reagansghost
eternal
welcome aboard!!
Seems the Blue States are still funding the Red States
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
welcome aboard!!
Democrats gained 40 seats and won by 10,000,000 votes in the House aggregate (and 20,000,000 in the Senate).
In 2010 during the first midterms under Obama, Democrats lost over 60 seats.
Since we don't vote for House members or Senators based on a national aggregate, trying to make that appear as something it isn't is the same as using the claim that Hillary won a type vote we don't count to pick President as meaning she won.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
And not one was a Democrat!
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Who gives a flying fuck? Let see what happens in 2020 you idiots were so positive Hillary had it sewed up in 2016.
reagansghost
eternal
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Who gives a flying fuck? Let see what happens in 2020 you idiots were so positive Hillary had it sewed up in 2016.
reagansghost
eternal
so did everyone else, dark horse Putin pulled it off unfortunately
Yes, let's see. If 2018 was any indication, 2020 will be even worse for you.
You don't give a flying fuck about election results?
Then why are you boasting about one that happened 3 years ago?
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
So the blue states stay blue and the red states get redder? Works for me. What am I supposed to be afraid of as long as those collage boys keep paying for all that red state welfare?
Military spending has nothing to do with the number of people in Georgia getting means tested benefits. So, that military spending is not going to Georgia because it has a lot of poor people or a low tax structure. It is going to Georgia because the state kept electing Democrats who gained seniority on defense committees and used that influence to get military spending for their state.
Should we stop giving those poor people in Georgia federal social benefits so the blue states no longer have to subsidize them?
Last edited:
But it's a welfare program, though. Taxpayers paying for jobs.
Also, this has nothing to do with the state of GA (and many other red states) raiding the welfare block grant to close budget gaps.
I never said it did!
What I said was that GA raids the welfare block grant to close its budget gaps from low taxes.
This is a non-sequitur.
No, Georgia should raise its taxes so it doesn't have to rely on the welfare block grant to close its budget gaps.
You missed the point. Military spending in Georgia ($12 billion) is far more than its welfare benefits but it has nothing to do with being a poor state or a red state. It got all those military based when it was a blue state. The point is that a lot of that federal money is not going to "poor people in red states" like several posters suggested but to military spending that has nothing to do with the poor.
Flash, bubbulah, the state budget of Georgia doesn't include military spending, but it does include welfare spending from the welfare block grant. It's that block grant, handed to the state to incorporate into its budget, from where the legislators are pulling funds to close budget gaps caused by low taxes.
Look at States like SC, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama. In each one of them, the blue districts are the one where food stamps are used on, by far, the greatest basis. What's interesting is that each one of them is a gerrymandered majority minority district with well over a 50% black majority. Coincidence? Not hardly. Typical? Absolutely.
It's about time those blue districts and their enormous use of social welfare get the blame not the red state as a whole. The red districts aren't anywhere close to using the percentages the blue ones use and they're majority white. Coincidence? No. What is expected? Absolutely.