You realize you are citing a transfer from the blue states, who pay more in federal taxes, to the red states who take more in federal spending? Sounds like a plank in the conservative platform to me.
I don’t support taking a single dime from the poor. I also don’t support extorting the working class so that politicians can hand out money willy nilly to satisfy their electoral hopes.
i think there’s plenty of villification of both the rich and poor, but then again i’m not a blind partisan of either side.
I had no idea we paid taxes as states. All this time I thought we paid as individuals.
Obviously my opposition to taxation hasn’t hit home. In those stories the rich came to be that way illegitimately, so no I wouldn’t support the Sheriff protecting them or taxing the people.
The individuals who elect Republicans are getting more in federal spending than the individuals who elect Democrats, who pay more in federal taxes.
Not necessarily. You can’t make that claim from the data you reference. Net taxpayers in blue states could be Republicans, while net benefitters of taxes in red states could be Democrats. Not to mention the people who don’t vote at all. I’m not saying you are wrong i’m saying that you aren’t speaking from certainty.
To be clear, I don’t support the transfer of wealth from blue states to red states any more than I support the transfer from middle to upper classes, grocery stores to Lockheed Martin or any other transfer inherent in taxation.
So your claim that the “transfer of resources from taxpayers not using the free stuff to taxpayers recieving more than what they paid in taxes” could apply equally to parasitic conservatives as to liberals? Just no proof otherwise?
of course. In fact i would say it would apply to conservatives just as much as liberals. Just look at Bush with his handouts to the elderly and military interests. We would have to look at individual policies in order to ascertain who was the likely beneficiary of the transfer scheme.
Of course, we can’t do without taxes, and some form of wealth transfer is inherent in any taxation.
Most of them, I’m sure, got their wealth through lawful inheritance. Is that something you would abolish?
Oh, one of those.
Can I have those pixels back? I hate to waste them.
Mr. Farnaby would have only Food Stamp recipients pay the taxes needed for Food Stamps. Only families with a student receiving a Federal Pell Grant should be taxed for that, and so on.
BTW, Mr. Farnaby, I don’t want to talk about you “behind your back” so will mention that I criticize your views in another thread, with the note:
“Example 1) WillFarnaby: Smallpox is better than fiber optic cables.”
No, we can definitely make that claim. Your scheme would apply equally to blue states then, if it was Democrats that were paying less and Republicans paying more, so that in blue states you’d have more of a drain on federal resources than red. Since that doesn’t happen, we can definitively state that Republican conservatives pay less in taxes and more of their support come from Democratic liberals. Conservatives are a drain on resources while liberals create more. That’s fact
Actually you failed to comprehend my post. Reread it. If you still don’t get why you’re wrong, I will explain when I have more time.
No need, I understood it the first time and there’s no reason to get any more dirty by subjecting myself to it again. Red states are a net drain on the federal coffers, that’s a fact, and its because of all of the so-called fiscal conservatives, voting themselves to the public’s money like the parasites they consider all those types of people are. The best way to balance the budget would be if they committed suicide
At some point in their lineage, they wealth they inherited was stolen in the form of taxes or the product of serf labor. This would make the legitimate owners the serfs.
Of course Greenspan is going to say that lol. I bet Cheney still supports the Iraq War does that make it right? In any case you make the assumption that there wouldn’t have been growth in a mildly deflationary environment. Which there clearly was in the late 1800’s.
Or seceded.
No, because we don’t judge the strength of the union on solely fiscal terms, and we don’t seek to cut off people who take more than they give. We just want them to stop blaming liberals for their own shortcomings, and admit they need us more than we need them.
So, are you a secessionist? Or, suggesting that secession is a viable option?