…as has often been quoted, is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

I received an e-mail last week citing the ten poorest cities in the US and their political leaning. ALL ten were heavily Democratic and had consistently elected Democratic mayors for decades. What does that speak to?

The polls are less informative than they used to be because the political party system is breaking up. The true conservatives, unlike liberals, are not natural joiners. They tend to be more independent, self-sufficient types who mind their own business and do not get involved in things until they are on one’s doorstep.

We have been accustomed to a two party system for more than the lifetimes of anyone on this list so when the GOP was highjacked by the neocons true conservatives and libertarians are homeless. Getting reorganized will take some time since it is not a natural thing for them. The Democrats have internal strife to deal with, mostly between the conservative and liberal wings. It seems a wider and deeper rift than I can recall for a long time. Perhaps one or more new parties will emerge. That would be terrific.

The Democrats were (and many still are) drunk with the kool aid of Obama’s election and control of both Houses of Congress. Unfortunately for them, like most drunks, they do things they live to regret. They have overplayed their hand, gone too far in too many areas and failed to live up to the majority of the over-the-top promises they made during the campaigns. The result is a disillusioned support base and a disaffected middle. The results of this dynamic will likely begin to be seen with the elections today. The Administration is distancing themselves and will blame the candidates for these losses but the fact is they are the problem – White House and the Congress.

The most telling indications are the Congressional polls. These folks are regarded as below contempt by too many people. Perhaps there will be a grass roots move to oust anyone with an “incumbent” label. Overall, that would be a great move IMV. It would get rid of some trash and perhaps sober up the survivors.

and i could give you statistics that say red states have the highest child mortality rates, lowest educational levels and also the highest divorce rates. in fact, surprisingly it is utah.

the congressional polls put republicans even lower than democrats.

i beg you to form a conservative party, it will be the end of conservatives for a generation.

you're seriously full of deluded shit. as usual.

the fact remains the 10 biggest welfare states in the country are Red States, owned and operated by the GOP. democrat controled States wouldn't be struggling on budgets right now if the red welfare parasites didn't need to be subsidized.

"democrat controled States wouldn't be struggling on budgets right now if the red welfare parasites didn't need to be subsidized"

Please, elaborate.

DirtyBird:

The most telling indications are the Congressional polls. These folks are regarded as below contempt by too many people. Perhaps there will be a grass roots move to oust anyone with an “incumbent” label. Overall, that would be a great move IMV. It would get rid of some trash and perhaps sober up the survivors.

Yes. Let's look at those Congressional polls. And use the ONLY poll that the Right seems to believe....Rasmussen-

JULY 2008-

"The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category. …

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month." (my bold/underline)

OCTOBER 2009-

"Just 15% of voters now give Congress good or excellent ratings, while most (53%) rate the legislature as poor. Those ratings have held relative steady for the past few months but are noticeably worse than those found in May. At that time, 23% gave Congress positive ratings while 44% rated its performance as poor."

So....why didn't Repubs win Congress back in November 2008????

<link>

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

Yep. And the rest of the assertion I asked about?

you are always playing semantical games when the facts go against you.

So was it that you didn't understand the question, or don't know the answer?

not only did i elaborate but gave you the answer.

now, next question

Here is the claim that I asked about:

"democrat controled States wouldn't be struggling on budgets right now if the red welfare parasites didn't need to be subsidized"

You showed only information regarding the net flow of Federal dollars to some states. You have provided nothing that supports the assertion that that flow of funds has caused budget problems in other states.

I give you credit for trying where the howling moonbat who posted the claim originally has remained completely silent-- but that still doesn't mean you've come even close to answering the question.

ok here is the answer

lets take california as an example.

it only gets back .70 on the dollar for tax revenue sent to the feds.

because of money going to red states, they are not getting their full share.

then you say "how do you know"

because the formula favors the red states, who get more than they have put in, leaving less for california.

concrete example--california does not get reimbursed for illegals who are locked up and deported, even though it is the feds job. if money was being siphoned off, they could recoup their loss.

So if California's payments to the Feds equalled payments from the Feds, California would have no budget deficit?

Do you have a source for that?

"the formula favors the red states"

What "formula" do you mean?

The problem is too many considerations go into that formula. And Federal tax isn't adjusted for cost of living. For example a carpenter in Los Angles get nearly $50/hr per Davis Bacon wage rates. The same carpenter in Adams county, Mississippi makes $12.30/hr. Which pays more federal tax?

wolf, use your intuitive intelligence.

there is a formula based on many different scenarios and that is how the feds come up with the amount issued to each state.

surprisingly, over the past 5 years texas has gotten the largest amount of fed aid, even as that crazy governor talks secession.

californias deficit was 26 billion.

Despite a Republican governor and many contributors who dole

out millions of dollars in national campaign contributions, California receives far less from Washington, D.C., in return for the taxes it puts in.

For every dollar the state sent to Washington in 2002, the most recent year comprehensive figures are available, it got back only 77 cents in total federal expenditures. That gap totals $58 billion and puts the state 45th out of the 50 in getting it's tax dollars, well behind Texas and Florida.

in other words, california would have twice the amount of its deficit if not for money going to red states.