Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks
You are wrong on many fronts.
Urban and Urbane both share the common root of the city.
Blue states are BIG net tax "takers" in that they consume federal dollars for infrastructure, government bureaucracy, and social programs.
Why do you blame the governor and give a free pass to the legislature? California is very similar to all the other blue states. Few legislators have the courage to cut the crazy social programs and public sector benefits. California has $200 billion in unfunded pensions --SWEET!!
|
There is really no reason to respond beyond this
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbane
The same latin root !=> same meaning, as in the case of urbane.
I'm sure you looked the word up and read that the meaning of urbane has nothing to do with urban. All you could mount was a lame defense that the words share the same root, and that lack of critical examination is indicitive of the whole piece and even your weak rebuttals.
In this case it is a clear error amongst many basic errors in fact riddled through the opinion piece. It's poorly written and you can't bring yourself to admit the basic errors from a guy who gets PAID to write opinions from the "premier" conservative think thank -- the same one John Bolton is at.
On California, if YOU READ what I said, you would see that the Republican governor had the goodwill of the people to fix things as opposed to the fragmented legislature. He failed miserably to forge a way through the difficulties.
The governor has the bully pulpit, the buck stops there.
Here is an examination of net federal tax receipents.
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/211...ianomoney.html
Money Quote:
Quote:
|
But according to the Tax Foundation, the main reason so many blue states pay so much more than they get back is that their residents tend to earn more money and pay more income tax. William Ahern, the editor of the foundation's reports, argues that if blue-staters voted their self-interest, they'd join his group in supporting Bush's efforts to undo the United States' progressive tax structure and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a backstop designed to catch upper-income tax avoiders. And red-staters, who are less well off, would stop supporting Bush and instead defend the progressive taxation that favors them. Not likely, Ahern concedes: "It appears they'll follow President Bush wherever he leads them" while Democrats will "obey their instinct" and battle Bush.
|
-- and yeah the Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org) is the same org 12clicks was posting information from, you should have no issues with the source.
I have no problem bias until you use bias as a substitute for facts -- you simply are not well read in the material you are posting and it shows by your absurd assertions that are based solely on bias. There are numerous sources where you could make far better cases about the red state - blue state paradigm -- even though it really is not useful analysis.
1.) States shift dramatically, even large states.
e.g. Texas went from "blue" to "red" in the 90s and is going "blue" very soon.
the dems almost have the state legislature, and are likely to turn the state by 2012.
2.) Smaller pop. states are over represented in Congress
This has a whole host of federal benefits (pork!).
etc...