What if the better-educated, more successful states refused to subsidize the ones on the take?

Cali grows too much that is economic, not food related. You should look at what they grow sometime.
/----/ Great suggestion. I never knew...
1649693909403.png
 
It's not subsidies. It's tribute.

See the "taker states" have all the guns and military and patriotic warriors.

I live in a state that has more ammunition than the former Soviet Union. We have about 3 million square feet of deep (100 foot elevators) bunkers full of nothing but bullets, tank rounds, artillery rounds, missiles, etc.

So - yeah - go ahead, stop paying us.
 
You're rapidly moving to an authoritarian state with no middle class. Do you want to have your rights dictated by fundamentalists?

You don't seem to understand which Party is actually the party of the elites who want to act as authoritarians. They have tricked many into believing that they support the middle and lower classes, when in fact, they want to control them. Zuckerberg, Gates, et. al are staunch Democrats.
 
You don't seem to understand which Party is actually the party of the elites who want to act as authoritarians. They have tricked many into believing that they support the middle and lower classes, when in fact, they want to control them. Zuckerberg, Gates, et. al are staunch Democrats.
I doubt they are anything except glutinous for money and power. Parties are just tools to them.
 
Balance of payments is the amount of revenue paid to the federal government from a state’s residents and economy (taxes) minus the amount of federal spending in that state. Donor states pay more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in funding.

Advanced states have been bankrolling the ne'er-do-wells, who often bite the generous hands that feed them by enacting retrogressive, discriminatory laws.


New York is the largest donor state in the U.S., with a negative balance of payments at $22,798,000,000.

The next six donor states and the negative balances of their contributions to the federal government are:

On the other end of the spectrum are these state with the amount they grab from the general coffers, a transfer of wealth from the fiscally successful ones:
If beggar states insist on using their largesse from their benefactor states to fund their repressive statism - suppressing freedom and equality in such matters of public interest as voting, reproductive rights, public health, climatology, science teaching - instead financing rabid Statism in the form of gag orders, book banning, bureaucratic womb control, denial of an American's equality despite differences, why fund them?

I cannot pass an indigent on the street without giving him a few bucks, inquiring after his well-being, and listening to his concerns, but, if I found that he was using my meager benefaction for noxious purposes, would I not be justified in desisting from such discretionary allocation of my resources?

An individual and a society honoring the corporal works of mercy is a benison to both, but there is an assumption of responsibility.

In sharing one's prosperity, one should do no harm.
Let’s not lose track of what this poster thinks are more educated people. This moron confronting Shapiro is who they want you to believe is the “educated” class you should bow to.

 
Florida is so awful. They have 1.7 million empty houses.
That's literally the most ignorant media piece I've seen in a long time. We have many houses without Florida residents because of so many vacation homes. We have an extreme lack of housing here, they can't build them fast enough.
 
You don't seem to understand which Party is actually the party of the elites who want to act as authoritarians. They have tricked many into believing that they support the middle and lower classes, when in fact, they want to control them. Zuckerberg, Gates, et. al are staunch Democrats.
Which party is taking your civil rights?
 

Forum List

Back
Top