Thanks for that confused, yet entertaining rant. Good job, Corky. As far as relevance, I couldn't care less what your personal feelings are towards me, or anything else. By your recent troll attempts to "expose me" as a Canadian (LOL), I'd hazard a guess you're still wound licking from the beatdown I handed you 8 MONTHS ago. Geez, let it go, dude. You're following me around like a deranged crackwhore, and its getting a bit weird.
You are falling for the propaganda on the airwaves. Most of the so-called "hicks" you refer to are simply hard working Americans, unlike the "elite" who sit on their ass in an office and think they are above the great unwashed masses.
The Tea Party thing is arguably a Fox thing, because every Fox "personality" is rallying behind it, pumping it up, endorsing it, attending the shindigs and urging others to join in. Fox is the official Tea Party station. And you are saying it's not a Republican thing? Wake up, little Suzie.
All of this stuff is a lot of ignorance dressed up as clownish stupidity. I distinctly remember pointing out the actual fact, to AAA, that the Red states are seriously subsidized by the Blue states. Obviously, from his comments in this thread, the lesson didn't take. As for the rest, since no one's taxes have yet been raised, I'm assuming there's a chain of logic involved (I know, large assumption, but stick with me, this is all just entertainment anyway) that goes something like: big deficits, by way of Ricardian equivalence, lead to big taxes down the line. (Huh? Ricardo: the idea that if government spends lots of bucks, people realize that somewhere down the line they'll pay big taxes to pay for it. Ricardo, you say? Like Ricky Ricardo? Are we taking economics lessons from Messicans now??? No, first of all Ricky Ricardo was Cuban. I'm talking about David Ricardo, who was English. What, you don't know who David Ricardo was either? But you're supporting protests based on his hypothesis (which he rejected, btw) and...oh, never mind.) A rebuttal from today's FT: A long cool look at budget deficits As for Texas seceding, while the Constitutional validity of secession is one of those things that can inspire endless debates on the order of angels, dancing, and pinheads, the real-life validity of the idea was definitively established by Sherman, 150 years ago. I believe the answer was a definite no.
Actually the vast majority of the farmers, at least around here, are democrats. The big corporate ones probably skew slightly republican because of enviornmental issues..but the average farmer is a democrat. You'd find that to be the case in Minnesota too I suspect. In Western Iowa, Nebraska, SD etc I suspect the skew republican because the vast majority of those states do..but to make a big generalization like that just shows how stupid you are. Why is it ok for you to stereotype farmers as ignorant/inbred idiots and that is fine. However, if I was to stereotype blacks as loudmouth, criminal crackhead niggers I'd be a horrible racists. Your doing exactly the same thing I'd be doing. Brandon PS. Since I'm sure that at a later date someone will try to take this post out of context I'd like to add that I don't think of the majority of blacks as loudmouths, criminals or crackheads anymore so then I think of the average farmer as an inbred idiot. I've met plenty of both and have found that in this world stereotypes are the refuge of those who would rather not think, but they rarely are accurate. I'd also never call any person a nigger...however I think that the only way to make my point is to do so in strong terms.
the concept of the blue states supporting red states has to be challenged. It was most likely based on the old bullshit blue state economic model which recently cost tax payers trillions. And, I will bet if you looked at the map by county now you would probably see the red counties subsidize the blue counties.
It's based on the simple fact that crowded places have a higher cost of living, that has to be made up for by higher incomes, which are of course taxed more through the income tax. Farm subsidy spending just offsets social service spending in the blue states, on the spending side. The difference is made up through (generally speaking; all of this stuff is generalities) defense spending, which goes more to the red than the blue states, overall, and simply the ethic, in the red states, which are largely Southern, of looking to the Feds to solve largely local problems. Huh? you say? Yes: Lake Lanier was a Federal project. When NYC built its reservoirs, it did it with its own money. Maintenance of the Mississippi for navigation is largely done by the Feds; maintenance of the port of NY/NJ - dredging, onshore facilities - is largely done by the jointly governed Port Authority of New York/New Jersey. Power for the NYC subways is subsidized, but by the state, from its upstate hydroelectric plants, through the New York Power Authority. Even highways were, until NY finally got wise to Interstate highway funding: the New York State Thruway was built by NY state, and then afterwards Moynihan got funds out of the Feds to "reimburse" the state after it became part of the Interstate highway system. Try to find a similar story anywhere in the South. Right near my house is a small but significant example of this, by the way: the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Not terribly large, but once again, maintained jointly by NY and NJ. Once again, try to find an example of this kind of thing anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon. Meantime, I don't see Montana's cost of living rising enough to contribute enough income tax to change the relationship. Georgia and Texas, certainly. Probably some others. But as I noted before, as states change over, they also turn blue, as did Virginia and NC in this last election.
Are you talking at the state level? What I'm talking about is how much each state contributes in taxes to the Federal gov't as opposed to what they get back. Whether the state gov't is running a surplus is not directly relevant to that.