So tax rich people to pay poor ones, but keep rich money in rich states, unless they are blue.
Wealth distribution, make up your minds democrats. You cant have it both ways. You are all for helping poor people, unless they vote for Bush, in which case, give us our money back!!!
The federal government does not take into account cost of living. You aren't really richer if you make $15,000 in SF vs. $14,000 in North Dakota.
What does cost of living have to do with what I said at all...
I am talking about a philisophical dichotomy.
You are saying (democrats), we need to tax rich people because they make too much money and we need to give it to poor people. BUT it is wrong to take from rich states and give to poor states. So it is ok when we are stealing money from a rich republican miser, and giving to a welfare mother, but not if we take it from the wealthy state of New York to pay for poor white people in the rural Tennesee. Totally hypocritical.
Rich people should keep their money as long as they dont vote for Bush, in which case they should give it to poor democrats. That is what you are saying.
Also I have a feeling that a lot of the people and corporations actually making the vast sum of the money in those blue states, although small in numbers, are Republicans. Wall street has had a track record of liking a red whitehouse, as have large corporations, where most of the money is made. Unfortunatley, since these people are located in vast urban areas, their votes are outnumbered 10:1 by the poor depressed city-folk, making the state blue. I dont know about new york, but this is the case as I have observed it in Chicago. Most rich people live outside the city, they produce much of the economic benefit, but they are only a small portion of the population, so their votes are lost in the wind.
