So you can suckle on the federal teat without competition from W WA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumper Bones
Printable View
So you can suckle on the federal teat without competition from W WA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumper Bones
Again, the fundamental argument is stupid. It is the same in every state. In North Dakota, the people in the western part of the state are continually upset by policy being dictated by the liberal and urban sophisticate intelligentsia in Fargo. :confused: Soooooo, should every state split in two?
Why not get rid of states and develop population-based congressional districts with NO state boundaries? Spokane could join Idaho and W. Montana? Would that be more representative?
Then, let's stictly control campaign finances so that no one has to pander to special interest and 95% of elections won't simply be won by the person who spends the most money. We can actually become an electorate of ideas rather than advertising.
Right wing wacko republicans are idiots, period. If there are any other kinds of republicans they need to speak up. :the_finge
......Quote:
Originally Posted by douche
......
..
......
Yet, but with the huge increase in the amount of natural resources taken from these states in the past few years, that could change.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinToWin
I'd believe the fed money'd still go to W WA.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Ain't nothing, besides farms and Spokane, in E WA. Except for Hanford, in the Tri Cities.
Other than that...what would get federal money? I-90?
Whatever the politicians want? That's why there's a Bud Schuster Highway leading to the Bud Schuster Byway, going to the Bud Schuster Airport in Pennsy - because Bud was on the transportation committee and he wanted them. I-99 the 58 mile interstate that services the bustling metropolises of South Central, PAQuote:
Originally Posted by Jumper Bones
There's a perception in rural America that a majority of federal spending goes to urban areas - it doesn't. The populus urban states, in general, get proportionally less in federal spending than they pay in taxes while the rural states like Alaska get substantially higher federal spending.
Eh? who gets more federal subsidies than farmers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumper Bones
You still haven't answered the postulate that state are antiques anyways.
:rolleyes: Resource extraction, always a source of long term wealth for local community's. Especially mining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Star
I say let them go. People in Eastern Washington have no clue how good they have it.
I live in San Juan County where we pay the highest per capita taxes in the state, and in return we get just about the lowest return. How about that gasoline tax for transportation, hunh? We pay it, but because we are the only county in the state with no state highways, its bye-bye to that money. Or the $140,000 in forest protection assessments we pay that by and large go to fight wildfires in Eastern Washington.
Of course, we don't have to pay tab fees anymore. Yeah! Instead, the cost of a ferry ride has gone up 400%, while ferry schedules and services have been cut. Of course, the cost of driving over the 520 bridge, or from Davenport to Spokane has gone up 400% in the same time, right?
But I say, let them go--but only if we can secede from both Washington and the USA and annex into British Columbia. :D
Not to burst your bubble, but this would amount to a pretty largish tax hike, not cut...Quote:
Originally Posted by grrrr
Of course your commute time to Whistler would go down, so it's not all frowns. :D