Why would we take out 1/8 of GDP? You do realize half of that is military spending and that doesn’t include the VA. Also, removing government spending means no rule of law, no regulation, no education, no transportation, no defense or policing, no fda or cdc, on and on. In what world would we have a society, never mind a functioning economy without government spending? This is a stupid argument you’re making.
Your side and probably you at times are arguing that Democrats are financing the govt and the Republicans are sucking money out of the govt and therefore indirectly Republicans are being financed by Democrats. The left in a massive troll frequently tells us the largest GDP areas vote Democrat implying that this facts supports their theory the Democrats are the productive ones and hence the ones financing the government. My point that I made well is that you can not draw those type of conclusions because Govt investing and spending is part of the GDP calculation. Hence it is illogical to act like the Dems are financing the the Govt by pointing out high GDP areas which may be high GDP areas because they receive massive amounts of Government money. To simplify this for the trolls... its illogical to claim the left's productivity finances the govt using a statistic which in part measures money taken from the govt. It could be the same as saying we are the largest "welfare" receivers and hence we pay for you with the taxes we pay on our "welfare" checks. (not literally welfare but govt money being spread around)
Again, democrats represent the 20 richest districts, none of them are in or around DC. Republicans represent 16 or 17 of the poorest districts. We can pull a lot out of this such as democrat areas are more educated and offer better public services because we know when you have money you move to better school districts and ideal locations. Whereas when you don’t, you’re pretty much stuck where you are. Now, what you’re trying to say doesn’t make sense because government workers are usually highly educated and have specialized skills such as disease control and nuclear engineering. These are not skills frequently found in the private sector but they add immeasurable value to the nation. So my point is your point is moot because there is incredible value in what the government does and they just don’t hand out jobs to any Shmoe on the street. Government is absolutely part of gdp, even though this has nothing to do with the richest and poorest congressional districts.
Once again we see you can lead a Democrat to logic but you can't make them think. 1. How do you know you GDP districts are not massively subsidized by govt money. Fed local and state money direct through handouts and indirectly through government contracting? 2. Once again we see democrat logic to the point of making informed people wonder if this was troll comedy. I am beginning to wonder is you are only pretending to live in the states. Do you understand the origin of the saying good enough for govt work? How is that government workers are "usually highly educated and specialized skills" when 59 percent of Federal employees don't have college degrees. A true statement would be that Federal Govt workers are usually not highly educated.
Stupid foreign trolls think Districts are people. No you stupid leftards. Districts are comprised of people - but they are not people. It’s already been shown to you that Dems are more likely to be living in poverty, no matter what district they live in. Stupid leftists think that because more college educated people lean democrat that Dems are more educated. Hardly. The value of a college degree today, in anything other than STEM, is virtually nil. Most STEM students lean right. Dems comprise the vast majority of the poor and a slight majority of the wealthy. The Pubs represent the majority of the middle class.