Digg - Red State Socialism: 84% Red States Take More Than They Give

512 Comments
Who Dugg It?

niradg, on 10/29/2008, -15/+174Good chart, but you totally bungled the description- should read "of the 32 states that get more than they give in Federal Tax dollars, ..." if you email Digg support they can fix it for you.
- michaelpinto, on 10/29/2008, -6/+47I wish Digg would allow you to edit your own items after you submit ala Flickr!
  - apastafarian, on 10/29/2008, -2/+46I can't agree. If the editing were only done to correct typo's, small errors like the one above and the like it would be fine. Unfortunately, if editing were allowed you would have more than a few posters changing their comments in reaction to replies. I think it would kill thread continuity and lead to even more squabbling than usual around here.
  - TVarmy, on 10/31/2008, -2/+26Another issue: A person could post something that makes it to the front page, then take advantage by changing it to a story to suit their own personal agenda without the community's proper support. That'd be terrible.
  - opiniastrous, on 10/31/2008, -0/+12True. Perhaps have a time limit on it like comments then?
  - joand315, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2A time limit for editing after the submission would be great
- alwor, on 10/30/2008, -4/+44And there are more good numbers: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/80714812. ...
  - cherwilco, on 10/31/2008, -3/+7that was baddass! especially the end "By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt
    weed they grow in Mexico."
    ahhh, now if only it where all true
  - seltaeb4, on 10/31/2008, -3/+5www.*****.com
  - SRSco, on 10/31/2008, -1/+10A bit dated: "We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay."
  - iofthestorm, on 10/31/2008, -6/+3Good letter, but the bastard forgot the best school of all - UC Berkeley. I'll let that slide though.
  - walkertexas69, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3Fantastic.
  - BootsElectric, on 10/31/2008, -4/+22004 called, it wants it's gay chain mail back. Also, there's a similarly dull rebuttal for those interested, but it's seems I've broke my google.
  - tionanny, on 10/31/2008, -1/+8Look, this red state blue state crap has got to die.
    
    I write this from the democrat majority city of HOUSTON TEXAS. That's right, Houston. This city is home of the space program, artificial hearts, lasik surgery, and breast implants. Go ahead and kiss us off for only being a 48% democrat state. Generalizations have always been the sidearm of bigotry. Too insulated to meet a minority? Just use a generalization. We are a purple country. Deal with it. Conflicting ideologies should produce arguments and better ideas, not hatred of your fellow human being.
  - camg188, on 10/31/2008, -1/+0This comparison doesn't really mean much. The presidential electoral votes don't reflect who controls the states' budgets. A better chart would list which party has a majority in congress, state legislatures and city councils. They are the ones requesting and spending federal money.
    Plus any money received for natural disasters should not be counted because neither party controls nature.
- aznpwnzor, on 10/31/2008, -10/+3yah but more communist totalitarian, gov't keeping more money
- tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -9/+19A letter from the Blue States to the Red: http://digg.com/comedy/Dear_Red_States_5
  - DestroyFascism, on 10/31/2008, -0/+5lol I like it, good read..
  - AyaJulia, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3No matter how good the content of the article is, when I see it spammed in multiple comments like this, I automatically bury it. Just sayin'.
- Fordi, on 10/31/2008, -1/+5Yeah. The correct number of overall red states that get more than they give is 87%.
  - grinsy, on 10/31/2008, -1/+7It'll be 96% when CO, FL, & NV flip to blue next week.
- staffell, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2dugg for bungled
  - Leviathan433, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1Bungled for dugg.
apastafarian, on 10/29/2008, -11/+149This is why when the right wing wacko's suggest splitting the country up between the red and blue, I always remind them they'll be in the poor half. That list may look quite different after next week. Texas might stand alone as the only red state that pays out more than it takes in. It's also my sincere wish that as a result of Alaska's national exposure, we start putting the oil rich tax surplus flush state on the other end of that list too. It's criminal that were paying for their roads and public construction with our taxes while they have negative income tax.
- MorganMghee, on 10/30/2008, -2/+33I'm still diggin on your username... apastafarian.. makes me chuckle.
  - nosecohn, on 10/30/2008, -4/+18FSM FTW
  - apastafarian, on 10/30/2008, -0/+9http://www.venganza.org/
  - MorganMghee, on 10/30/2008, -10/+3i can hardly breath, i'm laughing so hard. (I just came from http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Russians_Pig_Cannon) Global average temperature vs number of pirates! bahahahahahaha!
  - tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -1/+8rAmen.
  - MorganMghee, on 10/31/2008, -2/+1wtf?
- tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -4/+13We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
  
  Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families.
  
  You get a bunch of single moms - http://digg.com/comedy/Dear_Red_States_5
  - haydesigner, on 10/31/2008, -5/+3What, you had to post the ***** thing twice?
  - tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -3/+4It's not the same comment but yes, I did. You're a perceptive one.
- RRJackson, on 10/31/2008, -22/+5We'll be in the "poor half" but we're also the states where most of the military bases and nuclear arsenal are located, so it's not like we can't come and "liberate" you from your oppressors (and wealth) should it strike our fancy, Nancy.
  - spaceshipsix, on 10/31/2008, -1/+21Awesome macho man! That's why civilized people don't like the southern states. ***** ego maniac nutjob *****.
    
    I lost it a little there but they really do suck balls.
  - tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -2/+9you're so wrong.
    
    /AF vet
  - RRJackson, on 10/31/2008, -12/+1@spaceshipsix
    
    You should just stay up in Boston where the "civilized" people have taxed the locals to death. At least you've got a flat rate. In California they'll hit you for over 9% if you make it into the highest bracket.
    
    The bottom line is that (in general) the "red states" don't care much for the way the "blue states" do business and vice versa. We've got a nation that's pretty divided and it isn't likely to come together no matter which candidate wins the election.
  - spaceshipsix, on 10/31/2008, -2/+16I'll gladly pay the higher taxes to live in a state with higher living standards.
    
    Many old fashioned southerners need to lose the ego, step down from their lofty moral perches and let intelligent leaders looking out for this country as a whole take control. The Republican party of late uses the southern idealisms to get elected and then doesn't help them at all. What policies in the Republican party help the red states more than the blue?
    
    The current administration came to power by essentially fooling all these religious fanatics down south into voting for them. It is an absolute clear cut case of exploitation and deception.
  - RRJackson, on 10/31/2008, -9/+1@spaceshipsix
    
    I've lived in New England. When you folks want to get away from all the bleak misery you head down I-95 to Florida. You only head back north when you're out of of money.
  - mikesoba, on 10/31/2008, -2/+2And I've been to Florida - like living in a tropical heat wave with 98% humidity and bugs everywhere, Couldn't go into the ocean because of water fleas -- water fleas??? You can keep your swamp.
- Naieve, on 10/31/2008, -13/+3Yeah, because we all know everyone in a red state is a Republican....
  
  I love how Obama is trying to unite the country and you guys are doing all you can to divide it.
  - tykwondingo, on 10/31/2008, -4/+8both sides generalize.
    
    [see your comment]
  - Naieve, on 10/31/2008, -4/+3By "you guys" you think I'm generalizing???
    
    Considering the context, I'm not. Unless you didn't take time to consider the context...
    
    Considering their context, they are.
  - AyaJulia, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1You, um, -are- generalizing. >.>; What context is there to consider? You want us to believe you're using "you guys" to refer to, who, apastafarian only? Even if you expand that to include the unnamed people who dugg apastafarian up, you're still generalizing about those people.
- bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -8/+2Why do you think red states want to stop social welfare? We get to see first hand all the people in our states getting handouts. And those people don't vote, generally speaking, otherwise we probably would be blue.
  - MWeather, on 10/31/2008, -1/+5"We get to see first hand all the people in our states getting handouts."
    
    Yeah, damn freeloading farmers.
  - mikesoba, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3Here's some news: Your entire state receives the hand out. It's not "all those other people", it's "you"!
- piratefish, on 10/31/2008, -4/+2hell yeah!!!!!!!
- YojimboJango, on 10/31/2008, -6/+3I notice that when they break this down by state Michigan is listed pretty high on the getting more than it gets. The only part of Michigan that is blue is Detroit, and they're also the part that sucks down all the state and federal aid.
  
  Maybe things are different elsewhere, but Michigan is what I know, and I know that those statistics lie when it comes to Michigan.
  - mysql101, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2these guys think that a red state consists of all one political party.
    
    big city is where companies will reside by their very nature.
  - GilThielander, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1"...getting more than it gets." ?
- dig1x, on 10/31/2008, -1/+5But Sarah Palin's a real leader! And, she's NOT a socalist.
- m0llusk, on 10/31/2008, -2/+3Please don't use an apostrophe with "wakos" as if it were a pluralization of a proper noun.
  - apastafarian, on 10/31/2008, -1/+1Point taken('s)
- eryximachus, on 10/31/2008, -4/+2When the red states stop producing food and commodities, we'll see how much the "services" of the blue states matter.
  
  Blue states are leeches, and half their population will die in the next 20 years due to their distance from essential goods.
  - chevyorange, on 10/31/2008, -2/+4Do you think those states are the only place in the world to buy goods? Speaking of, nearly all the McCain stickers I see on cars are built by foreign companies. Great Americans! America first! I drive a NIssan! Even if it were built here - its not an American company.
  - mikesoba, on 10/31/2008, -2/+7Here's some facts for ya - California is the food basket for this nation. Except for wheat, more of everything comes from here, yea, even the damned cows.
  - tamman2000, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3Wow, that is an ignorant comment...
    
    Do you have any idea how much food is grown in California? Illinois? Iowa?
  - RRJackson, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1The "food basket" parts of California are also predominantly Republican. It's just that their votes never count because the coastal metro areas have much higher populations.
michaelpinto, on 10/29/2008, -16/+161The thing with Alaska is that the residents not only get their share of the oil revenue - but with a state like New Orleans they don't get a penny of the off shore drilling. Can you imagine how different the economy of that state would be if that was the case?
- MorganMghee, on 10/30/2008, -21/+10what? you mean Americans directly profiting from the natural resources of America? GENIUS! (pssst.. do something)
- sc0ttius, on 10/30/2008, -2/+146I believe the state is Louisiana.
  - pintomp3, on 10/31/2008, -1/+12he went to school in a red state.
  - Scariot, on 10/31/2008, -2/+1Just because he's an idiot doesn't mean you have to belittle hardworking underpaid teachers in red states.
    
    *****.
  - pintomp3, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3i'm not belittling the teachers, i'm belittling the parents and local politicians who try to get creationism taught in science class. there is a lot more that goes into a school system than just the teachers.
- warringgael, on 10/31/2008, -14/+7A state like New Orleans?
- redfred18t, on 10/31/2008, -4/+37I thought New Orleans was a country
  - lajaw, on 10/31/2008, -5/+1It is. It's a "chocolate country".
- kineticarl, on 10/31/2008, -0/+8I grew up in Alaska. Not only are there no income taxes,each resident gets a year kickback from the oil companies ($3269 this year for each man, woman, and child, including a stimulus check, but not the federal one). I will tell you, there are no other people on earth who feel more entitled to their free money, and this in a quite conservative state. I'd love to know how they feel about the charge of wealth redistribution against Obama. And to top it all off, now I learn they're #3 on this list?
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -5/+6actually, letting state residents benefit from the profitable lease of state land is not welfare. it's good fiscal policy. welfare is giving something for nothing. residents are giving mineral rights in exchange for revenue. that is good.
    
    forcibly taking money from people for things they don't agree with is bad.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3So, you think all the off-shore drillers should give dividends to the states that they drill adjacent to?
JenniferInMO, on 10/29/2008, -15/+207Okay people there are blue people in these red states and we are trying hard to change things. Have a heart.
- MsNomer, on 10/30/2008, -3/+70Feeling blue in a red state!
  - dougwastaken, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1you'll turn purple
- pandorazboxx, on 10/31/2008, -3/+12Virginia FTW!
- Rally603, on 10/31/2008, -3/+19Here's to hoping Florida changes color this year and stays that way.
- antlerboy, on 10/31/2008, -13/+1i personally cant get anything done when i am feeling blue but i wish you luck
- sodade, on 10/31/2008, -14/+4Why don't you just move?
  - mithrasinvictus, on 10/31/2008, -1/+14To a swing state.
- cjsmith87, on 10/31/2008, -2/+18Yeah I live in texas where they hang people who try to "change" things. I am just screwed.
  - DivisibleByZero, on 10/31/2008, -6/+5With respect to this article, what are you trying to change? We Texans are on the "good" side of the list.
  - heystoopid, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3@divided by what ever , forgotten much about the head of prisons and many other corrupt republican wankers all of whom are appointees by ex governor GW Bush who are are guilty of embezzling tens of millions of local tax payer dollars straight into their back pockets , I see .
    
    Care to rephrase your answer again ?
  - fluxion, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3didnt you get the memo? we're all in austin now man.
- DangerCollie, on 10/31/2008, -2/+10Thanks for that reminder, Jennifer. No state is red or blue, they're all purple to one extent or the other.
  
  Even though I think we should cut off Mississippi. F'ing welfare state.
  - joand315, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1The blues were born in Mississippi.
  - flip2trip, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2Look here ass-clown, what do you know about Mississippi?
- kismetropolis, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1Thanks JenniferInMO.
  
  -- Blue state native currently living in a red state.
homercles337, on 10/30/2008, -1/+30Well, after the 4th that list might be rather different. CO, NV, and FL may be blue.

Edit: Oops, pasta already said this.
- Altair27, on 10/31/2008, -0/+5and what about New Mexico? we're hardly a red state at all.
  
  But then again, people still think we're part of Mexico...
  - cynicalcheeto, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3How is it that New Mexico spends $2.00 of every dollar taxed?
  - jsp123, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2Border patrol?
  - dogfood, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4@cynicalcheeto
    NM is ranked #3 in US poverty rates:
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104529.html
    Need to pay for Medicaid, foodstamps, other assistance. Also border patrol.
    
    What you should be asking is how Alaska is getting $1.84 for every dollar taxed? The State's not charging a state income tax, has a budget surplus due to the rise in oil prices, and is giving every resident a $3000+ a year check. Talk about irresponsible governance. WTF?
  - cannonball, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3woah, hold the phone; there's a NEW mexico?
Shiftgood, on 10/30/2008, -9/+360As a blue state employee working hard for you red states... I would like to offer you even more of my money as long as it goes to education for you guys. especially in science and philosophy... oh.. and sex education... and planned parenthood.

deal? ok sweet.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/30/2008, -54/+17As a blue state employee working hard for myself, ***** anyone who thinks they have the right to take my property. ***** all of you morally vague twits who wring your hands for the poor 'who never had a chance' while not blinking an eye to the fact that your policies put guns to the head of every producer and steal their work. ***** each and every one of you morally contradicting oppressors who have no doubts about a morality that includes and requires to enforce an initiation of violence upon others.
  
  It wouldn't be half as bad if you didn't try to get me to give you sanction for your armed robbery. At least a thief doesn't try to tell you he's right.
  - Shiftgood, on 10/30/2008, -3/+82hey kae,
    
    ok its a nice theory that we all live separate lives. But its simply not true. In reality we're all connected. You have to plan your taxing and spending in accordance to human behavior and social constructs. You might *think* you live some independent life from everyone else but i assure you its an illusion.
    
    The fact is that people will take from you what they cannot get. basically, rape your wife, stab your son for lunch money, rob your house, stick you up at the ATM, break the law, hit you when their driving drunk on your way home, elect bad presidents, hinder the steps of progression that society needs to take to support its ever expanding demands as it grows.
    
    now there are 2 ways to tackle this. 1 is very reactionary... buy a gun, put up bars on your windows, buy a big car, pay more taxes for more police, pay more taxes for more police, pay more taxes for more police and more prisons... pay more for more guns for your house, pay more for home security systems, pay more for advanced car safety.... and in the end, these steps are a retaliation to bad events. You cant use your gun until the threat of someone in your house is already there. You cant use your airbags untill you're getting T-boned at a red light... and police... well, they're really good at taking down "what the robber looked like" that just stabbed you at the ATM.
    
    Or you could try to build a society from the bottom up with programs and education as to condition people, through their own understanding, to not act violently, to be self reliant and to address any mental or physical problems they might have. And all of this comes in the form of a few tax dollars out of your paycheck rather than all the money you would be spending for all the other crap.
    
    you really cant escape it. No matter how angry you get or how many cuss words you use. So id start trying to figure out a new way of approaching things if i were you.
    
    besides, you use the roads, teachers, fire department, military and the officials that conduct all of that. You say you dont need it, but thats only because you take it for granted... and they do their jobs for you without you having to remind them.
  - lonelymiddle1, on 10/30/2008, -10/+12Ayn Rand FTW!
    
    I agree with you basically, I really do, but since you're waving the objectivist banner, I must ask, how as a responsible nation will we repay all the debts our government has run up in the last 8 years if not through the government and taxes? I love Rand's ideas for the moral soul, but she is quite lacking on her ideas of government, because unfortunately for idealogues that think everybody in America starts from the same point, they don't. Some people (not crack heads or lazy people), babies, are given no chance what so ever, and the government is the entity that should ensure that those people DO have a chance. There's no need for straight up hand outs, but there has to be some government intervention to guarantee that everyone has a chance at the American Dream. Once that goal is accomplished, you can start talking about abolishment of welfare, or big government, or what have you.
  - warringgael, on 10/31/2008, -21/+2holy *****... is this common sense on DIGG?
  - KJGJ, on 10/31/2008, -21/+2I wish I could digg you up more Kae. I'll be damned if anybody will be taking my hard earned money to purchase what they either don't need, or don't deserve. Don't be a leech on society, take some damn responsibility for yourself.
  - SteveSgt, on 10/31/2008, -3/+25Ayn Rand was a sociopath who didn't understand that all of the best things in human society come from altruism. The very basis of our binding together into a society requires altruism. A world full of "I'm only in it for myself" sociopaths would not result in civilization or society, it would be anarchy and chaos.
  - sodade, on 10/31/2008, -1/+9@shiftgood - awesome post sir! Pragmatism FTW!!!
  - Quaterni0n, on 10/31/2008, -1/+9@SteveSgt: Sounds a lot like the wild west where open banditry and rustling was the norm. The red states never really lost that backwards mentality.
  - sonnybobiche, on 10/31/2008, -10/+2Giving people money won't teach them morals. @Shiftgood: Read Plato's The Republic, then come back and comment. You might learn a bit about the consequences of what you'd like implemented.
  - monkeybusiness, on 10/31/2008, -0/+10@ Shiftgood:
    I logged in for the first time in 4-6 months just to digg your comment.
    Very well said; Thank you.
  - Quaterni0n, on 10/31/2008, -0/+12"Giving people money won't teach them morals."
    
    Not directly, silly. Just make sure they get educated and stay healthy.
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -3/+1You can't erase crime just by providing education and healthcare, there are a lot of people who just do not want to work hard to earn their keep. Even if you give them the opportunity to get an education and decent health care, there are many who will/do choose to take the "easy" way out and steal. It takes a lot of hard work and perseverance to make it through school (Dec. 08 baby!!) and you can't get around that by throwing money at it.
  - Shiftgood, on 10/31/2008, -0/+11bigbenorr,
    
    You're absolutely right.
    
    It takes a combination of things to correctly bring up a child in society. One of them is to ensure that there is an opportunity for a solid education. Now, as we currently stand, I do not believe that to be true. Schools are underfunded, classes are overcrowded, and teachers are underpaid and the competition to become a teacher is low because of it. These are things that money can help.
    
    But a book will not read itself, a calculator will not do the math for you and history will only be seen by those who look for it. Thats why it is important to have strong parents that plan families. When the parents are ready and willing to set a good example. To teach their children about the real world, people and how strangers are friends and not enemies. I think that these strong families are generated/helped by sex education and organizations like planned parenthood as well as a strong fundamental education itself.
    
    I believe we are all built with the opportunity for greatness and for tragedy. And that we should examine what leads people in the right direction and apply it. This is essentially how people progress. Its how cars get to go faster, crops grow higher yields, teams win championships and so on. You forsake your mistakes, you apply your victories.
    
    It must be so lonesome to know that your neighbor would do anything it takes to climb to some bizarre higher sense of prestige without regard for you. Where you live in fear of others trying to get ahead at your cost. Is it really worth having a flat screen TV as a trade off?
    
    Because life has cycles. And at one point, you will be down, you will be out and you will be looking for a hand to hold. How you act while you are up, will effect how people treat you when you are down.
    
    The more you give, the less they take. And trust me, whatever you give, comes back to you. I promise.
    
    p.s. you can still get rich and pay taxes. its happened through out the entire history of man, Its just up to you.
  - lululiu, on 10/31/2008, -0/+11People like to act like they're above it all. That poverty doesn't affect them as long as they are not poor. Too bad though, like it or not, we're all fixtures in this society, we walk the same streets as these people, our houses are built into the same ground that the homeless sleep on, the peace in our neighborhoods is bought with tax payer money.
    
    Even from a purely selfish perspective, how could you be so myopic to be against social programs? Grow the social and economic underclass, neglect the poor and the wretched of this country and very very quickly America will become a very unpleasant place to live.
  - ceredron, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4@sonnybobiche
    
    not only was the Republic written by Plato... who lived about 2500 years before our time, but he had no real people or factual evidence to back any of his stuff up. Because if you remember, he made up his ideal city, and all of his theories were pretty much just covered by yes men who agreed with everything he said in order to create a socratic dialogue.
    
    Yes, we took freshman philosophy, too. And it was fun.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1@Shiftgood: You are awesome, as well as the ones who supported you with well-thought arguments.
    @ Kae: It is people like myself that you will one day regret your stance on this issue. The same hatred you spew will come back to haunt you. I will be looking for you personally, with weapon in hand, and I will ***** you up when we go down the drain. I am coming for you, *****.
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3@shift
    
    I am with you on the importance of parenting. My family situation was very good and I know that I was lucky to have that. I agree that government should fund education, but I think it should be state and local government, and even then, I kind of resent the fact that those who do not even use the public school system have to pay for it. But I suppose I can accept that. I think I just wish that more of the college education for underprivileged students was handled through charity orgs, than the govt.
    
    I may seem to be just a base, self serving bastard from a lot of my comments, but I do have pity for the poor. I think that is why I am resistant to giving them handouts. I think that giving someone money just teaches them that they do not have to work to support themselves. It seems like charity but in some cases you are actually hurting the person more than helping them. I have gone through some tough times in my life. There were several semesters where I just had no idea where I would find the money for my next tuition payment but I always was able to find a job to help pay for it, I even took a semester off once to save up money for college. There were some nights that I even had to sleep in my car because I couldn't afford an apartment. I can now proudly say that I have achieved an engineering degree by my own blood, sweat and tears, and never once did I apply for financial aid. (I did take out a small loan this semester but it will not be hard to pay off). Struggling through life's tough times teaches a person more than they can ever learn in a classroom.
    
    Anyway, I do have compassion for those who are struggling and I do not try to profit at their expense, but I feel that most of them (of course there are some extreme situations) should be forced to work through their difficulties.
    
    You are right about giving, it does have its own rewards, but it needs to be voluntary, not forced.
    
    @lululiu
    
    As you can see my life has not been all peaches and cream, but I made the best of it, and I never asked for help. I am not saying all poor people deserve to be poor, but many do.
  - Shiftgood, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4big,
    
    not sure if you're gonna see this b/c the story is dead, but i am sure that you are not self serving and greedy. Its understandable to be frustrated at how difficult it is to keep your head above water financially, let alone get ahead in the world.
    
    I looked it up and i think that the portion of your taxes that actually goes to welfare (not medicare or ss) is about 6%. So it is very low. I think there is more money going to farm and corporate subsidies.
    
    A study on welfare recipients showed about only 3% of people on welfare actually abuse the system. And rest assured there are people out there that make sure that they DO get caught and they DO go to jail.
    
    That % is very low because Bill Clinton was smart enough to enact harder restrictions and guidelines on welfare recipients.
    
    However, that being said.. its really not about welfare, but about education, and organizations that are looking out for the common good that I am more interested in.
    
    have a good one.
  - vproman, on 10/31/2008, -2/+0AT&T IS A THIEF! THEY MAKE ME PAY MONEY TO USE THEIR SERVICES FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND BUSINESS PURPOSES!!!! I could move to another country, I mean carrier, but I think I'll bitch and complain about how my country, I mean carrier, does business.
  - flip2trip, on 11/01/2008, -2/+1@monkeybusiness-- 4 to 6 months?
    
    http://digg.com/comedy/Must_Eat_Ice_cream_pic?t=17 ...
- scubaman5000, on 10/31/2008, -4/+37I would gladly contribute to educating "Red" America.
  - shethinkmefunny, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Education will curtail the red menace.
- Brentg7, on 10/31/2008, -3/+10As a blue state employee, I'm just happy to have a job.
  - iofthestorm, on 10/31/2008, -7/+2You should probably get I better education if you want to keep that job.
  - Magnus150, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2"probably get I better education"
    
    wat.
- bobburn, on 10/31/2008, -17/+4You do know that the so-called Blue states are the ones that forced this type of socialism right?
  - JickBahTech, on 10/31/2008, -1/+8Oh, sorry, well uh ... if you don't want it, we have plenty of things in CA that our money could be going towards instead...
  - harbon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+8Did bobburn just say its the blue states' fault for the red states taking federal money?
    
    Uh, okay. Nice logic there!
  - lajaw, on 10/31/2008, -3/+1You are right. But states like NM, AZ and NV are largely federally owned, so the states do not get to tax that land. So, the feds must make it up to them. So what to do? Turn ALL federal land over to state control, and let them do what they will with it.
  - Rehasher01, on 11/12/2008, -0/+0actually, that was nice logic.
    
    If the people taking advantage of the socialism in our government don't want socialism in our government, I say cut it out, and it'll all be better!
- JickBahTech, on 10/31/2008, -0/+6+1
- bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -10/+6As a red state employee working hard for myself, I would like to offer even less of my money for all you poor and destitute masses for education or health care or whatever. I have great plans for my life, why should I have to sacrifice my hopes and dreams that I have worked hard to build into reality just to support someone who is too lazy to work and too stupid to stop having children.
  
  Call me selfish but if I don't look after myself then who will?
  - uthandabantu, on 10/31/2008, -3/+9See Shiftgood's post above.
    
    Looking after yourself might actually mean investment in the society rather than your stuff.
    
    There's really no other place to live, so we might as well make it better. I mean, really, we can only build so many prisons, right?
    
    And it's not like you're going to move to Canada or Mexico.
  - lajaw, on 10/31/2008, -12/+4No one will. It is your responsibility to take care of your own.
    
    And to uthandabantu..............you are one stupid socialist. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself like bigben is doing.
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -10/+2yeah I saw his post, it should be clear by now that we do not agree on this issue. It is not an investment if you are forced to participate, I am all for donating to a cause you believe in, but I fail to see how taking money from those who strive to succeed in life and giving it to those who really have no desire to do any meaningful work benefits society in any way. In fact, the more we reward people who strive to excel in their chosen careers, the more our society will advance as a whole. Why would anyone take the effort to develop highly efficient transportation systems if there is nothing to be gained from it? The same principle applies to just about any field. We should let people keep the rewards they have rightly earned.
    
    I agree that we should try to make this world a better place. The way I see us doing that is through advancements in science and technology, not by feeding the poor, and I know that sounds bad, but you can't make an omelet without breakin' a few eggs.
    
    For those of you that feel burdened to help the poor, start a charity, but don't force people to join it.
  - Amoveo, on 10/31/2008, -1/+8The socialists because guess what, when everyone gives money everyone gets money back. In socialized countries where there are enormous tax rates EVERYONE (even the people who pay taxes) get fantastic benefits back.
    
    In Government you get what you pay for. If you hoard all your money then don't expect the government to give you or anyone else anything. Likewise don't expect your tax dollars to disappear in a puff of smoke. Self-reliance sounds great, but in the modern world with complex industries you are part of a whole and if you don't support that whole then the whole won't support you.
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -5/+3A: I don't want/expect the government to take care of me.
    
    B: The government in (truly) socialist countries distributes wealth "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" This means that even if you are very valuable asset to society, you will be rewarded based on your needs (as determined by the government) rather than your abilities. In fact, there would be many people with less ability than you, getting greater rewards. What then, is the inspiration to achieve great things?
    
    I'm not sure if your comment is addressing the relationship between industries and workers, but if so, I think the corporations (for the most part) are on the right track, they reward those individuals who are most valuable to their organization. This drives human progress.
  - opiniastrous, on 10/31/2008, -0/+9Youu need to understand the following:
    
    Yes. Work hard. Be successful because you worked to get there. However, a nation state is basically just one big system in the same way that traffic lights are part of a traffic system, and schools are part of an education system. While you want each traffic light to work efficiently and effectively at it's individual intersection, if you fail to coordinate its actions with the entire grid than you risk traffic jams.
    
    You have to consider other nodes within your network, and if that means providing a degree of support to other people so they can succeed too than do it! Why? If you pay a percentage of your income to help provide support to the poor and neglected (etc.) in neighbourhoods surrounding you, than you will reap the rewards in the form of things like safe streets and a large pool of well-educated applicants for the jobs within the company that you built through hard work. While 'socialism' is often thought of as close to Marxism and Communism (esp. in America) it's not necessarily so.
    
    What forms of socially organised services do you benefit from today? The Police Force! Fire Department! Ambulance Service! Public Hospitals! The Military! These are all forms of socially organised and produced goods and services and you are most certainly better off for it. Did you know that when fire departments were first thought of, they used to be privately owned and fire trucks would only save your home if you had their company's symbol displayed? Now that's true capitalism! The thing is, capitalism is not the optimal solution in every situation. Sure, you might have been able to pay for fire coverage, but what if all the houses in your street burn down? Well then you will live in an ash-coated street where the value of your house is far below what it was and all the friends you had there are destitute. Perhaps everyone in the neighbourhood will move out, so the school (also socially provided) will be shut down. Now your kids cannot be educated unless you travel somewhere else at great expense.
    
    I live in what is quite a socialist country but I think we strike a pretty good balance. We have good public schools, but private schools are also available. Our emergency services work very hard to help the people. Our medical expenses are largely covered by the public purse, but private health insurance is also available. The unemployed are paid benefits as long as they can show they are looking for work. While the elderly are given pensions, throughout an employee's working life the employer has to allocate a minimum of 9% of each salary to funds in the employee's name. If employees choose to increase their contributions to these funds, than the government will make co-contributions to reward that forward thinking.
    
    While no-one is calling for the overthrow of private companies, private ownership of land and private employment, in some cases people do want the government to be better at socialism. For example, while veterans and the disabled are supported by the government, everyone seems to think it should do a better job of it (i.e. be better at socialism). The same goes for public transport. When everyone complains about the state of public transport, what they are really saying in essence is "improve this socialist program!"
    
    Oh, the country? Australia. A country that we're all very happy with.
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -3/+2Well y'all may be happy with Australia, but I am not, and the rest of America is getting pretty fed up with your backtalk too. If you don't learn to control that smart mouth of yours, your country is going to end up like Iraq. Of course we will have to deal with France and Canada first, but thats neither here nor there.
    
    Seriously though,
    
    I am not against all government provided services. I grudgingly accept the need for some of the things that you mentioned. There should be a balance in all things and right now I would prefer it if the balance were shifted away from government control.
    
    I really like the point you make in your second paragraph. I think I agree with the principle of it, but I think it should be more driven by demand for educated workers. Once I create my corporate empire I will set up my own free schools that "educate" workers for my multitude of factories. Mwahahahahaha!!
    
    Ahem, sorry about that, you made some good points and we both agree that there is an appropriate balance, but I think we just differ on where that balance is.
  - andrewrama, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot bigbenorr and I'll tell you why as simply as possible. The government has been operating under a progressive tax system for decades not because there are idiots like you hording your nuts and gnashing your teeth at imaginary people coming to take it (because trust me whatever little pennies you've gathered and call it gold would contribute squat to what REAL rich people make). We have this tax system, because over the decades the mass majority of very wealthy people have consolidated their wealth from generations of trusts and manipulation of government.
    
    Stupid filter: The higher the ladder the easier it is to take more and give less.
    
    Thus, the progressive tax system was established to help failing infrastructures and national security.
    
    So don't worry no one is going to take your measly little nuts you pathetic excuse for a human being. ::pats on head::
  - bigbenorr, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2I am going to go out on a limb and say that I am definitely less pathetic than you. Not by much, I mean here we both are arguing on the internet, but you have clearly taken the low road.
    
    You claim I am "hording my nuts", well maybe I am but even if not the government still takes my money, and that is not imaginary. I could spend every dime of my paycheck and the government would still tax my income, among other things.
    
    I am really having a hard time understanding your overall point here. Are you saying we need to only tax the very wealthy? Or tax them at a higher rate? Either way, you are right about them manipulating the tax code. But wouldn't you try to find a way to keep more of your money if you were losing 30-40% to taxes every year?
    
    I do not have any special fondness for the wealthy or anything, but I think everyone should pay less taxes. This is a matter of principle, I believe in limited government, and there is no freaking way they need all the money they have been taking recently, all that infrastructure stuff could be paid for with a small fraction of the current budget, if we just eliminated our overseas spending we could cut at least %70 of the income tax. Income taxes come out to roughly $1.5 trillion a year and we spend a combined $700 billion on Iraq and the DoD thats almost half our taxes right there. And I know you are going to say we need to spend money on national security, but most defense spending is used overseas, we need to spend money on defending THIS country, not others.
    
    Our Government has been spending money like drunken sailors recently, and its time to cut them off and face the hangover.
- DangerCollie, on 10/31/2008, -2/+5I would rather pay them to move. Divide the country down the middle, give everyone ten years to pick a side and set up a property exchange so people with similar properties on the red and blue side can trade and move.
  
  If that is impractical then I'll grudgingly agree to education them...provided we can fly stealth bomber mission to drop birth control over vast areas of red states.
  - BossKey, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3It definitely is impractical, because it won't come close to addressing the problem. The divide is NOT by state, it's by urban vs rural. The division by state is arbitrary and meaningless, really.
    
    If you divide the country by some geographical border, you'll still have rural conservatives and urban liberals who can't stand each other, resolving nothing.
- Urgeasaurus, on 10/31/2008, -8/+2Wow. I am with bigbenorr here. I'm red state born, blue state educated, and red state employed (and btw, what a simpleton's breakdown of the differences - I'm only doing it for you Blue Staters that so love this either-or take on politics). Shiftgood, give me a break. The money you make as a "blue state employee" is already coming from the people you see fit to educate. I am fairly certain that were you to be dropped into the middle of a red state and forced to fend for yourself, you'd quickly be educated in the ways of how the real world works.
  - Shiftgood, on 10/31/2008, -0/+10I really dont like replying a lot in my own threads b/c it comes across preachy and self centered. I really like hearing other peoples ideas more than my own. But i feel that your quote was directed to me and it certainly struck a chord.
    
    please explain to me this "real world". how does it differ from the "fake world" that I am living in?
    
    btw. I was born in Louisville. All of my family is from the south and I have lived as a southerner myself.
    
    But go on.. im curious about this divide in reality and fantasy that i am unaware of.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1Urgeasaurus: Your ignorance in the face of truth is staggering. Go hump a cow.
michaelpinto, on 10/30/2008, -7/+116Another sad thing about this chart: I'm willing to bet that in most of those blue states (like New York) local taxes (income, property and sales) are much higher than red states to make up for the lack of fed money coming back.
- ani625, on 10/30/2008, -16/+8Submission + 6 comments, wtf sir?
- Yookji, on 10/31/2008, -7/+6Well does this chart include grants given to localities within a state or simply grants given to a state. Large cities (normally in blue states) receive large amounts of federal grant money, but I don't know whether those grants are included in that chart.
  - pingveno, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3The chart may very well include the federal grant money. The reason that a large amount of grant money is given in large cities is that they have a lot of people in them. All of those people are taxpayers. When you look at how the tax money's moving around the large cities are usually sending out money.
- chanop, on 10/31/2008, -0/+11NY & CA are the top 2 taxed states in the country
- MobbyG, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4No wonder my property taxes are so damned high. I live in New York! And why is it "Tax and spend liberals" always seem to give us a surplus when they are in office? Yet the "fiscally responsible" conservatives give us deficits when in office? It's just an oxy-moron!
  - chevyorange, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1Oxy-moron are you talking about Rush Limbaugh?
  - Smoozle, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Hey, who the ***** are you calling an ox, you jackass.
jimbabb, on 10/30/2008, -51/+11Just because federal money is being spent in a state, doesn't mean it does anybody any good. It's all squandered on cronies and special interest. So, 99.9% of us loose more than we get.
- michaelpinto, on 10/30/2008, -5/+29Most government money to states is for social services not pork barrel projects. And sadly for you very little is spent on things like K-12 education...
  - jimbabb, on 10/30/2008, -24/+5Wake up and smell the formaldehyde in your FEMA trailer. They feds spend money to hurt people. It's what they do, abroad and at home.
  - flannerus, on 10/31/2008, -6/+3Yes, tell us more about what they feds do. Leave the country you distrust.
- Zamboni33, on 10/31/2008, -1/+20"So, 99.9% of us loose more than we get."
  
  You might have a point there because your education funding needs a boost in the spelling department.
- mwilhelm, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1You totally missed the point - It's a ratio of dollars collected to dollars spent.
  
  Also known as "spreading the wealth around" or in other words - SOCIALISM.
  
  Pot, Meet kettle.
  
  Even if Co, NV, FL or OH go blue, look at the top 10 and the bottom 10. Looks to me like the "socialists" are supporting "real America".
  
  If you don't want a "socialist" in the white house - then quit taking my welfare.
  
  ***** Alaska.
Straightlord, on 10/30/2008, -24/+24Why do we even need states now? I mean, our taxes go to a centralized government which distributes our money back to our own states, after taking a cut, of course. Just get rid of states and we can let go of this whole charade of "democracy."

Wouldn't it be more efficient if we payed our own local governments directly, who would then run services like public safety, education, etc.? And then the states could redistribute a portion back to the federal government for things like national defense, food safety studies, etc...?
- michaelpinto, on 10/30/2008, -7/+16...because of interstate commerce.
- afruff23, on 10/30/2008, -9/+17How about we let people make decisions for themselves without being threatened with a gun?
  - michaelpinto, on 10/30/2008, -10/+18We do - it's called a voting booth...
  - afruff23, on 10/31/2008, -10/+11Voting gives people the power to control other people's lives without their consent. That is the exact opposite of allowing people to make decisions for themselves without being threatened with a gun.
  - DJMattB241, on 10/31/2008, -7/+10afruff23:
    
    Don't you love the title of this article? Red states take more than they "give."
    
    As if we voluntarily "give" the government our money. We give them our money because we'll be imprisoned or shot if we don't.
    
    A better title would be Red States manage to get back more money than they have extracted from them.
  - Murdats, on 10/31/2008, -7/+5@afruff
    because unless you are a hermit and you are free to do whatever you want you live in a society, concessions must be made, you can't be that selfish in a function society.
    
    say one person wants to spend money on roads, but one person walks everywhere and see roads as a waste of money and space, would not someone have to make a decisions for other people? then the civic engineers decide where this road goes or where the houses go deciding for other people, what would happen if everyone took your stance and said im deciding for myself where my house goes, here in this road and no one can tell me otherwise because i decide for myself.
  - afruff23, on 10/31/2008, -5/+9"say one person wants to spend money on roads, but one person walks everywhere and see roads as a waste of money and space, would not someone have to make a decisions for other people?"
    
    You don't think people could solve these problems without resorting to violence? There is a huge difference between someone making a decision for other people WITH their consent and someone making a decision for other people WITHOUT their consent. Do you really think that without a government, people would just stay home all day and wonder how to get from point A to point B?
  - afruff23, on 10/31/2008, -5/+10Also, how am I selfish? Would you call a person who fights back when he is being threatened "selfish"?
  - Quaterni0n, on 10/31/2008, -6/+2You get threatened with guns? Wow! What country do you live in? You should come to America. But don't go to red states. They're gun freaks too.
  - afruff23, on 10/31/2008, -4/+10@Quaterni0n
    I'm in the US. If I don't pay the taxes I never agreed to pay, then I get sent to jail with the threat of force from government.
    
    The government is the only one threatening me on the daily basis. I can't say I've ever met a redneck who's threatened to shoot me if I disagreed with him.
  - CanTheSpam, on 10/31/2008, -2/+6Sing it, afruff.
  - AyaJulia, on 10/31/2008, -4/+3Living in the US and utilizing any of the (non-free) government services = consent to help pay for those services. Ever been to public schools? Ever had to call 911 or file a police report about an accident? Ever lived in an area so disaster-stricken that the National Guard had to get involved in the cleanup? Then you have cost the government money, and you have consented, by taking employment in the US, to repay your fair portion of that money in accordance with the government's laws.
    
    If you don't like taxes, the only thing you could possibly do is move to an undeveloped area where you can make yourself completely self-sufficient. Every developed nation has some government protection in place, and none of it is free.
  - userperson, on 10/31/2008, -2/+6@aruff23
    You are "selfish" you want things for yourself.
    You want to keep your money and not give it out to everyone else, or at least keep control of your money to distribute as you please. Society (some of it) disagrees -- this is "selfish".
    If society approved it would be called "desire to control your wealth",
    but they do not -- you are "selfish", which they have decided is evil.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -4/+1It is a matter of perspective. I am "selfish", because I want a safe society to live in. What morons like userperson and atruff don't understand is that we have already been through those times: the old west, our entire history. The reason we have survived so far is because we developed these government systems to deal with large masses of disagreeing people. Atruff, I can assure you, if there was no government with a gun at your head, I would have my gun at your head. A whole lot of people would. You wouldn't be able to conduct business, and you would very quickly run out of any wealth you have just trying to protect your ass. You can have one government that controls this threat and allows you to do business in a reasonably safe environment, or you can have people like me looking for the day you have your guard down. I would be a very dangerous enemy to you were it not for this government. And I would kill you in such a desperate state without a second thought. I am selfish, too, selfish for a world that is not that way. I know how bad it can be by knowing what I would resort to out of desperation. You should pray that a world you describe never materializes for your own self-interest.
  - Quaterni0n, on 10/31/2008, -4/+2@afruf: You don't get sent to jail for not paying taxes. The government, representing the people you've been stealing from, will simply find a legal recourse to get our money back, including foreclosing your house and auctioning off your *****.
    
    Here's a friendly tip. Stop stealing from everyone and pay your ***** taxes, *****. Or go live off the grid somewhere.
  - shethinkmefunny, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1@afruf:
    
    So I take it you ride on roads you built and paid for yourself, and were educated in private school powered by free-market electricity with water you harvested yourself.
    
    You ARE ***** selfish. You want to take advantage of the entire infrastructure of this country that EVERYONE has pitched in to help build up over the years, but don't want to pay your share?
    
    As a good example, you're on the Internet. What entity invented that again? Oh, that's right the US GOVERNMENT!
    
    I bet when you're held at gunpoint, raped, beaten or ripped off you do the non-hypocritical thing and don't call 911, don't involve the police, and don't try to prosecute the guy that did you wrong. You go out with your gun and hunt them down the old-fashioned way, right?
  - DJMattB241, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1"You don't get sent to jail for not paying taxes."
    
    That is, simultaneously, the funniest and saddest thing I've read today. Government Indoctrination Camps are working, I see.
- ifire, on 10/31/2008, -1/+12Becuase it is the way our country formed. The concept of federalism requires it.
  - thePTS, on 10/31/2008, -2/+6What he talks about sounds like giving up federalism (for the most part) and making more of a union (like the EU).
    
    Neither of those you mention are actual reasons, you just explain how it is now. (we all know that)
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -0/+7actually until the union won the civil war it WAS a looser federation of largely autonomous states. before the civil ware it was "these united states" after is was "The United States." Look at jefferson's writings and the constitution to see what powers the federales are given and the fact that the 11th amendment says that unless the constitution specifically gives a power to the federal government than that power is reserved either for the states or as a right to the people themselves.
    
    weak central government with strong state and local government is how we were designed to work.
    
    the founders mostly saw federal accumulation of power as a dangerous threat to liberty.
- Rightshift, on 10/31/2008, -34/+8How about we just scrap the Constitution altogether like Obama commented on in his 2001 radio interview and just adopt the Soviet socialist model? This way we can do away with all this free speech crap and the 2nd Amendment, get free rationed healthcare, and have state run business that would be sooo much more 'efficient'... Implement the Fairness doctrine on radio, TV and the Internet to ensure blogs and talk shows deliver only Government Approved content... ban all guns to do away with the 2nd Amendment and any thought of protecting one's self. And make sure that religious figures only preach government approved doctrine. We can do away with states and even voting so no more pesky elections. Only party officials will select the congressional reps and senators.
  
  This way you can have true socialism, free handouts and free healthcare.
  - Sketchcast, on 10/31/2008, -6/+12You're kidding right? I fail to see how someone so completely blinded by hatred and stupidity was able to even turn a computer on, let alone mash the keyboard in such a way as to produce a semi-coherent rant.
    
    ps. Blocked.
  - Rightshift, on 10/31/2008, -11/+6Oh wait... that only works in the "think tanks" of academia classrooms where those who don't produce anything suck away the money of hardworking parents to indoctrinate their kids instead of educate them. Just ask Obama's mentors.
  - Rightshift, on 10/31/2008, -11/+6Sketchcast...
    
    Duh! Its totally rhetorical sarcasm... but when you put together what democrats want... it amounts to about 90% of that. When a politician says "If it wasn't for the Constitution we could get a lot of things done." Be afraid, be VERY afraid... in fact that's Obama's stance if you listen in its entirety his 2001 radio interview. I've heard Chuck Shumer make the same statement back in 1990.
    
    You can't have a 'little' socialism because you want social programs... its like being a little pregnant, you either are or aren't. Government programs NEVER helped anybody out of poverty... they helped keep people where they are, with their handout voting for the guy who will put something in it. To do away with social programs isn't cruelty, its compassion. Cruelty is keeping someone in a state where they feel hopeless and dependent on the government for his needs with no hope of ever getting out... i.e. Section 8 housing, welfare checks with stringent restrictions on the amount of money they can make in the hopes of getting on their feet, etc...
  - Akairenn, on 10/31/2008, -1/+1When a politician says, "If it wasn't for the Constitution we could get a lot of things done,"...
    
    ***** hang them from the neck until they no longer remain living.
  - AyaJulia, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2Do away with social programs? Where do you draw the line?
    -"I have a good job with good medical coverage, so I don't think it's right that I should pay for that single welfare mother's kids when they get sick or don't have enough to eat. She should get a better job."
    -"I don't live near any bodies of water, so I don't think it's right that I should pay into flood relief funds. They should just move inland and stop asking for handouts when they get washed out every year."
    -"I don't have any school-age children (or I send my kids to private school), so I don't think it's right that I should pay for public schools. Everyone should just pay for private schools."
    -"I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't think it's right that I should pay for police. Only people who actually need to call should pay. They should just be more careful."
    -"I don't smoke/light candles/use gas, so I don't think I should have to pay for the fire department. If someone's dumb enough to leave their iron on, they should have to write the firemen a check with their own money, not mine, before they put the fire out."
    -"I'm not in the military, so I shouldn't have to pay for their guns or armor or gas for their tanks. I didn't ask for them to be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan."
    
    ...seriously, "social programs" can go a lot farther than welfare. Everyone pays into systems they don't use for the greater good of the country's population.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1@Rightshift: Yeah, but we can have a little corporate socialism to help Wall Street with $700 billion. Not for single mothers, though, right? No, to you, that is unconscionable. Why, you want a little fascism? A little nationalization. Get your head out of your ass, please.
  - erossmu, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2@Rightshift -- $800b to the major banks in America. They received that money for free. How is that not socialism?
    
    I listened to that 2001 radio program, I don't remember hearing Obama say "scrap the Constitution."
    
    I assume you don't believe in charity or altruism which leads me to believe you don't believe in Christianity because the whole foundation of Christianity is based--and thrives--off of charity (or altruism).
    
    Which is quite funny because most right-wing conservatives tend to be Christian and they are the ones complaining about socialism. I find it completely hypocritical.
    
    "Why give free handouts for people that don't have jobs?" - Very simple, because they can't do it themselves. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be 100% self-reliant in this country. This is the TRUE American dream: To step on as many people as you can to feed your own greed.
    
    I'm sorry rightshift, but all I see is hypocrisy flowing from your mouth.
- xxpor, on 10/31/2008, -2/+1Bring back the Articles of Confederation? Yea, because that worked real well last time.
- ldkronos, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3Because there are limits to how many subunits a parent unit can effectively manage. It's the same reason fortune 500 companies don't just have top executives and grunts. They need the entire hierarchy. The top executives have a dozen managers that report to them, those managers each have a dozen or so middle managers that report to them. Each of those managers is responsible for a few dozen employees. This way each person has a reasonable number of people they are directly responsible for.
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2so if I was responsible for say, 4 people then I could effectively manage them and prosper? gee, that sounds like a family. maybe if we take care of our own we don't need the nanny-state to do it for us.
- Straightlord, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2Some people don't know the definition of this word obviously
  Sarcasm:
  sar·casm /ˈsɑrkæzəm/
  –noun
  1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
  
  Dictionary.com
  
  Some of you are ignoring the real issue here. The Constitution gives Congress only 17 delegated powers. And the 9th and 10th amendments state that any other powers not stated in the Constitution are to be given to the states and the people. There is a need for some federal government yes, but our federal government has taken power to the extent that we are now arguing over crumbs that the feds give to the states.
Overseer5, on 10/30/2008, -253/+19Why I am voting Democrat!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending MY MONEY than I would. I think when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody! It’s Patriotic!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. All profits are evil and should be confiscated for Government Redistribution.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE Government regulations and higher taxes on Business will stop Business from exporting their jobs to Countries with LESS Government regulations and lower taxes.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in American courts. And be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense. They should have ACLU lawyers who can help intimidate Americans who serve on the juries!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe Gay Marriage should be the law of the land and will probably produce better children.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don’t mind pushing one for English when I use the phone.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion is okay but water boarding a terrorist is disgusting.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a close friend is a good thing. It allows for great relations with foreign terrorists.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in a FREE government health care system. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly donate their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for FREE and that will be a better system.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe social security is solvent and that there is a social security lock box and I don’t believe social security is a Ponzi scheme.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let’s rid our country of guns and religion!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans plus some additional rights Americans do not have.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe corporations should pay higher taxes! I believe higher taxes on business will make the price of their products and services LESS EXPENSIVE.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, wino’s, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of people that do not celebrate Christmas.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core criminal murders and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It’s a choice I can live with.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that any one who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful government programs obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.

I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I lik da Natsionel Edukatshun Assoseeashun!

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can’t we all just get along?

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, BUT I AM AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in Anwar, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.

And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Reverend Wright when he said “GODDAMN AMERICA” and “OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST”. Hey let’s make a comfortable nest for those chickens!

Why are you voting Democrat?
- michaelpinto, on 10/30/2008, -13/+58Overseer5 has no friends - and we can see why...
- zenbud, on 10/30/2008, -9/+58Education, tolerance, curiosity. All that you lack. Poor scared little person . . . are your beliefs so weak that you believe this filth? Vote rich and live poor is the credo of the right wing nuts. Fundamentalist christians = Timothy McVie. How has that and the shrub worked for ya?
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -3/+1no they don't. even if you met one who was an ***** (and you probably have never met one in your life, no seeing a movie with a preacher in it doesn't count), that doesn't give you the right to be a dick back.
- bitfreak, on 10/30/2008, -7/+73You should change this to "why I am cutting and pasting unoriginal hyperbole and vacuous content"
  - Yookji, on 10/31/2008, -1/+9aka copypasta
  - Rightshift, on 10/31/2008, -11/+4Bitfreak... she just voting for all the points of the Obama plan... what is it she listed you don't agree with?
  - CTRaiderThe1st, on 10/31/2008, -8/+3You can't argue facts with a liberal. Their emotions dictate their decisions. I used to be a liberal (a die hard one at that) so I know.
  - bman1984, on 10/31/2008, -2/+6@CTRaiderThe1st
    You should actually read that book you think you follow....
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -1/+3@ all the right-wing morons: Yeah, we liberals think that ALL your profits should go to the government.... right. We also think that all your profits should go to bailout Wall Street as well when they fail. All of it.
- nosecohn, on 10/30/2008, -6/+34I am voting "dugg down" because of fear-mongering propaganda regurgitated as talking points.
- Shiloah, on 10/30/2008, -4/+33You are making a fool of yourself with these rants. It's obvious your purpose is not to enlighten but to annoy. What does that accomplish?
- flaknugget, on 10/31/2008, -6/+22I'm voting republican because not only should the government spend my money, but also my children's and grandchildren's money.
  
  I'm voting republican because I hate government so much, I will purposely vote in the most fiscally irresponsible politicians I can find, just so I can continue to hate everything the government does.
- stopbrorape, on 10/31/2008, -4/+15I am digging you down
  I am digging you down because you're an idiot.
- ChayD, on 10/31/2008, -3/+6Okay, now someone do a Republican version.
  
  Further to this, I know that in general personal beliefs drive people's political opinions, and I respect that, but how can someone be so blinkered, so anti-common-sense, it's just like these people are asking for a gun so they can shoot themselves in the foot. I just don't get it - it makes no sense (but then again, I suppose that's exactly what the righties are thinking about the lefties)
  - ChayD, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4Edit: additional to my (sort of) rant - the healthcare system; how can anyone be against socialized healthcare? Sure, you're paying for someone else's care when you're not ill yourself, but so what? I understand that America is one of the most generous nations when it comes to charitable donations, why not consider this as some charity at home - helping your fellow countrymen who can't help themselves? At some point in time we all need medical care, and at least this way the care is guaranted, and not at the whim of some tight-assed insurance business who are just in it for the money, and don't really give a damn whether you live or die. OMG I'm starting to sound like a hippy, I'll be preaching free love before you know it...
  - afpunk, on 10/31/2008, -1/+5The sad thing is, paying for other people getting sick when you're not ill yourself is EXACTLY how insurance already works. You pool your risks to preserve your utility. So those who use that as their justification don't know what they're talking about. Granted, there are valid arguments against socialized medicine, but paying for other people's illness isn't one.
  - bman1984, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3@afpunk
    BINGO!!
    The difference is, with insurance there has to be profit. With socialised healthcare, there does not.
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2actually if there is no profit then payroll can't be met and people go out of business. of course there should be profit. profit is the reward of the physician for doing a good job, it allows them to trade their hours and skill for someone else's.
    
    money is just a marker to say this much of my time and effort is worth that much of yours. if you don't let people make a profit then you violate their right to live life in a way that they see fit ie: you deny them their pursuit of happiness.
    
    if you dictate how a man may live his life (beyond preventing active actions that produce actual harm), you are making him a slave to the needs of someone else. Slavery is wrong.
    
    Free exchange allows people to act as equals and trade their effort or not to trade it as they see fit. If you dictate the terms of trade and make one man lose for another to win that is not commerce, that is a master and a slave.
  - ilcid, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2Actually, profit is the amount earned *after* costs, including payroll. So profit is not necessary for a government program.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+0You mean, like the $700 billion handout? That took a lot of our money, buddy. Not a lot of people were for it, either.
- onionoino, on 10/31/2008, -2/+7I dont get it... is overseer being sarcastic? or serious...
  
  your point has been lost because its just so annoying.
- omegared, on 10/31/2008, -4/+12I hope others are voting democrat just to piss you off.
  
  And lastly i am voting Republicans because i believe more Americans most die in the search for WMD's, ops i mean for democracy in iraq.
- fuse13, on 10/31/2008, -4/+7this is why you are losing, chump. keep it up!
- SteveSgt, on 10/31/2008, -2/+10I'm NOT voting Republican because "trickle down" has proven to be a complete failure. It's time to create a system that gushes up, instead of trickles down.
  - stopbrorape, on 10/31/2008, -1/+5Gushes up really sounds like a porn reference.
  - lajaw, on 10/31/2008, -3/+2like all that capital the welfare moms hold huh? What are you, an arts major?
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2I have personally created a home for four people in the last week.
    
    Bailed out a bank and got the result of one of their bad loans off of their books.
    
    Made a street one house safer by eliminating one vacant property from the mass of vacant properties in the area.
    
    Helped to provide income for four people who work their asses off fixing the house to make it a home worth living in (one of whom is homless and will be able to move out of a shelter with this money)
    
    Helped reduce greenhouse gasses by replacing an inefficient boiler and AC wall unit with central air and an efficient furnace (bought from a reuse-it center)
    
    Preserved our heritage by restoring a 1920s house to its former splendour (and removing hideous fake wood panelling from the 70s)
    
    Helped to employ countless people at the utilities, title agency, insurance companies, gas companies, automanufacturers (truck repairs before the rehab), helped a struggling family with 3 kids and an underemployed dad with work (the girl doing my books)
    
    Helped a former drug dealer STAY a former drug dealer.
    
    and my dog had fun driving around town with me.
    
    Why did I do it?
    
    Because I can make money doing it. If I couldn't I'd do something else. And by doing something else I'd make the world a better place in some other way too.
    
    A lot of people say "Think globally, Act locally," but don't apply it.
    
    You can do good without harming yourself in the process. Rational self-interest is the Aristotelian virtue between the vices of irrational greed and collectivist sacrifice of individuals for the greater good.
    
    Live for yourself, but don't ask anyone else to live for you. Never look for a win-lose deal and never accept a lose-win deal. Always favor liberty over security.
  - TripMoon, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1Liberals are not against this life you speak of. We just tweak it slightly in favor of those in need, instead of fat cats on Wall Street.
- Murdats, on 10/31/2008, -2/+9please read up on the following
  
  straw man argument
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  
  tolerance
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration
  
  and
  ignorance
  hypocrisy
  lying
- decilios, on 10/31/2008, -2/+1bbq
- Krosm, on 10/31/2008, -3/+10I'm voting Democrat so half wits like you don't have any say in how the country gets run. Yikes.
  - lucasRay, on 10/31/2008, -0/+1no, you're running it so halfwits like you can run it instead ;D
    
    that is intended as a slam on politicians, not you.
- lendrick, on 10/31/2008, -6/+22Wow, I totally have to reply to this crap. :)
  
  Why I am voting Democrat!
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending MY MONEY than I would. I think when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody! It’s Patriotic!
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because the portion of my money that the government takes is better spent on things like police, fire protection, infrastructure, and a social safety net is better spent by the government than it would be by me.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. All profits are evil and should be confiscated for Government Redistribution.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because, bastard that I am, I think maybe companies ought to pay some taxes, as opposed to the many that consistently turn profits and, due to massive loopholes, manage to slip by paying very little tax money, if any.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE Government regulations and higher taxes on Business will stop Business from exporting their jobs to Countries with LESS Government regulations and lower taxes.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because some of the tax regulations we put in place *encourage* companies to outsource jobs, and the Democrats are in favor of repealing those regulations.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in American courts. And be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense. They should have ACLU lawyers who can help intimidate Americans who serve on the juries!
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe suspected terrorists, along with any person accused of a crime, have an inalienable right to be tried in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe Gay Marriage should be the law of the land and will probably produce better children.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe equality should be the law of the land, regardless of someone's sexual orientation. Also, even if I didn't like gay people, how would gay people getting married hurt me, exactly? What does "violating the sanctity of marriage" even mean, apart from being a buzzword that people can throw out to explain otherwise indefensible homophobic outrage?
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don’t mind pushing one for English when I use the phone.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat -- well, I don't think the Democrats are making a big issue of this, and I think it makes sense that English be our official language. However, I support the right of companies to choose to serve customers who speak other nationalities, and despite my poor, tired finger, I don't mind occasionally pushing one for English when I use the phone.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion is okay but water boarding a terrorist is disgusting.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I'm capable of resolving shades of gray. That said, partial birth abortion and water boarding a terrorist are *both* disgusting. Fortunately, I'm able to differentiate between first, second, and third trimester pregnancies, and while I don't support abortion as birth control, I believe that a mother's health is a legitimate concern and that a 2-week-old fetus that still looks like a little amorphous ball of cells doesn't merit the same level of protection as one that's 7 months along.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a close friend is a good thing. It allows for great relations with foreign terrorists.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a prominent member of the political scene who is respected by local Democrats *and* republicans, has been trumped up to the point of ridiculousness.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe in a FREE government health care system. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly donate their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for FREE and that will be a better system.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because, as a reasonably wealthy and well-off individual, I would be glad to accept higher taxes in order to subsidize health care for those who aren't as fortunate as me.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I don't believe that having massive amounts of money and resources should automatically give you a victory in a court of law, and that people shouldn't have to go broke just to defend themselves in court, or have to avoid bringing a completely legitimate case to court simply because their adversary can out-spend them by a factor of a thousand.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe that 9/11 was a result of utter incompetence, with the Bush Administration having ignored a clear warning of the coming attack. I'm voting Democrat because it sickens me that the Republicans in power used 9/11 as a convenient impetus to go to war over something completely unrelated.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe social security is solvent and that there is a social security lock box and I don’t believe social security is a Ponzi scheme.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe that, in order for Social Security to remain solvent, we're going to need to pay down our national debt so that the money we're spending on interest can be directed toward other programs, such as Social Security.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let’s rid our country of guns and religion!
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe that *all* religions ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and that separation of church and state applies to all religions equally, and not just the ones I happen to not like very much. I'm voting Democrat because many Democrats, like me, are pro-gun.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans plus some additional rights Americans do not have.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe people crossing the border at airports deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, even if they're wearing Muslim garb.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe corporations should pay higher taxes! I believe higher taxes on business will make the price of their products and services LESS EXPENSIVE.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because -- ya know, I think we already covered this one up near the top of this little rant. Next!
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, wino’s, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I understand that ACORN was required by law to turn in *all* voter registration forms they had received, even ones they knew were faulty and had marked as such. I also understand that Mickey Mouse probably isn't likely to show up and vote. Furthermore, I'm voting Democrat because I believe votes ought to be tallied on paper and in front of people who wish to observe the counting process, as opposed to on machines that save no physical evidence of the vote and are shown to be easily tampered with, or by people who make false reports of a terrorist threat so they can count ballots in secret.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of people that do not celebrate Christmas.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I don't have a problem with other people celebrating the winter solstice if they want, even though it's not a celebration I'm particularly interested in participating in.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core criminal murders and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It’s a choice I can live with.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because the death penalty has been shown repeatedly via DNA tests to be given to people who were innocent and put to death for crimes they did not commit. I'm voting Democrat because violent crime is statistically less in states where the death penalty is illegal. I'm voting Democrat because I'm capable of conceiving of situations where a pregnant woman may wish to abort a pregnancy even though she doesn't personally hate babies or want them all to die.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush's incompetence and the incompetence of his cronies exacerbated the problems in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that any one who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful government programs obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the small and affordable tax increase I'll endure under a Democratic president is worth providing things like subsidized healthcare so people don't have to fear that a trip to the emergency room will drive them to bankruptcy.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe they're probably going to hate us anyway, and spending more time there is going to just make it that much worse, given that the majority of Iraqis want us to leave their *sovereign nation* now.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers, having put their lives on the line on our behalf, deserve higher salaries, better medical care, and a chance to come home.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I believe that wiretapping of innocent American citizens is a matter of concern to all citizens and it's high time someone testified about it under oath, instead of ducking congressional subpoenas and making ridiculous claims that testifying about it would compromise national security.
  
  I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I lik da Natsionel Edukatshun Assoseeashun!
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I was educated in a public school and went to a state university, and did just fine, thank you very much.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can’t we all just get along?
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is freedom of speech, whether it offends tree huggers, war hawks, Muslims, Christians, or athiests. I'm voting Democrat because I believe that if there is porn on my internet, I'm perfectly capable of closing my browser or going to a different site -- or sticking around and enjoying some porn in the privacy of my own home, should I choose.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I don't see where we get off *subsidizing* oil companies while they're making record profits, when that money could be put to better use helping people who are legitimately in need, or at least used to -- yes -- lower our own taxes. I'm voting Democrat because, even if I were a laissez-faire capitalist (which I'm not), I wouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistency in a position of ostensibly supporting laissez-faire capitalism and *also* supporting subsidies to large corporations.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, BUT I AM AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in Anwar, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because, while I am completely in favor of offshore drilling, clean coal, and nuclear power, I understand that these are simply a stopgap measure, and, given the serious problem we have with carbon emissions and global warming, I understand that clean, renewable energy is the only *permanent* solution to our energy problem, and that we need to transition to it gradually instead of waiting until all of our resources are exhausted, causing a global economic crash for our grandchildren, the likes of which would make the great depression look like a new year's party.
  
  And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Reverend Wright when he said “GODDAMN AMERICA” and “OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST”. Hey let’s make a comfortable nest for those chickens!
  
  * I'm voting Democrat because I understand that one ***** Democrat doesn't represent the views of all Demorcats, much the same way that one ***** Republican doesn't represent the views of all Republicans.
  
  Why are you voting Democrat?
  
  * See above.
  
  (Note: Feel free to copy-paste this reply

Red State Socialism: 84% Red States Take More Than They Give

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Red State Socialism: 84% Red States Take More Than They Give

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

John Smoltz on the verge of signing with the Red Sox

gOS 3.1

SanDisk Unveils Fast, Cheap Solid State Drives