Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your point, such as it is, only makes sense as a platitude, ignoring subtleties like the differences between local, state and federal governments.
|
No its a reality you don't like to admit. Texas, one of the largest states in the Union (population wise) still has a much smaller government than many states with smaller populations. You can babble on all you want but the fact is that the people in these rural areas (or in the red states) have are more sckeptical of big government and this sckepticism is reflected in their governments. That is just a fact. Face it. Yes they may take some money from the Federal Government, yes their systems might not be as complicated. Yes they may elect some politicians that don't practice what they preach. Yes they may like getting Federal pork barrels. But this does not change the fact that the people in these states are more inclined towareds smaller government. People in the big states are less sckeptical of big government (like you for example) and that is reflected in the size of government in these states (as you keep saying that is what the voters in these states want). The thing that is funny is that you clearly think that these states are making a mistake not putting more money into their state governments like we do, but at the same time you are trying to deny that is what they are doing. You also admit that people in the large state put more money in their government, and this is what they want, but at the same time trying to argue that they are not more inclined to big government.
You just have a knee jerk reaction to argue against any point I make. I make a simple point that most any rational person would agree with and you try and argue against it. Then when you realize that your position is absurd, you try and change it to - well that might be true - but blah blah blah. The fact is, my statement was true and it was absurd for you to question it.
