Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (538891)	2/11/2004 4:33:30 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Is this chart online? What about California and New York? * * *

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (538891)	2/11/2004 4:51:03 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

In fact the blue states generate most of the nation's gdp (California and NY alone account for 21.5% of gdp) and most of our tax revenue, yet the red states are in control of the government and decide where that money goes. Talk about taxation without representation. Most of the best universities are in the blue states too. The right wishes they could dump California, New York, and the rest of the blue states. They'd be the poorer less educated bunch. You can't be a military power without being an economic power. The red states would be militarily inferior too. Steve Dietrich

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (538891)	2/11/2004 7:17:00 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 769667

Actually Kenneth, you've left quite a few out of the mix... I can only assume, since you have chosen NOT to include the article you are quoting from, that you and the author have decided to base you criteria for "Republican Welfare States" solely on the basis of electoral votes from the 2000 campaign. Alas, if we look back to the 1992 and 1996 elections, we see a much different picture. Ironically, we also see the flaw in your argument. If we look at the study from the Tax Foundation, we find that 33 states fall in to the category of "receiving" more than they "contribute". taxfoundation.org The interesting part, though, is that in 1992, 18 of the 33 "alleged" welfare states voted for Clinton. In 1996, 17 voted for Clinton. Then, in 2000, 24 of these states voted for Bush. The flaw? These swing states defy classification in to your idiotic "welfare state" category. Your argument for dividing the country folds like a cheep suit. BTW, you can find electoral results here: archives.gov Nice try, though... Diz-