Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
You have yet to disprove any of the numerous examples showing how the red states lag in every? major social welfare category. Instead you only bring up income tax.
You have samples based on 331,000,000 (a very "credible" number) data points yet you constantly try to look a very small (ten thousand or so) sample and state some red state is better bc of that infinitesimal sample.
Almost 40% of Kansas' GDP is based on fed spending.
|
I have never denied that red states lag in certain statistics. This is why I wouldn't throw a dart at a map of a red state and move there.
You're doing what they all do, you're responding to something I never said. I never said every part of Mississippi is better than every part of CT. I said there are huge advantages of living in CT.
But I also said this, and I dare you to refute it...there are specific areas of the US, nice small towns with a high quality of life that do well on the statistics you'd cite, AND those places have a very low tax cost compared to other places with a high quality of life. But the places that offer a high quality of life at a low cost, are disproportionately (if not entirely) in red states. And these are the places that successful, productive, self-sufficient families from blue states, are moving to in big numbers.
I don't think you can prove that those places can't exist without tax money from Greenwich.
You are painting entire red states with the same brush. If I move to Franklin, TN (an absolutely BOOMING suburb of Nashville), I don't care that Memphis is awful, it has no impact on my quality of life. Zip.
Paul, if you were right and those states were so bad, why are people moving there? There are beautiful suburbs in NH where they can't build $600,000 houses fast enough. Who do you think is moving there? Meth heads? Trailer trash folks are buying all those big new houses?