I really wish we could reasonably perform an experiment

[Modbert]

The evidence is overwhelming: High tax, high regulation states aer basket cases. That goes for MI, that goes for CA, that goes for MA, and for NJ as well.
States with low taxes and low regulation have done much better.
This really isn't rocket science here although some posters will swear their fathers have tits before they'll admit it.

After sucking on the government enough, who wouldn't be?

 

[Modbert]

Haha how am I wrong? just tell me and I'll back down. Im not here to be stubbornly right. Ive been wrong many times in my life but only when someone shows Im wrong do I finally realize. Seriously Im not tryin to fight Im very open minded but I completely disagree with the study because of the generalization it draws. It makes the study as a whole and what its trying to prove inaccurate.

A majority of the people in each state are right wingers that are considered Red States. These states overall happen to receive federal funding which is to be spent on programs or projects to benefit those citizens. For every $1 the state pays in taxes, they receive a certain amount back.

You completely disagree with the study because it doesn't validate your views. The Tax Foundation is against pretty much all tax increases, something I'm sure you're not about to call Liberal.

 

[Dr Grump]

What would a conservative state look like?

1) Highly militarised
2) Overwhelmingly white
3) Overwhelmingly Christian
4) Lots of unwed single mothers
5) Awash with firearms
6) The poor would be dirt poor (ie huge increase in homelessness)
7) Huge increase in death penalty
8) Homosexuality would be a crime
9) A huge number of men would visit the legalised brothels in the liberal states (especially the clergy)
10) Women could possibly lose the vote


BTW, I am 100 percent serious in every ascertion except the last....that could 80 percent in favour of it NOT happening...but given time...

 

[Leweman]

Modbert, Are you daft? The "study" is from a blog. The study is from 2004. It never defined what receiving a federal dollar means. If you include social security, that is a pretty unfair measuring stick. Since your study, Kalifornia and Michigan are HUGE tit suckers. You simply went into the web and pulled this out without a seconds thought.

No. The Study is from The Tax Foundation. You think this is the first time we've had this discussion on USMB here before?

Before you go rush to find something to invalidate The Tax Foundation, here you go.

Tax Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tax Foundation states that its research is guided by the "principles of sound tax policy".[1] Tax Foundation research is generally critical of tax increases,[2][3][4][5] high business taxes,[6] so-called "sin" taxes,[7] tax preferences for the housing industry,[8] and use of the tax code for "picking winners and losers".[9][10]

The fact you think the blog itself was behind the study is evidence enough that not only did not bother to read the link itself but rushed to attack me.

Lets consider this lil analogy. Lets say I live in a small area of 10 people that represents a state. lets say 4 of these people pay 75 percent of the taxes. That means 6 pay 25 percent of the taxes. Now lets say three of the 75 percent vote conservative thats 56 percent of the income from the state is from conservatives even if 7 of 10 people in that state vote for a liberal candidate. So the state is a "blue" state even though the majority of the money comes from conservatives. So do you see the flaw in the study? Its not the most accurate representation but its definately easy to see what Im saying and how the study is flawed.

 

[syrenn]

We could divide a section of the country in half. One half of this section would govern by conservative ideals the other would govern using liberal philosophies. I wonder how each government would do. Is this possible? You would think that these days some computer simulations could be done to determine an outcome. What are some thoughts or ideas on this?

Where have you been? Look around and you can see exactly how things would work out for the liberal model.

Bankruptcy, destitution, poverty.

Look at Illinois and California. Look at Detroit.

see, i expect better from you.

bankruptcy? really? like under baby bush? suddeny the rightwingnuts were represented by a 'iberal'? really?

how 'bout we look at the fact that blue states pay more into the system than red states and red states take more out than blue? like that imbecile being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime... like starting pretend wars of choice? like focusing on the rabid religious right instead of on national growth?

which part of 'conservativism' do you like better? the part that kills the middle class or the part that wants to discriminate against 10% of the population because of their sexual orientation?

how about the fact that the greatest number of people on welfare are white single mothers and let's talk about how well not teaching safe sex worked out.

Thing is, i don't disagree with you. My point is that "liberal" hand outs have bankrupted this state.

Yanking money and funding from all those single white mothers would be considered "conservative"

What i feel is killing the middle class is the tax burden for the lower classes to keep their handouts.

 

[jillian]

Where have you been? Look around and you can see exactly how things would work out for the liberal model.

Bankruptcy, destitution, poverty.

Look at Illinois and California. Look at Detroit.

see, i expect better from you.

bankruptcy? really? like under baby bush? suddeny the rightwingnuts were represented by a 'iberal'? really?

how 'bout we look at the fact that blue states pay more into the system than red states and red states take more out than blue? like that imbecile being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime... like starting pretend wars of choice? like focusing on the rabid religious right instead of on national growth?

which part of 'conservativism' do you like better? the part that kills the middle class or the part that wants to discriminate against 10% of the population because of their sexual orientation?

how about the fact that the greatest number of people on welfare are white single mothers and let's talk about how well not teaching safe sex worked out.

Thing is, i don't disagree with you. My point is that "liberal" hand outs have bankrupted this state.

Yanking money and funding from all those single white mothers would be considered "conservative"

What i feel is killing the middle class is the tax burden for the lower classes to keep their handouts.

except that the states with more 'handouts' are red..

it isn't handouts that have bankrupted the state, it's the fact that your budget rules require a super majority and intelligent modificaitons can't be made. at least that's how it looks to this outsider.

 

[Modbert]

Lets consider this lil analogy. Lets say I live in a small area of 10 people that represents a state. lets say 4 of these people pay 75 percent of the taxes. That means 6 pay 25 percent of the taxes. Now lets say three of the 75 percent vote conservative thats 56 percent of the income from the state is from conservatives even if 7 of 10 people in that state vote for a liberal candidate. So the state is a "blue" state even though the majority of the money comes from conservatives. So do you see the flaw in the study? Its not the most accurate representation but its definately easy to see what Im saying and how the study is flawed.

So you give what is a improbable what if in response. You have offered no evidence that is what happened in the study.

Let's take a look at the top eight that were Red states, shall we?

2.North Dakota ($2.03)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

Not including the % that Nader got:

Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com

North Dakota voted for Bush, 61-33%.
Mississippi voted for Bush, 58-41%.
Alaska voted for Bush, 59-28%.
West Virginia voted for Bush, 52-46%.
Montana voted for Bush, 58-33%.
Alabama voted for Bush, 56-42%.
South Dakota voted for Bush, 60-38%.
Arkansas voted for Bush, 51-46%.

I don't think you're going to find anyone on this board who is going to consider any state on that list except maybe Montana to be anything but supposedly Conservative.

Let's take a look at the numbers for Obama, shall we?

Presidential Election of 2008, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

North Dakota voted for McCain, 53.3% to 44.7%.
Mississippi voted for McCain, 56.4% to 42.8%.
Alaska voted for McCain, 60.2% to 37.7%.
West Virginia voted for McCain, 55.7% to 42.6%.
Montana voted for McCain, 49.7% to 47.2%.
Alabama voted for McCain, 60.4% to 38.8%.
South Dakota voted for McCain, 53.2% to 44.7%.
Arkansas voted for McCain, 58.8% to 38.8%.

This is taking into account that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Bush and he still lost in these areas. You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

 

[Leweman]

Lets consider this lil analogy. Lets say I live in a small area of 10 people that represents a state. lets say 4 of these people pay 75 percent of the taxes. That means 6 pay 25 percent of the taxes. Now lets say three of the 75 percent vote conservative thats 56 percent of the income from the state is from conservatives even if 7 of 10 people in that state vote for a liberal candidate. So the state is a "blue" state even though the majority of the money comes from conservatives. So do you see the flaw in the study? Its not the most accurate representation but its definately easy to see what Im saying and how the study is flawed.

So you give what is a improbable what if in response. You have offered no evidence that is what happened in the study.

Let's take a look at the top eight that were Red states, shall we?

2.North Dakota ($2.03)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

Not including the % that Nader got:

Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com

North Dakota voted for Bush, 61-33%.
Mississippi voted for Bush, 58-41%.
Alaska voted for Bush, 59-28%.
West Virginia voted for Bush, 52-46%.
Montana voted for Bush, 58-33%.
Alabama voted for Bush, 56-42%.
South Dakota voted for Bush, 60-38%.
Arkansas voted for Bush, 51-46%.

I don't think you're going to find anyone on this board who is going to consider any state on that list except maybe Montana to be anything but supposedly Conservative.

Let's take a look at the numbers for Obama, shall we?

Presidential Election of 2008, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

North Dakota voted for McCain, 53.3% to 44.7%.
Mississippi voted for McCain, 56.4% to 42.8%.
Alaska voted for McCain, 60.2% to 37.7%.
West Virginia voted for McCain, 55.7% to 42.6%.
Montana voted for McCain, 49.7% to 47.2%.
Alabama voted for McCain, 60.4% to 38.8%.
South Dakota voted for McCain, 53.2% to 44.7%.
Arkansas voted for McCain, 58.8% to 38.8%.

This is taking into account that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Bush and he still lost in these areas. You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

Yep my analogy is a complete what if, but is extremely probable because the study choose not to break down the tax burden the way it should be broken down. Not my fault that study wasn't done well. Oh well. For some reason they did this one which stops at the point that suits them instead of breaking it down further. hmmmmmm how odd. They half assed it. Maybe they will come out with one that has some validity soon.

 

[saveliberty]

Modbert, Are you daft? The "study" is from a blog. The study is from 2004. It never defined what receiving a federal dollar means. If you include social security, that is a pretty unfair measuring stick. Since your study, Kalifornia and Michigan are HUGE tit suckers. You simply went into the web and pulled this out without a seconds thought.

No. The Study is from The Tax Foundation. You think this is the first time we've had this discussion on USMB here before?

Before you go rush to find something to invalidate The Tax Foundation, here you go.

Tax Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tax Foundation states that its research is guided by the "principles of sound tax policy".[1] Tax Foundation research is generally critical of tax increases,[2][3][4][5] high business taxes,[6] so-called "sin" taxes,[7] tax preferences for the housing industry,[8] and use of the tax code for "picking winners and losers".[9][10]

The fact you think the blog itself was behind the study is evidence enough that not only did not bother to read the link itself but rushed to attack me.

So the facts that your study is completely outdated and the largest bailout states and entitlement queeens are now Democratic leaning states is jsut to be ignored.

 

[Modbert]

So the facts that your study is completely outdated and the largest bailout states and entitlement queeens are now Democratic leaning states is jsut to be ignored.

Do you have a more up-to-date study? And as I just showed, the states certainly didn't really change in terms of eight years for the elections. You offer up no evidence of your own, instead attacking mine.

Care to actually give some evidence or are you just going to attack my links with some more baseless accusations?

You clearly didn't read what I posted in the first place also.

 

[Modbert]

Yep my analogy is a complete what if, but is extremely probable because the study choose not to break down the tax burden the way it should be broken down. Not my fault that study wasn't done well. Oh well. For some reason they did this one which stops at the point that suits them instead of breaking it down further. hmmmmmm how odd. They half assed it. Maybe they will come out with one that has some validity soon.

Answer my question.

You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

The evidence is overwhelming: High tax, high regulation states aer basket cases. That goes for MI, that goes for CA, that goes for MA, and for NJ as well.
States with low taxes and low regulation have done much better.
This really isn't rocket science here although some posters will swear their fathers have tits before they'll admit it.

After sucking on the government enough, who wouldn't be?

In your mind, juinior.

 

[Leweman]

Yep my analogy is a complete what if, but is extremely probable because the study choose not to break down the tax burden the way it should be broken down. Not my fault that study wasn't done well. Oh well. For some reason they did this one which stops at the point that suits them instead of breaking it down further. hmmmmmm how odd. They half assed it. Maybe they will come out with one that has some validity soon.

Answer my question.

You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

Not as a whole they arent buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut they do have plenty of liberal areas and liberal individuals. So just like you choose to ignore who the money is coming from in the blue states you are going to choose to ignore who the money is going to in the red states. I dunno if you can't understand maybe or you purposely are just dodging it.

 

[Modbert]

Not as a whole they arent buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut they do have plenty of liberal areas and liberal individuals. So just like you choose to ignore who the money is coming from in the blue states you are going to choose to ignore who the money is going to in the red states. I dunno if you can't understand maybe or you purposely are just dodging it.

No no no, do not sit there and try to tell me that Liberal individuals = Liberal state. Answer the question, yes or no.

You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

Simple yes or no question.

And you still haven't defined what makes someone a Conservative yet.

 

[Modbert]

In your mind, juinior.

Just what I want, fiscal advice from the racist and sexist Rabbi.

 

[jillian]

Not as a whole they arent buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut they do have plenty of liberal areas and liberal individuals. So just like you choose to ignore who the money is coming from in the blue states you are going to choose to ignore who the money is going to in the red states. I dunno if you can't understand maybe or you purposely are just dodging it.

No no no, do not sit there and try to tell me that Liberal individuals = Liberal state. Answer the question, yes or no.

You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

Simple yes or no question.

And you still haven't defined what makes someone a Conservative yet.

i love it... you can always tell a rightwingnut by their o/p...even if they do the pretend... gee...what would happen if... thing.

it's funny watching him twist himself into a pretzel, though.

lol..

 

[jillian]

In your mind, juinior.

Just what I want, fiscal advice from the racist and sexist Rabbi.

*pretend* rabbi.... i've never met a jew, much less a rabbi who thinks/acts like him.

 

[Modbert]

i love it... you can always tell a rightwingnut by their o/p...even if they do the pretend... gee...what would happen if... thing.

it's funny watching him twist himself into a pretzel, though.

lol..

This is why baseball teams don't throw their rookies into the fire and start them in the Big Leagues right after drafting them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not as a whole they arent buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut they do have plenty of liberal areas and liberal individuals. So just like you choose to ignore who the money is coming from in the blue states you are going to choose to ignore who the money is going to in the red states. I dunno if you can't understand maybe or you purposely are just dodging it.

No no no, do not sit there and try to tell me that Liberal individuals = Liberal state. Answer the question, yes or no.

You're not going to try and seriously tell me that Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, WV, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas are all Liberal states are you?

Simple yes or no question.

And you still haven't defined what makes someone a Conservative yet.

i love it... you can always tell a rightwingnut by their o/p...even if they do the pretend... gee...what would happen if... thing.

it's funny watching him twist himself into a pretzel, though.

lol..

Do you ever have anything to contribute here? It seems all your posts are name calling and insulting emoticons.
I really wonder about the depth of your knowledge. Actually I can guess it pretty easily.

 

[Modbert]

Do you ever have anything to contribute here? It seems all your posts are name calling and insulting emoticons.
I really wonder about the depth of your knowledge. Actually I can guess it pretty easily.

Actually, unlike you, Jillian actually contributed to this thread. All you did was say lower taxes and lower regulations like it meant something. Though not terribly surprising from the guy who calls African Americans the "gimme" crowd.