The first would punish an individual for his/her own actions/choices. The second punishes an individual for his/her neighbor's actions/choices. not complicated. Also conservatives don't take 'takers' to task. Conservatives and Libertarians take those who would force people to become 'givers' to task. Conservatism and Libertarianism are a set of political beliefs so their opposition would be a political view point (that differs from their own) not an amount of income. No it is not. a) not all federal money goes to the states and b) 'taker' states don't always vote for the federal money to be offered.
So why not punish a state for its taking? That's nonsense, it happens all the time. You're forcing maker states to support welfare states like Kentucky. Taker states take more than they provide, period. It's irrelevant to what is spent elsewhere as o their taker status. So taker states dont vote for the money they receive but they have no qualms spending it, right. That seems to contradict the deficits under reagan and Bush. Like a welfare or unemployment recipient that voted Republican but cashes the check. Haha
I just answered your question..... NO. The people who vote for entitlements force that. Your claim is taker states cause the deficit which is simply wrong. Of course where and how much money is spent outside of the states is relevant to why there is a deficit. Jesus what is with your disgusting obsession to punish individuals for their neighbor's lake of income. Really creepy.
The Throwdown continues Paul: Hey, I Didn’t Start It By Wednesday morning, Paul was calling for détente in his feud with Christie — but not before insisting that he wasn’t the one who started it. But Paul said he was ready to stand down, so long as the governor was too. “I didn’t pick this recent fight with the governor down in New Jersey,” Paul said on the radio program “New Hampshire Today.” “But I think the party does better if we have less infighting, so I would suggest if he wants to ratchet it down, I’m more than happy to.” Forget Bacon, How About A Beer? Later on Wednesday, Paul went even further in trying to defuse the tension with Christie, saying that the quarrel had “gotten a little too personal” while extending an invitation to the popular governor for a beer on Capitol Hill. “If we can sit down, I’m inviting him for a beer,” Paul said during an interview on Fox News. “Anytime he would like to come down and sit down at the pub right around the corner from the Senate. We’ll have a beer.” Christie: Thanks, But No Thanks Hopes for a beer summit were quickly dashed on Wednesday when Christie declined Paul’s invitation, saying he doesn’t expect to be in Washington any time soon. The governor also insisted that his initial criticism of libertarianism — the remark that set the high-profile spat in motion — wasn’t even about Paul. Christie said he didn’t even mention the senator’s name, but was just responding to a question from a moderator who referred to Paul. “It really had nothing to do with Senator Paul, but Senator Paul wanted to make it about Senator Paul so that’s fine,” Christie said during his monthly radio show.
Christie isn't being nice about this at all. Rand Paul will remain a target of his whether he runs for president or not. It will get uglier.
Yeah, it was dumb. Holding a state responsible for its spending is punishing an individual for his/her neighbor's actions. Mkay... This divide between states that support entitlement safety nets and the states that spend of a hell of a lot more on entitlements doesn't mean what your think it does. It's a simplistic and stupid point that ignores the way states are run via health care, education, and poverty. A taker state spends more than it provides, period. That is a deficit spending for that state, period. It's math. It's holding states accountable for how they run their states in the same way conservatives want to hold individuals responsible. It's your concept, you're just a gigantic hypocrite because its the red states that are "takers".
