All because of an opinion.

[RichardHurt]

cali brags about being one of the top 10 economies in the world all on their own, and no one has shut down their state government. yet their population has become so addicted to socialist policies that they have to trot out the military to protect food stores when the federal government stops giving them free food. can't cali cover that cost themselves? take care of their own population? in fact, why haven't they been? why is it the rest of america's problem?

they are full of marxist "gimmie that" entitlement, and it is poisoning the nation. fuck them.

if i may be so bold, i think that's what db was getting at. seemed pretty clear to me.

I like you so I'll be nice.
Tell me which state give more funding to the federal government then it takes?
They will be just fine.

You can have all the internal issues you want with how you perceive whatever. But numbers don't lie. You of all people should understand this.

[RichardHurt]

I'll take it step further.
Are red or blue states net contributors to the federal budget?
  Really what I am conveying is that if you want to bring up whom issues more funding to your perceived Marxist social net, well that would be states run by Republican governors.

[UltraBudgie]

Tell me which state give more funding to the federal government then it takes?

Lots of them do.

2024 state net balances (taxes paid minus federal spending):
1. New York: +$89B
2. New Jersey: +$45B
3. Massachusetts: +$40B
4. Connecticut: +$28B
5. California: +$20B
6. Minnesota: +$18B
7. Washington: +$14B
8. Colorado: +$12B
9. Illinois: +$10B
10. Delaware: +$9B

2024 state net balances, per capita:
1. New Jersey: $5,034
2. Massachusetts: $4,812
3. Connecticut: $4,201
4. New York: $4,050
5. Delaware: $3,872
6. Minnesota: $3,645
7. Maryland: $3,210
8. Virginia: $2,980
9. California: $2,765
10. Washington $2,540

Were you expecting California to be closer to the top of those lists?

[RichardHurt]

Lots of them do.

2024 state net balances (taxes paid minus federal spending):
1. New York: +$89B
2. New Jersey: +$45B
3. Massachusetts: +$40B
4. Connecticut: +$28B
5. California: +$20B
6. Minnesota: +$18B
7. Washington: +$14B
8. Colorado: +$12B
9. Illinois: +$10B
10. Delaware: +$9B

2024 state net balances, per capita:
1. New Jersey: $5,034
2. Massachusetts: $4,812
3. Connecticut: $4,201
4. New York: $4,050
5. Delaware: $3,872
6. Minnesota: $3,645
7. Maryland: $3,210
8. Virginia: $2,980
9. California: $2,765
10. Washington $2,540

Were you expecting California to be closer to the top of those lists?

California contributed an estimated over $800 billion in total taxes to the federal government in 2024, and its net pay in (the amount more it paid than it received) is likely in the tens of billions of dollars, making it one of the largest net contributors in the country.
wiki

[RichardHurt]

Of all those cities that actually contribute to the federal budget are cities that reside in a blue ran state.
So would it be incorrect to assume that the boss of the cities(the states governor) that has full control is not the responsible one for the growth and positive contribution to the overall health of our financial well being?
Or are you willing to give a pass because it makes you feel better to have confirmation bias on a subject matter you have clearly miscalculated?

[UltraBudgie]

California contributed an estimated over $800 billion in total taxes to the federal government in 2024, and its net pay in (the amount more it paid than it received) is likely in the tens of billions of dollars, making it one of the largest net contributors in the country.
wiki

Yes, that's what those number's show: tens of billions, $20B more precisely. About 1/4 of New York, despite having about twice as many people.

It's even lower when you look at the net balance as a percentage of that state's GDP:

1. Delaware: 10.34%
2. Connecticut: 8.75%
3. Massachusetts: 6.21%
4. New Jersey: 5.46%
5. Minnesota: 4.07%
6. New York: 3.88%
7. Vermont: 2.63%
8. Washington: 2.17%
9. Rhode Island: 1.59%
10. Hawaii: 1.80%
11. New Hampshire: 1.68%
12. California: 0.49%

So for all it brags about its economy, California contributes less than half a percent of what it has available, less than 1/10th, percentage-wise, of Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. They really are ripping off America.

[UltraBudgie]

I like you so I'll be nice.

I like you too.

I'll take it step further.
Are red or blue states net contributors to the federal budget?
  Really what I am conveying is that if you want to bring up whom issues more funding to your perceived Marxist social net, well that would be states run by Republican governors.

I'm not saying that other states don't have a problem with dependence on the Federal Government. They do. As does California. California is has one of the lowest percentages of its economic revenue contributed to the Federal Government—it is undeniably a powerhouse, but less than half a percent of that is "kicked up" to Uncle Sam. Yet for all it retains, it has to roll out its troops to protect its poor from looting if the federal teat goes dry. That's entitlement. It's a mindset. One list California tops: vocal whingeing.

[RichardHurt]

Yes, that's what those number's show: tens of billions, $20B more precisely. About 1/4 of New York, despite having about twice as many people.

It's even lower when you look at the net balance as a percentage of that's state's GDP:

1. Delaware: 10.34%
2. Connecticut: 8.75%
3. Massachusetts: 6.21%
4. New Jersey: 5.46%
5. Minnesota: 4.07%
6. New York: 3.88%
7. Vermont: 2.63%
8. Washington: 2.17%
9. Rhode Island: 1.59%
10. Hawaii: 1.80%
11. New Hampshire: 1.68%
12. California: 0.49%

So for all it brags about its economy, California contributes less than 1/10th of what it has available, compared to Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. They really are ripping off America.

Do me a favor and run a few things by whatever model of AI you want. Run numerous hypothetical situations that would emulate one or all or just the top contribution blue state funding to the fed if it just ended.
Obviously this is a very hypothetical scenario but maybe it would help both you and I to get a better understanding of different aspects of such a event that could allow us to better grasp.
The red states would be the ones hit the hardest as many don't actually contribute really anything aside from attention because they need federal funding to survive.

[RichardHurt]

I like you too.


I'm not saying that other states don't have a problem with dependence on the Federal Government. They do. As does California. California is has one of the lowest percentages of its economic revenue contributed to the Federal Government—it is undeniably a powerhouse, but less than half a percent of that is "kicked up" to Uncle Sam. Yet for all it retains, it has to roll out its troops to protect its poor from looting if the federal teat goes dry. That's entitlement. It's a mindset. One list California tops: vocal whingeing.

It is not entitlement to utilize states guard to protect food distribution facilities from looters.
That is logical leadership in a dire situation. And at this point it does not matter where the problem arises or how. The next clear course of action is how to safe guard and be able to continue to do so. 
These are clear signs of leadership.
I do want to make somehting extremely clear. I absolutly do not support Newsom or any Democrat or Republican. But I will defend reason.

[UltraBudgie]

The red states would be the ones hit the hardest as many don't actually contribute really anything aside from attention because they need federal funding to survive.

Yeah, fuck them too. If their cities and towns or even state governments are too broke-ass to put them on the dole, the parasites in those states who insist on a free hand-out should move to California with the rest of the Marxists.