Harrassed By Doug Jones

[TexasTiger 12,847]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Proof. I doubt CA sends one cent to Alabama. States don't send money to another state.

They send more to the Feds than they get and Bama gets far more than it sends. The Feds are the middle man, but blue states are largely the funders.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

They send more to the Feds than they get and Bama gets far more than it sends. The Feds are the middle man, but blue states are largely the funders.

Blue states should send more money because they are democratic and states like Alabama have a larger % of people receiving entitlements supported by the Dems "great society."

[homersapien 11,370]

11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Blue states should send more money because they are democratic and states like Alabama have a larger % of people receiving entitlements supported by the Dems "great society."

Exactly.   Blue states are more economically successful than red states, who need the help.

Very good!

[AUDub 11,147]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What they are talking about is that CA (among other states) sends more money to the federal government in taxes than they get back from the federal government for various programs and such.  Alabama on the other hand receives more money from the federal gov't than they send to it in federal taxes.  Thus the case can be made that states like CA, NY and so on who pay more than they receive back are subsidizing states like AL who receive back more than they pay.

I'm surprised it needed to be spelled out, but there you go.

[homersapien 11,370]

18 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm surprised it needed to be spelled out, but there you go.

I'm not.  in fact, it's gotten to the point where nothing much surprises me in this forum. 

[TexasTiger 12,847]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Blue states should send more money because they are democratic and states like Alabama have a larger % of people receiving entitlements supported by the Dems "great society."

You didn't mention military bases or the fact the state government does such a poor job managing the local society.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You didn't mention military bases or the fact the state government does such a poor job managing the local society.

I think every state has some kind of major military facility. CA has more than any I know of. What state does a good job managing the local society........whatever that is.

[TexasTiger 12,847]

45 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I think every state has some kind of major military facility. CA has more than any I know of. What state does a good job managing the local society........whatever that is.

Who created Alabama's poverty? Poor schools? Inadequate healthcare? The Feds?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

23 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who created Alabama's poverty? Poor schools? Inadequate healthcare? The Feds?

All of the above contributed to it.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Lol, well don't call Doug Jones office after they text you. The lady that answered the phone was rude, snarky, cut me off, and then hung up. Mean I'm the one being harassed daily with calls and texts I don't want.

If his staff is representative of how things will work under him then Alabama is screwed with either candidate as is the country.

And yes, I was polite when speaking with her.

[TexasTiger 12,847]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

All of the above contributed to it.

Don't excel on multiple choice tests, I see.

[DKW 86 7,419]

We got a robocall from Big Cheeto last night that we let go to the answering machine. It ran about 3.5 minutes. I despise and detest robo calls and now I dont want to even hear DJT ever speak again. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

16 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Proof. I doubt CA sends one cent to Alabama.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Don't excel on multiple choice tests, I see.

Dear lord I hope you aren't a teacher because you're awful at giving multiple choice tests, I see.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/11/2017 at 11:10 AM, homersapien said:

Exactly.   Blue states are more economically successful than red states, who need the help.

Very good!

More tar baby rhetoric from Homer.

From a consumption analysis - red states are richer, blue states are poorer. 

[TexasTiger 12,847]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Dear lord I hope you aren't a teacher because you're awful at giving multiple choice tests, I see.

You're awful at recognizing when you're not seeing one-- among other things.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You're awful at recognizing when you're not seeing one-- among other things.

“Inferred” it from your comment.

[homersapien 11,370]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

More tar baby rhetoric from Homer.

From a consumption analysis - red states are richer, blue states are poorer. 

Perhaps that's why we need the help!   

[homersapien 11,370]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

More tar baby rhetoric from Homer.

From a consumption analysis - red states are richer, blue states are poorer. 

And how is that "tar baby" rhetoric? 

(And where did you pick up that term?  )

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps that's why we need the help!   

If I post a Forbes article, will you read it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And how is that "tar baby" rhetoric? 

(And where did you pick up that term?  )

Well, the person who I first experienced coin the term never really told me what it meant. 

I picked it up from a message board guru!!!

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If I post a Forbes article, will you read it?

Forbes!?  You've got to be kidding. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Forbes!?  You've got to be kidding. 

I take that as a no 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Forbes!?  You've got to be kidding. 

If we measure by consumption patterns then it's the blue states that are poor, the red states that are rich:

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

That particular piece then goes on to chunter away about how appalling it is that people aren't willing to vote for more blue state type of policies and how this will be the end of America. However, the really interesting part of it is that part quoted above. For it speaks to something that economists just keep trying to point out to people. Yes, sure, income inequality might be important in a way, wealth inequality should have a place in our thoughts. But what really matters to people about how life is lived is consumption. Levels of consumption and also consumption inequality. That last is important in a political sense currently because consumption inequality just hasn't widened out as much as income and wealth inequality have. And levels of consumption: well, that's really what income or wealth is, the ability to purchase consumption. And if you're in a place where prices are lower, leading to greater consumption (whether of food, or square feet of housing, or leisure, or whatever), well, then you're richer, aren't you?

 

 

And thus is our conundrum solved. The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.

...........Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher. There is therefore no conundrum. The richer people, by the only standard that actually matters, that consumption, are voting right wing, the poorer are voting left.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 12/9/2017 at 7:02 PM, Brad_ATX said:

Yes, you do.  Alabama in it's current form could not sustain itself without federal funding help.  If that were to be cut off today, Alabama would be in really dire financial shape.

NO, I don't want Alabama to be dependent on federal monies as apparently the two of you do.  I prefer that Alabama get off the big gov't. heroin and become self-sufficient again.

On 12/9/2017 at 7:03 PM, Bigbens42 said:

Well, tough luck. We are and we need it. We couldn't afford a lot of things otherwise. Hell, I work in a non-profit Children's hospital. Have any idea how ****** we would be without said funding?