Lay Offs - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

striperman36 · 11-12-2012, 06:51 PM

kerry's would be up for re-election in 2014, I'm not sure anyone would want to serve as an interim senator twice

PaulS · 11-13-2012, 01:03 PM

Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

RIJIMMY · 11-13-2012, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=PaulS;969237]Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

QUOTE]

Paul, the red states own most of the oil, natural gas, and farmland. They also own 90% of the trade with south america and most of the industry in the US. They'd do just fine. perhaps blue states could add a tarrif on hollywood exports?

The subsidies you reference dont come from blue states, they come from all states and its not just blue paying into the pot. If we didnt have all these federal programs and taxes, maybe there wouldnt be a need for subsidies?

detbuch · 11-13-2012, 01:48 PM

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;969248]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

QUOTE]

Paul, the red states own most of the oil, natural gas, and farmland. They also own 90% of the trade with south america and most of the industry in the US.

I guess Paul missed that part of the trade about who would get who. I think he also missed that the separation was not about hate but mutual disagreement--an amicable "divorce." Maybe he was just projecting his own emotion.

The subsidies you reference dont come from blue states, they come from all states and its not just blue paying into the pot. If we didnt have all these federal programs and taxes, maybe there wouldnt be a need for subsidies?

Good point. And subsidies not only create their own need, they are a method of controlling. They are not entirely about nice-nice.

PaulS · 11-13-2012, 01:50 PM

I didn't miss anything. Sounds like conjecture on your part.

detbuch · 11-13-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

I didn't miss anything. Sounds like conjecture on your part.

Yes, it is conjecture on my part, I don't pretend to know what is precisely on your mind. That's why I said that I GUESS you missed the part about who would get what (which would reasonbly allow the red states to do without subsidies), and the part that went "Our two ideological sides of America cannot ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconciliable differences and go our own way."

I didn't see any "hate" there and "conjectured" that maybe you missed that part. Apparently, I was wrong. You missed nothing and came to the conclusion that it was about hate. I apologize for my misconception.

Raider Ronnie · 11-13-2012, 01:47 PM

Hey Paul
I've got family that have fought and died in every war this country has fought going back to ww2 and up to this current war we been fighting.
You call Obama's Chicago mafia style of running this country patriotic with soldiers votes not being counted , this cover up in Bengazi 1st throwing Hillary under the bus now this general sex scandal who just do happens to have damaging testimony soon coming !

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 11-13-2012, 01:47 PM

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less. Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

detbuch · 11-13-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.

Apparently, red states being the greedy bastids they are have suckered the blue states into this arrangement. Gosh, those red-necks aren't as dumb as we thought. Play the beligerent, backward, child who fails so that the well meaning, productive, and generous step brothers and sisters take pity and "subsidize" him. You'd think it would be the blue states who would want to secede from this arrangement. But they so love the country that they would rather suffer the financial imposition, besides, they prefer that socialist trajectory--to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

Wouldn't that be a good riddance for the blue states? Get those Texas leaches off the welfare rolls? But the blues wouldn't let that happen. Probly send in the troops like the strong parents they are and hush-hush the spoiled little munchkins who don't really know what's good for them. Mommy and daddy and nanny know what's good, and how to take care of even the wayward children.

detbuch · 11-13-2012, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.

This has been brought up a few times before as if it means something. Perhaps it does. Supposedly, by those who bring it up, it means something like the red states are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off of the blue states and need the Fed to redistribute the "more back" or they would not be able to survive. Ergo, they should quit complaining about state's rights and government redistribution and individual freedom and all that nonsense. It even implies more, that those in the red states are not as competent as those in the blue, that they are somehow backward and a drag on the country. It even implies that red states are the welfare queens that so many of their people rail against.

But that is, in my opion, a shallow, narrow, one-sided, false interpretation of the meaning. The "more back" is not some blank check. It is not a gift. Nor would the states collapse without it. On the whole, the states would do well enough if they could reverse the rates of taxation so that they could collect the federal rates and the fed was limited to the average state rates. Even more so if they didn't have to spend much of the "more back" as well as their own to fulfill central government mandates. If it were up to them to decide social policies as was intended, they could fit those policies to their fiscal realities and to their social values. And they would have to be more responsible to their citizens desires than a far-off and irresponsible government with pockets that exceeds it's income.

And most of that "more back" is given to individuals not to the states. The money may be spent by those individuals in the state or in other states or countries. More and more is spent on internet purchases. And money such as social security and medicare and welfare receipts are given to some who reside in states other than in which they earned those receipts. And that "more back" is a way to create dependency on the central government, especially for things that should be decided at state levels. It is as much coersion as it is beneficence.

The "more back" is a red herring that draws attention away from the direction of our system of government.

Piscator · 11-13-2012, 02:09 PM

I love this country but question it's leadership and the people who try to take out more than they put in............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RIJIMMY · 11-13-2012, 02:31 PM

Paul, its simple. I dont have unconditional love for this country. If the things I love go away, then why bother?
You're red vs blue is so misinformed. its about income tax - fed revenue generated. not revenue generated in Blue vs red, Most blue states make $$ of work/labor done in red states. to the original email. imagine if we did split blue to red? Blue states would be out of energy and food in a week if red states didnt trade with you.