cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

I never said Louisiana was wealthy.  Louisiana is like most other states in the nation in dealing with budget shortfalls.  Texas is wealthy.  The federal government has a hand in those things you mention, military bases, etc., in every state.  Those didn't make that state wealthy.  Oil did and people there who knew what to do with the money.  The school and university systems there are very well funded with some huge endowment money that comes from oil.  How is Illinois doing financially?  Getting billions upon billions from the federal government and still going down the tubes, isn't it?  At least Louisiana has had some natural and unnatural disasters to blame.  You have nothing but crooked politicians and poor policy for the financial mess there.  Notice I don't have to use multiple punctuation points to get my point across.  Of course, you won't understand no matter how I write it just because you don't want to.  The bottom line is that you won't have much of a country without the south.  I know you find that as distasteful as I do but you are stuck with us. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

  The most recent data from 2005 has Louisiana collecting $1.74 for every $1. paid in and you're #4 on the list, and Illinois is #45 and receives $0.75 for every $1. paid in. Yeah, we're really sucking the federal teet pretty hard, huh???????

 

  Texas, with all their supposed wealth is ABOVE Illinois also, collecting $0.94 for every $1. paid in. Do you want to include how much for-profit prison labor adds to their GDP too?????????????? Are you using a Dell computer by chance??????

 

  The only thing that you are remotely right about is, yes, we're stuck with you.

Senior Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

How come it is those   red states that get more than they pay in? And not those high population blue states with all those unemployed welfare recipients?

 

In addition, thopse Texicans and Alaskans are both blessed with natural resources from which comes royalties that most fund the state government. In the case Of Alaska their citizens even get royalty payments from the state. But Caribou Sarah still couldn't make that work even with the money for the bridge to nowhere that she didn't build.

 

The truth is both states are regular visitors to the federal trough mostly because they elected people of power and influence to the congress and the white house. Nope they do not need to preach fiscal responsibility or self reliance to me. They are not familiar with either one

 

As I recall the government of the united states bought Alaska from Russia. Why aren't we getting the royalties rather than Sarah and her types?

 

 

 

 

 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

May be social security is figured in. Many people who retire move south.

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

You use pre-Obama numbers to make your point about Illinois?  2005 is when Katrina went through so Louisiana's numbers may look different today.  Texas is growing so the fact that federal government money flows to areas of growth for infrastructure improvements seems to make sense to me.  Louisiana's numbers may still be high because we do have a fairly large population of citizens that the Democrats love to support with their various welfare programs so they don't ever have to go to work.  Taking any of that away would be politically incorrect and may cost them some votes. 

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

I do appreciate the compliment.  The south today is a great place to live and to visit. 

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Texas is in the top three states in population and still growing as others are losing population.  There are interstate highways being built, added to and improved.  The airports in the major cities are constantly being improved.  Hurricane Rita went through Houston in 2005, the year toolbag uses for his proof also.  Lots of federal dollars used then.  Texas is also full of people who the government supports whether they are citizens or not, able-bodied and don't care to work, etc. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

  That is a long term trend, going all the way back to WWII, and you want me and everybody else to believe that since January 20, 2009 suddenly that trend has changed, or as you imply reversed???????

 

  Do the research and check out welfare rates and the areas that are considered living below poverty. I'll give you a hint at where to start, it's in the red states also.  Yeah, it's all those "democrats" fault, you know because you Southerners ELECT SO MANY OF THEM!!!!!! 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Reading through the list, I have a little different theory.  Take a state like Montana for inance.  They rank at #11.  We all know it is a huge state with a small population.  I'm wondering if it has something to do with interstate highways and such.  There's a lot of miles through Montana even though they have a relatively low population.  Wyoming is #23 and it is a relatively rich state where the residents don't even have a state income tax.  Plus, there's military bases.  The numbers definitely get skewed due to low populations.  Look at California's rank even though they're on the brink of bankruptcy. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

??????????

??????????

 

RE: Wealthy Texas

 

 

http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/texas-budget-mess-now-as-bad-as-californias

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05c93fa0-ecec-11df-9912-00144feab49a.html#axzz15ebGWZiP

 

We ar sitting at 6B short here in Minnesota, so I'm sort of throwing  stones out of a glass house, but 26 is alot...as is 6. Big troubles on many fronts in most states...and difficult work ahead for legislators and Governors to get them trimmed. I can't see how it can help but touch nearly everbody in some way. Then we will see the real political fallout of it all after the touchin' has been done. It's going to be purely awful for consumer purchasing power.