Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
I'd happily pay for his ticket if John Wall wants to move to Somalia. It must suck to have so much hate for your country that you want to split it in two. I bet he lives in one of those crappy red leaning mid-western or southern fly over states that have been dependant on the the blue states to keep them running. He's prob. goes to a public law school also that depends on gov't aide to keep it going.  |
His point is that no states should depend on the Federal Government to be financially viable. And it would be easier for states to "survive" on their own if they were allowed to tax their citizens at the rate the Federal government does, and that might be possible if the the Federal only taxed for purposes for which the Constitution provides to it. Actually, blue states receive, overall, more Federal return than red states, it's just that the reds get more back per capita. And there are many factors involved in that redistribution, including which party is in power. Most of the stats available now are from the Bush years. Over the next four to eight or more years, those stats and redistribution patterns may change. Factors like age of population (medicare/social security) account for much of the money. Certainly, type of wealth generated (manufacturing vs. agriculture) is a factor, and changing patterns in those sectors may change the redistribution of Federal money--the eroding manufacturing base in blue states like Michigan and Ohio will create a greater poverty redistribution. Several of the blue states that used to be economic powerhouses are now in greater financial distress. Of the 8 states that had unemployment over 11%, seven voted blue. Of the 14 astates that had budgets that exceeded 20% of their G.D.P., 12 voted blue.
If blue-staters don't like this Federal redistribution scheme, it would seem to their benefit to get the Federal Government less involved in takeover of what should be State and private business.