Lay Offs

[PaulS]

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less. Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.

Apparently, red states being the greedy bastids they are have suckered the blue states into this arrangement. Gosh, those red-necks aren't as dumb as we thought. Play the beligerent, backward, child who fails so that the well meaning, productive, and generous step brothers and sisters take pity and "subsidize" him. You'd think it would be the blue states who would want to secede from this arrangement. But they so love the country that they would rather suffer the financial imposition, besides, they prefer that socialist trajectory--to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

Wouldn't that be a good riddance for the blue states? Get those Texas leaches off the welfare rolls? But the blues wouldn't let that happen. Probly send in the troops like the strong parents they are and hush-hush the spoiled little munchkins who don't really know what's good for them. Mommy and daddy and nanny know what's good, and how to take care of even the wayward children.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.

This has been brought up a few times before as if it means something. Perhaps it does. Supposedly, by those who bring it up, it means something like the red states are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off of the blue states and need the Fed to redistribute the "more back" or they would not be able to survive. Ergo, they should quit complaining about state's rights and government redistribution and individual freedom and all that nonsense. It even implies more, that those in the red states are not as competent as those in the blue, that they are somehow backward and a drag on the country. It even implies that red states are the welfare queens that so many of their people rail against.

But that is, in my opion, a shallow, narrow, one-sided, false interpretation of the meaning. The "more back" is not some blank check. It is not a gift. Nor would the states collapse without it. On the whole, the states would do well enough if they could reverse the rates of taxation so that they could collect the federal rates and the fed was limited to the average state rates. Even more so if they didn't have to spend much of the "more back" as well as their own to fulfill central government mandates. If it were up to them to decide social policies as was intended, they could fit those policies to their fiscal realities and to their social values. And they would have to be more responsible to their citizens desires than a far-off and irresponsible government with pockets that exceeds it's income.

And most of that "more back" is given to individuals not to the states. The money may be spent by those individuals in the state or in other states or countries. More and more is spent on internet purchases. And money such as social security and medicare and welfare receipts are given to some who reside in states other than in which they earned those receipts. And that "more back" is a way to create dependency on the central government, especially for things that should be decided at state levels. It is as much coersion as it is beneficence.

The "more back" is a red herring that draws attention away from the direction of our system of government.