Damn, I used to read Gamepro, oh well, rest in peace.

mitu123

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/30/gamepro-shut-down/

While I have ambivilant feelings about GamePro, it was the first magazine that I ever subscribed to and it helped shaped my childhood, especially around the PSN/N64 era. I'm a bit sad to see it go, but these days, in this tindustry, print media is more of niche than the norm. Any of you guy have any memories of Gamepro. I always remember the code section at the back of the magazine. And also loved the full spread walkthroughs they used to do.

Huh? You're a man in the Kardashian family?

There's a problem in the Matrix, NEO.:cool:

It's working fine for me.

I didn't really pick up on the deep meaning. I thought Hellboy 2 was more enjoyable though.

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]

Their dollar size doesn't matter in this conversation because I was addressing the fact that you said:

"Plus I don't think it's right that certain states' citizens should have to pay for places like New York and California. "

It's reasonable to assume that California naturally recieves more than most states because it is the most populous. That still doesn't change the fact that citizens of New York and California pay for people in other states.

airshocker

What are you talking about? I was asking a simple question.

Maybe got a little carried away there. I was talking about what started our little conversation. I did a little digging and this is some of the info I found.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank22.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]Then wouldn't that make the bastions of conservatism hypocrites? Isn't part of being a conservative living within your means and not accepting handouts?airshocker

I don't think accepting money that's offered is either liberal or conservative. And no state is doing very well at living within it's means, except for a very few.

I didn't notice in the links, but do California and New York receive more funding than the rest of the states due to their size? They may receive less for every dollar they send, but their populations are also much bigger than most other states. So in the end do they receive more or less?

Their dollar size doesn't matter in this conversation because I was addressing the fact that you said:

"Plus I don't think it's right that certain states' citizens should have to pay for places like New York and California. "

It's reasonable to assume that California naturally recieves more than most states because it is the most populous. That still doesn't change the fact that citizens of New York and California pay for people in other states.

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html New York gets .79 dollars for every dollar their residents send to the feds and California gets .78 dollars for ever dollar their residents send. Whereas alot of Red states that made a big ruckus about not taking federal money like Lousiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina get more from the federal government than they send. Louisiana: 1.78 for ever dollar, Miss: 2.02 and South Carolina 1.35. Schwarzenegger was complaining alot a few years back about the discrepency between the states. airshocker

That's good to know, and I must say I'm not upset at all about this. These states pride themselves on being bastions of liberalism, and part of being a liberal is paying more for other people.

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]Actually, New York and California are donor states that give the federal gov't more money than they receive back in funding. So, it's really the other way around. Other states are getting benefits of the backs of Californians and New Yorkers. airshocker

You're going to have to show some proof since I find it very hard to believe that New York essentially gives back the money the Fed gives them.

But that wasn't my point: CA is going to need a bailout from the federal government. New York may need one unless Cuomo works his magic again this FY.