Should we be on the Hook for Failed Liberal Cities and States?

[Seawytch]

if you don't vote for a tax increase we will need to cut police and teachers and close your favorite camp ground. What is going on? If you think government needs more money then you need more education.


California Parks Department Sitting On $54M Surplus; Director Resigns « CBS San Francisco

I don't care if liberals vote for tax hikes in their own liberal municipalities. Create your liberal utopia Chicago, Detroit, San Bernardino! However, What I do mind are liberals demanding that money be taken from me, my town, my county, my state, via the federal government, in order to pay for their failed liberal unionized utopia in Detroit among others. They voted for all the local goodies they got and now they have the nerve to demand that I, who has never voted in their district in my life, pay for their services? I don’t care if their crime goes up, I don’t care if their houses burn, and I certainly don’t care if they never make it to the hospital. They got exactly what they voted for! Did they not? Below you will find liberal utopia.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkA5b8xyvuU&playnext=1&list=PLC27987C6891379EF&feature=results_video]IT TAKE THE POLICE 4 HOURS TO SHOW UP IN DETROIT. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw]Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqOSNI7l0bQ]Detroit City Council hearing adjourned amid shouting match - YouTube[/ame]

You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red.

California being top among those that send more money to the Feds than they get back.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't care if liberals vote for tax hikes in their own liberal municipalities. Create your liberal utopia Chicago, Detroit, San Bernardino! However, What I do mind are liberals demanding that money be taken from me, my town, my county, my state, via the federal government, in order to pay for their failed liberal unionized utopia in Detroit among others. They voted for all the local goodies they got and now they have the nerve to demand that I, who has never voted in their district in my life, pay for their services? I don’t care if their crime goes up, I don’t care if their houses burn, and I certainly don’t care if they never make it to the hospital. They got exactly what they voted for! Did they not? Below you will find liberal utopia.

IT TAKE THE POLICE 4 HOURS TO SHOW UP IN DETROIT. - YouTube

Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto) - YouTube

Detroit City Council hearing adjourned amid shouting match - YouTube

You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red.

California being top among those that send more money to the Feds than they get back.

Save the millions, if not billions, spent by numerous military bases to include 2/5ths of the Entire United States Marine Corps and an entire naval fleet, if not more, among a few army bases. I don't know how they run the numbers but California is a sink hole filled with federal taxes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wow. Your a smart one aren't you? Can you comprehend the English language language or did you entent your own.

I assure you, I haven't entented anything.

I was contesting your assertion that I didn't complain. So let's hear it.

There is no evidence that you did complain.

Wow, just wow. So it can be assumed that I didn't? Do yourself a favor. Never go in to law or any practice that involves heavy use of reason and logic. Your assertion, "I've never heard this guy complain so it may be rightly assumed that he did not." moron!

Well - did you? If so, where's the evidence?

 

[Publius1787]

I assure you, I haven't entented anything.


There is no evidence that you did complain.

Wow, just wow. So it can be assumed that I didn't? Do yourself a favor. Never go in to law or any practice that involves heavy use of reason and logic. Your assertion, "I've never heard this guy complain so it may be rightly assumed that he did not." moron!

Well - did you? If so, where's the evidence?

Once again, never go in to law or any other field that relies on heavy use of reason and logic. It is incumbent on the person that makes the claim to back it up, else it's called an "unsubstantiated claim." I have denied it. That's all I need to do unless you can prove otherwise. I did not make the claim. You did. I do not need to gather your argumentative talking points for you. I am not guilty until proven innocent. If our country ran on your reasoning we would be the equivalent of the Soviet Union during the height of its mass arrest and slaughter of innocent people deemed enemies of the state. The funny thing is that you don't see the flaw in your own logic even when spelled out in plain English. It's sad really. Do yourself a favor and save yourself the embarrassment. Quit making unsubstantiated claims. "evidence" ? You truly are an idiot! And I don't just throw out stupid adhominim attacks to just anyone. Enjoy the privilege. Few people have been dumb enough to earn it.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wow, just wow. So it can be assumed that I didn't? Do yourself a favor. Never go in to law or any practice that involves heavy use of reason and logic. Your assertion, "I've never heard this guy complain so it may be rightly assumed that he did not." moron!

Well - did you? If so, where's the evidence?

Once again, never go in to law or any other field that relies on heavy use of reason and logic. It is incumbent on the person that makes the claim to back it up, else it's called an "unsubstantiated claim."

Its not possible to prove a negative, Sherlock.

I have denied it. That's all I need to do unless you can prove otherwise. I did not make the claim. You did. I do not need to gather your argumentative talking points for you. I am not guilty until proven innocent. If our country ran on your reasoning we would be the equivalent of the Soviet Union during the height of its mass arrest and slaughter of innocent people deemed enemies of the state. The funny thing is that you don't see the flaw in your own logic even when spelled out in plain English. It's sad really. Do yourself a favor and save yourself the embarrassment. Quit making unsubstantiated claims.

Yeah. The Soviet Union. OK.

 

[Publius1787]

Well - did you? If so, where's the evidence?

Once again, never go in to law or any other field that relies on heavy use of reason and logic. It is incumbent on the person that makes the claim to back it up, else it's called an "unsubstantiated claim."

Its not possible to prove a negative, Sherlock.

I have denied it. That's all I need to do unless you can prove otherwise. I did not make the claim. You did. I do not need to gather your argumentative talking points for you. I am not guilty until proven innocent. If our country ran on your reasoning we would be the equivalent of the Soviet Union during the height of its mass arrest and slaughter of innocent people deemed enemies of the state. The funny thing is that you don't see the flaw in your own logic even when spelled out in plain English. It's sad really. Do yourself a favor and save yourself the embarrassment. Quit making unsubstantiated claims.

Yeah. The Soviet Union. OK.

My God. He's never heard of the Soviet Purges. And if you can't prove a negative then don't make the unsubstantiated claim "if I haven't heard him complain, then he must have never complained, so I will accuse him of not complaining and ask him to prove otherwise." once again, it is incumbent on the accuser to come up with the proof. Else there is no merit to the original accusation. My children understand this! Why don't you? If you don't have the proof then why did you make the claim?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Once again, never go in to law or any other field that relies on heavy use of reason and logic. It is incumbent on the person that makes the claim to back it up, else it's called an "unsubstantiated claim."

Its not possible to prove a negative, Sherlock.

I have denied it. That's all I need to do unless you can prove otherwise. I did not make the claim. You did. I do not need to gather your argumentative talking points for you. I am not guilty until proven innocent. If our country ran on your reasoning we would be the equivalent of the Soviet Union during the height of its mass arrest and slaughter of innocent people deemed enemies of the state. The funny thing is that you don't see the flaw in your own logic even when spelled out in plain English. It's sad really. Do yourself a favor and save yourself the embarrassment. Quit making unsubstantiated claims.

Yeah. The Soviet Union. OK.

My God. He's never heard of the Soviet Purges. And if you can't prove a negative then don't make the unsubstantiated claim "if I haven't heard him complain, then he must have never complained, so I will accuse him of not complaining and ask him to prove otherwise." once again, it is incumbent on the accuser to come up with the proof. Else there is no merit to the original accusation. My children understand this! Why don't you?

Yeah. The Soviet Purges. We're just going all over the place today.

Nice misuse of direct quotation.

 

[Publius1787]

Its not possible to prove a negative, Sherlock.




Yeah. The Soviet Union. OK.

My God. He's never heard of the Soviet Purges. And if you can't prove a negative then don't make the unsubstantiated claim "if I haven't heard him complain, then he must have never complained, so I will accuse him of not complaining and ask him to prove otherwise." once again, it is incumbent on the accuser to come up with the proof. Else there is no merit to the original accusation. My children understand this! Why don't you?

Yeah. The Soviet Purges. We're just going all over the place today.

Nice misuse of direct quotation.

Its called a summary. Uh, nevermind. (I just remembered who I was talking to and chances are you do not know what a sarcastic summary is).

Your original claim: "You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red". Fine then, what proof do you have to back it up? Or did you just make that up as you went along?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My God. He's never heard of the Soviet Purges. And if you can't prove a negative then don't make the unsubstantiated claim "if I haven't heard him complain, then he must have never complained, so I will accuse him of not complaining and ask him to prove otherwise." once again, it is incumbent on the accuser to come up with the proof. Else there is no merit to the original accusation. My children understand this! Why don't you?

Yeah. The Soviet Purges. We're just going all over the place today.

Nice misuse of direct quotation.

Its called a summary. Uh, nevermind. Your original claim: "You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red". Fine then, what proof do you have to back it up? Or did you just make that up as you went along?

I had no idea summaries belonged in direct quotes.

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah. The Soviet Purges. We're just going all over the place today.

Nice misuse of direct quotation.

Its called a summary. Uh, nevermind. Your original claim: "You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red". Fine then, what proof do you have to back it up? Or did you just make that up as you went along?

I had no idea summaries belonged in direct quotes.

No kidding. I guess you also had to look twice to figure out that it wasn't your original claim too huh? So what's your proof? Where is it? Why did you make that claim? What led you to beleive that I never complained? You have nothing don't you? Let me guess. With that education and logic your a Barack Obama voter?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its called a summary. Uh, nevermind. Your original claim: "You had no complaints when the blue states were subsidizing the red". Fine then, what proof do you have to back it up? Or did you just make that up as you went along?

I had no idea summaries belonged in direct quotes.

No kidding. I guess you also had to look twice to figure out that it wasn't your original claim too huh? So what's your proof? Where is it? Why did you make that claim? What led you to beleive that I never complained? You have nothing don't you? Let me guess. With that education and logic your a Barack Obama voter?

You didn't mention your complaints in the OP.


How about we just cut to the chase.

DID you complain when blue states were subsidizing the red?

Are you complaining NOW? Because the same thing is still happening

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/moochers-for-self-reliance/

Red states get more wealth redistribution per income dollar than blue. Its a fact. Yet you complain about the OPPOSITE happening.

 

[Borillar]

I think this problem was pretty much solved soon after the Constitution went into effect. If you remember high school history, conservative Hamilton said the new government should and did assume the debts made by the states on behalf of the new nation. It is called assumption. Of course, every means possible will be made to reject assumption of debts but in the end???

Hamilton was an authoritarian jackass, not a conservative.

Conservative politicians by and large are "authoritarian jackasses". That's why they have given us such wonderful gifts as the DHS, TSA, and "Patriot" act. Bunch of fascist bastards.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should we be on the Hook for Failed Liberal Cities and States?

As already correctly noted, we’re on the hook for failed conservative cities and states – such as children in Louisiana with poor educations, or residents of Mississippi with poor healthcare – so it all evens out.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't mention your complaints in the OP.


How about we just cut to the chase.

DID you complain when blue states were subsidizing the red?

Are you complaining NOW? Because the same thing is still happening

Moochers for Self-Reliance - NYTimes.com

Red states get more wealth redistribution per income dollar than blue. Its a fact. Yet you complain about the OPPOSITE happening.

That brain dead, completely unanalytical, chickenshit lolberal yapping point has been debunked so many times it's not even funny...Seems you didn't get the memo.

Many of those "red states" are largely rural, have lower population densities, numerous military installations and/or have the majority of their lands controlled and administered by the feds....Therefore they end up with more federal money going to them by default.

Just for instance...How much do you think it takes per capita to maintain a mile of interstate highway in Montana versus California?...How much do you think it costs to administer the 50+% of the land that the feds control in the 11 western states?

Time for a new tune, tovarich.

 

[Publius1787]

I had no idea summaries belonged in direct quotes.

No kidding. I guess you also had to look twice to figure out that it wasn't your original claim too huh? So what's your proof? Where is it? Why did you make that claim? What led you to beleive that I never complained? You have nothing don't you? Let me guess. With that education and logic your a Barack Obama voter?

You didn't mention your complaints in the OP.


How about we just cut to the chase.

DID you complain when blue states were subsidizing the red?

Are you complaining NOW? Because the same thing is still happening

Moochers for Self-Reliance - NYTimes.com

Red states get more wealth redistribution per income dollar than blue. Its a fact. Yet you complain about the OPPOSITE happening.

No, as most libertarian thinking people I am against all forms of redistribution of wealth. Why should the federal government take money from the states only to give it back to them? I will tell you why, so liberals can control how it is spent via tieing strings on the the money so that states are forced in to doing their bidding. See Medicare, Obamacare, and the Supreme Court. Of course, the supreme court ruled that the federal government can't take the medicare money away if the states do not adopt certain parts of Obamacare. So this federal to state money scheme is almost always to get the states to do the bidding of liberals in the federal government. For example, If they were to implement universal healthcare in only a few states, the conservative states would destroy them economically as the self reliant and the industrious flee the plight of paying high taxes for others who don't excersize, drink, smoke, and have preexisting conditions. In fact, this goes for all welfare programs. If only a few states adopted them, raising their taxes in doing so, the conservative states will get all of the industry and individuals who know that they can pay lower taxes in conservative states. This is why liberals tax money away from states and give it back on the conditions of raising taxes and implementing programs that the state does'nt want to implement. So that all of the states are equally screwed and the entire country becomes uncompetitive with foreign competition. then they complain when businesses move overseas. Amazing.

So what your telling me is that you made the claim with no proof. You pulled it out of your ass. Your just got up and accused someone of something without knowing whether it was true or not. Is that right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You didn't mention your complaints in the OP.


How about we just cut to the chase.

DID you complain when blue states were subsidizing the red?

Are you complaining NOW? Because the same thing is still happening

Moochers for Self-Reliance - NYTimes.com

Red states get more wealth redistribution per income dollar than blue. Its a fact. Yet you complain about the OPPOSITE happening.

That brain dead, completely unanalytical, chickenshit lolberal yapping point has been debunked so many times it's not even funny...Seems you didn't get the memo.

Many of those "red states" are largely rural, have lower population densities, numerous military installations and/or have the majority of their lands controlled and administered by the feds....Therefore they end up with more federal money going to them by default.

Just for instance...How much do you think it takes per capita to maintain a mile of interstate highway in Montana versus California?...How much do you think it costs to administer the 50+% of the land that the feds control in the 11 western states?

Time for a new tune, tovarich.

Sorry, but you're debunking the wrong report. The Times link only counts personal transfers, which doesn't include money spent on military bases or federal lands.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/moochers-for-self-reliance/

Nice try though.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't mention your complaints in the OP.


How about we just cut to the chase.

DID you complain when blue states were subsidizing the red?

Are you complaining NOW? Because the same thing is still happening

Moochers for Self-Reliance - NYTimes.com

Red states get more wealth redistribution per income dollar than blue. Its a fact. Yet you complain about the OPPOSITE happening.

That brain dead, completely unanalytical, chickenshit lolberal yapping point has been debunked so many times it's not even funny...Seems you didn't get the memo.

Many of those "red states" are largely rural, have lower population densities, numerous military installations and/or have the majority of their lands controlled and administered by the feds....Therefore they end up with more federal money going to them by default.

Just for instance...How much do you think it takes per capita to maintain a mile of interstate highway in Montana versus California?...How much do you think it costs to administer the 50+% of the land that the feds control in the 11 western states?

Time for a new tune, tovarich.

Sorry, but you're debunking the wrong report. The Times link only counts personal transfers, which doesn't include money spent on military bases or federal lands.

Moochers for Self-Reliance - NYTimes.com

Nice try though.

Of course it doesn't count those things..Doing so would completely debunk ferret face's furtherance of a bullshit leftloon douchebag talking point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Absolutely not.

Just because we are called The United States and just because we SAY these words

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Doesn't mean we are.

Don't believe it?

Just read the rw's on this board.

 

[Publius1787]

Absolutely not.

Just because we are called The United States and just because we SAY these words

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Doesn't mean we are.

Don't believe it?

Just read the rw's on this board.

The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist named Francis Bellamy. Under god was added many years later. He knew the docturine of federalism would undermine socialism, whereas states with socialist programs could not thrive in the free market with nonwelfare states. That's just my assessment. But the guy was a socialist. There is no doubt in that.

Years later, the 17th amendment came in to play and the states would no longer play a role in treaties, supreme court nominations, &c and the voice/power of the states were permanently deminished in the federal government. Which is why the 10th Amendment means nothing today. Now liberals in congress come up with a welfare scheme but cant constitutionally force the states to comply. So they tax their citizens, tie conditions on their money and say "we will give your money back to you if you implement our welfare program and pay for a percentage of the program."

If it weren't for the 17th amendment there would be no new deal, no great society, no obamacare, and certainly no liberal justices (as we know them today) on the supreme court.

Liberalism requires national unity in welfare schemes. If one state implements a welfare scheme it must raise taxes to do so. Therefore, those who are industrious and self reliant will move to conservative states as they are asked to pay for the lazy and shiftless. That's why liberals so desperatly want to bail out states, unionized businesses, and municipalities. So that they can claim that liberalism really works and attach authoritarian conditions to the money to achieve their dream of an un democratic top down planned economy. However, we all know that it does'nt and we don't want to pay for it.

Liberals are the antithesis of our founding ideas of limited government and individual liberty.