Do "progressive" states have the worst budget problems?

Comments

• Not really true, bolwerk. A popular misconception. My own "red state" has a pretty good record for paying for its own programs, though small in population. We are fortunate to have some valuable natural resources.

  • Report
  

  by Tom 47 is back in his bear COAT on November 21st, 2009

• Thanks bolwerk

  • Report
  

  by keithold is a prodigal bagger on November 21st, 2009

• Resources many "progressive states" to not have in abundance, like oil, coal,..food...And we don't DR, bolwerk. That is your game. We just upgrade unfairly DR'd users. If you are often DR'd, it is not by a COAT.

  • Report
  

  by Tom 47 is back in his bear COAT on November 21st, 2009

• Given that the transfer payments from states broadly regarded as "progressive" to red states is in the hundred billions$ per year range, it's hard to say that's a "misconception" - and I wasn't saying that to knock anyone. It's just that it seems a little unfair to complain about California not handling its fiscal crisis well when it's losing, what, $60B/year in transfer payments to elsewhere? That staggering sum would probably be enough to build California's HSR.
  ˙
  The energy racket seems to promote poverty, as far as I can tell. States that moved beyond it, like Texas, are actually starting to prosper.
  ˙
  As for food, I seriously doubt there's a single U.S. state that couldn't feed itself. Again, California is the biggest agricultural state. New York and Pennsylvania don't exactly seem shabby. What distinguishes "progressive" states from others is the diversity of their agricultural output. There isn't emphasis on a single staple crop - probably a good thing.

  • Report
  

  by bolwerk on November 22nd, 2009

• I agree to much you have said, so why are you so defensive? And my state is sometimes red and sometimes blue. It depends on what dork is being presented to us to vote for. And why was I and most others from anywhere west of Appalachia or east of the Rockies made the butt of jokes by everyone else in the military? By people from your so-called "progressive states" who had never been out of their own state before they got drafted? (smile) Not like they had any basis of comparison. It was pure defensiveness. They assumed we felt they were all nerds and clueless, as most had never had their hands on a rifle before and were unsure of which end the bullet came out. Well, some of them were clueless, but it was not verbalized by us. (lol)

  • Report
  

  by Tom 47 is back in his bear COAT on November 22nd, 2009

• ...And, of course, if California had a Demo governor, you would not even say that they had a budget problem...(lol) Bolwerk, do you you really think your transparency is not....transparent?

  • Report
  

  by Tom 47 is back in his bear COAT on November 22nd, 2009

• Huh? I don't like California or Democrats, and I wasn't being defensive. I was explaining why I said what I said and addressing what you said. I don't know what handling rifles or inter-regional squabbles you had in the military has to do with BOP accounting, and "progressive" was kiethold's term, not mine. If I had posed the question, I would have specified exactly which states I was referring to because I regard terms like "progressive," "liberal," "conservative," and "right-wing," as intentionally vague.
  ˙
  Now, I would add that this isn't a problem unique to the feds and can be seen very locally. Cities like New York and Boston send a lot of their $ to other less "progressive" parts of the state. Of course, I suppose Upstate New York or the Berkshires are seen as pretty leftist by places like Arizona or Mississippi. I would presume similar observations can be made in post-industrial places like Denver and Seattle, though I'm admittedly less familiar with their municipal outlays.

  • Report
  

  by bolwerk on November 22nd, 2009

Comments

Comments