Oh come on people, rational minds understand that some areas of the country HAVE to take more than they feed in. That's the whole point of the liberal side of the argument.
The right thinks we need to run the country "like a business" and meanwhile they dangle shiny things in front of our faces while intoning outrage about "takers" and bemoan the fact that the "makers" aren't rewarded enough, when all the while the loudest voices reside in the regions which take the very most.
It is pure projection.
But most liberals accept the fact that certain states are loss leaders but have value for other reasons. Loss leader subsidization isn't a direct loss at all and never has been, because it attracts other positives, some of which are revenue streams or alternate remuneration, some of which are increased resource security, some of which are positioned as vital assets, the list is endless.
Loss leadership is every bit as important in business as any other sales practice, so why is it that conservatives and libertarians are seemingly deaf to the idea when put into practice in government?
