Ha, Oklahoma receives more $ from the Federal government than it pays in. This is true in many of the so-called "red" states in the south. Low population, lower proportional income and thus pays fewer federal tax dollars into the pot. NY and CA residents pay more towards the federal income than something like 30 states combined. So technically places like Oklahoma and Kentucky are basically welfare states or the states would fall flat on their faces (Oklahoma already has because of 10 continuous years of inept governors).
Amy Coney Barrett (Supreme Court) Come on Down!
- Thread starter shon46
- Start date
Do you have a link for that ? Seems very unlikely imo due to taxes such as fuel, corporate, cigs, etc... which the Fed’s take a substantial chunk. Speaking of Oklahoma only
I was incorrect in having CA on the list. CA is about even on the money it gives and the money it gets (my guess is the number of military installations, national parks, and interstates ). The 6 states that give a lot more than they receive are: CT, MA, NY, NJ, IL, WA (ND, CO, NE, & NH also give more than they receive but just barely). CT tops it at getting only .74 for every dollar they pay. There are 23 states who get way more than they give. OK is in the middle of that. Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Virginia top that list (I am guessing because of the number of Federal installations and offices located in VA, that's what the money gets allocated for there). There are several different articles. The Atlantic had one in June of this year. There are several different independent tax watchdog groups that have reported it in different ways as number of tax dollars paid to the Fed gov't and another that indicates number of tax dollars give as a function of per dollar paid (see the CT figure above). I want to say one of the Dakotas got like $8 in federal money for every $1 paid. All of the info is not on the same website so you sort of have to jump between to piece the info together.
- NY and CT have the most billionaires, so they pay the most? that may change if NY passes Cuomo's billionaire tax.
- so the people that pay the most in taxes receive the least benefit. sounds like it's working exactly like the "mutually beneficial" government should for socialists?
- so the people that pay the most in taxes receive the least benefit. sounds like it's working exactly like the "mutually beneficial" government should for socialists?
They receive major benefits. More major than almost anyone. The companies that they invest in (or own) operate in a country that funds and regulates programs that they benefit from. The trucks carrying Bill Gates' computers drive on the road that the government paid for, wouldn't be there if it weren't for our government. They also benefit from the protections (legal and military) that our government gives to their person's and their fortunes. The fire fighters that put out a fire at a Beverly Hills Mansion don't charge the billionaires more than they charge the person living in North Tulsa even though the billionaire's might cost more to put out.
Imagine as your tax rate as being comparable to how much you stand to lose if, tomorrow, every American agreed to dissolve our Union and there was no government and no laws and humankind reverted to a state of nature... Property wouldn't be a thing anymore unless you could defend it personally. There would be no billionaires. There would only be those who are being taken from and those who will eventually be taken from. Taxes are the dues you pay to everyone else around you to be part of a functioning society that has benefit to you, and if you're at the upper echelon of that society... then being in it has a lot of benefit to you.
Last edited:
Thanks for the response. I’m not sure it’s fair to include money used to maintain and run military bases as well as federal agencies in a state as federal money “given” to the state as those institutions benefit the entire country. They just happened to be located in that particular state.
Yeah but that comes mostly in the form of jobs and increased state tax collection and is secondary benefits. The benefit of the money meant to fund the base or agency, directly benefits all the other states.
How are the Democrats going to stop the Pubs from getting a vote before the election and/or before next year?
4 month filibuster. If they can somehow keep the full Senate from a confirmation hearing until after Nov. 3rd AND they take the majority back in the Senate, McConnell won't have a prayer for a lame duck Senate to run a confirmation hearing.
Impeach the president repeatedly forcing the Senate to keep taking up measures prior to the confirmation. (I’m partially kidding, but based on the Republicans gamesmanship, I wouldn’t be angry at many sorts of gamesmanship by the Democrats just to keep up)
Some interesting stuff in there that really makes me believe we need a constitutional amendment clarifying and sorting out some of the issues that are evident with the current constitutional appointment framework... Namely, make the nominees have to receive a supermajority of the Senate's vote (or at least make the House the body that votes on the nominees, but that just encourages further gerrymandering)... and the fact that we really need to modify the congressional 'recess' / vacation policy.
Yes, I was talking about a confirmation. I think they will find a way before the election, but I don’t remember Lame Duck being mentioned in the Constitution.
You were just talking about a hypothetical where the Republicans brought in many.
I wasn't as much of a fan of Mayor Pete during the primaries, but post DNCC, he's probably been the Democrats' best mouthpiece in terms of making concise and swaying arguments on both left leaning and right leaning media outlets. I really appreciate his contention here as he summarizes my opinion on conservative judicial constructionists actually being veiled judicial activists.
I'm sorry for posting MSNBC, but he's been all over Fox News recently as well so I don't feel too bad.
If he can keep this up for 4 years, he might sway me to vote for him.
By the way... here is the Quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding how governments and laws need to be able to change and adapt when humanity changes:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
I'm sorry for posting MSNBC, but he's been all over Fox News recently as well so I don't feel too bad.
If he can keep this up for 4 years, he might sway me to vote for him.
By the way... here is the Quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding how governments and laws need to be able to change and adapt when humanity changes:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
Last edited:
I get you are desperate for young Democratic leaders to emerge but there are many many more well qualified individuals to pick from like Tulsi Gabbert. I am committed to investing my time and money into BLEXIT with the end result being the forming of another party formidable enough to challenge both Dems and Republicans.
Yaaaa. Gabbard sucks and a black exit will happen when Lindsay Graham stops saying things like this:
Owens is poised to be the next great minority leader. There will be a ferocious fight in the coming months and years to silence the movement by Dems and Republicans her but the potential reward is immeasurable.
Owens is an opportunist riding on Trump’s coattails who is being used as a token black voice to try and depress African American turnout. She is a person with few qualifications and fewer accomplishments who denies history related to the conservative movement in the United States. She will say anything, even things detrimental to her own race, if it means financial benefit for herself.
She is basically a modern Max Neumann who was a Jew that founded a Jewish group intent on defending the Nazis
lol 😂 we clearly disagree but when do we not! BLEXIT support is growing despite detractors like you spouting nonsense. A Biden win almost certainly exponentially speeds up and cements Owens place at the political table. Time will soon tell!
It's not nonsense.
She called the Southern Strategy a myth. She didn't even finish a college degree in an easy major. She accuses the left of hating America... which is just false. She stated that African Americans were worse off than they were under Jim Crow which is patently false. She's even gone further to say that African Americans were better off in the first 100 years post slavery than they were in the last 70 years which is an opinion that casualizes racial injustice, segregation, etc... and ignores the work that the Civil Rights movement did (not the Democrats mind you, the Democrats were the problem back then) . She ignores the far right existence of white supremacist groups. She accused Democrats of mailing themselves bombs when it was actually a Republican. She said Hitler would have been OK if he hadn't invaded other countries (glancing over that whole genocide thing). She was called out by name as a great insparation in the manifesto of the mass murderer in New Zealand who shot up a mosque. And to top it all off she's been a source of misinformation for the coronavirus. That's all nonsense.
Congratulations. You found a mate Kanye.
Of course you, the cheerleader for the left will spout these CNN talking points. Your party’s very existence depends on your ability to demonize all threats. I don’t care about your party or anything it stands for. How minorities deal and think about minority history or develop minority solutions to solve minority issues are fundamentally different. You are entitled to an opinion but you don’t get to tell me how to feel about minority leaders! I can talk about my family.......you know where I’m going here!
I cheer-lead not for the left but for rational and logical analysis. The points that you and Mrs. Owens speak of aren't logical or rational and they misinterpret or flat out ignore history and current events. I will give her one thing... I think she's doing it for personal gain. I think you're following her because you're ignorant and confrontational and you exist (outside of this chatroom) in a conservative echo-chamber. I care about all Americans... even you. And I want them to be as educated as possible and to be able to show some critical thinking skills when it comes to interpretation of what's going on around us. You don't think critically about anything. You don't acknowledge what the positions you support might lead to in terms of not just positive outcomes but negative outcomes as well. Finally, you don't acknowledge the role that certain parts of American culture has played and continues to play in the lives of yourself or your fellow minority members.
Last edited:
Quick question for you Kanye... when it comes to the "Strict Constitutionalist" that you want to be appointed... which founding fathers' ideals would you like this 'constitutionalist' to research when they make decisions?
1. The ones that agreed in legal writing that people like you were worth 3/5ths of people like me?
2. The ones that thought that you shouldn't dine in the same restaurant that I do or be able to use the same bathroom as me?
3. Or, what if your "constitutionalist" researched not only the ideals of those men... but also the ideals of men and women that secured you the right to vote, the right to not be property, the right to sit anywhere you want on the bus? Don't you think that someone willing to think critically about more recent history as well as earlier history when making important legal decisions might be a little bit better for people of color?
1. The ones that agreed in legal writing that people like you were worth 3/5ths of people like me?
2. The ones that thought that you shouldn't dine in the same restaurant that I do or be able to use the same bathroom as me?
3. Or, what if your "constitutionalist" researched not only the ideals of those men... but also the ideals of men and women that secured you the right to vote, the right to not be property, the right to sit anywhere you want on the bus? Don't you think that someone willing to think critically about more recent history as well as earlier history when making important legal decisions might be a little bit better for people of color?
Last edited:
I can only laugh reading your words and think back to the days of MLK. Think logical Mr. King! Your movement is irrational and illogical. Use critical thinking Mr King. The part you fail to realize about this movement is that it’s not about focusing on the other teams game plan. The other team will develop a game plan to beat you into submission. So what”. Not one time did I ever give credit to any opponent I played against. It was never about my opponent but always about my team and our ability to execute. We are responsible for the current state we are in. We allowed this to happen to us. Only we can save ourselves. It’s about accountability and focusing on correcting our failures, not blaming you and your grandparents.
Last edited:
So dumb. Rationally and logically, all men no matter their skin color should have the ability to vote, uninhibited. logically, all men, no matter their skin color should be allowed similar opportunity to prosper. Dr. King was highly logical and reasonable. The problem was that Southern Democrats (now typically Southern Republicans) were not logical or reasonable.
As far as your spiel on not blaming others for what's happened... that's just dumb. A) Your whole mini-movement is fundamentally based upon the blaming the left for keeping you 'slaves' on the 'plantation'. You blame your opponents every single day. B) Sometimes it's ok to blame your opponents when you can actually prove that they were playing with fundamental advantages that you would never be able to... (like if you found that they had paid the refs, or if they were using equipment that was illegal, or if they gave you food poisoning the night before etc...) That's not what you do though. You blame the other team for trying to show you how screwed up your team is.
Blexit is an effort to get you to convert from a Democrat to the Trumpican party. That idea that you will eventually form a formidable party to challenge Republicans and Democrats, is just the unattainable carrot they throw at you. That's just another ploy to reel you in.
BTW, I'm not saying you should be or need to be a Democrat. That party is screwed up too. Be an independent. Be a libertarian. Be a Green Party member for christ's sakes. I just want you and anyone else to think critically about what your leaders are saying to you.
I'm someone who recognizes that Pelosi sucks, and that half the Dems are pansies and the other half are a bit too handsy with other people's money at times. Just because I detest one philosophy does't mean I have to bite, hook line and sinker, into another one.
I'm someone who recognizes that Pelosi sucks, and that half the Dems are pansies and the other half are a bit too handsy with other people's money at times. Just because I detest one philosophy does't mean I have to bite, hook line and sinker, into another one.
I’m not blaming anyone and certainly don’t want the handouts your party is peddling to pander for my vote. It’s been 100+ yrs since the end of slavery, 40+ yrs since the end of segregation. We have witnessed the first black President. What is so disgusting about your views is that you try to pick apart Owens for her criticism of her own people and starting a peaceful group who loves this country but not one time have you ever condemned the racist, Marxist, anti Christian BLM movement who openly advocate the destruction of our country. It’s truly sickening! Creating a strong independent minority party is the answer. BLEXIT is the future wether you approve or not and the voices of hundreds of minorities that join daily is slowly being heard nation wide.
It may be unattainable right now but you crawl before you walk and this movement is primed to start standing.
Segregation isn't over. The same neighborhoods that were segregated 70 years ago, are segregated today. (North Tulsa for Example) The only difference is a lack of consumer segregation. The Southern Strategy and anti-busing initiatives saw to that. Many politicians from both parties fell into that trap, trying to walk a line between pandering to their sometimes bigoted bases and running the risk of not being elected again.
Like I said. Mrs. Owens is just an opportunist with little in the way of original thought. She's parroting what strategists on the far right want her to because it makes her money. The only reason they acknowledge a person like her is because her voice is going to help them win elections. There's no way she would be on Fox News if she was actually creating a movement that existed outside of the Republican party. You can see evidence of this given her writing pre-Trump. She was a detractor of the same crap that she now advocates. The difference is, she now realized that she might benefit from selling her soul and she realized that she's good at saying things she may or may not believe. Good for her as an individual I suppose, but it's to the detriment of the nation at large and her own minority more specifically.
I don't care what party you or any other minority support as long as it's not a party that takes advantage of you or me. If that means not supporting the Dems... fine. But it certainly doesn't mean supporting Donald Trump or his Republican backers. If the presidential race wasn't going to be dependent on the African American vote (say Obama was running this term instead of Biden) there is no way in hell that we would see as many black conservatives on Republican media as we are today, and it's why we rarely saw them in 2008 or 2012.
There are many in Tulsa that live where they live bc they don’t want to live around other races. To each their own! Owens wasn’t invited to the RNC for a reason. She wouldn’t stand down with her plans for BLEXIT as an independent party. This is a movement you need to read up on bc your knowledge level is lacking.
