The Results Are In:Conservative States Prosper, Liberal States Decline

I whole heartedly agree with that.

Others will bring in certain states that economically do not appear to do well such as Mississippi, but they fail to realize the foot on ground concept. The people may not have much, may not have money, but they have a roof over their heads and are not carrying debt. Most of all, they're happy.

Unless like California, Illinois, New York, or Massachusetts, you become "too big to fail".

A State can fail, default, etc. The Federal government today won't allow that to happen.

What would happen if the Feds wiped all State debt? Since technically it is self serving...

I have to disagree.

This is an issue of the economy. It seems apparent that 'conservative' states are more secure than 'liberal' states. BTW, most 'liberal' states live near water...an economic necessity.

Yea, rivers and great sized lakes dont count

I do not understand your point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEC#Controversies - Really anymore than 5 controversies is too much......

Hmmm a conservative groups says conservative states are better who would have thought? Also brought you by "Why cat people are better than dog people" as written by cat people.

I think hes saying, even with the huge advantage of having ocean ports and shore line, the liberal states still fail?

Yeah mingo, let's not talk about the substance of the article at all. Let's go all Saul Alinsky and just immediately discredit the the entity reporting it.

Sorry, but Art Laffer has tons more credibility than you or NPR.

I just thought it was more of a comedy because "Red States" are the biggest welfare collectors. I cant discredit the report because its not there. There are no links or anything to the report (Do I have to buy it?), It seems to me the metrics they very vaguely refer to in the article has to do with "Domestic Immigration" and how it proves one state is doing better than another. And also for the record you are drawing the line in the sand, I think its stupid and counterproductive to say "Look at how simple the problem is its! liberals fault!"

Did you know that 98% of ALEC's funding comes from corporations? So its not like they represent the people..... So again Im wondering why I cant comment on the "Organization" that made this "report" that I cant comment on because I have no idea where it is.

Dude, if you think Im drinking the cool aid You are straight free basing it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-18/politics...

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas

From your link

Seriously?
You ever been to the Dakotas>
And then, why lump in South Dakota?
This is garbage, made for those lovely areas, talking on fly over area.
If you haven't been there, and know the people there, then you have no right to bigot yourself, as in this report, as they have, and talk for them, as to who and what they are.

More bigoted tripe

Wait, corporations are not made up of people? What are they then, cyborgs?

http://www.alec.org/docs/RSPS_5th_Edition.pdf here Ive done the heavy lifting , reporting googling.

Cyborgs then?

Yes they are cyborgs. And I have my tin foil hat on.

That is especially funny coming from you. Maybe change bigoted to "I dont agree with" and calling me a bigot. Thats great coming from a mod all I did was link to an article. You are blind if take issue with what I just posted and not with anyone else's posting. F*cking ridiculous.

Im not calling you a bigot, unless you wrote that.

Reread what I wrote.
This is bigoted, simply a coastal attitude.


I take issue with this, as it isnt a true reflection of that state, nor its people.
I cant make you see this. Again, Im not calling you a bigot, but your link contains things that are.

Look to South Dakota for example, and how they just lumped them in.
Start there

You really can't see how absurd that assertion is? Corporations are made up of people. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people; working in conjunction to achieve prosperity.

Corporations are not some skynet master control computer program.

No they aren't sknynet (Unless you could make skynet profitable).

This is not good for democracy. I didn't vote for the Koch brothers but they can spend money getting laws created that benefits someone. You don't get to make laws just because you are wealthy.

Several things werent even taken into account .
Population density, amounts.
Its a ratio, but leaves no explanation, and uses attitudes to prove it.

Try looking into federal lands, use that ratio per dollar, see what happens?
The usage of individualistic attitudes, is a bigoted phrase, as it classes these people, without any knowledge of the people there in.

A ratio is a poor way to actually look into some things.
They act like North Dakota gets over twice the fed monies that California gets.


Used for divisiveness, not gathered in fact.
At least common sense.
I too would like to see further linkage to OMGs link, to quantify its claims, but mingo, your link shows its shortcomings right up front

Wait a second. Don't you need a lawmaker to go along? Don't you vote for said lawmaker? Can you not vote the lawmaker out of office if they suck?

Taking another tact, look into salaries, or gross domestic incomes.
Notice that the majority of businesses are in the blue states, and so too the corps.
Now, having high taxes to the feds needs to be evenly distributed, not by divisive methods of who pays more etc.
But, overall incomes.

As the taxes mount, costs increase, and wages go up, a false growth, created by/thru taxation and excessive regulation.
So, in Cali, you make 60K a year and scrape by, while in the Dakotas, youre high in cotton.

It isnt the effect of federal dollars making these states, its that fact they have less to pay that is.
Which only leads to one thing

You are really OK with this? Then there is nothing else to say.

I dont approve of having a group funded solely by large corporations (These aren't mom + pops these are Exxon's). Im not playing this stupid game with you today. You seem like a sharp guy I know you know how politics works so stop acting like a little kid.

It doesnt make any sense to say that the actions of a group pushing legislation is just fine because "No one has been voted out of office", because if it was a problem someone surely would have already voted them out. You know how lobbies work? You should look into it if you dont. So its not the fault of the group putting bills in front of politicians, its not the fault of the politician's for not reading a bill closely or just not giving a f*ck about what is in it. Its the American peoples fault for not getting rid of the bad element. Its like Stockholm syndrome, its unbelievable really.

You have such a black and white image of the world and gee that must be nice. If only everything were so simple.

And @JDJ I have no idea what you are talking about. The link I gave was valid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Here 16 of the 20 top receivers of government money are conservative states. Numbers dont lie.

Then reread what I typed.
Ratios mean nada, zip
Not the way theyre being used.
You certainly know math, then understand, those barely getting by making 60K a year vs those making 30K and doing OK, and their respective taxes, and brackets as well, then a fair distribution of federal monies, where again, you find most of those states are actuall federally held lands, and cant produce for the government anyways, as well as upkeep costs, which may, or may not be included in all these numbers.

Nothing hard to understand here.
You have much greater assets (the feds) in low populated states, where the average income is lower than other states, is it so hard to understand?

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html#us

Now, looking at a few maps, things become clearer.
It would also be better understood if those monies included reservations as well.

The individualistic comment on the one link is slanted, tilted and creating a box.
Looking at reality, the incomes, the needs, the size of assets etc clearly show why.

Ok, if you want to block the Koch brothers from having access would you also block all unions, the ACLU, NAACP, Tim Robbins, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, and Alex Baldwin?

Just want to know if you are going to apply the blocking of access fairly or only on organizations you don't agree with or like.

In my perspective, because of fed lands and adjoining monies going to these states, why isnt Alaska always No. 1?
Look to two things, income and taxes/corps/business, or oil