandon this discussion and jump to another set of talking points - namely health care - it is your absolute right. That's not a topic or conversation that is of significant interest to me this evening but I trust you will be able to find a conversational partner.

Best of luck with all your endeavors in life,
KdA



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
And again, it has been reasonably demonstrated that the subsidies paid to red states are in fact by-and-large social programs , and not the Ag. subsidies you keep bleating about.

An inconvenient truth best swept under the proverbial rug.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
And again, it has been reasonably demonstrated that the subsidies paid to red states are in fact by-and-large social programs , and not the Ag. subsidies you keep bleating about.


Once again, breathlessly repeating your opinion does not = "reasonable demonstration."

Responding to a request for an academic source or citation supporting a fact-based statement (this is the fifth or sixth time I've done so) with a simple "I dun jus know it, adequate-like!" does not constitute a "reasonable demonstration" by any objective measure of those words.

A "reasonable demonstration" indicates a presentation of sources, not throwing your arms up in the air and saying you don't have any but your gut tells you you're right.

Best of Luck,
KdA

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join