[vector]

look at this

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychar...scal-union

[TheRealVille]

Did you notice that most of the taking states are "red" states?

[vector]

Did you notice that most of the taking states are "red" states?

yes i said the most of the takers voted for romney

[the other guy]

I know what you're getting at and some of what you imply is correct. But some things just look weird. Florida for example does that spending include social security payments, if so the large number of retired people in Florida throws that off. Does Virginia include military spending.

This is really hard to do. The states are so different. You can build a road across the plains A lot cheaper than thru the mountains. And you would have to figure average wages when looking at revenue. It's just hard to do.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

yes i said the most of the takers voted for romney

Cute. But not even you believe that.

There is little reason for the takers to vote Republican because the party believes those who can do so should earn their own way. Democrats, on the other hand believe in buying the votes of the takers by giving them freebies.

Why would a deadbeat ever vote Republican? It is adverse to his/her lifestyle.

[Hoot Gibson]

I know what you're getting at and some of what you imply is correct. But some things just look weird. Florida for example does that spending include social security payments, if so the large number of retired people in Florida throws that off. Does Virginia include military spending.

This is really hard to do. The states are so different. You can build a road across the plains A lot cheaper than thru the mountains. And you would have to figure average wages when looking at revenue. It's just hard to do.

You are right, TOG, these statistics are very misleading. Defense spending puts many states "in the red" and the choice of a 20 year time frame is probably the only thing keeping states near the top of the unemployment list like California and Michigan in the black. The 20 year time frame also masks the recent flood of illegal immigrants, who consume far more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes. The impact of illegal immigrants and Obama's efforts to make them feel as welcome as possible, also skews the numbers.

This is just another dishonest attempt to portray Republicans as hypocrites. The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Where are the nation's financial centers? New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.

Does anybody believe that most of the top 10 percent of tax payers are Democrats? Many of the wealthiest Republican taxpayers live in blue states. It stands to reason that those states would be net maker states, despite their huge populations of takers.

[the other guy]

One the west Virginia governor candidates was talked about for having his business incorporated in Delaware. Well many companies incorporate in Delaware because of state tax rates..

[TheRealVille]

A lot of these "taker" states are petitioning to secede from the Union. What would happen if they do leave, like Kentucky, who get's $1.51 in federal funds to every dollar they pay in taxes? It's not likely to happen because the petitions have to get 25,000 signatures in 30 days, and Texas is the only one that looks close enough to make it. But, if if it did happen, I don't see anyway for Kentucky to survive without federal help.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-5754...rom-union/

[tvtimeout]

Cute. But not even you believe that.

There is little reason for the takers to vote Republican because the party believes those who can do so should earn their own way. Democrats, on the other hand believe in buying the votes of the takers by giving them freebies.

Why would a deadbeat ever vote Republican? It is adverse to his/her lifestyle.

Unemployment Rates in McCreary Co., and Whitley Co. have been extremely high while I lived there many moons ago but they always voted Republican. Where I live now next to Harlan Co, unemployment is around 14% and it votes Republican.

[tvtimeout]

You are right, TOG, these statistics are very misleading. Defense spending puts many states "in the red" and the choice of a 20 year time frame is probably the only thing keeping states near the top of the unemployment list like California and Michigan in the black. The 20 year time frame also masks the recent flood of illegal immigrants, who consume far more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes. The impact of illegal immigrants and Obama's efforts to make them feel as welcome as possible, also skews the numbers.

This is just another dishonest attempt to portray Republicans as hypocrites. The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Where are the nation's financial centers? New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.

Does anybody believe that most of the top 10 percent of tax payers are Democrats? Many of the wealthiest Republican taxpayers live in blue states. It stands to reason that those states would be net maker states, despite their huge populations of takers.

I thought they all lived in Texas nicker:

I think you do pose an interesting question though the top 10 percent of tax payers what party they belong to? I know the Dems can claim the top two earners Buffett and Gates.

[TheRealVille]

Of course any of the other aforementioned states could, in an act of treason, secede by force to become the world’s newest impoverished nations. Not only are the majority of blue states the most populous, they are also the states with the most wealth, and with that comes the most taxes. And those blue states’ taxes pave their roads, turn on their street lights, run their schools, and make their water drinkable.

While some Republicans in the Great Plains, the Rockies, and much of the Deep South complain about the bright red map, they’ve failed to realize it’s the deceptively small blue cogs that actually keep the machine that is America rolling along — and it’s the blue states’ money that fills the tank.

http://www.glittersnipe.com/2012/11/12/a...t-succeed/

[Harry Rex Vonner]

http://www.glittersnipe.com/2012/11/12/a...t-succeed/

Another "reliable" source cited by TheRealVille.

[TheRealVille]

Another "reliable" source cited by TheRealVille.

Prove what it's saying is wrong then. That's your kinds mantra, if it doesn't say what you want to hear, discredit the source. nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Prove what it's saying is wrong then. That's your kinds mantra, if it doesn't say what you want to hear, discredit the source. nicker:

All I need to do is consider the source. That should suffice to any reasonably intelligent individual. In the law, we would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

[TheRealVille]

All I need to do is consider the source. That should suffice to any reasonably intelligent individual. In the law, we would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Ok, deny facts, just because of the messenger. It shows you are definitely not lawyer material, let alone have the ability to teach other lawyers. I am beginning to doubt your profession. Do what a lawyer does, prove it wrong. Everybody knows that you lawyers are such honorable people. nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Ok, deny facts, just because of the messenger. It shows you are definitely not lawyer material, let alone have the ability to teach other lawyers. I am beginning to doubt your profession. Do what a lawyer does, prove it wrong. Everybody knows that you lawyers are such honorable people. nicker:

I don't think you want to start comparing professions/occupations and the natural ramifications of our obviously different disciplines. That would not be a wise move on your part.

And, since you are clearly unschooled in this area, I will assure you that the credibility of the presenter of alleged facts is actually a vital ingredient in any legal action. Apparently, you don't comprehend that fact either.

[TheRealVille]

I don't think you want to start comparing professions/occupations and the natural ramifications of our obviously different disciplines. That would not be a wise move on your part.

And, since you are clearly unschooled in this area, I will assure you that the credibility of the presenter of alleged facts is actually a vital ingredient in any legal action. Apparently, you don't comprehend that fact either.

You think a lot of yourself, eh?nicker: You do realize that most people, even some of your buddies here, think that lawyers are scum, right?

[Stardust]

^ Well, not all of us

[Hoot Gibson]

While it is true that I hate the slip and fall, ambulance chasing lawyers who are playing a big role in destroying this country, some of the finest people I have ever known have been lawyers, including two corporate lawyers who taught me all I know about legal and business writing.

[TheRealVille]

Some of my best friends are lawyers, but they act nothing like this HRV fellow. They are pretty bright, and don't think everybody that doesn't agree with them are beneath them, as attested in HRV's latest post. :Thumbs: I guess I'm obligated to bow to HRV now, since his profession and knowledge is so much above me.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Some of my best friends are lawyers, but they act nothing like this HRV fellow. They are pretty bright, and don't think everybody that doesn't agree with them are beneath them, as attested in HRV's latest post. :Thumbs: I guess I'm obligated to bow to HRV now, since his profession and knowledge is so much above me.

Got you, didn't I? What do they say? I believe it is "game, set, match".

I understand why you are a supporter of the incompetent boy wonder.

Now I'll give you a little analogy that I always relate to law class students as well as, on occasion, to others. Some lawyers have a far too high opinion of their importance in society. Thus, if all the lawyers died today and all the garbage workers died today, who would be missed? Both the law class students and the others get the point. Lawyers, like most others, are not indispensable. But, then, neither are union construction workers.

All need to keep this in proper perspective. Lawyers are trained in school to recognize that there are certain times to be humble and certain times to be condescending. Your general attitude and lack of depth of your posts often calls for the latter approach. This is all just a part of the game and, in reality, most pursuits are no more than a game.

By the way, I even have a few friends who voted for Obama. To be honest, they aren't particularly bright or ambitious.