National debt.

[Swiper]

Not at all. He's stating a fact.

then why wouldn't the country be flourishing and have no poor people if democrats were in total control over the country?

A lot of the blues states have massive amounts of debt.

 

[Zaphod]

then why wouldn't the country be flourishing and have no poor people if democrats were in total control over the country?

A lot of the blues states have massive amounts of debt.

The red states are poor. Explain that if the republican way of doing things builds wealth for everyone.

 

[Bowden]

so you're saying if we terminate all republicans and only had democrats run the country and the states we'd have a flourishing economy with no poor people?

No.
I am stating the facts.
Red states have a higher level of poverty, earn lower wages, receive higher levels of federal assistance and have a lesser educated population than blue states.

 

[Swiper]

Red State, Blue State: Which States Have Received the Most Federal Funds Since 2000? | TheBlaze.com

RED STATE, BLUE STATE: WHICH STATES HAVE RECEIVED THE MOST FEDERAL FUNDS SINCE 2000?

Oct. 24, 2012 1:00pm Becket Adams

• 
  [*=left]68
  [*=left]95
  [*=left]0
  [*=left]0
  [*=left]
  [*=left]
  [*=left]52

State personal income in the past six quarters has increased mostly in ?red? states and states run by Republican governors, TheBlaze reported earlier this month.
However, after TheBlaze noted this trend, a few readers argued that this was because ?red? states typically receive the lion?s share of federal funding.
Do they really?
In a word: No. In fact, since 2000, solid ?blue? states have received far more in federal funding than solid ?red? states, a Blaze analysis finds.
But first, let?s define the what we mean by ?red? state, ?blue? state, ?purple? state, etc.:

• 
  [*=left]Red: Republican presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996

• 
  [*=left]Pink: Republican presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996

• 
  [*=left]Purple: This state has been won twice by a Republican presidential candidate and twice by a Democrat presidential candidate since 1996

• 
  [*=left]Light Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996

• 
  [*=left]Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996

A quick word on our use of 1996: Because most pre-?96 electoral maps involve different color schemes, we felt it would be best to start with President Clinton?s second run for office, the year the ?red? state/?blue? state map configuration we?re all familiar with became standardized (although it would take another four years for it to become a widely used election year tool).
Now it should be pointed out that federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. Moreover, a state?s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn?t about which states are ?more deserving? of federal aid. The argument is that ?red? states receive more funds than anyone else.

That being said, here is a breakdown of all 50 states and the District of Columbia by electoral map color and federal funding since 2000, according to USA.gov:
As you can clearly see, there?s a difference in the distribution of federal funds among the states. In fact, if you combine ?strong GOP? with ?likely GOP,? the amount is still less than then amount ?strong Dem? states have received in the last 12 years.
Now some argue that certain states spend their federal funds differently, giving more back to the ?pie? than others, and that this somehow changes everything.
Again, that?s not the argument. The original argument claims ?red? states receive more federal funds than anyone else, leading to things like an uptick in income growth. But as the above clearly indicates, ?red? states simply don?t get more in fed funds.
Now we?re sure you?re want to know which states have received the most since the turn of the new millennium. We?re glad you asked. It just so happens that we have a list prepared for you.
Here are the top ten states that have received the most federal funding since 2000, their estimated populations in 2011 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the amount of federal spending per capita in 2011 (the population estimate divided by total federal spending in FY2011), and their electoral map color (based on the last four election cycles):
OHIO: $828.2B

Color: Purple
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 11,544,951
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $5,907
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Bush
  [*=left]2004: Bush
  [*=left]2008: Obama

NEW JERSEY: $888.6B

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 8,821,155
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $11,132
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Gore
  [*=left]2004: Kerry
  [*=left]2008: Obama

ILLINOIS: $888.7B

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 12,869,257
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $5,781
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Gore
  [*=left]2004: Kerry
  [*=left]2008: Obama

LOUISIANA: $994.5B

Color: Pink
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 4,574,836
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $30,099
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Bush
  [*=left]2004: Bush
  [*=left]2008: McCain

VIRGINIA: $1.054T

Color: Pink
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 8,096,604
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $14,537
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Dole
  [*=left]2000: Bush
  [*=left]2004: Bush
  [*=left]2008: Obama

PENNSYLVANIA: $1.105T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 12,742,886
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,573
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Gore
  [*=left]2004: Kerry
  [*=left]2008: Obama

NEW YORK: $1.714T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 19,465,197
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,973
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Gore
  [*=left]2004: Kerry
  [*=left]2008: Obama

TEXAS: $2.387T

Color: Red
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 25,674,681
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $11,451
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Dole
  [*=left]2000: Bush
  [*=left]2004: Bush
  [*=left]2008: McCain

CALIFORNIA: $2.928T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 37,691,912
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,269
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Gore
  [*=left]2004: Kerry
  [*=left]2008: Obama

FLORIDA: $3.853T

Color: Purple
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 19,057,542
Federal spending per capita in 2011: ​$30,319
Voting History:

• 
  [*=left]1996: Clinton
  [*=left]2000: Bush
  [*=left]2004: Bush
  [*=left]2008: Obama

Final Thought: Now that we have that sorted out, would anyone like to guess why state income has increased primarily in ?red? states and in states with Republican governors?

 

[Zaphod]

Income may have increased but it's still less. How is that better?

 

[Swiper]

 

[heckler7]

lets not talk about the trillions spent in Iraq. lets just blame the economy on Obama

 

[troubador]

Originally Posted by troubador Typical left winger, can't read.

Lams is a correct statement.

It was satire imitating the stupid out of nowhere rightwinger statement LAM made in the post I quoted. LAM being an autistic retard pointed out the nonfactual statement while ignoring the important shit. Damn, sometimes I think you guys make being stupid seem like a skill set.

 

[Swiper]

 

[DOMS]

lets not talk about the trillions spent in Iraq. lets just blame the economy on Obama

Let's not talk about how Obama didn't end the wars, let's just black the economy only on Bush.

 

[Swfl]

Its all Geirge Washingtons fault. If he hadnt started this experiment we'd all still be happily under the rule of the crown...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4

 

[KelJu]

then why wouldn't the country be flourishing and have no poor people if democrats were in total control over the country?

A lot of the blues states have massive amounts of debt.

The poorest states in the country are red. Have you ever driven through the bible belt? They are the poorest with the worst education and the highest obesity rates. Dumb, poor, fat, and red to the core.

I saw articles showing that the top 10 poorest states are all conservative republican states. Don't quote me on it yet, but I will look that up when I get home.

 

[LAM]

then why wouldn't the country be flourishing and have no poor people if democrats were in total control over the country?

A lot of the blues states have massive amounts of debt.

all 50 states have been amassing more debt since the 70's, when the USD went fiat. that's caused state and local government to resort to the use of bonds to fund spending vs increasing taxes.

Compare Spending By State for 1957 - Charts

State and Local Government Debt Is Soaring
by Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_0706-37.pdf

 

[Swiper]

"Raising the debt ceiling...does not increase our debt. -Barrack Obama

wtf? can someone explain this to me? the action of raising it technically does not increase our national debt, but every time it's raised they always add to the national debt because they can't control their spending. so he's trying to trick the people on a technicality? how else can that comment be explained?

 

[LAM]

what's so hard to comprehend? the debt ceiling is to pay off past debts and the debt constantly increases because the costs of goods, services, etc. constantly increases with time and as the dollar loses purchasing power.

please state where on the FED graph do you see "spending rapidly increasing" or is simply increasing at gradual levels since the dollar went fiat?

look at the averages per decade starting in the 70s when the dollar went completely fiat.

70's - 356B
80's - 924B - increased 38%
90's - 1597B - increased 57%
2000's - 2568B - increased 62%

cumulative inflation is roughly 25% per decade so I'm not quite sure why people would expect spending to decrease as the dollar losses purchases power and the costs of goods and services constantly increase, this stuff isn't rock science.

Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND)
Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Household Debt has increased
Households and Nonprofit Organizations; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (CMDEBT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Non-financial Corporate Business debt has increased
Nonfinancial Corporate Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability (NCBTCMDODNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Financial Business debt has increased
Financial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (TCMDODFS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

and corporate taxes have decreased with time and income taxes have roughly stayed the same
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

and the costs are increasing across the board for other goods and services
http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/stateregulation/Documents/rising_electricity_costs.pdf

on page 2 on the report above take note off the lowest increase in goods that of apparel, that low increase is due to off-shoring. it helps to hide the real effects of inflation even though people have to buy their cheap clothes at Walmart.

 

[Swiper]

what's so hard to comprehend? the debt ceiling is to pay off past debts and the debt constantly increases because the costs of goods, services, etc. constantly increases with time and as the dollar loses purchasing power.
.

my point exactly. he lied.

 

[caedus]

Queers

"May the force be with you all"

 

[LAM]

my point exactly. he lied.

and you had to believe him? so who's the stupid one?

just because somebody lies to you means you have to believe it? you certainly have no problem disregarding empirical and objective data but you can't do the same for lies or "promises" a politician can't or doesn't keep?

 

[caedus]

and you had to believe him? so who's the stupid one?

just because somebody lies to you means you have to believe it? you certainly have no problem disregarding empirical and objective data but you can't do the same for lies or "promises" a politician can't or doesn't keep?

Attention Morons...Swipe and Lam-tard.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he is willing to negotiate with Republicans over health care or any other topic, but only after Congress passes a short-term government funding measure and increases the debt limit.

"What I've said is that I will talk about anything," he said, after declaring in his opening statement, "We can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy."

Obama said that the United States could not afford to deal with "manufactured crises" over funding the government and paying its existing obligations.

"Think about it this way: The American people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs," he said. "You don't get a chance to call your bank and say I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox."

Obama also pointed out that the shutdown had occurred as a result of Republicans' strong opposition to the health care law he passed. "The way we got to this point was one thing and one thing only: this Republican obsession with dismantling the Affordable Care Act," he said. "Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- agree that health care should not have anything to do with keeping our government open or paying our bills on time."

He signaled openness to a short-term deal to end the shutdown, an idea floated by National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling on Monday. "It is the responsibility of Congress to decide how long and how often they want to vote on doing that, the important thing is that they not threaten default and that they not put our country on the brink of that,? Sperling said. "Longer is better for economic certainty and jobs, but it is ultimately up to them."

Obama also addressed the continued pain caused by sequestration, in response to a question from The Huffington Post's Sam Stein. "We?re willing to pass at least a short-term budget that opens up the government at current funding levels," he said. "It doesn?t even address the harm that?s been done because of sequestration."

But he said that even if sequestration cuts aren't reversed in the short-term, the government needs to be funded immediately. "What about all those thousands who?ve been hurt by sequester? The Democrats aren?t making that demand right now," he said. "We understand there?s going to have to be some give and take. What we are saying is, don?t hurt more people while we?re trying to resolve these differences. Let?s just at least make sure that we keep the lights on while we?re having these conversations."

Obama's comments came after he spoke with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) by phone earlier on Tuesday. Obama repeated his position that he wanted the House to pass a clean continuing resolution to fund the government and a debt limit hike before negotiating over the deficit. Boehner's reaction was not described in the call readouts from both offices, and a request for comment to the speaker's office was not returned.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST

"May the force be with you all"

 

[maniclion]

Remember back in the '80's when Reagan was chanting "No New Taxes!!!", well he was talking to them and not us. No new taxes for the Lords and Dukes of the Republic. He meant that the burden of financing the country would be placed on the collective shoulders of the middle class, propped up by the wobbly legs of the poor. Break us until we are good little serfs who expect little from the ruling classes, and will be grateful for any penance they so generously give from the bottom of their gracious hearts, and not as a pacifier to keep us contented...


To borrow an excerpt of a great article I clipped pertaining to this:
"The idea of the plan is basically to strangle democracy. This is done by privatizing everything, so that the aristocracy, who already own most of the private wealth in this country, will be able to farm the public - farm the serfs with debt, as the public used to be known during the feudal era. Now, however, the aristocracy are no longer based upon their passing on to their heirs vast landed estates with serfs, but passing on to them vast international corporations with employees and consumers; so, instead of acres, they pass on shares of stock. So, instead of feudalism, it's fascism. It is the modernized form of feudalism; it is conservative dictatorship for the world of today.

Their plan is working, brilliantly. They call it "libertarian," but the liberty is to be only for aristocrats. For everyone else, it's serfdom, if not outright slavery. Conservatives love hierarchy; it is morality, in their vision of things.

 

[Swiper]

and you had to believe him? so who's the stupid one?

just because somebody lies to you means you have to believe it? you certainly have no problem disregarding empirical and objective data but you can't do the same for lies or "promises" a politician can't or doesn't keep?

LOLO yeah i believe Obama is an honest man. LMAO!! he's a lying sack of shit just like all the other politicians.

 

[LAM]

Attention Morons...Swipe and Lam-tard.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he is willing to negotiate with Republicans over health care or any other topic, but only after Congress passes a short-term government funding measure and increases the debt limit.

"What I've said is that I will talk about anything," he said, after declaring in his opening statement, "We can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy."

Obama said that the United States could not afford to deal with "manufactured crises" over funding the government and paying its existing obligations.

"Think about it this way: The American people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs," he said. "You don't get a chance to call your bank and say I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox."

Obama also pointed out that the shutdown had occurred as a result of Republicans' strong opposition to the health care law he passed. "The way we got to this point was one thing and one thing only: this Republican obsession with dismantling the Affordable Care Act," he said. "Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- agree that health care should not have anything to do with keeping our government open or paying our bills on time."

He signaled openness to a short-term deal to end the shutdown, an idea floated by National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling on Monday. "It is the responsibility of Congress to decide how long and how often they want to vote on doing that, the important thing is that they not threaten default and that they not put our country on the brink of that,? Sperling said. "Longer is better for economic certainty and jobs, but it is ultimately up to them."

Obama also addressed the continued pain caused by sequestration, in response to a question from The Huffington Post's Sam Stein. "We?re willing to pass at least a short-term budget that opens up the government at current funding levels," he said. "It doesn?t even address the harm that?s been done because of sequestration."

But he said that even if sequestration cuts aren't reversed in the short-term, the government needs to be funded immediately. "What about all those thousands who?ve been hurt by sequester? The Democrats aren?t making that demand right now," he said. "We understand there?s going to have to be some give and take. What we are saying is, don?t hurt more people while we?re trying to resolve these differences. Let?s just at least make sure that we keep the lights on while we?re having these conversations."

Obama's comments came after he spoke with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) by phone earlier on Tuesday. Obama repeated his position that he wanted the House to pass a clean continuing resolution to fund the government and a debt limit hike before negotiating over the deficit. Boehner's reaction was not described in the call readouts from both offices, and a request for comment to the speaker's office was not returned.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST

"May the force be with you all"

so what's your point exactly? that your the one that's stupid enough to still be listening to what politicians say? I got off that train 25 years ago!

 

[Swiper]

so what's your point exactly? that your the one that's stupid enough to still be listening to what politicians say? I got off that train 25 years ago!

no I'm just calling out the potus on his lies and misinformation, because most citizen will believe every word that comes out of his mouth .

 

[caedus]

so what's your point exactly? that your the one that's stupid enough to still be listening to what politicians say? I got off that train 25 years ago!

You're so sweet

"May the force be with you all"

 

[caedus]

no I'm just calling out the potus on his lies and misinformation, because most citizen will believe every word that comes out of his mouth .

I think Obama is a great man

"May the force be with you all"

 

[HFO3]

Oh fuck! Neg party is in your future, negged twice today!

 

[caedus]

Oh fuck! Neg party is in your future, negged twice today!

Nobody cares HFO fuck u and fuck a neg party fag....Eat a dick you puny little wimp...Go workout queer

You would not like me when I'm angry

"May the force be with you all"

 

[HFO3]

lol

 

[caedus]

lol

Lol

"May the force be with you all"

 

[Swfl]

Nobody cares HFO fuck u and fuck a neg party fag....Eat a dick you puny little wimp...Go workout queer

You would not like me when I'm angry

"May the force be with you all"

If you only knew who you were talking to... HFO is huge! As soon as I get to a real computer the party shal begin

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4