Most cities produce far more in wealth and tax revenue than they consume.

Really? I guess that depends on what you mean by “cities”. You surely aren’t talking about Detroit, Milwaukee, Oakland, etc. Oakland California started its spiral into hell when federal funding into the city exceeded tax revenue and it has never recovered from the death spiral that situation has caused. Federal funds do NOT fix problems. I have a friend who is a civil engineer for a California city. They bend over backwards to AVOID federal funding on a project because it greatly bloats the costs (agricultural town must pay Los Angeles union scale for labor on the project, for example) and greatly slows down progress and ties up resources in audit after audit and they MIGHT actually get their money some number of years after the project is finished. It just isn’t worth the hassle so they avoid it if they can.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-epa-kills-power-plant-3900-jobs-in-texas/article/2519575

Name them.

Live in California for a while. No, sorry, we can’t repair that bridge to that agricultural area, it will “encourage development”. Development in Republican areas much be discouraged at all costs. I see it every year. No, we can’t put in a water desalinization plant in that area, it will “encourage development”.

But, given that the kind of irrigation projects that Central Valley farmers profit from (and the subsidies they consume and the illegals Dems tolerate and farmers hire) are classic liberal programs, wouldn’t you say that Democratic policies are designed to subsidies unproductive rural people who’d go broke without them?

No, Republicans built those projects and the Democrats fight them tooth and nail. They managed to get the Central Valley project stopped about halfway to completion in the 1970′s when Jerry Brown was governor last time. You have no idea what you are blabbering about.

Bugtussle County can’t afford to support both itself, maintain the highway, and staff 24-hour patrols on their stretch of Interstate 2112. And a red state is more likely to have Bugtussle Counties in between their highway-connected cities than a blue state that is almost all urban and suburban.

And as for cities producing so much wealth, how come super-urbanized blue states are circling the drain financially? HINT: It has a lot more to do with making sure Fatty McFatterson has enough left on her EBT for a manicure and a trip to the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, so she keeps voting the “right” way, than paying for a graveyard shift State Highway patrolman in Ihearbanjos County.

The cities house most of America. I’m sorry conservatives, but if you think you can win with only the rural voters you are not only mistaken but you’re outnumbered even if amnesty doesn’t pass.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

When the currency crashes the cities will de-populate themselves. I figure by the time any of them make it out to where I live, the democrat party will be reduced by about 95%.

Problem solved.

Actually, you have it backwards. Most cities produce far more in wealth and tax revenue than they consume.

urban elitist on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Then lets seal them up and City State Of New York City and Los Angeles can go their own way and the rest of the country can go theirs. Everyone wins.

The cities are as dead and dying today as the Roman Empire was in the 460′s

They produce nothing.

They leech EVERYTHING.

They are nothing more than welfare centers.

wildcat72 on January 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Actually, you have it backwards. Most cities produce far more in wealth and tax revenue than they consume.

If you look very closely at Democrat policies, they are designed to depopulate Republican areas. California cuts off water to Central Valley farmers causing unemployment and business failures.

But, given that the kind of irrigation projects that Central Valley farmers profit from (and the subsidies they consume and the illegals Dems tolerate and farmers hire) are classic liberal programs, wouldn’t you say that Democratic policies are designed to subsidies unproductive rural people who’d go broke without them?

The population of these areas go down, the areas are absorbed into Democrat districts. That is just one example but there are several.

Name them.

If you take a close look at most policies you will notice that they impact jobs where Republicans live and act to further depress and depopulate those areas.

Like the interstate highway system, rural electrification and housing projects, farm subsidies….

Yes, the Republicans do need to get involved in the cities.

crosspatch on January 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Come on ’round.

If you mean by cities, the greater metropolitan areas, that’s true. Cities themselves might be another issue. People moved to the burbs to get away from cities.

Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Dwhoops! Yes I did. Thank you.

The cities house most of America. I’m sorry conservatives, but if you think you can win with only the rural voters you are not only mistaken but you’re outnumbered even if amnesty doesn’t pass.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

If you mean by cities, the greater metropolitan areas, that’s true. Cities themselves might be another issue. People moved to the burbs to get away from cities.

Yes, the Republicans do need to get involved in the cities.

Urban dwellers actually want to know how you are going to deliver services more effectively.

Well, start by geting rid of public sector unions. That will help increase the effectiveness of public service. Not to mention reduce the cost.