Down With Fancy Book Learnin'

[Rainsford]

All I see when reading this thread is:

Blah, blah, generic conservative stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?! Well, blah, blah, generic liberal stereotypes, blah, blah.

Give it a rest, would you guys? Let's argue the issues if we have to argue something, sitting around and rehashing the dumb stereotypes doesn't get us anywhere. Wow, CycloWizard, liberals are a bunch of spoiled, stupid college kids? I bet you are the first person to ever think of that witty insult EVER. And Moonbeam, intellectuals and people with more than two neurons to rub together aren't the monopoly of big cities, you'll find people like that all over the place.

Look, I tend to prefer big cities, not for the party scene but because of the variety. North Dakota might be just fine for some people, but as Dave Barry puts it, it has a wide variety of people ranging from people who's ancestors immigrated from Norway all the way to people who's ancestors immigrated from another part of Norway. At this point in my life, I'll take variety and something other than 99% White Christians. I've had enough of that living in Iowa these past 3 years But I realize not everyone agrees, and I realize there are smart, intelligent people in the boonies and dumbasses in the city (hey, I've lived in enough big cities to know). Trotting out these stereotypes all the time reflects more on the person using the stereotype than the group BEING stereotyped.

 

[Genx87]

Either way I think it is safe to say the notion only people without degrees voted for Kerry and vice versa is wrong.

It looks close.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Exactly. total outlays is a is misleading statistic here. California may be "getting" more money than any other state, but if its "giving" far more than that to the federal gov to begin with. Saying that it leads in total outlays is misleading. I'm not making a case that red states don't pull their weight and shouldn't get money. We redistribute wealth to the red states because it makes the country stronger as a whole. I'm happy to help the red states. I grew up in one. But your stat was misleading and you were implying something that's not true. (that new york and california leach more money off the federal government than blue states)

You need to read the entire thread to get the context of my point.
Saying it leads in total outlays is not misleading at all. They get the most amount of money from the federal govt period. That is not disputeable.

Ill save you the time since you probably wont bother reading the entire thread again.

I brought up the point about ND having the highest per capita millionaires in the country. Loki came back with a point about ND having a population of 7. The point being ND has a small population so a few millionaires makes a huge difference in the per capita. But when you look at it the total amount is much less than a California.

I then switched gears and talked about how it is the same as when people talk about per capita spending by the federal govt on states like ND. Sure they spend more per person per tax dollar than California. But does it matter with a population as small as ND?!?!?!?!?!? My example is California who gets a lot more in total outlays than a state like ND.

It is like complaining about a 3 cent gas hike when your car gets 50 miles to the gallon. Who cares when it barely hits you where it counts. In the pocket book. Now if you have a V12 truck that sucks down 30 gallows a day. It will be seen right where it hurts. In your bottom line.

I can get the data a state like ND recieves in federal aid. It is really quite small in total outlays compared to a state like California. So while it may be more than a state like ND puts in. The amount they get out isnt something to write home about.

Sure, but your comparing it to a v12 truck that sucks down 30 gallons a day is my problem. Yes, its total outlays is higher than any other state but it also rasies more more money than any other state. In other words, it gives more money to the federal gov than it takes back. So sure, ND wouldn't matter much either way since it insignificant, but california is HELPING not DRAINING the countries funds like your ananlysis (comparing to a gas guzzler) implies. The country would have far less tax revenue to spend in the otehr states if california disappeared.

I did read the entire thread. But you keep insinuating that California hurts the bottom line more than ND. That's not true. It all comes down to revenue in, revenue out. California gives more than it gets, so it isn't draining the country. Its helping. That can't be said for very most red states and quite a few blue states as well.

 

[Genx87]

I never disputed that. But the point is a state like ND is so insignificant on the bottom line. The whole supporting the state is amusing.

If you look at the breakdown of the money spent on a state like ND. A large portion of it was for highway reconstruction. Just like any northern state. The roads deteriorate at a much higher rate than in the south. And ND having 2 federal highways running through it will have money spent on them. That doesnt go directly into the coffers of people. It is a necessity brought on by the govt requiring a system to move traffic across the nation and our military in time of war.

The southern states tend to grab a larger portion of the health and human services pie. Something that is much more tangible.

I think we can argue about this till we are blue in the face. But I know both sides of the story. I know a state like ND will see more federal dollars coming in that going out. But I view it as such small chump change it is insignificant.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Exactly. total outlays is a is misleading statistic here. California may be "getting" more money than any other state, but if its "giving" far more than that to the federal gov to begin with. Saying that it leads in total outlays is misleading. I'm not making a case that red states don't pull their weight and shouldn't get money. We redistribute wealth to the red states because it makes the country stronger as a whole. I'm happy to help the red states. I grew up in one. But your stat was misleading and you were implying something that's not true. (that new york and california leach more money off the federal government than blue states)

You need to read the entire thread to get the context of my point.
Saying it leads in total outlays is not misleading at all. They get the most amount of money from the federal govt period. That is not disputeable.

Ill save you the time since you probably wont bother reading the entire thread again.

I brought up the point about ND having the highest per capita millionaires in the country. Loki came back with a point about ND having a population of 7. The point being ND has a small population so a few millionaires makes a huge difference in the per capita. But when you look at it the total amount is much less than a California.

I then switched gears and talked about how it is the same as when people talk about per capita spending by the federal govt on states like ND. Sure they spend more per person per tax dollar than California. But does it matter with a population as small as ND?!?!?!?!?!? My example is California who gets a lot more in total outlays than a state like ND.

It is like complaining about a 3 cent gas hike when your car gets 50 miles to the gallon. Who cares when it barely hits you where it counts. In the pocket book. Now if you have a V12 truck that sucks down 30 gallows a day. It will be seen right where it hurts. In your bottom line.

I can get the data a state like ND recieves in federal aid. It is really quite small in total outlays compared to a state like California. So while it may be more than a state like ND puts in. The amount they get out isnt something to write home about.

Sure, but your comparing it to a v12 truck that sucks down 30 gallons a day is my problem. Yes, its total outlays is higher than any other state but it also rasies more more money than any other state. In other words, it gives more money to the federal gov than it takes back. So sure, ND wouldn't matter much either way since it insignificant, but california is HELPING not DRAINING the countries funds like your ananlysis (comparing to a gas guzzler) implies. The country would have far less tax revenue to spend in the otehr states if california disappeared.

I did read the entire thread. But you keep insinuating that California hurts the bottom line more than ND. That's not true. It all comes down to revenue in, revenue out. California gives more than it gets, so it isn't draining the country. Its helping. That can't be said for very most red states and quite a few blue states as well.

Except it's not really "draining" anything. The study about where those fedral funds are distributed, and why, claims that welfare is a very small portion of the overall distribution. A lot of it has to do with government jobs and government spending for things like military bases - most of which are not located in the heart of big cities; farm subsidies - so the red states can grow enough food to feed those hungry blue metropolises; and so on. I think your extrapolation and implication that it's taking from the blue and just giving to red states to prop them up is a false one. But hey, if you want to make some room for military bases in downtown LA or start plopping big farms down in Central Park, maybe the blue states can begin to get some of those monies back. Waddya think?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I never disputed that. But the point is a state like ND is so insignificant on the bottom line. The whole supporting the state is amusing.

If you look at the breakdown of the money spent on a state like ND. A large portion of it was for highway reconstruction. Just like any northern state. The roads deteriorate at a much higher rate than in the south. And ND having 2 federal highways running through it will have money spent on them. That doesnt go directly into the coffers of people. It is a necessity brought on by the govt requiring a system to move traffic across the nation and our military in time of war.

The southern states tend to grab a larger portion of the health and human services pie. Something that is much more tangible.

I think we can argue about this till we are blue in the face. But I know both sides of the story. I know a state like ND will see more federal dollars coming in that going out. But I view it as such small chump change it is insignificant.

Reasonable. But allthough ND is insignificant, not all red states are. And collectively they certainly aren't. But it really doesn't matter. We spend the federal money we're its most needed. (at least in theory)

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Exactly. total outlays is a is misleading statistic here. California may be "getting" more money than any other state, but if its "giving" far more than that to the federal gov to begin with. Saying that it leads in total outlays is misleading. I'm not making a case that red states don't pull their weight and shouldn't get money. We redistribute wealth to the red states because it makes the country stronger as a whole. I'm happy to help the red states. I grew up in one. But your stat was misleading and you were implying something that's not true. (that new york and california leach more money off the federal government than blue states)

You need to read the entire thread to get the context of my point.
Saying it leads in total outlays is not misleading at all. They get the most amount of money from the federal govt period. That is not disputeable.

Ill save you the time since you probably wont bother reading the entire thread again.

I brought up the point about ND having the highest per capita millionaires in the country. Loki came back with a point about ND having a population of 7. The point being ND has a small population so a few millionaires makes a huge difference in the per capita. But when you look at it the total amount is much less than a California.

I then switched gears and talked about how it is the same as when people talk about per capita spending by the federal govt on states like ND. Sure they spend more per person per tax dollar than California. But does it matter with a population as small as ND?!?!?!?!?!? My example is California who gets a lot more in total outlays than a state like ND.

It is like complaining about a 3 cent gas hike when your car gets 50 miles to the gallon. Who cares when it barely hits you where it counts. In the pocket book. Now if you have a V12 truck that sucks down 30 gallows a day. It will be seen right where it hurts. In your bottom line.

I can get the data a state like ND recieves in federal aid. It is really quite small in total outlays compared to a state like California. So while it may be more than a state like ND puts in. The amount they get out isnt something to write home about.

Sure, but your comparing it to a v12 truck that sucks down 30 gallons a day is my problem. Yes, its total outlays is higher than any other state but it also rasies more more money than any other state. In other words, it gives more money to the federal gov than it takes back. So sure, ND wouldn't matter much either way since it insignificant, but california is HELPING not DRAINING the countries funds like your ananlysis (comparing to a gas guzzler) implies. The country would have far less tax revenue to spend in the otehr states if california disappeared.

I did read the entire thread. But you keep insinuating that California hurts the bottom line more than ND. That's not true. It all comes down to revenue in, revenue out. California gives more than it gets, so it isn't draining the country. Its helping. That can't be said for very most red states and quite a few blue states as well.

Except it's not really "draining" anything. The study about where those fedral funds are distributed, and why, claims that welfare is a very small portion of the overall distribution. A lot of it has to do with government jobs and government spending for things like military bases - most of which are not located in the heart of big cities; farm subsidies - so the red states can grow enough food to feed those hungry blue metropolises; and so on. I think your extrapolation and implication that it's taking from the blue and just giving to red states to prop them up is a false one. But hey, if you want to make some room for military bases in downtown LA or start plopping big farms down in Central Park, maybe the blue states can begin to get some of those monies back. Waddya think?

I wasn't. He claimed California cost more than ND. I was just pointing out that wasn't entirely accurate. But thanks for putting words in my mouth so that you could disprove a point I never made.

I clearly indicated in my posts the red states need the money and its in the benefit of the country. Don't talk to me like I know nothing of living in the south. I lived there for 20 years and my parents as well as most of my family still do. I'm fully aware from first hand experience what life is like and what they need there.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
All I see when reading P&N is:

Blah, blah, generic conservative stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?! Well, blah, blah, generic liberal stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?!? Well Blah, blah, blah, some annoying analogy that compares apples to oranges.

fixed

 

[BBond]

Let me try to make this simple enough for even our simple red state neocon cousins to understand.

Think of America as a big brain. The blue areas, the areas of activity, are the frontal lobe, where high level thought processes occur. The red states are the brain stem, the reptilian brain.

We are suffering under a condition today in America where the reptilian brain is ruling. It's time to transfer rule from the area of low level thought processes to the area that is capable of high level cognitive thought.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
All I see when reading this thread is:

Blah, blah, generic conservative stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?! Well, blah, blah, generic liberal stereotypes, blah, blah.

Give it a rest, would you guys? Let's argue the issues if we have to argue something, sitting around and rehashing the dumb stereotypes doesn't get us anywhere. Wow, CycloWizard, liberals are a bunch of spoiled, stupid college kids? I bet you are the first person to ever think of that witty insult EVER. And Moonbeam, intellectuals and people with more than two neurons to rub together aren't the monopoly of big cities, you'll find people like that all over the place.

seriously, I love you :heart:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mathlete

Originally posted by: Rainsford
All I see when reading P&N is:

Blah, blah, generic conservative stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?! Well, blah, blah, generic liberal stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?!? Well Blah, blah, blah, some annoying analogy that compares apples to oranges.

fixed

Wait, I'm confused here, are you making fun of what I posted or the general direction of P&N?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Rainsford
All I see when reading this thread is:

Blah, blah, generic conservative stereotypes, blah, blah.

Oh yeah?!?! Well, blah, blah, generic liberal stereotypes, blah, blah.

Give it a rest, would you guys? Let's argue the issues if we have to argue something, sitting around and rehashing the dumb stereotypes doesn't get us anywhere. Wow, CycloWizard, liberals are a bunch of spoiled, stupid college kids? I bet you are the first person to ever think of that witty insult EVER. And Moonbeam, intellectuals and people with more than two neurons to rub together aren't the monopoly of big cities, you'll find people like that all over the place.

seriously, I love you :heart:

Heh