Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Spanky]

Originally posted by paigowprincess


I heard she is uncircumcised.

I don't get this one either. Are you trying to imply she is really a man or is this some weird reference to female circumscission, or something else way beyond me?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Fook aff, you.

I rented L4YER CAKE and couldn't understand a thing they were saying. I had to watch it twice. It needed subtitles (like Trainspotting and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
With all due respect, Spanky, I don't understand how this supports your argument. You're saying where the federal dollars come from, but they are still federal dollars.

Also, if big government projects and military bases are overrepresented in the small (I presume this = red) states, how is it then that fewer people are employed by the government in those states? Are you talking fewer in absolute numbers, or in percentages?

My instinct is that people in the large/blue states are more productive than people in the small/red states. You may sneer at what they produce, but they still produce stuff that people pay money for.

Maybe he does not count the military people as residents of the red states in which they are stationed.

Originally posted by Spanky
I was beginning to sense that all is not well between you and Robust Puppy.

I have had to stop reading posts beginning with "Originally posted by Robust Puppy" but I get the sense she does not care to be ignored, even though it is by me who she never had any respect for in the first place. Go figure.

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't get this joke. Can some one explain it to me?

Are you playihg dumb?

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't get this one either. Are you trying to imply she is really a man or is this some weird reference to female circumscission, or something else way beyond me?

It ties into the scintillating discussion on the Drivel Board about the pros and cons of circumcision. I don't even know what female circumcision could be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The tax burdens are much lower in the smaller states. They may get more from the Federal Government but that is because they are overrepresented in the Senate. In addition, big government projects and the military bases are overrepresented in the small states.

Where they have total control over the size of Government it is smaller.

In the small states tax burdens are lighter and less people are employed by the government.

Spanky, this makes no sense. You admit that the red states like to grab a disproportionate share of federal spending. (Much of this comes from funding things like agricultural subsidies that simply cannot be justified on your holier-than-thou patriotism/free market/conservatism grounds -- it's not just contriving to move military bases and FBI offices to their states -- but whatever.) Then you try to suggest that there's some larger anti-government principle at work, but what's the basis for the crazy idea that "when they have total control over the size of Government it is smaller"? We have a system that doesn't give any region total control (although the (red) South is coming as close as anyone has in a while and thanks to that we have a massive spending spree).

Why not just admit that red state politicians like to talk a good line about reducing the size of government, but most of that are hypocrites who just say this to be elected? Fact is, government subsidies -- agricultural, railroad, military -- made those states' economies what they are, and they don't want to change.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, this makes no sense. You admit that the red states like to grab a disproportionate share of federal spending. (Much of this comes from funding things like agricultural subsidies that simply cannot be justified on your holier-than-thou patriotism/free market/conservatism grounds -- it's not just contriving to move military bases and FBI offices to their states -- but whatever.)

A large proportion does not come from Agricultural subsidies. As much as I hate them they are are really small part of the GNP and a small part of the income of even the most agricultural states.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Then you try to suggest that there's some larger anti-government principle at work, but what's the basis for the crazy idea that "when they have total control over the size of Government it is smaller"? We have a system that doesn't give any region total control (although the (red) South is coming as close as anyone has in a while and thanks to that we have a massive spending spree).

You guys are taking an insignificant statistic and blowing it way out of proportion. So the average red state pays .85 cents in for every $1.10 it gets back. That doesn't mean that all these states are sucking up vast quantities of tax dollars and are dependent on bloated bueracracies. These smaller states have much smaller state governments and their federal revenue per capita is a little bigger than the large states. For example they spend a great deal less on education and on average get better results for their expenditures.

You guys are making it sound like that amount of money they pay less in taxes is made up by the extra revenue paid to them by the federal government. The two numbers are not even close.

The average Californian or New Yorker has a much higher tax burden than the average person in Arizona or Montana. And this is not because they are being subsidized by the large states. The extra federal revenue does not even come close to explaining the lower tax burden. They have less tax burden because they have less government. It is that simple.

In the large states a much larger percentage of the GDP is spent on government and larger percentage of the economy is dependent on government. Those are the numbers that matter.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Why not just admit that red state politicians like to talk a good line about reducing the size of government, but most of that are hypocrites who just say this to be elected? Fact is, government subsidies -- agricultural, railroad, military -- made those states' economies what they are, and they don't want to change.

As usual, with your typical socialist thinking, you think government revenue and expenditures drive the economy instead of draining the economy. Small states economies are not driven by federal expenditures. Like the rest of America most of these states GDP is produced by small businesses. Federal revenue is just frosting on the cake. In addition, they don't have the huge state bueracracies the large states have. California and New York have a higher percentage of their people employed by the government, because they have huge state buercracies. Yes - more people are employed by the Federal government in small states but that does not even come close to making up for the amount of people that are not employed by their state government (as compared to the large states).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I have ACL tickets for sale if someone is interested in purchasing them. Please PM or IM me if so. Thanks.

Have you talked to str8?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by paigowprincess


I have had to stop reading posts beginning with "Originally posted by Robust Puppy" but I get the sense she does not care to be ignored, even though it is by me who she never had any respect for in the first place. Go figure.

[SlaveNoMore]

robustpuppy

Et tu, puppi-e?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
A large proportion does not come from Agricultural subsidies. As much as I hate them they are are really small part of the GNP and a small part of the income of even the most agricultural states.

You are not really responding to what I said. I referred to things "like" agricultural subsidies.

You guys are taking an insignificant statistic and blowing it way out of proportion. So the average red state pays .85 cents in for every $1.10 it gets back. That doesn't mean that all these states are sucking up vast quantities of tax dollars and are dependent on bloated bueracracies. These smaller states have much smaller state governments and their federal revenue per capita is a little bigger than the large states. For example they spend a great deal less on education and on average get better results for their expenditures.

What are we blowing out of proportion? All we said is that politicians from these states make a lot of noise about big government, but that these states are subsidized by those of us in the blue states. This is true.

You guys are making it sound like that amount of money they pay less in taxes is made up by the extra revenue paid to them by the federal government. The two numbers are not even close.

One, I don't know what this has to do with what we said. Two, show me the numbers.

The average Californian or New Yorker has a much higher tax burden than the average person in Arizona or Montana. And this is not because they are being subsidized by the large states. The extra federal revenue does not even come close to explaining the lower tax burden. They have less tax burden because they have less government. It is that simple.

Since the average Californian or New Yorker is much more economically productive than the average Arizonan or Montanan, it should not surprise you that, having more money, they decide to tax themselves more so that their government can do more things.

In the large states a much larger percentage of the GDP is spent on government and larger percentage of the economy is dependent on government. Those are the numbers that matter.

Matter to what? The truth remains that the small-government-talking red-state conservatives are happy to use the federal government as an instrument to siphon wealth from our states to theirs. And since this crowd has been running the federal government in recent years, they have spent money like drunken sailors, run massive budget deficits, and generally screwed up the country's fiscal house, all the while spouting this pablum about small government.

As usual, with your typical socialist thinking, you think government revenue and expenditures drive the economy instead of draining the economy.

When did I say any such thing? You're hallucinating.

Small states economies are not driven by federal expenditures.

Senator Thune and most of the residents of western South Dakota disagree you with you, but so what? Even if you're right, it's not stopping conservative politicians from spending federal money for their constituents.

Like the rest of America most of these states GDP is produced by small businesses. Federal revenue is just frosting on the cake. In addition, they don't have the huge state bueracracies the large states have. California and New York have a higher percentage of their people employed by the government, because they have huge state buercracies. Yes - more people are employed by the Federal government in small states but that does not even come close to making up for the amount of people that are not employed by their state government (as compared to the large states).

So? Is this supposed to be responsive to something I said?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fact is, government subsidies -- agricultural, railroad, military -- made those states' economies what they are, and they don't want to change.

Some of this stuff, sure, is a subsidy. (although I imagine California gets as much as anywhere). But sending military money is hardly a subsidy. I'm as protected by a naval base in Virginia or Mississippi as I am by one in Maine or New York. And same for where they build the battleships. Sending the money to a particular state is certainly political, but it's not a subsidy, because I'm still getting the benefit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are not really responding to what I said. I referred to things "like" agricultural subsidies.

The point is that it is a small part of the GDP of these states

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What are we blowing out of proportion? All we said is that politicians from these states make a lot of noise about big government, but that these states are subsidized by those of us in the blue states. This is true.

Yes it is true (although I have not seen the numbers I am just trusting you guys on this) just because they recieve slighlty more in federal revenue does not mean they are more dependant on government. You are saying it does.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Since the average Californian or New Yorker is much more economically productive than the average Arizonan or Montanan,

Cite. Really?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop it should not surprise you that, having more money, they decide to tax themselves more so that their government can do more things.,

Do you understand what the word proportional means? They spend a higher percentage of their GDP not just more money. And our governments don't do more things they just spend more money. We spend more money on education yet have larger class sizes. Go figure.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Matter to what? The truth remains that the small-government-talking red-state conservatives are happy to use the federal government as an instrument to siphon wealth from our states to theirs. And since this crowd has been running the federal government in recent years, they have spent money like drunken sailors, run massive budget deficits, and generally screwed up the country's fiscal house, all the while spouting this pablum about small government. .,

The fact remains that these small states have smaller state governments. They have all this century.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Senator Thune and most of the residents of western South Dakota disagree you with you, but so what? Even if you're right, it's not stopping conservative politicians from spending federal money for their constituents..,

No they don't. They might like getting Federal dollars, who wouldn't, they spend less per person on government in South Dakota because they have a much small (proportionally smaller) state government than the big states.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So? Is this supposed to be responsive to something I said?

Yes - it completely refutes your position that the Red States are being hypocritical when they talk about small government. Small states spend a smaller proportion of their GDP on government because their state governments are proportionally smaller. The extra federal revenue does significantly changes this proportion. They pay less money in taxes and less money is spent on government proportionally (even with the extra federal money) than the large states.

The small red states believe in smaller government and they practice what they preach. The tax themselves less and the proportional revenue from all government programs they receive is less than people in big states. That is the reality despite all the hot air you guys have been spewing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Some of this stuff, sure, is a subsidy. (although I imagine California gets as much as anywhere). But sending military money is hardly a subsidy. I'm as protected by a naval base in Virginia or Mississippi as I am by one in Maine or New York. And same for where they build the battleships. Sending the money to a particular state is certainly political, but it's not a subsidy, because I'm still getting the benefit.

If every state received $1.00 in federal spending for every $1.00 paid in taxes, there'd be no subsidy. The fact that some states receive much more of the largess than they pay for results in a subsidy.

And surely you get some benefit from military bases, but I don't think Senator Thune, Senator Johnson, and Representative Herseth were working so hard to save Ellsworth Air Force Base out of a commitment to the national commonweal.